The Press FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1964. Simonstown

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30603, 20 November 1964, Page 12

The Press FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1964. Simonstown

Loss of the Simonstown base would be a serious matter for the Royal Navy, which over the last 20 years has been denied much of a network of shore facilities that once embraced the world. But Simonstown is perhaps even more significant as a symbol of the dangerous drift in South Africa’s relationship with Britain. The dangers are not one-sided. The British Government’s arms embargo goes some way towards meeting the clamour of independent African States and their friends for an economic boycott. The ban covers defence equipment such as the Buccaneer bomber aircraft, already under contract before the change of Government, w’hich is of little use in coercing Africans. Quite plainly the cancellation of that order is not intended to help the Bantu people but to be unpleasant to Dr. Verwoerd and to exert some pressure on his Government to change its policies. No-one can really believe that South Africa can be so easily turned from its determination to preserve white supremacy, particularly while armaments can be bought on the black market. What next? It is one thing to advocate an economic boycott. It is another to consider soberly its implications. South Africans may be misguided; but almost alone among peoples of European stock today they have a single-minded devotion to a principle. For them, loyalty is almost a religion. They will not yield to the threat of a boycott. If the United Nations, with the essential support of Britain and the United States, were able to decide on a boycott, plenty of traders in many countries would be prepared to share in South Africa’s wealth by defying the sanctions. As William Gutteridge has pointed out in the “ Guardian ”, a boycott might well be ineffective unless it were reinforced by a blockade, and a blockade is an act of war, “not only ... a major “ operation in itself but . . . likely to lead to actual “ war ”. Supposing the United Nations were successful in such a war (a much more costly and difficult operation than “peace-keeping” in the Congo), how would it set South Africa going again, and would South Africa be a better place for all or any of its peoples? These contingencies must be carefully weighed by the British Government before it goes too far to turn back, or before it pushes South Africa into some rasher act than the abrogation of the Simonstown agreement. They should be given at least as much weight as the more obvious considerations of racial ties and economic interest. The repressions that accompany apartheid are objectionable to democratic peoples (though South Africa is by no means the only country to employ them); but it would be folly to replace repression with disaster. South Africans are not in a mood to give way. The stronger the criticism the more they close their ranks. An Englishman writing in “ The Times ” recently noted the growing tendency of liberal thinkers to return to South Africa from holidays abroad with greater sympathy for Dr. Verwoerd’s Government because they have encountered “ crass, “ almost proud, ignorance; moral snobbishness ”. They return also to observe how their country is booming. Since South Africa left the Commonwealth three years ago industrial production has risen by a third, and the gold reserve has risen from £92.5 million to about £250 million. Last year the national income rose 10 per cent. The only economic trouble is a shortage of labour, which is forcing up African wages and may break down the system of reserving the best jobs for white workers. The “ Financial “ Times ” sees in the vigour of the economy evidence that South Africans themselves are not over-worried by the possibility of sanctions. It is significant, too, that the three British High Commission territories, though differing politically, agree that they must work amicably with the republic. Whatever the rest of the world may think, South Africans believe that they must solve their own difficult problem and that outside interference is more of a hindrance than a help.