Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Feb 1990

Vol. 124 No. 2

Developments in South Africa: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the recent developments in South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela.

—(Senator McGowan.)

Mr. Costello

I too, want to express my pleasure at the release of Nelson Mandela. It is a momentous event and it is a milestone in the struggle against apartheid. After 27 years, as the longest serving political prisoner in the world, Nelson Mandela is free. He is a courageous man, a principled man, but it is not so much for the release of the man as a person that we are celebrating here today and debating this motion on South Africa. It is for what he stood, that he was a symbol of his people, of resistance against the apartheid state in South Africa. It is in that context that we can now see South Africa entering into the second phase. Now that the man has got this freedom, we have the second phase, namely, the freedom of a people for whom he was the symbol.

At this time, when we are celebrating his release, we must remember what has contributed so largely to his release. It is, of course, primarily the tremendous struggle that has gone on in South Africa by the black oppressed people there, for their rights as human beings to equality with their white colleagues but, secondly, the very strong line of support has been the international community. The international community, first, in the form of the United Nations which advocated sanctions against South Africa, then, specifically the EC, which collectively decided to impose sanctions on South Africa. Ireland played a specific role in this area and ordinary men and women also played a part, with the result that white South Africa was regarded as a leper among the world community of nations.

I would like to mention, particularly, the enormous impact and role of the Anti-Apartheid Movement through thick and thin, over many long years. As Senator Ryan mentioned, in the early days it was not a popular activity or a popular cause to be engaged in, with plenty of attention from the Special Branch in relation to meetings, and so on. I would like to mention also the role that was played by courageous, young trade unionists, the Dunne's Stores strikers, who took to heart the message that was passed at their trade union conference — the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers' Union. They stood up for the principles and the terms of that resolution. They spent 18 months on the picket line in 1985 and 1986. They were on the picket line standing in solidarity with the black people of South Africa.

At this time we must recognise that enormous contribution from a number of very young people who took that principled cause to heart. We must also remember — again in the context of the Dunne's Stores strikers because it arose directly out of that — that the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, decided to extend sanctions to the importation of fruit from South Africa. That was a milestone in the Irish Government taking a stand, and being seen to take a stand, against the apartheid system in South Africa. I would like also to record the role of the trade union movement in general which has, over decades, consistently opposed the apartheid system in South Africa. Finally, the Churches have unanimously taken a stand against that unjust and unfair system. All of those have collectively contributed to the situation we have at present where we are entering on a new dawn of freedom in South Africa.

In that context we must be very careful that the momentum is not lost. That, to my mind, is the crux of the situation. What has happened is a ray and a beacon of freedom, but what has yet to happen is the freedom of the people. It is absolutely essential that sanctions be tied up totally with dismantling apartheid. Sanctions remain and should remain until that iniquitous system of apartheid is dismantled.

Nelson Mandela is a Freeman of this city. It has been an indication of the level of public opinion that we should have been the first capital city in the world to make him a Freeman and indeed, the only one — and that the Lord Mayor of this city has invited him to come and address us and to receive the Freeman scroll of the city and to sign the book in the Mansion House. We also, in this House, should invite Nelson Mandela to come and address us here. The same should take place in the second House of the Oireachtas. That would be a fine way of honouring the stature and authority of a man who has done and suffered so much for his people. When Nelson Mandela is here — and I have every belief that he will be here certainly before this year is out — we should also point out to him that there are Irish prisoners languishing in prisons across the water and that they, too, are innocent people who are in prison for their beliefs. We should invite him to cross the water to England and visit the Birmingham Six in jail. That would be a very appropriate thing to ask of him. It would be appropriate for him to use his influence to ensure that innocent Irishmen who have served 16 years in prison should be released as there is a total consensus of opinion that they are innocent men. I have already written to Nelson Mandela in Soweto asking him on the occasion when he visits this country that he would do that. I asked that he would visit Britain, visit the men in prison and raise his voice on their behalf for their release.

In South Africa there are a number of issues immediately facing the ANC and Nelson Mandela, who is a joint leader. I would consider the first matter to be one of internal unity within the black community. While Nelson Mandela and the ANC have achieved tremendous stature in South Africa as leaders of the black community, there are other aspects and other areas where there is a degree of dissention. This has been particularly true because it has been brought about by the South African policy of creating homelands for certain sections of the black population. A certain degree of strife has been occurring. We have seen violence in the townships — certain internal violence, black against black. Indeed, the level of deaths and maimings that have taken place has been quite considerable. There is need for internal unity of all sections of the black community to be established before negotiations take place, as I am sure they will with President De Klerk. In that I would like to mention particularly Chief Buthelezi who is one of the major figures, the leader of Inkatha and the Pan-African Congress. It is in those particular areas of leadership that the ANC should immediately seek reconciliation so that the black movement would be a united one in the final negotiations for freedom.

In relation to sanctions these are the critical matters. I would like to applaud the position that has been taken by the Irish Government, particularly in its role as President of the EC and, indeed, by the other States in the EC, with the exception of Britain, in relation to this matter. What is essential is that the dismantling of apartheid should be tied to sanctions. When progress is made in that area, that is when we will, or should, consider the relaxation of sanctions, and on no other condition. We must remember that at present the black people have a number of pieces of legislation specifically directed to discriminate against them. The Land Act restricts their ownership of land to 15 per cent of the area. The Group Area Act likewise ensures that black people are confined to specific areas and that white people have the best housing, the majority of the land and quality housing. The population Registration Act registers the population into separate categories based specifically on racial lines — white, coloured, Asians and Africans. We have seen — and we see in our newspapers today — a move towards relaxation of the Separate Amenities Act, which provided for segregation on the grounds of colour in public places such as swimming pools and hospitals. We saw a very welcome photograph in today's Irish Times of a black man and a white man in a public place playing a game of chess. It is important that until such unfair legislation is removed sanctions be maintained.

I would suggest that we should, as Senator Ryan referred to, think of strengthening the sanctions in one or two specific areas. I would refer specifically to the area of coal, where we have coal imports of the order of £45 million coming into this country annually from South Africa. Two weeks ago in this House the Labour Party, in Private Members' time, debated a proposal for the closure of the Arigna collieries before any geological survey had been done to find out what the resources were. It is an absolute scandal to think of closing down a coal mine in Ireland and at the same time continuing with the importation of coal from abroad. We should be thinking less and less of using coal as a fuel. It would be very much in our interests to discontinue the importation of bituminous coal from South Africa.

I have one final point and that is in relation to the present relaxation of sanctions by the British Government. I abhor the decision by the British Government to step out of line with the collective decision of the European Community on this matter and to lift the ban on investment in South Africa. I have no doubt that that is directly related to their own material interests in terms of trade, the degree to which they trade and the extent of their trade with South Africa. Secondly, I believe it is directly related to the fact that a considerable number of South African white people have British passports. Approximately 1.5 million people there have British passports. We saw what happened in relation to Hong Kong, and the problem that existed there when the Hong Kong people wished to get visas. The British Government would be concerned about a deluge of South African citizens coming into Britain. Both the trading interest of Britain and its lack of concern for those who have British citizenship should not be allowed stand against the collective agreement of the EC countries to retain sanctions. Sanctions should be retained in all their fullness.

Professor Conroy

The actual motion we have in front of us is: "That Seanad Éireann welcomes the recent developments in South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela." This is an all-party motion.

It is particularly appropriate at the moment that the Irish Government's Foreign Minister will be leading a delegation to South Africa, a delegation of the EC. It is particularly important that we should happen to hold such a position in the European Community at this moment. This country has never — for many years as far as I know — had diplomatic relations with South Africa. We took the decision many years ago that this country, which does not have a colonial past, as have all the other European Community nations, and which has experienced in its own island the effects of discrimination of one group against another, should not have diplomatic relations with South Africa. It is appropriate that we should be going on a fact-finding mission and leading that fact-finding European Community mission to South Africa as well as playing a role in bringing about what Pope John on his visit here described as peace with justice. That is what we want to see in South Africa.

I do not think we need to make any apologies in this House about our views on apartheid. We have condemned it, and rightly condemned it, for the vicious, abominable system it is — that someone should be discriminated against on any grounds, whether these grounds be race, religion, colour or belief. Speakers from either side have rightly condemned it. We must go a bit further than just simply condemning apartheid. We must do more than just simply welcoming the release of this very heroic man, Nelson Mandela, or rambling on about sanctions. I obviously agree with the Government's policy on this, but sanctions are very much a means to an end and the end is not just simply the abolition of apartheid in itself. That should really be a beginning. It is an abomination which should not exist. The sooner it is got rid of the better.

At the end of the day we should be thinking of all the people in South Africa. We should be taking a very responsible attitude towards blacks in South Africa, who are indeed by far the major group. But we should not forget the other groups. If there is to be peace, prosperity and justice for all races, including not least the blacks who have been so appallingly discriminated against, it is necessary that we think of the views and have consideration, however difficult it may be, for the attitudes, prejudices and feelings of the other groups in South Africa.

We in Ireland should take and are taking the lead now in trying to bring about a peaceful solution to a very dreadful situation. We want a peaceful solution there. We do not want it to end up in some form of bloodbath. We do not want it to end up in economic chaos in South Africa. We do not want it to end up in discrimination against some other group. We saw the terrible treatment of the Indian community in East Africa. I would not like to see that happening to the two million Indian community in South Africa. I hope it will not. In someone of the stature of Nelson Mandela we have hope that one is going to see a peaceful development in South Africa. I can only echo Mr. Mandela's words about President De Klerk when he referred to President De Klerk as a man of principle with whom he felt he could do business.

Apartheid, we should also remember, is a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon and colonial attitude. It is not just simply colonial at all. You did not get apartheid in the French colonies. You did not get apartheid in the Spanish colonies. It is something peculiarly British, German and Dutch. Let us, when we are condemning it, make sure that we do not in this country at any time show discrimination towards those who may happen to be of a different colour or view. We are anxious to see democracy in South Africa. We really do mean democracy. It would be a sad situation if the failure of democracy which has occurred in so much of Africa were to be repeated in South Africa. We want to see a solution out there in which there will be genuine democracy and genuine development for all the people in South Africa.

Senator Costello has rightly referred to Chief Buthelezi and made the point that there are other groups in South Africa, other very major groups. Chief Buthelezi and his group comprise more people than the entire white group. Let us not oversimplify here. Mr. Mandela himself must not oversimplify. Let us not forget either that there are other groups in South Africa. One group has not been mentioned, as far as I know, at all this morning, and that is the bushmen, who were the actual original inhabitants going back thousands of years in South Africa. The blacks, the whites and the Indians are relatively recent to South Africa, strange though it may seem. The bushmen have had a particularly appalling time. Up until 1931 there was still a bounty on the head of a bushman or woman or child. If you shot one you got a bounty as if they were foxes, wild animals or pests. Let us remember that there are many groups in South Africa. We, as Irish people would like to see discrimination against none of them.

The white community are divided into Afrikaaners and the English speaking community. The English speaking community are now making a great show of liberalism. It is a little difficult to take that, considering that apartheid began under the English system. Many of today's would-be liberals, including some leaders of that great party in the past, owe their inheritance to such ventures as the slave trade, and so on. I found it very difficult to have too much sympathy for the present liberalism of communities there. Nonetheless, they are a community. They have now, at long last, embraced some degree of liberalism. I have great sympathy for the Afrikaaners. Their behaviour over recent years has been appalling and brutal. It has been inexcusable, but they have been discriminated against pretty severely too. We now, perhaps, forget that the word "concentration camp" originated in South Africa. It was the Afrikaaner women and children who were herded into these concentration camps in the time of parents or grandparents — it is that close — of the present African population in South Africa. There they died, not in tens, not in hundreds, not in thousands but in tens of thousands. Let us not forget that they have this in their background and in their psyche. However unforgiveable their behaviour may be today, let us realise that there is a background to it. They have had their struggles. They have had their cruelties inflicted upon them, too.

I agree that sanctions should be maintained. Our Government have taken the right attitude. Let us not over-emphasise it, though. I do not think the sanctions in themselves have been a crucial feature. I certainly do not think so-called armed struggle in South Africa has been the crucial feature. What is happening out there is the brutal force of economics, driving white South Africans, and white industry out there, led particularly by the Anglo-American corporation which is the largest corporation in South Africa, into a realisation that for the development of their industry — and it is already a rich country and potentially could be even richer — something had to be done about the discrimination against Africans. That may be a very poor reason for change but economic reasons and economic factors have extraordinarily powerful effects as, indeed, we have seen in Eastern Europe — and people power has been referred to here — the people took it into their own hands to toss out the appalling systems which existed there, and particularly the ancient régime of the Soviet Union. They were not above interfering in Africa also. Senator Ryan has referred much to the West, and quite rightly so. They were not on their own there.

South Africa at the moment is a rich state. Appalling though the treatment of black Africans is, in actual fact, the per capita income of black Africans in South Africa is far higher than that of any other part of Africa. Their education, discriminated against though it is and appalling though it is in relation to what is available to the whites, is still of a much higher standard than that available to blacks anywhere else in Africa. Let us endeavour to ensure, as Mr. Mandela will be endeavouring to do, that that is maintained and developed. It would be very sad if, pursuing our liberal consciences, we were in some sense to allow the very people whom we are trying to help to finish up in a worse situation than existed beforehand.

We, in this country, have a particular responsibility. We are in a very good position to do something to bring about a democratic, peaceful South Africa and a prosperous South Africa where the Africans will get equal treatment, humane treatment, the opportunity to develop and the opportunity to rule their own country, which they deserve. At the same time there should not be a situation in which the previously dominant community will either leave or a community, such as the Indian community, will be discriminated against. South Africa is extraordinarily lucky to have someone of the stature of Nelson Mandela who was able to go through 27 years in prison, the first 18 months of it in appalling conditions and still come out and show the sort of tolerant, wise and civilised attitude which gives great hope for the future of South Africa. Let us in this country, in so far as we can play some slight role, give whatever help we can to Mr. Mandela and to Mr. De Klerk. We must understand from our experience in this country the terrible problems and difficulties of trying to bring together separate communities.

Mr. Hourigan

I am glad of the opportunity of speaking on this motion. The developments in recent times have marked very distinctly and very clearly a dramatic change in the minds of all reasonable people throughout the world. They bring to an end the situation where the black majority were, for so many years, severely and positively downtrodden in South Africa. It was mentioned here earlier this morning that Nelson Mandela is a Freeman of Dublin city. That, in fact, is perhaps a further reason why we should have an interest in this matter. The events that took place in recent times promise an encouraging and enlightening start. We have the commencement of a new era, replacing the era that has concluded. It came about through persistent campaigning under imprisoned conditions by Nelson Mandela over the past 27 years. There are about 300 other members of the African National Congress, known briefly as ANC, still in prison. There is no question of any meaningful discussions taking place while a number of barriers, such as the retention of these persons in prison, remains.

It is no harm to reflect that in June 1964 Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment. To all intents and purposes, the people of South Africa felt that that was the end of that chapter as the doors closed behind him entering prison for life. It was the Government's positive intention to lock Nelson Mandela away and to crush positively his liberation movement in the years that followed. But, fortunately, Nelson Mandela, being the man he was, fighting under very handicapped conditions as a prisoner but with a very loyal and tightlyknit support group outside, continued his fight over all those years.

I would like to pay a tribute to the very useful work that the media performed in keeping this campaign alive and running through times in which perhaps it might otherwise have faded out. The media played no small part in ensuring that the case of South Africa as enunciated by Mandela, from outside prison in the first instance and from within it subsequently, came to a successful conclusion. In addition, I believe that the trades unions throughout the world have made their very valuable contribution in the whole area of sanctions and related matters. Countries that imposed sanctions have also contributed to this whole very worthwhile movement.

While other leaders emerged when Mandela was in prison — many of them are now in exile and perhaps some of them have passed on — there is no doubt that Mandela remained the supreme and absolute leader of the black movement in South Africa. It is a great tribute to the character of Mandela, and a great tribute also to the many persons outside who did not take advantage of his absence from the scene and perhaps cash in on the position.

It is rather significant to know that the father of President De Klerk — I would like to commend the President in this House this morning for the initiative he has taken this far — played a very key role in bringing the National Party to power in 1948 and it was this party that did, in fact, introduce and put into being the whole concept of apartheid. Mr. De Klerk himself had a very fast rise to power but in his earlier years in politics he remained very much in compliance with the party system with regard to apartheid and so on. He was elected a Cabinet Minister in 1977, he was appointed leader in Transvaal in 1982, he was Minister for Home Affairs and National Education in 1984 and then we know that, on the resignation of President Botha following his getting a stroke, Mr. De Klerk became head of the party and President of the country.

At all times since his election he tried very vigorously to bring about change. Prior to that, as I mentioned, he was an advocate of apartheid and role in with these policies with great devotion and dedication. So, I think his conversion, as it were, is all the greater seeing that that was the sort of background from which he came. He has gone very easy on the apartheid issue since becoming President last year. He agreed very much and talked a lot about compromise negotiations and so on, which is what this whole matter is now about. It was obvious that the major sanctions imposed by countries throughout the world had brought about a serious problem for South Africa and that the economy was not in a good position.

The release of Mandela was, as we all know, announced on 2 February. There was then a feeling that perhaps he might not be released; but, fortunately, on 9 June Mr. De Klerk put into effect his announcement of 2 February. Mr. Mandela is now a man of 71 years of age, a much lighter man than he was when he was imprisoned in 1964. He was then a man who weighed over 200 lbs. He is now a slight man, aged, hopefully with a good many years of active politics to give to South Africa to help to resolve the many problems there. He is on record as saying that he spent many long and lonely wasted years in prison during his time there over the last 72 years.

The legislation of the ANC, in conjunction with the release of Mr. Mandela, represents a step forward. Perhaps these two factors more than anything else highlight what has happened in recent times in South Africa. There are other objectives and other issues to be talked about, but these are matters of achievement. Mr. Mandella has presented himself as a sort of mediator or, as he was described on the media, a facilitator between the black majority and the white minority in negotiations which could indeed be very long and varied. But, provided progress is being made, I am quite satisfied that violence can be avoided in South Africa. I believe—and Mr. De Klerk has gleaned this from his many discussions with Mr. Mandela—that violence must not play any part whatsoever in the negotiations and in the talks that will go on in the time ahead.

The position in South Africa, which was the last bastion of white supremacy, was rather ridiculous. We had five million white persons ruling approximately 35 million blacks, almost the entire population of that country. That was a situation that could not continue and is, hopefully, nearing an end. There are, as I say, a number of things to be got out of the way. We have to have the release of all the political prisoners. We must have the removal of this three and a half year old state of emergency. These things must happen before meaningful discussions can take place.

The real role of Nelson Mandela is very hard to perceive. Perhaps his most valuable contribution will be to act as a liaison person between the blacks and the whites, or there may be a situation where he may hold an official position in a Government in South Africa. We must not forget that the white people are not going to take too easily to a change in the situation where they have enjoyed total control of the running of affairs and owning 87 per cent of the land of the country for so many years. For that reason the matter has to be handled very delicately. It will take outside forces in a supportive fashion, in a broad sense and not on one side or another, to bring about a meaningful and correct solution.

It is good to know that with very few exceptions, the United Kingdom being one, the various countries are totally behind meaningful negotiations and are prepared to apply sanctions unless there is a realistic outcome to this very worthwhile initial development. When Nelson Mandela was released from prison he refused, we understand, protection and felt he was quite safe among the people of Africa. He has negotiated for a long time. He is a man of great experience and I believe he will be the centrepiece of any negotiations taking place in the future.

Britain has at present an investment of £10 billion in South Africa and a trading position each way of £3 billion per year. This is unique. It is not the same as the American sanctions and the sanctions of many other countries. The American sanctions have cost South Africa many millions of pounds each year.

I have already referred to the peaceful approach and attitude of Nelson Mandela. That has been stated by President De Klerk after his discussions with him —that he was satisfied Mr. Mandela was adopting a peaceful approach. It is important that he get that vital message through to his people. Pretoria worried from the day Nelson Mandela went into prison that he should ever come out again. There was serious and major concern in Pretoria and among all the whites in South Africa when he was released.

The whites have indicated that they are prepared to be siphoned off to an area in the country and to live separately from the blacks; but that is not the answer. The country must be governed as a single country with its millions of people. The imbalance is there, but accommodation must and will be found. I am very pleased with the release of Nelson Mandela and I should like to compliment President De Klerk on the stance he took.

Mr. Lydon

I find this motion rather vague. It says "That Seanad Éireann welcomes the recent developments in South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela." Some of the recent developments in South Africa I would not welcome. On television we have seen pictures of neo-Nazi parties, people waving swastikas and that kind of thing. Anything that contributes to the breakdown of apartheid, which is one of the greatest crimes ever was perpetrated upon a people, will be welcomed. I also welcome the release from prison of this great revolutionary leader. However, I find that motion vague in another way in that it does not specifically mention the fact that neither the ANC nor Mr. Mandela have renounced the use of violence as a way of achieving political ends. That is disconcerting. We have had in this House time and time again debates about other parts of the world, and our own country, where the use of violence to achieve political ends has been condemned. This is the right thing to do, because we can see from looking at various developments in Eastern Europe and in other parts of the world that there are peaceful means to achieve political ends and that violence is not necessary.

Unless I can receive some assurance from the movers of this motion that they in no way condone the use of violence by Mr. Mandela, the ANC or anybody else to achieve political ends, then I would have to abstain from voting on this motion. The problem here is that there is a certain hypocrisy. We have seen Governments, statesmen, Church leaders, community leaders welcoming the release of Nelson Mandela — and I, too, welcome his release — but in the same breath they do not ever condemn the fact that he has not renounced the use of violence. I would condemn this and I would ask the movers of the motion to make it clear that we do not condone it. I do not want it to be interpreted that I do not welcome the release of this man, because 27 years in prison is enough for anybody. He is moving towards peaceful means and that has to be welcomed. If anybody can calm the situation down, this man can do it. He is a man of tremendous personality, intellect and tremendous resolve. I hope he will encourage his party and his people to seek to achieve equality in all aspects of life by peaceful rather than violent means.

Mr. Harte

I should like to agree with Senator Lydon when he said that the motion is vague. However, generally I think its meaning is clear and it is agreed by all parties. When Senator Lydon was talking about violence he may not have been treating like with like. If I recall what Nelson Mandela said on his release when he was questioned about the armed struggle, he stated that what was happening was that the State had been in an armed struggle against the people, and still is, and that he was resisting that. If you consider also the discipline of the ANC, which they have shown since Mr. Mandela's release, you will get quite a different picture. It is not the same as the North of Ireland, where you are afraid that they are going to blow the head off somebody every five minutes. That is the context in which I took it and I think that is the way he meant it. The violence of the State is still there.

I have had a long term interest in apartheid. I remember putting a picket on the Iveagh Grounds in 1960 as a result of a sporting event which was going on there. In 1961 I wrote a poem which was published in the Bulletin of the Workers' Union of Ireland and was later used by the anti-apartheid movement. I have an interest in this. It has been well documented so I will not go over it.

I welcome the initiative taken by Mr. De Klerk. It was a courageous step and I wish him well in his efforts. I would never want to support the struggle against apartheid if I thought it would turn around the other way and that the whites would become victims of the system. I want to see a true democracy with full rights and full equality for everybody.

We must welcome the stand taken by the European Ministers, particularly our Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Taoiseach. They have handled this very well indeed. The sanctions must stay, because to take the pressure off at this time before coming to the negotiating table proper would be a big mistake. In the final analysis the real thing that brought the people in power in South Africa to their senses was the effects of the worldwide sanctions and also the fact that South Africans were not welcome anywhere. I have met many white South Africans. I have never been to South Africa but I was a prisoner of war with some white South Africans. I found them to be decent and generous — there was good and bad among them. The system of apartheid had not taken hold at that time, so I could not say any more on that. Virtually every section of the white community in South Africa were deeply infected with this colour prejudice throughout the century and not just from 1948 onwards. We must recognise the human cost of the apartheid philosophy. People were uprooted from their homes. It was a very drastic step for any nation to take. The theory of apartheid was produced after a succession of white Governments had failed to live with the influx of Africans into the towns, so they decided that sterner methods would have to be introduced. The blacks were confined to the lands allocated to them and this was done also in order to prevent the whites from indulging in sexual relations with the blacks and to exclude the blacks from the skilled labout force. Dr. Malan's party did that. They promised the whites they would deal with the threat of homogenity and make sure that white domination would survive throughout their lifetime. Its main philosophy was that different races live happily when they are separated. We now know exactly what that means.

The chairman of the pro-Government Bureau for the Study of Race Relations declared that acceptance of Africans as permanent residents outside the homelands would in the long term make the survival of the white state impossible. He believed it was there to stay and that no way would anybody get outside it. They went on to say that the Bantu would always be there in order to engage in the white's economy, that they worked for them. They were also of the view that the blacks had no right to live permanently in the towns and they would have no permanent contact with anybody who lived in the towns. They believed they could receive the same rights in their Bantu homelands as the white labourers in their homeland. I ask you. When one considers that all the resources had dried up in the Bantu homelands certainly there was no way those people were going to have any meaningful role in their own workplaces, etc.

The system brought about the massive derangement of African families. They did not realise at that time that the future implications would be so sinister. But the apartheid policies made sure that they were sinister and that there was not going to be such a thing as permanent urban residence for blacks. As far as they were concerned, it did not matter whether it disrupted families or not. Twenty million Africans were certainly not going to be given any claim to civil rights etc. and there was no way they could build any genuine state from the land they got. They got about 14 per cent of the total land area. They could not exist on this, so they were forced to work abroad. They had neither influence nor protection and they were separated from their families. All this has been well documented. But it should be put on the record again in the sense that we are talking about people who were pauperised and isolated. We are speaking now about Nelson Mandela, who tried to come to their rescue. When we read the history we can see exactly what Mandela stood for, what he was opposed to and what his objectives now are; and we must wish him well in that. At the time they thought that an exclusive white state was something that would last forever and they had strategies to beat anything that might come about to upset that.

They misrepresented the situation from time to time. For example, in 1951 Dr. Verwoerd introduced the legislation and followed it up in 1959 with the promotion of the Bantu self-government Act which actually removed all the rights of the South Africans. One would have thought it would have improved their rights but he was removing what little rights remained to them, particularly where the Bantu might be given representation on the South African Parliament. The Vorster Government, in the declaration of what they called constitutional changes, made sure that the Bantu was treated as an area apart and as a possession of the South African Government. They made sure that in those constitutional movements there was certainly no role for the Africans in the development of the white economy. Certainly it ensured that the political rights, which they should have had, to another 80 per cent of the country were not given. There was a grand design and they were made to stick.

Is it any wonder that Nelson Mandela, out of frustration, went the road he took before he was imprisoned? It was sad to see it. The whole background of what happened in South Africa is well documented and I do not want to labour the point too much here. I just want to put on record that there was a good reason for Nelson Mandela's activity. It was great to see that after all those years the man was able to walk out of prison. I hope he will be a great influence. I believe he is playing it right. He cannot opt out. He has to deal with the ANC which is difficult, with all the divisions and so on that have grown up. I do not mind admitting that I shed a tear when I saw him walking out of prison. I hope everything will go right for him.

I would like to say thanks to the Dunnes Stores strikers who highlighted the situation in greater depth here in Ireland and also to the many trade unions, councils etc, who through the years have been working very closely with the Anti-Apartheid Movement in all the many rallies they held. I would like to congratulate Nelson Mandela and, as Senator Joe Costello says, when he goes to Birmingham maybe he will go to see the Birmingham Six and see what he can do there.

Mrs. Jackman

I was delighted at the release of Nelson Mandela. We are lucky to live in such eventful times where there are two world leaders coming to the fore in the 1980s and 1990s. We have Mr. Gorbachev and Nelson Mandela; one from what will no longer, I feel, be referred to as the Second World, and perhaps we are looking towards the dismantling of the Third World with support from ourselves through the EC and the United Nations.

We awaited with curiosity the emergence of Nelson Mandela. He is a curious blend of simplicity and stateliness, a natural leader who has very quickly adjusted to his new environment. I wondered if it were possible for anybody to live up to the extraordinary image that had evolved of him over three decades of imprisonment and even many years before then. What did we find? We found a dignified face, peaceful attitude, no rancour, no bitterness. That is the first important lesson for us.

We must realise that international pressure, and particularly the application of sanctions, had begun to have results with Pretoria recognising that it could not effectively maintain apartheid in the face of massive opposition from both inside and outside. Changes announced by President De Klerk will, we hope, lead in the long term to a democratic nonracial South Africa. We welcome the news that groups that had been campaigning for an end to apartheid will no longer be banned under the new proposals announced by the South African President and that groups working for years for change are to be legalised, particularly church groups and trade unions and once again they will be in a position to continue their efforts towards achieving a peaceful solution.

I would like to make a brief reference to the Dunnes Stores workers' action at a time when it was not popular to be seen to oppose importation of fruit and vegetables from South Africa. Their position in the workforce was certainly not enhanced by the stance they took. I even noticed in a newspaper report the other day that they are still finding it hard to find employment. There appears to be a sort of stigma on them for their efforts during those years, which was very hard, towards the dismantling of apartheid. I applaud the stance of those young workers. They were banner bearers for Ireland.

We realise that, despite the recent changes announced by the South African Government, the fundamental features of the system still remain intact. I will refer to the United Nations declaration on South Africa last December. They were calling for first, the release of political prisoners and detainees unconditionally, lifting all bans and restrictions on all proscribed and restricted organisations and persons — there has been a slight relaxation there — removing all troops from the townlands, ending the state of emergency and repealing all legislation such as the Internal Security Act, which is designed to circumscribe political activity. There was also a call to cease all political trials and political executions. The recent changes, as I have said, have not fully realised even one of these minimum preconditions so, obviously, if there is a lifting of sanctions at this stage it will be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the United Nations declaration.

I would like to refer again to the system of apartheid, the Afrikaans word for separateness, and to refer to the multiracial society of South Africa where, according to the 1987 figures, it had a population of 35 million. This comprised 75 per cent Africans, 14 per cent whites, 9 per cent coloured of mixed race, and 2 per cent Asian. The stated aim of apartheid is to keep these four groups apart so that they can develop separately, the real aim being to enable the country's white minority to retain control and to continue to dominate the political economic and social life of the country. They were able to do this through the introduction and implementation of apartheid policies in five key areas. They are separate development, prevention of black urbanisation, forced removals, black education and crushing anti-apartheid organisations. As I said, that last one has been lifted.

Separate development involves the creation of independent black homelands within South Africa, the so-called sovereign states. They are television words at this stage; the Transkei, the Ciskei etc. These deprive blacks of their South African citizenship and make them foreigners in their own country. The South African Government take little responsibility for the payment of unemployment, old age, or other welfare benefits in these areas. It is very important that we would know what is separatist development. The homelands really are labour reserves where Africans are forced to live when they are not needed for work in white areas. Another point which was part of the policy of apartheid is the prevention of black urbanisation. The economy depends on black people living separately but working in the cities, in the mines and in manufacturing industries but having no rights to establish homes there, their homes being hundreds of miles away in the homelands, and the family separated, husband from wife, children from parents.

Forced removals is where they were pushed out into these newly created homelands. It reminds me of Cromwell's comment "to hell or to Connaught." This is what has happened there — 13.7 per cent of South Africa's total land area was allocated to them, like Connaught in the past was allocated to the native Irish. The similarities are uncanny.

Black education is one of the most important aspects for any developments in South Africa. The Bantu Education Act passed in 1955 was designed to ensure that black Africans were educated only for jobs on the lowest rung of the economic and social ladder, the place assigned to them by the State. That educational policy obviously is unjust and unfair. In a moderate industrial economy, it is difficult for those who are illiterate to earn a living. The 1980 census disclosed that deliberate State neglect resulted in nearly 33 per cent of adult black Africans being illiterate compared with less than 1 per cent of whites.

I would like to make a brief reference to apartheid and poverty. A survey conducted by university researchers from South Africa was financed by the United States Carnegie Corporation. The results of that survey in the eighties clearly highlight the extensive injustice of apartheid and give the lie to any idea that black people in South Africa receive equal treatment. The study showed that in percentage terms more children under the age of one year die each year in South Africa than in other Third World countries, Mozambique, Cuba or Mexico; one-third of black children under 14 are underweight or stunted in growth, more than 90 per cent of the absolute poor are in the rural areas, in some towns in the Karoo region, black people pay 50 times more for water than people in Cape Town, people on the Cape flats without electricity pay three times more for fuel than those with electricity, there are at least 1.43 million blacks in the homelands who have no incomes; a quarter of black women in South Africa are separated from their husbands; whites, who constitute 15 per cent of the South African population, receive over 70 per cent of its income and 98.1 per cent of all income from property accrues to whites; only 5.5 per cent of South African doctors are in the rural areas where 50 per cent of the population live, but in the homelands the ratio of doctor to people is 1:174,000; 2.9 million children under 15 suffer from first degree malnutrition; pensions for blacks are hopelessly inadequate, racially discriminatory and badly administered and the monthly maximum payment is $57; and the government spends far more on white schooling than on black schooling. The list is appalling. If people really understood this and if it were circulated widely there would be no call for releasing any sanctions and it would belie the idea that there was equality for blacks in South Africa.

I will make one last point, a quotation from Nelson Mandela himself: two words that have been identified with him are "moderate" and "compromise." An exact quotation he made which should allay whites' fears is as follows:

Compromises must be made in respect to every issue, as long as that compromise is in the interest not only of one population group but for the country as a whole.

He also stated that the government's opening stance is that while all South Africans should have the vote irrespective of race, the constitution should provide for the protection of whites so that the black majority do not exercise absolute control over government. When he stated that, he was referring to the government's opening stance, and, he explained the government's meaning of "group" is race, and "group rights" means they are not ready to accept the principle of one man, one vote but he says: "we are determined to negotiate on the basis of this demand." He has also stated that he will be supportive and protective of the white minority. Nobody could raise one question regarding the integrity of the man. There should be no cause for fear. We in Ireland should exercise all our powers, particularly within the Presidency of the EC, to ensure that we support the South Africans in what will be for them a period of tension, a transition period. They have their leader, he is in the process of consultation but at the end of the day there is no way we can relax our interest, our pressure or our sanctions in relation to the ultimate freedom for South Africa which Nelson Mandela has stated he is ready to die for.

Mr. Norris

I would like, first, to indicate that it is my intention to share some of my time with Senator O'Toole who I hope, is in a position to hear this statement and make himself available to take up this time. I am sure, being the man he is, that he will.

I raised some mirth this morning when I mentioned constituents of mine in Australia. I do not wish to raise any more mirth when I say that I feel especially qualified to speak on this debate as the only African born Member of this House, but it gives me a particular interest in the affairs of that great Continent. My interest in South Africa, although I was born in central Africa, stems from the fact that during the war, when my father was in charge, among other things, of war production for the allies in central Africa, there was no possibility of my parents coming back to Europe so they had to holiday in South Africa. They found the experience so unpleasant they did not repeat it. They were relatively unsophisticated in terms of the way we see the situation today but they found it distressing to have to witness the way people they considered as inferior were treated. The way my mother put it to me — she was very much of the ancien régimé— was that they simply did not know how to treat servants. These were people from Europe, many of them from Ireland. They gave themselves a sense of superiority by mistreating people who were less advantaged in terms of education, social position and finance. That may be a fairly primitive gauge but even at that stage it indicated that people were uncomfortable with the situation in South Africa at the time.

Like most other people throughout the globe I watched the release of Nelson Mandela. It was an extraordinary historic moment. It was a moment that we waited for for many years. It does, of course, raise some questions. This was a man who had been away from the immediate political scene for 27 years. When he went into prison I was a teenager, and now I am a middle aged man. One of the things that occurred to me was how will this man deal with the extraordinary complex political situation which confronts him. It certainly has changed since he went in, it has changed in some ways optimistically. For example, there were groups of white people there to welcome him. I was immensely heartened not just by the visual impact of this dignified figure emerging from captivity, but by the amazing imaginative leap of which he showed himself capable. In his first interview he spoke not of injustice, not of the appalling wrongs committed by the white people against his people, but of the need to understand the fears and concerns of the white minority. I salute the moral stature of a man who finds himself capable of this kind of imaginative encompassing. Like everybody else, I welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. I do not intend to repeat what other people have said. It was a very remarkable thing. I am glad and honoured to be part of a country that has consistently supported the anti-apartheid movement. I am proud to be a citizen of a city that has made him a freeman. I believe that Nelson Mandela has, in fact, honoured us by accepting the position of a Freeman.

I was on the march last weekend which celebrated the release of Nelson Mandela sponsored by the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement. From that experience certain things struck me. Listening to the people on the platform everyone reiterated the fact that sanctions must be maintained. This is a message coming not just from that meeting but also coming from South Africa, from people like Bishop Trevor Huddleston, Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela himself. If we respect the views of this man and the people he represents, we must continue sanctions. I was glad that the Taoiseach showed himself again so statesmanlike in dealing with this situation. We have, as the Minister knows I am sure better than I do, an exceedingly important role to play at the moment because of our pivotal position in the European Community. We must respond to this.

I would also like to mention some concerns I have. As we went along in the march we passed the College of Surgeons. There was a group there demonstrating, Aboriginals from Australia, one of whom claims that the medical specimen of the Aboriginal head inside that college is, in fact, that of his great-grandfather. That is important, because it is so easy for us to be tolerant and forward looking when it is 4,000 or 5,000 miles away. I, of course, exonerate the authorities in the College of Surgeons from direct responsibility as the result of a colonial inheritance and so on. They must, however, be sensitive. I wonder if any of us can imagine what it would be like if it was our great-grandfather's head that was involved? I would like that point to be registered. It will be brought up again. It is not my intention to be contentious. I have spoken to a senior member of the Royal College of Surgeons this morning and I gather that this matter may well be speedily and positively resolved.

I would like to say something else arising from that march. I was part of the group that listened to the speeches. On the fringes of the crowd there were members of Sinn Féin and they were shouting: "Where is Gerry Adams?""Sinn Féin" and all the rest of it. They were selling magazines —An Phoblacht— the front page of which carried a huge picture of Nelson Mandela and the legend “The Armed Struggle Continues.” They were placing that in a context which suggested a parallel, which I completely reject, between the situation in Southern Africa and the situation in Northern Ireland. I call upon the Government similarly to reject this attempt to carpetbag on a very important issue.

I would like to draw attention, because it is important, to two areas of our own hypocrisy in this in terms of human rights. If we feel as we rightly do about South Africa and see it as an issue of principle, let us be aware of the fact that it is an issue of principle, on which we can be extremely comfortable. I would like to ask the Minister to apply the principles of our stance on Mr. Mandela to the situation in Tibet, where we have somebody of the same moral stature, the Dali Lama, of Nelson Mandela, who not only did not give in easily to the armed struggle but who has consistently and absolutely turned his face against violence of any kind. What is his reward? His reward is to be ignored in the international fora. We have a situation where in this country we are conspiring, collaborating, with the Chinese Government in the genocide of the Tibetan people. I call upon the Government to register this in the same way as they now are supporting the situation with regard to Nelson Mandela.

I would like to make a final point and then hand over to my colleague. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a very impressive statement to the 46th session of the United Nation's Commission on Human Rights, among other things said this one sentence:

An impressive body of international instruments has evolved over the years to protect the rights of the individual through the medium of international law.

What are the Government doing to implement, to articulate this, in, for example, the case that I brought at the European Court of Human Rights. This relates to Mandela. It is perfectly easy to be tolerant, civilised, sophisticated and to respect human rights when they are 4,000 miles away. I want to know what are the Government doing in the case of Tibet and in the case of my own action at the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. O'Toole

I am thankful to be able to contribute to the debate. I cannot think that I have anything new to offer to the very full and comprehensive arguments which have been offered right through the debate this morning and which I am sure the Minister will take on board. I want to be clearly associated with the remarks, also because we have on many occasions, with the Minister of State in our presence, been critical of Government policy. This time we can say well done to the Government. To be even handed in our approach, it is fair to say that the Irish Government have been magnificent in this particular area for a number of years.

My introduction to apartheid was presented to me was by one of my now dead former professors of education, Michael Jordan, whose son went on to be a very famous film director. He introduced to me apartheid as a form of education in the same way as the Nazi system is a form of education. I always looked upon it like that ever since. Everything I have learned about it has shown to me that it is a state of oppression. One of the things that has annoyed me more than anything else over the last few weeks — I rarely criticise any political group in this country — is the hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin head office flying the ANC flag for the last three weeks and trying to pretend that the armed struggle was the same in both countries, I have given a lot of thought to this over the years.

It is important to say that the armed struggle can only be justified in the case where all democratic roots and rights to vote have been suppressed, oppressed and wiped out. It is the only time it can ever be justified; and I am not saying that it can always be justified in those circumstances. As a form of shorthand there is no comparison between the situation in South Africa and the situation in Northern Ireland. They are absolutely contrasted.

In the last few years I had the privilege on a number of occasions to discuss apartheid with Donald Woods, who was a white victim of apartheid. The story of a person trying to live a dual role in South Africa has convinced me of the need for the western countries to maintain the sanctions. I have discussed with South Africans, black and white, the question of the sanctions. I have listened to the blasé arguments of the Thatcherite wing, who say "It is time to lift sanctions and give De Klerk a break." Also, on the other side, there are those people who will say the sanctions hurt the blacks in South Africa. I have discussed it with the blacks and the representatives of the blacks. I would certainly take my lead from the ANC. They are prepared to suffer for another while under sanctions in order to make the point, to make progress and to finally eliminate from the face of the earth the curse of apartheid.

In Ireland there is much hypocrisy. I would like to dwell on some of those things but I do not have time. Suffice it to say that I have not been to an international rugby match since the Spring-bok's tour of 1973. I certainly feel that that organisation have let us down badly in various ways over the years. I am resisting doing what my colleague, Senator Norris, did, I call to mind some of the hypocrisy in Irish life, not that referred to by Senator Norris but certainly there is a form of double thinking. Too many of our people find it a useful salving of conscience to be opposed to apartheid in South Africa. There are also things in our own country that need to be looked at. Perhaps it is inappropriate to mention those, so I will not mention them, except to say that, if they are there, a point can be made.

I also feel it has been important to put on the record of this House today the views of Members, because history will note the action and response of parliamentarians. It has been crucially important that there has been such unanimity of approach and response on this issue. Long may it continue. I put it clearly on the record that we should be very supportive of the Government's line on this. It raises one further question, however. It is the only irrelevancy which I will mention. In the Cambodian vote on the UN we did not have the moral courage as a nation to vote against the other members of the European Community. Prime Minister Thatcher had that courage this week. I disliked it and I disappoved of it, but I believe she has also opened up a little bit of leverage for our Government at times when we do not have a coincidental view with the rest of Europe. I wish the Government well on this matter.

Mr. Neville

I would like to add my word of joy on the release of Nelson Mandela. It was great to see Nelson Mandela walking proudly from his years of mental torture aggravated by solitary confinement and years of hard labour. He again proved that the authoritarian state, while it can confine a person physically, cannot break a man's spirit or belief in his ideals. Nelson Mandela is a symbol of the triumph of moral courage over jackboot state suppression. He brings to mind the same idealism as we have seen in Ireland throughout the centuries, when our people stood firmly and suffered for their ideals and principles. It is because of such heroism that we are here today to compliment the heroism of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela also highlights how helpless any Government can be when it loses the support of the majority of its people. Without question, the imposition of a trade embargo by the industrial world on South Africa was a vital factor in bringing the white rulers to their senses. Naturally, Mr. De. Klerk deserves to be congratulated on beginning the process of the undoing of apartheid. While he should receive support for his actions from the outside world, it is nonetheless vital that the current trade restrictions should continue to be enforced until the process of dismantling his country's discriminatory economic and legal network is far more advanced. An immediate lifting of the state of emergency and a general amnesty for political prisoners is only a first step in the process.

To suggest, as Prime Minister Thatcher does, that the steps taken to date by Mr. De Klerk merits the lifting of sanctions is far off the mark. Mr. De Klerk has only started down the road, which must soon include one man, one vote. I believe it is only when this stage is reached that the western world can lift sanctions on South Africa. It is disappointing that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, in his role as chairperson of the Council of Ministers, failed to keep unity within the EC on the question of sanctions on South Africa.

The issue facing South Africa is not the armed struggle or sanctions. It is the question of apartheid. The armed struggle of the ANC is a defensive measure against this. The organisation wants to move from confrontation with the white minority. Nelson Mandela made it clear that the ANC are prepared to address the fears of the whites. He is looking for a non-radical solution. In the context of South African history, however, colour and culture have played an important part and will affect the situation for many generations to come. The white population is an important section of South Africa. Nelson Mandela has stated, and the ANC are keen to ensure, that there is no hint that changes will mean domination of whites by blacks.

There is a body of opinion in white South Africa that suggests partition as a solution to the problem. This will not lead to peace and justice but to continuing conflict and bitterness between the groups. The free world rejoices in the release of Nelson Mandela. He has now a difficult task ahead of him. Fresh elections under one man, one vote, must take place. After this the blacks and whites must sit down together and draw up a constitution for a new South Africa. We, in Ireland, deprived of such freedoms for so long, must remain in the forefront of the promotion of this and help the South African people to end the nightmare of apartheid and the indignity of economic sanctions.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I would like to welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. We welcome the release in its own right but also as a symbol of progress at last in that South Africa is beginning to resolve what appeared to be an intractable problem. Ireland's role in this and our stand in sanctions go along with our history and tradition in international affairs. In this matter we can be very proud of both the stand of our Government and the Taoiseach on the matter of sanctions and on the use of this method of international opinion which forces change in states that are not adhering to democratic principles.

Those of us who think that violence is an unacceptable way of bringing about change have to offer the oppressed people of the world alternative methods of achieving change in their countries. It has proven in this case that the force of international opinion, the boycotting of sports events and the imposition of sanctions have been more powerful in bringing about change in South Africa than any type of internal violence could ever have been. It is very important that if we want oppressed peoples to adopt a nonviolent method of seeking change in political solutions the international communities must ensure that they use such methods to bring about change.

The situation in South Africa has changed fundamentally. For the first time the rights of the ANC to represent the coloured people of that country have been recognised. We have to admit that the steps that have taken place are only minor ones and that, in itself, the release of Nelson Mandela is more a symbol than an actual change. As the Minister of State said, the amount of change that is needed in that country before it can be accepted as part of the normal international community is still very great.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the methods that have been so successful to date would be continued until real dialogue is achieved and until there are guarantees given to the people of South Africa — all the people — that real democratic principles will rule in that country again.

It must be noted also from the statements of Mr. Mandela that he has quite categorically declared the right of the white minority in South Africa to their position and their rightful position in any future South Africa that will emerge. This is particularly magnanimous and important in the context of this whole problem. The majority are willing to state that the minority in that country would be willing, in the event of normal democratic principles being applied, to afford to the minority the rights they deserve.

In that spirit of unity and generosity from Mr. Mandela there is now hope that we are at last seeing a new dawn in South Africa. I hope that the pressure will be continued to make sure, as has happened in Eastern Europe, that changes would be brought about in the short term rather than in the long term.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

First, may I say that from the number of Senators who were anxious to join in the debate — indeed many more could have spoken if the time had allowed — it is quite obvious that there is general unanimity in the House in relation to the motion and in relation to the feeling of joy that swept right through the country at the release of Nelson Mandela. Senator Harte confessed that he unashamedly shed a tear. There were many other people who would have joined him in that particular act. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I can say that the Government joins with the Members of the Seanad in welcoming recent developments in South Africa and especially the release of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela has remained a potent symbol of freedom for all those struggling for the eradication of apartheid. He has demonstrated by his indomitable courage throughout the years that the human spirit can never be vanquished. Statements he has made since his release have added to his international stature, since they show that he is without rancour and is adopting a highly constructive approach to the task of creating, through dialogue, a new united, non-racial and democratic South Africa. This is a point that was made by very many Senators, including Senator Norris, and many others who have spoken about the man.

In the Government's view, the release of Nelson Mandela and the other measures announced by the South African Government constitute a major and very welcome contribution to creating a climate in South Africa in which a national dialogue can take place aimed at the early and complete abolition of the apartheid system. However, the South African Government have yet to take all the necessary steps to create the climate for dialogue. In particular, it must lift the state of emergency and release all political prisoners. I, myself, have stated that at the UN, speaking on behalf of the Government. Indeed, that has been stated by very many of the Senators who have spoken here today. It is, of course, also important that all sides renounce violence — a point made very strongly by Senators O'Reilly, Lydon, Norris, O'Keeffe and many others.

It is also particularly important to remember that the measures taken to date by the South African Government leave fully intact the structures of apartheid. Such pillars of the apartheid system as the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act remain fully in force. There were many other points raised by Senators O'Reilly, Costello, Brendan Ryan, Eoin Ryan, Conroy, particularly Senator Jackman and Senator Neville. The majority in South Africa continue to live under this entirely unjust and inhuman system, which is an insult to the dignity of the human person. The majority continues to have no say in how the country is run and to suffer systematic discrimination on racial grounds in the political, economic and social spheres. While President De Klerk has indicated that he intends to abolish apartheid, what exactly he means by this is far from clear. There are some disturbing indications in his statements that he and his Government still cling to the discredited idea of group rights which has been the basis on which the white majority has excluded the black majority from political and economic power.

Senator Ross was, I suppose, Senator Ross. In his very strident condemnation of apartheid he also went on to say that the whole Irish population suffers from hypocrisy. Apartheid is a constitutionalised form of systematic abuse of human rights. If Senator Ross had been able to listen to the explanation of Senator Harte, who gave a very detailed description of the workings of this very obnoxious system, he would probably have been less strident. He also pointed the finger at this Government and the last Government in relation to Iraq. Could I remind the Senator — it is unfortunate he is not here — that at the UN Commission on Human Rights last year Ireland not only supported but sponsored a draft resolution condemning human rights abuses in Iraq.

Senator Norris spoke about the situation in Tibet and questioned, as he saw it, the Government's lack of concern in the case of Tibet. I would like to say to Senator Norris that, as recently as this month, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of the Twelve at the UN Commission for Human Rights, explicitly referred to our concern at the human rights situation in Tibet.

Senator Brendan Ryan raised the question of coal again and felt that Ireland and, indeed, the Community could introduce sanctions on coal. I have already said — and, indeed, many Senators have agreed — that while this is not the time to lessen pressure on South Africa, I feel, however, that to increase pressure would also send the wrong signal. We would like to encourage the South African Government to continue down the path of reform, as suggested by many Senators. If they fail to do so, we could certainly consider increasing pressure there.

Senators Ryan, Norris and Ross failed to realise that the Irish Government are one of the few Governments in the world that have no diplomatic relations with South Africa. Senator Eoin Ryan referred to the Uppington 14 and appealed to the Minister to take up their case. The Minister, with the Twelve, has regularly taken up this and other cases and will continue to do so in the future.

Senator O'Toole spoke about the problems of Cambodia, while agreeing with the motion and congratulating the Government on their stance. I am a little disappointed that the Senator did not seem to have read my explanation to this House on Cambodia. I explained clearly that we had voted for the resolution because we supported the principles set out in it including the right — and this, I think, is extremely important — of the Cambodian people to decide in free elections who should govern them. Our Ambassador delivered an explanation of our vote to the UN in which he made clear our total rejection of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge regime.

It is against this background that the issue of international pressure on South Africa, and particularly economic sanctions, must be considered. As Senators will be fully aware, it is the view of the Government — a view shared by the great majority of our Community partners — that the measures taken to date by the South African Government, while welcome, do not justify any relaxation of pressure. As I have already stated, the measures taken to date do not even meet the traditional demands of the international Community, including the Twelve, for creating the conditions for national dialogue. Furthermore, they in no way touch the fundamentals of the apartheid system.

I find Senator Neville's remarks somewhat strange. He appears to blame the Minister, Deputy Collins, for the position taken by the UK on easing sanctions at the meeting of Community Foreign Ministers this week. I would like to say to Senator Neville that Minister Collins could not force the UK to accept the path taken by the rest of the Twelve in relation to their aims to keep the sanctions.

It is the Government's view very ably put by Deputy Collins, that pressure, including economic pressure, should be maintained on South Africa until action is taken to abolish the apartheid system and to replace it with a united, democratic and non-racial society. If major steps are taken in this direction, then we could look again at the types of pressure we maintain on the South African Government. However, to talk about relaxing sanctions and pressure at this stage is to give a totally wrong signal to the South African Government. This point has been made forcefully by Nelson Mandela, among others. I am sure we would all agree that the representatives of the majority in South Africa deserve the full support of the international community as they embark upon the difficult task of achieving a negotiated end to the apartheid system. Their argument that international pressure is one of the few bargaining counters they have when dealing with the might of the South African Government is, I believe, a persuasive one. In heeding this argument we here are paying attention to what Nelson Mandela and the other leaders are saying — a point raised by Senator Brendan Ryan.

I might add that in my travels throughout the African Continent I have found that in all of the frontline states that is a point that is very strongly made to me every time I talk to representatives of government.

The representatives of the majority in South Africa also need positive support to help them overcome the gap that has been created between them and the privileged white minority. The Twelve are committed to reinforcing the programme of positive measures which they have been implementing in favour of the majority community. These positive measures aim to provide direct and practical assistance to the majority community in South Africa to help them overcome years of discrimination and neglect. Such measures are increasingly important in the new situation that is now emerging in South Africa. The problems raised by these years of neglect were covered very fully by Senator Jackman, Senator Ryan and Senator Conroy, among others.

As Senators will be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, accompanied by representatives of Italy and France, is due to travel to South Africa in the near future on behalf of the Twelve. Their mission will be to promote national dialogue and to carry out an assessment of the current situation. They will report back to Ministers of the Twelve on the results of their mission. It is the Government's hope that the mission will further advance the prospects of dialogue in South Africa.

In conclusion, let me thank Seanad Éireann for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government in this important debate. I join fully with Senators in welcoming recent developments in South Africa and in particular in welcoming the release of Nelson Mandela. I also look forward to the day when we can welcome back into the international community a new South Africa which is united, non-racial and democratic. There is, however, a very long way to go before that stage is reached. While welcoming the developments that have taken place, the message that I would like to leave with you is one of vigilance. As Senator Costello has said, it is important that the momentum is not lost. We certainly welcome the developments that have taken place. Let us not also be under any illusion as to the need to keep up pressure on the South African Government until the total dismantlement of the abhorrent apartheid system has been achieved and, in the words of Nelson Mandela, a new united, non-racial, fully democratic South Africa, where every citizen will have equal rights and opportunity is established.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 1.55 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.