Mr Holyoake Condemns South African Policy

Press, Volume C, Issue 29480, 5 April 1961, Page 16

Mr Holyoake Condemns South African Policy

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, April 4. In a review of events at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ conference in London, the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) in a broadcast tonight re-emphasised New Zealand’s abhorrence of the South African policy of apartheid.

He described as “most controversial” the decision whether to accept South Africa’s application to remain within the Commonwealth after it became a republic on May 31. “Given the precedents of India, Pakistan and Ghana, there was no constitutional bar to South Africa’s continued membership after she becomes a republic,” said Mr Holyoake. “The fact had to be faced that, in our multiracial Commonwealth, consideration of this

constitutional question could not be divorced from that of the racial policies practised by South Africa.

“When the discussion began on this vexed question, it was generally felt that South Africa’s withdrawal could and would be avoided. No Prime Minister had given any indication that he would press for her expulsion. None spoke in terms of harshness, bitterness or recrimination and, despite press reports to the contrary, there was no passion and no angry shouting.”

Mr Holyoake said he made it “quite clear” that New Zealand regarded South Africa’s racial policies of apartheid with abhorrence. He urged the amelioration of South Africa’s racial policy and some willingness to modify its attitude so that there could be a bridge between it and the rest of the Commonwealth. He also urged that there should be no irrevocable break, specially since there were about 10 million politically unrepresented people in South Africa as well as others of British descent who were deeply attached to the Commonwealth and completely opposed to the present racial policies of the South African Government. “It would not be proper for me to divulge what was said by other Prime Ministers. We faced a terrible dilemma. How were we to find a formula to continue to accept South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth without appearing to be condoning her policy of apartheid? The majority felt it essential to make clear to the peoples of the Commonwealth and of the world where we stood on racial discrimination. “We attempted to resolve the matter by agreeing on a communique divided into three parts, the first briefly explaining that, following precedent. South Africa’s constitutional change was no bar to her remaining a member of the Commonwealth. “The second part dealt with racial questions, stating that all the Prime Ministers, except Dr. Verwoerd, deplored the policy of apartheid, and expressing deep concern about its impact on the Com-

monwealth which is a multiracial association. “We expressed the belief that racial discrimination was inconsistent with the ideals on which the unity and influence of the Commonwealth rested and, finally, we proposed to affirm the belief that for all Commonwealth Governments it should be an objective of policy to build in their countries a structure of society which offers equality of opportunity for all irrespective of race, colour or creed. “Naturally this section was unacceptable to South Africa, and the third part of the proposed communique set out the minority viewpoint of Dr. Verwoerd. In this, he deplored and rebutted the accusations of racial discrimination levelled against South Africa by member countries, some of which, he alleged, were themselves guilty of this practice, and he insisted on non-interference in the domestic affairs of member nations.

“The ultimate break occurred in the discussion on the terms of this proposed communique- It soon became clear that the formula, if it could ever be agreed, would really solve nothing. At the most it would be paperingover of the cracks, and at any stage some member could—and some Prime Ministers said they reserved the right to—move for the expulsion of South Africa or, alternatively, reconsider his country’s own position in the Commonwealth. “Dr. Verwoerd felt that if the formula was merely one to enable m unwelcome member to remain within the Commonwealth, then South Africa would have to recon-

sider its position and he asked for an adjournment for consultations. When the meeting resumed he formally withdrew his request for South Africa to continue its membership.” Unyielding

Mr Holyoake said it was only fair to say that Dr. Verwoerd throughout was extremely courteous and dignified. He impressed everybody with his honesty and sincerity, but, unfortunately, even more with his complete and unyielding rigidity. “By refusing to yield in the slightest degree or to hold out any hope of modification of his racial policies, he forced the majority—and specially the Afro-Asian Prime Ministers—to oppose the compromise which Mr Macmillian tried so arduously to bring about. “I do not accept Dr. Voerwoerd’s reasoning that our attitude would mark the beginning of the disintegration of the Commonwealth Though the Commonwealth, regrettably, lost one of its most powerful and oldest members, I believe it gained in moral stature by expressing itself clearly on a question of principle. If it had failed to do so. its disintegration as a Commonwealth would have been much more likely.” The door, however, was always open for South Africa to return to the Commonwealth.