An Intervention
South West Africa. By Ruth First. (Penguin, 5s.) 'WE believe that the Government of South Africa, even at this late hour, cannot be in- different to a clear call from this council to find a new path of justice, freedom and prosperity for its people and to recover good standing in the world as a whole.' Thus Sir Patrick Dean, repeating the delusion of the British Government to the Security Council of the UN, not just after the Second World War, not at some stage of the Fifties, but in August, 1963. It is hard to imagine that one single member of the British Government holds this belief seriously, or could quote any major instance of South Africa moderating her racial policies as a result of world or British opinion. Yet we know that on the few times Britain has woken up, her intervention has had an immediate effect. The South African climb down in the case of Dr. Abrahams is only the most recent. It is tempting to see this, of course, as an example of South Africa's tech- nique of giving a little now to appease opposition while determining to take more later; for this is a technique in which she is well practised and her occasional concessions to the League of Nations and the UN have served to ease British pressure several times before. It is the fact that the pressure has never been continuous which has allowed her to escape with so much. Britain, it seems, has cast herself as the perpetual umpire concerned only to keep the ball in play
and to preserve the unlikely hope that one day South Africa will voluntarily retire.
We have her own Ministers on record pro- claiming the Whites' determination to resist to the end. Mr. Paul Sauer to the South African Parliament : 'There is only one way South Africa can be forced from the stand it has taken . . . by military intervention from the outside.' In 1947 the man who was soon to defend South Africa's policies at the UN, Mr. Eric Louw, told the House of Assembly why they could never accept UN intervention in South West Africa: It consists of predominantly coloured and
Asiatic countries, and of countries whose in- habitants are of mixed blood. . . . A large number of the South American and Central American peoples are of mixed blood.
'We believe that he situation in South Africa cannot continue,' Sir Patrick was saying. Only too clearly it can; it has thrived on such purely verbal statements as Sir Patrick's ever since the founding of the League of Nations. Britain, so intent on her role of moderation, cannot see that she is now seeking to moderate the wrong side. By refusing to take any action at all she is making something far more drastic than eco- nomic sanctions unavoidable. One must prepare to hear the same unshaken belief in South Africa's eventual change of ways again over the case of South West Africa.
Ruth First's book is journalism of the highest kind, and shame on all the journals which haven't been printing such stuff over the past few years. Its publication is well timed, for the ruling of the International Court on whether South Africa has violated the terms of the mandate is due very soon, and there can be little doubt which way it will go. At its most effective the judgment could lead to an attempt to transfer the mandate to another authority. Britain's reaction will be crucial. If she supports this attempt, and only cowardice, short-term self-interest or deliberate blindness could stop her, South Africa's isolation will be exposed to her in an unprecedented way. In this one case every legal point will be on the side of intervention. South West Africa is the lever for shaking South Africa's confidence in her policies and undermining her belief that in the end Britain will always be on her side.
Miss First's book is a factual record (so far I as facts are available about that territory, and Miss First's case is so powerful because she is always ready to err on the generous side to South Africa) of the deliberate exploitation and planned annexation of the country that goes back to the early years of the First World War when the allies were first planning for the peace. At the Versailles Conference both Britain and the Union were ready enough to expose the German policy to the natives, but they did it more to dis- credit the Germans than to defend the Africans. South Africa's obeisance to the Mandates Com- mission was derisory from the start, yet was perpetually excused or ignored by Britain. In effect, the British at the UN are still talking the same language forty years later. Miss First's book should be read by anyone who still has the slightest doubt that the British attitude has done anything more than buttress South Africa's policies. Above all, it is required reading for anyone who still doubts whether a change in British policy would have any effect on South Africa's thinking. The book indeed has already had one important side-effect; Miss First has been arrested and imprisoned under the Ninety- Day Rule. But imprisonment has only brought the book an additional publicity which the Republid must already be regretting.
MALCOLM RUTHERFORD
Previous page
