: Deputy Barry Desmond was in possession and had ten minutes left. The Deputy is not in the House. Deputy O'Keeffe, please.
Private Members' Business . - Apartheid: Motion (Resumed) .
Debate resumed on the following motion.
That Dáil Éireann expresses its condemnation of apartheid and its solidarity with all engaged in promoting International Anti-Apartheid Year 1978.
—(Deputy R. Ryan.)
: This motion must be looked at in the broader context of our desire to see basic human rights respected throughout the world. In virtually every democratic nation basic human rights are constitutionally guaranteed. In our Constitution fundamental personal rights are guaranteed under Article 40. The Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall as human beings be held equal before the law, that no citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with the law, that the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable, and that dwellings shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with the law and there are additional guarantees in regard to the right to express freely convictions and opinions, in regard to the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and in regard to the right to form associations, unions and so on. Similar guarantees can be found in the constitutions of virtually every democratic country. Article 1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany provides that
1. The dignity of man shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all State authority.
2. The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
Our condemnation must be for the denial of human rights no matter what the political view or ideological outlook of the regime involved. On that basis I condemn the denial of such rights in leftist regimes such as the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. I similarly condemn the denial of human rights in rightist regimes such as Chile, the Argentine or the Philippines, and plainly despotic regimes such as that of Amin in Uganda. Within that context, with special condemnation I turn to the abominable system known as apartheid in South Africa. This is a system of institutionalised racism which permits the minority of approximately 5 million people to deprive the majority of 20 million of all basic human rights and forces them to live in poverty merely for the benefit of their white masters. This is a system akin to mass slavery. Slavery was abolished in the last century but apartheid continues. Condemnation of this abomination must continue until it is totally dismantled.
The utter poverty in which the black majority have to live and the denial of human rights is not based on the fact that the country is poor because South Africa could be classified as a wealthy country. The problems arise because the wealth is based on the exploitation of man by his fellow man. The ruling white regime treats the black worker as labour to be allowed in the white areas, which cover 87 per cent of the country, on sufferance and only for as long as they can be economically useful. They have no say in the running of their lives. They are in the position of a colonised people tyrannised over by masters who because they live in the same country can develop a sophisticated and far-reaching system of domination. In many ways the system there recalls the penal laws that existed here at one time, which deprived Irish people of property, education, franchise and control of land. These penal laws were described by Edmund Burke as:
a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance and as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.
Under apartheid the ingenuity has stretched itself even further and the system encompasses every aspect of life. It can be said that apartheid is unique. No other system totally deprives a people of every right and keeps them in poverty and deprivation because of the colour of their skin. In that context it can be said that the oppression and massacres in South Africa are not merely manifestations of a despotic regime, but that they echo the inbuilt philosophy of a system which rejects on grounds of colour the black population of the country.
In discussing this motion last night examples of the extent of the denial of human rights under this system were given. In a country which has a population of under 5 million white people and 20 million Africans, 87 per cent of the land is reserved for the whites and 13 per cent for the Africans. A 75 per cent share in the national income is reserved for the five million white people. There is a ratio of average earnings of 14 to 1. In that population there is one doctor for every 400 white people and one for each 44,000 of the native Africans. There is an infant mortality rate of 27 per thousand amongst the whites compared with a mortality rate of 200 per thousand for the Africans in the urban areas and 400 per thousand in the rural areas.
In every aspect of life in that country there is discrimination. There are examples of legal discrimination in relation to the home, the family and residence. An African born in a town who has lived there continuously for 40 years and has left to reside elsewhere for any period, even a couple of weeks, is not entitled to return to the town and to remain there for more than 72 hours unless he obtains a permit. No African, even if he has been lawfully residing in a town by virtue of a permit issued to him, is entitled to have his wife and children reside with him. An African may not leave South Africa to take up a scholarship at a university abroad unless he is in possession of a passport or a permit required by law. With regard to work, a labour officer at any time may cancel the employment of an African who works in a town no matter how long he has been employed and even though his employer opposes the cancellation.
The situation is carried through into the area of education in that no school for African children may be conducted anywhere in South Africa unless it is registered with the Government, who have an unfettered discretion to refuse to register it. An African living in a town who conducts a class in reading and writing without remuneration in his own home for a few of his African friends is guilty of a criminal offence. Even a white man may not spend a few hours each week in his own home voluntarily teaching his African servants to read. If he does so he is guilty of a criminal offence. With regard to religion, an African religious minister who conducts regular classes for his congregation in which he teaches them to read the Bible is guilty of a criminal offence.
With regard to assembly and association, an African who has lived continuously for 50 years in the town in which he was born is not entitled as of right to have an African friend visit and remain with him for more than 72 hours. It is unlawful for a white person and a black person to drink a cup of tea together in a cafe anywhere in South Africa unless they have obtained a special permit to do so. Without a special permit an African professor may not deliver a lecture at a white persons' club even though he may have received an invitation to do so. Marriages between whites and coloured persons, Asians or Africans, are prohibited.
The list is endless and it affects all aspects of life, taxation, religion and the expression of opinion. If a white man tells a group of Africans that the apartheid laws are unjust and should be destroyed he is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. If the position were not so devastatingly serious and unjust, the definitions with regard to who is white, black or coloured could be considered amusing. The attempts to classify and to segregate the population and the definitions as to who obviously is white and who has the appearance of white characteristics lead one to believe that the whole business is totally unrealistic and unrelated to the world of today. For instance, the white group includes "any person who in appearance obviously is, or who is generally accepted as a white person as long as neither of his natural parents has been classified as a coloured person or an African. If the person's natural father was classified as a member of another ethnic group of so-called coloured persons, that person acquires the racial classification of his father."
That is just a short outline of the situation in South Africa today. Because of the propaganda issued by South Africa House and by other organs of the South African Government the people of the world may not be fully aware of the abominable aspects of the apartheid system. It cries out to God; it flies in the face of all known standards of humanity.
The motion has been accepted by the Government and it is fully supported by them. It asks the House to express its condemnation of apartheid and its solidarity with all those engaged in promoting International Anti-Apartheid Year, 1978. The question arises, how far can we go in our condemnation? What can we do to add strength and conviction to our voice? I have no illusions about the strength and authority of the Irish voice abroad. We are a very small nation, but despite that, or possibly because of it, we have a certain moral authority in the world and our voice is not lost in the wilderness when we raise it in righteous indignation on such a subject as this.
In order to lend strength and conviction to our voice we must ensure that in all aspects of life there is complete respect for human rights in our own country. There is the old saying that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. It is important that in our dealings with our own people or in our dealings with non-nationals we ensure that there is no discrimination and that human rights at all levels are respected. Having done that, we should raise the consciousness of the people of this country to the utter injustice of the system in South Africa. We must lend more than lip-service to the United Nations resolutions to which we have subscribed. Having spoken strongly in support of those resolutions, there is a duty on us to ensure that there is total support for them among our people and that there is total conviction on the part of the Government and those involved in politics to ensure that the resolutions are respected.
The United Nations have declared the year from 21 March 1978 as International Anti-Apartheid Year. This was done because that organisation recognised the need to step up the international campaign against apartheid under the auspices of the United Nations. Its purpose was to make world opinion fully aware of the inhumanity of apartheid and its wider dangers to international peace. Certain programmes were laid down by the General Assembly and certain actions were to be taken by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Suggestions were made as to what action could be taken by governments. They were requested to proclaim the International Anti-Apartheid Year and to encourage cities and non-governmental organisations to proclaim the year. I understand this has been done by the EEC on a general basis. We should look into our hearts to see if we have put sufficient emphasis on it in this country. There was a suggestion that parliaments might be encouraged to hold special sessions devoted to the International Anti-Apartheid Year.
We are discussing this issue tonight in a spirit of unanimity. There was a suggestion to establish national committees for the national anti-apartheid year, to ensure maximum publicity for its objectives or, alternatively, to designate the anti-apartheid movement or similar organisations, where they exist, as the national committees for the year. I am not sure what has been done in this regard. I understand that there is an anti-apartheid committee here but I do not know if they have been designated by the Government in accordance with the UN recommendation. If not, I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration to that particular suggestion.
There are various other suggestions in the line of publicity to be given through the media and in connection with the widest dissemination of information in educational institutions. I believe this is something which needs to be concentrated on. I recall at quite a young age seeing literature and propaganda being disseminated by South Africa House, which, as far as I recollect, was based in London, solely for the purpose of proving to the world the justice of the system and the excellent work that was being done on behalf of the Africans in Africa. In such propaganda there was no reference whatever to the total denial of basic human rights to such Africans.
There were other suggestions in the UN declaration involving the increase of moral, material and political assistance to the people there. This involves us making financial sacrifices, providing funds at governmental level to the UN and other institutions, to help those people who are the victims of this particular system. There are many other suggestions contained in the UN declaration to which we have fully subscribed. I do not point the finger particularly at the Government although I hope they will give a strong lead in this matter. I believe it is the duty of all political parties, trade unions and all organisations in the country who have any interest in human rights to make sure that the full injustice of this system is known and understood and to render whatever support is possible to the people oppressed by this system.
There is another aspect to which the Minister might give some further thought. I understand that there was a UN convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Consideration must be given to the ratification of this convention. I believe that the convention in question was signed in 1973 and that it awaits formal ratification. There may be some problems in this regard involving legislative changes to ensure that all forms of discrimination are removed here. If so, we should face those problems and ensure that we are not merely paying lip service to those ideals but that we sincerely believe in them and that we are taking steps to ensure that they are put into effect, that we are showing by our example that when we speak on apartheid we can speak with the moral authority of a country which has done its very best not alone in relation to human rights in its own country but in fully implementing the UN declarations to which we have subscribed.
The Minister pointed out that we are pushing an open door so far as the Government are concerned in this matter. We are seeking in this motion an expression from the Dáil of its condemnation of this system and also the solidarity of the Dáil and our people with all those engaged in promoting International Anti-apartheid Year 1978. I believe it is very necessary that there should be a further major effort to ensure that our people know fully what is involved in the system of apartheid. It is perhaps natural for them to react by saying that this is a country thousands of miles away from us and what really has it got to do with us. I believe, even if this reaction is a natural one, that it is the duty of those people who believe in human rights for all, rights which transcend all natural boundaries and extend to the farthest corners of the world, affecting every individual in it, to ensure that this message is clearly understood and where such denials take place that our people are aware of it and are prepared to join in the condemnation of it.
I believe it is accepted by everybody that there are basic and fundamental human rights which are based on the natural law antecedent to all positive law, and that those human rights are not just a matter of concern for observance in our country alone. We see, looking at any part of the world, denial of those rights and we condemn them. We are talking particularly tonight of South Africa, but we see a system which goes beyond the ordinary denial of human rights, a system of total and institutionalised racism, which denies every basic human right to the 20 million Africans in that country. There is all the more reason for us totally to condemn the system of apartheid which permits this and for us to join in solidarity with all those engaged in promoting International Anti-apartheid Year 1978.
: It is my pleasure to speak in support of this motion which states:
That Dáil Éireann expresses its condemnation of apartheid and its solidarity with all engaged in promoting International Anti-Apartheid Year 1978.
I am sure this was a very easy motion to put down. It is very easy to support it and I have no doubt it will be supported by all sections of the House. Fine Gael are to be congratulated on promoting such a motion. It must be heartening to the supporters of that important party and, indeed, it must be heartening to this little country to find such a party moving away at last from its own history of racialism and narrow-minded nationalism.
This motion is unusual from yet another point of view. It is seldom that this type of motion is debated and this attitude supported within a Parliament, a motion which condemns and exhorts another country to alter its abhorrent internal policy in regard to its citizens and in regard to other people who go and work in that country.
The word "apartheid" is peculiarly South African. It derives from Afrikaans, a language which evolved within the Cape Province of the continent of South Africa. The Afrikaans language, like many of the institutions of the Cape colonists, is peculiar to South Africa. It means "separateness". It is an emotive word which has, in many parts of the world, come to be associated with much more than just separateness. It is a word which, because of its application and derivation, has come to mean repression and torture and, as has been said, the denial of human rights, and not alone in South Africa. It has become internationally accepted in many different countries to mean just that.
Apartheid is an evocative word in that it reflects the thinking of the people who created the state of South Africa and brought that state to its present position of power. However, certain relevant facts should be recognised and put into context when supporting this motion. White men were, in fact, the first humans in any numbers to populate the Cape Province. The Cape Province came into existence initially as a relatively unimportant trading post and port of call on the way to the Far East by European traders. It evolved and expanded from a small trading post when white men started pushing northwards. They did not meet any black men for almost 1,000 miles of that vast, empty territory. The lands were obviously ripe for colonisation and utilisation. The black men initially did not inhabit the area and therefore did not make use of the resources of the land we now call South Africa.
North of the line of penetration by the white men the blacks were moving southwards. They gave the world names that still live—Bulawaya and Matabele—and leaders like Chaka and Dingiswayo, two men that many Europeans possibly never heard of. The evolution was different and the word "apartheid" has a long factual history in South Africa.
Chaka and Dingiswayo created two black nations—the Matabele and the Zulu nations. They created them out of distinct tribes with their own type of culture. Unfortunately this culture could not be recorded because the black man did not evolve a written history. More unfortunately still, he has not yet within his own context or his own ethnic evolution been able to create a written language. This is in sad contrast to the evolution of civilisations in many other parts of the world. But black men did evolve a society which was relatively orderly. Order was kept and control exercised by, to us, barbaric methods. The means by which the status of the black men was created were also barbaric. Up to very recently, and in some parts of black Africa even today, it was quite common to have an executioner or a whole body of executioners acting on the whim of the ruling party or personage. That was as true of Matabeleland and Zululand as it is of Amin's Uganda. They indulged in what I euphemistically call "very nice practices" in regard to those of whom they were not fond. Even thinking about them turns one's stomach.
But the fact remains they had an ordered society which enabled vast numbers of them to live with their tribal gods and tribal systems. They produced—this is very true in the case of Chaka particularly—a nation of warriors in Matabele, warriors whom very few countries could equal. In one case they defeated with spear and assegai the combined forces of rifle and field gun in the battle of Isandhlwana. It is from instances like these that one becomes conscious of the ability of the black man. He was not literate but he had the ability to fight and the ability to run a savage society. There is no doubt but that the black man as a fighting animal was superior in courage and generalship to many of the invaders from industrialised Europe with their superior back-up who did not always win the day. But it can truthfully be said that the rifle and the field gun won South Africa for the white man as the steam engine won the industrial revolution for the élite of England. Unfortunately these savage societies did not evolve in a way that commended itself.
The white man pushing northwards from the Cape was in the position that he had no laws and no government. He went through many transitional periods under rule from different sources and sometimes from no source at all. The Wild West of North America was a kindergarten compared with some of the activities of the wilder white elements in this evolving society in South Africa. But a society did evolve with a government and that was the evolution that has created the society now known as South Africa. It had the dubious distinction of creating the first concentration camp complex. It also had the distinction of providing a totally new type of government in a new country. If one looks at these two facts objectively one can see that apartheid has existed in South Africa since the advent of the white man there.
Now the evolving of this small trading post in the Cape produced farms of a size we find it difficult to comprehend. It was usual for the Dutch Africans—and initially it was the Dutch who were instrumental in creating the vast farms in that country—to feel overcrowded if their nearest neighbour was 50 miles away. This created a very independent type of man who considered himself, and still considers himself, to be the creator of that country.
The next step was the discovery of fantastic riches in the form of gold, diamonds and coal. The objective fact is that those riches exist naturally over a large part of the Continent of Africa, but their first discovery and utilisation always seemed to take place in areas controlled or exploited, if you like, by white men. Unfortunately it has not been the case that black Africa has had the ability to either discover or utilise riches which were not immediately obvious. It is objectively true that very many of the slaves who came out of that Continent were initially captured and sold by black men.
I agree the white gold of Africa was the other big money spinner. That also was exploited ruthlessly by the black man and unfortunately still is today. The white population, with their training and their longer history of industrial technology, had the ability to see the opportunities there in the form of the various raw materials and to use them. Unfortunately, this necessitated the use of unskilled labour on a vast scale as the cheapest method by which these natural resources could be exploited. This meant this evolving state had no option but to bring in from neighbouring countries vast numbers of unskilled, illiterate and cheap labour. Such today is still the case. A very significant proportion of 20,000,000 people referred to as being native born South Africans are not South African born at all. After their contract period expires a very significant proportion of them go back to other countries.
It is very easy from our point of view to condemn the conditions in which these unfortunates are living, but the objective fact is that very often they are considerably better off than they would be in their own tribal lands, or in their own country. This is a tragedy. There is no doubt that they are exploited. There is no doubt it is wrong that they should be exploited in this way. There is no doubt that apartheid is totally and utterly wrong because of what these unfortunates are subjected to. It is also true they are being paid and are earning more than some of the black states are capable of paying their own citizens. That should be recognised also.
The modern South African State, with all its social problems and depending as it does to a very large extent on a black population four or five times the number of whites resident there, is still a stable country. Whether we like it or not, it is still a bastion in that corner of the globe against the ruthless exploitation of imperial Russia. Communist Russia is not by any means a stranger to apartheid. As I said, the word has connotations far outside the shores of South Africa. It can very properly be used in relation to the Communist Party within Russia.
It is true that less than 10 per cent of the population of Russia are members of the Communist Party. Is not this a form of apartheid on a horrible scale being perpetrated on its own people by a country which purports to be the friend of the downtrodden? One of the greatest nations in the world today is ruthlessly and cynically using the very methods it condemns elsewhere to suppress its own minorities. In the context of this motion the word "apartheid" is not confined to South Africa. Therefore, apartheid should be looked at not only in relation to South Africa but in many other contexts in which that word is accepted to mean not only separateness but repression and the infliction of indignity by a government on people within their borders.
This is happening not only in Russia but tragically throughout black Africa as well. In many areas in black Africa, the tribal system has not been able to expand to include and give expression to tribes who may not be members of ruling party tribes. In many cases very small minorities are controlling vast wealth and denying objective human rights to many of their citizens. White minorities are in very serious trouble in some of the small black African countries.
Apartheid is not just the prerogative of South Africa. It is used as a weapon in many other countries. World communism, exploited at home ruthlessly, and exported for the profit of the small ruling clique in Russia, is a typical example. Very often the citizens of countries who condemn apartheid in South Africa have less freedom and even less material possessions than some of the black people they purport to support. In this context, I would suggest the black African is fortunate, indeed, that he has such a firm body of world opinion mobilised in his support. It is quite right that this should be so. It is quite right that world opinion should endeavour in every way possible to ensure that the black African does indeed come out from under the shadow of apartheid.
The side effect of apartheid in South Africa which probably has not been recognised, and probably is not recognised within South Africa itself, is that, apart from denying the black African his place in the sun, it also denies to that country the talents of very many talented people. As a still evolving and expanding country that must mean that not alone the wealth within its borders but the ability of all its citizens are not developed for the good of all its citizens.
The denial of educational facilities, the denial of residential facilities, and the denial of freedom of movement to the black African either within his native State, or his adopted State, or his would-be adopted State, prevent him from contributing to the development of that country and would seem to me in certain cases to defeat their objectives. If these people are denied educational facilities and the right to work, this makes their country a poorer country.
Some progress has been made in that some of these people have been able to get out of South Africa and receive education abroad. It might be more helpful if we could do something on an international scale which would give educational facilities to these unfortunate people. We are a small country but over many years the Irish colleges abroad catered for the demands and needs that were long available here. We had great advantages in a written language, a written history and a culture that was accepted and of an international standard. The unfortunate black African has not had the advantage of any of these things, and some of the educational ideas that we might have in Europe might be at total variance with the cultural history, such as it is, of many of the evolving tribes and peoples in black South Africa. Nevertheless, even though that might not be quite what he wants, a function of the Governments supporting this motion could be to ensure that such educational facilities are made available to the black South Africans. Social justice is totally and utterly denied to huge numbers of working black Africans in South Africa. Even though they may be fairly well situated in the townships with their tin roofs and communal toilet facilities, the people there are still entitled to elevate themselves from that position, but tragically these laws effectively debar them from ever doing this. Hand in hand with helping these people to improve themselves within their borders, if we can do something from outside to help them this motion will be effective.
I question one word in this motion, the word "all". The motion reads:
That Dáil Éireann expresses its condemnation of apartheid and its solidarity with all engaged in promoting International Anti-Apartheid Year 1978.
Many people and many governments are just as guilty as the South African government of denying opportunities for improvement to sections of their own citizens. To ally ourselves with such governments in condemning a government who are obviously doing wrong is allying ourselves with the pot calling the kettle black. In condemnation of apartheid we must make sure to condemn it in all its forms wherever it exists. To say that we ally ourselves in blanket fashion with all governments who are so engaged is questionable.
When we consider the various peoples who promote International Anti-Apartheid Year 1978 we can say in certain cases, "Look here, it is all very fine you supporting International Anti-Apartheid Year 1978, but what is happening in South Africa is also happening in your country". Human rights is not the prerogative of merely the black South African; it is the prerogative of every human being on this planet. There are people in many situations who cannot have any communications with the outside world and are condemned to even worse apartheid than those who have to live in separate townships, to do certain jobs and kow-tow to a government they do not subscribe to. There are many areas in this world where unfortunate stateless citizens have no government of any description either to condemn or to depend on. There are areas in the world where people have to move across borders from one area to another and apartheid of a greater horror than that which exists in South Africa is being inflicted on them. These things should be borne in mind when we are condemning apartheid.
The tendency of human beings to be lazy unless something is brought to their attention on the one hand, or to be utterly careless on the other, must be controlled. The situation where people are deprived of food through drought and an uncaring government practicing a type of apartheid which says "we will get some other country to come in and support you" underlines the fact that all must be engaged in the promotion of international anti-apartheid. Universality in condemning one country is totally wrong when there is so much suffering and misery in other places in the name of good government.
In conclusion, with the reservations I have made and with the observations that I think legitimate on the evolvement of the Union of South Africa, it gives me pleasure to support this motion.
: I understand Deputy Mitchell is concluding.
: It is rare that a motion comes before this House which unites all sides and all Deputies. I am glad that this motion does—or did until Deputy Fox spoke. It is not that his speech was not very well prepared. He obviously put a lot of thought into it, but I would have thought that no Member of this House would enter any reservations into condemnation of apartheid. Certainly there are deprivations of human rights in many countries of the world, but I do not think that there is any parallel to the absolute and total evil that is apartheid. It is not fair in the cause of the abolition of apartheid to drag in the problems of the rest of the world. No other country in the world subjects part of its people to the deprivation and inhumanity that the black majority in South Africa are subjected to. I was disappointed to hear Deputy Fox making points to the effect that coloured people in South Africa are paid more than in other black countries. There are historical explanations for that and it is irrelevant to the question of apartheid. It is this type of reservation which is killing the world movement against apartheid. I was very disappointed to hear the Deputy describe South Africa as a bastion in that part of the world in the defence against Imperialist Russia.
That is irrelevant to the question of apartheid. That is the sort of contribution that the apartheid cause could well do without. This House and also the parliaments of all the other democratic countries should not only condemn without reservation the evil of apartheid but should act to have removed this horrible scar on the history of mankind. Too many countries are dragging their feet on the issue for too many reasons. I suppose some think that South Africa is a bastion against communism in that part of the world, while there are other countries who are doing too well from their trading activities with South Africa to act effectively against her. There may be people in other countries who, while condemning apartheid verbally, do not match their words with actions.
In various parts of the world there exist regimes that are totally unacceptable to those of us who treasure the democratic idea. Undoubtedly there is monstrous oppression in all parts of the world, but nowhere can such oppression match the sort of oppression that is practised in South Africa. Nowhere do a minority, so small proportionately in terms of the population, oppress the majority to such an extent as happens in South Africa. It follows that if such a small minority can for so long perpetrate such an outrage against humanity there must be dragging of feet in various other places. There have been unanimous UN declarations down through the years but these have not made an iota of difference to the situation. For instance, these declarations have not made any difference to the situation in Namibia which is the subject of a UN mandate but which South Africa continues to hold illegally. The reason for this ineffectiveness is that all over the world too many are prepared to enter reservations on the caveat, reservations of the type that Deputy Fox has made. In other words, the people who act in this way are only purporting to support the move against apartheid. That is very regrettable and is the primary cause of the continuation of the monstrous regime in South Africa.
The deprivation of human rights in places such as Chile, Uganda, Eastern Europe, Pakistan and elsewhere is a matter of grave concern. Indeed, there was deprivation of human rights for a long time in part of our country, but none of these situations of deprivation could match the scale of deprivation perpetrated by the South African regime and institutionalised by them since 1948. The Lagos declaration for action against apartheid which was made at the world conference held there in August last and which I understand was attended by the Minister of State was supported by 112 governments, 12 inter-governmental organisations, five liberation movements and 51 non-governmental organisations. It had the support of several previous UN declarations, but despite all that apartheid continues as strong as if not stronger than ever before and the economy of South Africa is perhaps stronger than ever before. In addition the South African armed forces are perhaps stronger than ever before. One must ask where they get their goods and their military hardware from. Is it not likely that they get them from some of those 112 countries that were represented in Lagos last year? South Africa trades with many of those countries and gets expertise from them. She gets some expertise from this country, for instance. Many Irish people are prepared to go to South Africa. Many of them are there already. I do not expect that it is possible for the Government to prevent people from going there, but at least everything possible should be done to discourage them from going. The point I am trying to make is that there is much hypocrisy and cant in relation to this whole subject while there is little or no action.
I am deeply concerned that there should be such a perpetration of injustice in South Africa and in these circumstances would ask the question as to whether the solution to the problem ought to be violence, although there is also the question of whether violence is ever justified. However, having regard to the hypocrisy and the inaction of the rest of the world, if I were a black South African I am sure I would find it very difficult not to think in terms of violence being the answer. In saying this I am not in any way encouraging violence but I am trying to emphasise the need for the western world and for the rest of the world, too, to wake up to the fact that if something effective is not done to bring apartheid to an end, before long there could be a very bad situation in South Africa, a situation that might not be confined to that part of the world. If this present situation is allowed to continue it will undoubtedly erupt eventually into a scale of violence not known since the last world war. That type of situation would not serve the interest of anybody in the long term but would bring most hurt and harm to those very people whom we in this House are trying to help and whom other parliaments around the world are trying to help also.
That is why I am appealing to the Government to use constantly and actively whatever influence they have with the other countries who are interested in the ending of apartheid, to bring to an end the great sin against humanity that is apartheid.
Motion agreed to.