REMARKS OF U.S. PUBLIC MEMBER MILLARD W. ARNOLD
ON ITEMS 6,7,16 AND 20 OF THE AGENDA REGARDING SOUTH AFRICA
Before the
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Geneva, Switzerland
____________
FEBRUARY 21, 1980
Our concern at this Commission is at once both simple and complex; fundamental yet obscure. The questions we are asked by our presence here are stark and demanding. Can we translate lofty, idealistic concepts of humanistic value into tangible, concrete conditions of human existence? Can we aid in the transition from a world of suffering and deprivation; of injustice and inhumanity to a world of shared equalities and greater personal and societal freedom? In short, can we help in structuring a world order that assures both human dignity and human survival?
The task that we face is colossal and unenviable, in large part because there is no corner of this earth fee form the abuses that human inflict upon humans. Any yet, nowhere on this earth is the cruelty of man more obvious than in South Africa.
Mr. Chairman, we note with appreciation that the Ad Hoc working group of experts has recently released its interim report on human rights abuses in Southern Africa. It is sobering and, in part, gruesome reading. It is a report that cites in graphic detail the abuses of human rights that continue to take place in South Africa. Abuses that have caused untold suffering for millions of people.
The pursuit of a world order based on respect for human dignity is fundamental in all cultures. Its form may differ but the concern for the integrity of the individual; the concern for the advancement of the collective good is universal. Unfortunately, this concern is not exhibited in South Africa. As pointed out in the Working Group’s interim report, the situation in South Africa is all the more egregious precisely because apartheid represents a systematic denial; a conscious negation of the concept of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, while the world community properly seeks ways to curb the abuses of torture, South Africa’s security legislation, its use of capital punishment, and its treatment of its overwhelming black prison population are nothing more than a reflection of the cruel and inhuman treatment to which the vast majority of Black South Africans are accorded. While the world community addresses itself to the rights of minorities, South Africa, through its homelands policy, blatantly creates millions of stateless people who are the majority of its population. While the world community concerns itself with self-determination, South Africa continues its policy of separate development.
The apartheid system is a legal system. It is a system composed of a web of laws; a maze of legal pronunciations in which official power and force is used to protect and separate those in power from those who are poor, from those who are oppressed from those who are disenfranchised. It is this brutal use of law to suppress justice and further repression that causes many to consider apartheid a crime against humanity. And yet for those in South Africa whose consciences dictate that they protest against these unjust laws, they are in turn treated as criminals.
Mr. Chairman, we are informed that dissatisfaction and resentment on the part of black South Africans have never been higher than they are today. Such feelings are understandable. The black majority suffers pervasive discrimination in all areas of life. Yet despite this, perhaps no single issue in South Africa is as explosive as the systematic deprivation of citizenship now taking place. Blacks, who have lived all of their lives in South Africa; blacks whose families before them have lived in South Africa suddenly find themselves stripped of their nationality and dumped into so-called resettlement areas within a homeland that they may have never seen and want to know nothing about. While many white South Africans are convinced that this is the final solution; many black South Africans are convinced that life a tragic final solution of a previous era, this is the beginning of the end.
For people who have always been considered fourth-class citizens behind whites, coloreds, and Asians; for people who have been required to carry a pass, identification papers, or a reference book, the ultimate humiliation is to have even that taken from them and in turn be given a citizenship in a homeland that no one recognizes but South Africa.
Mr. Chairman, we are deeply concerned that South Africa’s conduct in stripping the vast majority of its people of citizenship violates international law; we are concerned that such a policy leaves the average black South African in a position of statelessness; this is a situation which requires redress at the highest levels of international action.
Those in power in South Africa seem to be motivated partly by fear. Perhaps and understandable fear, but nevertheless fear. Fear of the black man; fear of the future; fear of change; and finally fear of life itself. In fear they have constructed a policy that is void of humanity and filled with repression. It is a policy that has desensitized them to human suffering while shaping their very instincts and needs. Change is only possible if those in power free themselves psychologically from the violence, from the exploitation, from the fear that is apartheid. The liberation of both black and white is possible in South Africa. It can be peaceful if whites accept change or it will involve tragic violence if they do not. We believe that white South Africa can, and will, change. We have noted with approval the tentative steps towards reform that have been undertaken in South Africa. They are important steps, but they are not enough. We believe that with change the future can be unlimited, indeed magnificent for both black and white South Africans. We have committed ourselves to working with those in South Africa or all colors whose desire is peaceful, evolutionary change.
Mr. Chairman, we understand the difficulties of structuring a multiracial society. We have a particular knowledge about this problem that very few nations in the international community can claim. With due respect, the success that we have had with our racial problems – while no means complete—are unparalleled in the world. Consequently, our own painful understanding leads us to the position that change only takes place where there is a mutuality of interest, a shared commonality, and a commitment to unity that is only possible where there is dialogue, even if that dialogue is forced. We offer our own experience as an example.
Both implicitly and explicitly there have been questions at this session as to my government’s relationship with South Africa. It is unfortunate that these questions should be raised for it implies that our voice has not been heard, and our determinations not understood. Both publicly and privately; both domestically and internationally, President Carter has committed himself to change in South Africa. He has not wavered on this issue in the past nor will he in the future. My government has expressed to the South African government our concern for change and our firm belief in the benefits of a progressive transformation of South African society. This would mean an end to racial discrimination and the establishment of a new course toward full political, economic, and social participation by all South Africans. The key to the future is that South African citizens of all races now begin a dialogue on how to achieve this better future.
Let there be no question as to what this United States position is with respect to South Africa: We deplore apartheid. We condemn racial injustice, we seek change because it is necessary; we seek change because it is just. Since change is inevitable, we believe that we should work for it rather than be traumatized by it. We seek not just to condemn a society, but to help transform a society. We seek to lend our moral suasion to a process of change aimed at furthering the pursuit of human dignity. Indeed, there is virtual unanimity among us all as to the need for change in South Africa. On this issue we have no differences. Where we differ is on the means to achieve that change. We offer no excuses or justifications for our approach, for our position are as Secretary of State Cyrus Vance succinctly stated:
“We are among the few governments in the world that can talk
to both White and black Africans frankly and with a measure of trust.
We would lose our ability to be helpful if we lost that trust. It is
therefore essential that our policies of encouraging justice for
people of all races in Southern Africa can be clear to all.”
We will be criticized, but our position is clear, it is clear because in the final analysis the abuses of human rights can only be cured by a commitment to justice, liberty, and equality. My government seeks to have South Africa achieve what Steve Biko dreamed. That is, “an egalitarian society in which race, creed, or color forms no point in reference.”
It is a dream that captures the essential understanding of the concept of human rights.