High Time,. Too
Tiii Government's announcement that our United Nations representative would from now on vote against South Africa in the UN within a carefully circumscribed area of questions relating to apartheid is to be welcomed, belated though it is. And the first exercise of this new policy, on the resolution in the Political Commit- tee which condemned the apartheid policy of the South African Government (by 93 to I — Portugal), wa.; a good choice We used to vote on South Africa's side on these questions (and pretty unpleasant company we found ourselves in. too); after Sharpeville we began to abstain. and now, after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Con- ference, we have taken the plunge that well over nine-tenths of the UN took long ago. Of the reservations • that Mr. Smithers made in his announcement at the UN, one of which came immediately into play during the first votes, some make more sense than others. Though Canada voted for the resoliition calling for sanctions to be applied against South Africa, we were joined by Australia, New Zealand and our NATO allies in opposing it, and probably rightly; for the first time it looks as if • Dr. Verwoerd's position in South Africa is weakening, and the outside world should be wary of doing anything to strengthen it. Our abstention on the paragraph of the main resolution which dealt with 'separate and col- lective action' might seem over-cautious, but can probably be justified. Less easily distinguishable from mere temporising is the decision to abstain when South-West Africa is under discussion. The Government's reason is the threadbare sub judice argument; the problem of South-West Africa is currently before the World Court. But many of the resolutions which the Political Committee or General Assembly are called on to pass or reject do not touch the substance of the South- West Africa problem—that is. whether South Africa is responsible to the United Nations for the administration of it, which is the only issue before the Court; they deal with such matters as South Africa's refusal to allow UN observers into the territory.
But most regrettable is the Government's decision to continue abstaining on resolutions which declare apartheid to be a cause of 'inter- national friction' and 'a threat to peace.' Britain used to vote with South Africa because she claimed that apartheid was an internal matter, over which the UN had no jurisdiction. If our delegate has now been instructed to vote against South Africa. it is presumably because this argu- ment is no longer deemed applicable. But how can it have ceased to be applicable if apartheid has not become such a threat? And if it still has not become such a threat how can we vote against South Africa ;It all? This lack of logic only re- inforces the view that for the UN to pass resolu- tions condemning opariheid could never, and cannot now, he properly construed as 'inter- ference.' It is no more than comment; and if the UN cannot even comment on the conduct of a member it is a poor creature indeed.
Still, none of this should prevent the Govern- ment being commended for its decision. The only way in which Dr. Verwoerd and his col- leagues can possibly be brought either to regain their sanity or to get out of the way in favour of those who have never lost it is for the world to increase the pressure upon her, and to increase the sense of isolation that condemnations of this sort must inspire.
It is even possible that, if the isolation and abhorrence in which South Africa stands today were to be increased sufficiently, Dr. Verwoerd might even be brought to realise what apartheid feels like.
Previous page
