VERWOERD DEFENDS OIL FLOW TO RHODESIA

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30998, 2 March 1966, Page 17

VERWOERD DEFENDS OIL FLOW TO RHODESIA

GV.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

JOHANNESBURG, March 1.

The South African Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, last night strongly defended the oil flow from his country to Rhodesia.

At the same time he disclosed some details of recent exchanges between Britain and South Africa on the question.

Opening the election campaign for his ruling National Party, Dr. Verwoerd said that if Britain—an ally of the United States—could trade with Cuba and North Vietnam,

it was even more normal for South Africa to continue normal trade with Rhodesia. The Prime Minister denied that Britain had threatened South Africa over the fuel flow—as reported in some of his party’s newspapers. Earlier today a record number of 356 candidates were nominated to contest the March 30 election, which Dr. Verwoerd’s National Party is considered certain to win. Dr. Verwoerd said wrong conclusions had been unjustly drawn from the recent diplomatic exchanges between Britain and South Africa over the oil question. Britain, he said, had expressed concern about certain developments, while South Africa had “expressed concern to Britain about certain events in the republic”—an obvious reference to the stationing of British Embassy officials at the Beit bridge border point with Rhodesia. South Africa had “expressed her determination to adhere to her principle of noninterference and refusal to participate in any boycott” against Rhodesia, Dr. Verwoerd said.

But the exchanges had taken place in a decent manner—“which could be expected from civilised nations

who want to retain the friendship of others,” he said. Dr. Verwoerd said he knew Rhodesia was benefiting from South Africa's neutral attitude.

But he said nothing else could be expected from a country which was a good neighbour of anothei and was not involved in any particular conflict concerning it. Dr. Verwoerd said it would have been better for Britain, South Africa and Rhodesia if all those countries involved in the Rhodesian dispute could have kept to themselves and not have been as outspoken. He himself would have preferred to have remained silent but he could not do so because the Leader of the Opposition United Party, Sir de Villiers Graaff, had dragged the issue into the election and because newspapers in South Africa and overseas had speculated on the exchanges with Britain.

Dr. Verwoerd said South Africa had consistently opposed the use of sanctions against any country.

“What problems are solved in the end by any weapons, whether of war, or economic sanctions? Peoples are broken on the racks of this inhuman and destructive action,” he said.