Nelson Mandela: 'We can loudly proclaim from the rooftops, Free at last', election victory speech - 1994

2 May 1994, Carlton Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa

This is indeed a joyous night. Although not yet final, we have received the provisional results of the election, and a delighted by the overwhelming support for the African National Congress.

To all those in the African National Congress and the democratic movement who worked so hard these last few days and through these many decades, I thank you and honour you. To the people of South Africa and the world who are watching: this a joyous night for the human spirit. This is your victory too. You helped end apartheid, you stood with us through the transition.

I watched, along with all of you, as the tens of thousands of our people stood patiently in long queues for many hours. Some sleeping on the open ground overnight waiting to cast this momentous vote.

South Africa's heroes are legend across the generations. But it is you, the people, who are our true heroes.

This is one of the most important moments in the life of our country. I stand here before you filled with deep pride an joy: - pride in the ordinary, humble people of this country. You have shown such a calm, patient determination to rectal this country as your own.

- and joy that we can loudly proclaim from the rooftops - free at last!

I stand before you humbled by your courage, with a heart full of love for all of you. I regard it as the highest honour to lead the ANC at this moment in our history, and that we have been chosen to lead our country into the new century.

I pledge to use all my strength and ability to live up to your expectations of me as well as of the ANC.

I am personally indebted and pay tribute to some of South Africa's greatest leaders including John Dube, Josiah Gumede GM Naicker, Dr Abduraman, Chief Luthuli, Lilian Ngoyi, Helen Joseph, Yusuf Dadoo, Moses Kotane, Chris Hani an Oliver Tambo. They should have been here to celebrate with us, for this is their achievement too.

Tomorrow, the entire ANC leadership and I will be back at our desks. We are rolling up our sleeves to begin tackling the problems our country faces. We ask you all to join us - go back to your jobs in the morning. Let's get South Africa working.

For we must, together and without delay, begin to build a better life for all South Africans. This means creating jobs building houses, providing education and bringing peace and security for all.

The calm and tolerant atmosphere that prevailed during the elections depicts the type of South Africa we can build. It set the tone for the future. We might have our differences, but we are one people with a common destiny in our rich variety of culture, race and tradition.

People have voted for the party of their choice and we respect that. This is democracy.

I hold out a hand of friendship to the leaders of all parties and their members, and ask all of them to join us in working together to tackle the problems we face as a nation. An ANC government will serve all the people of South Africa, not just ANC members.

We also commend the security forces for the sterling work done. This has laid a solid foundation for a truly professional security force, committed to the service of the people and loyalty to the new constitution.

Now is the time for celebration, for South Africans to join together to celebrate the birth of democracy. I raise a glass to you all for working so hard to achieve what can only be called a small miracle. Let our celebrations be in keeping with the mood set in the elections, peaceful, respectful and disciplined, showing we are a people ready to assume the responsibilities of government.

I promise that I will do my best to be worthy of the faith and confidence you have placed in me and my organisation, the African National Congress. Let us build the future together, and toast a better life for all South Africans.

Richard Boyd Barrett: 'If you're going to have moral standards, those standards have to be consistent!' Call for action on Israel apartheid - 2022

2 March 2022, Dublin, Ireland

Minister, myself and deputy John Brady requested this debate at the business committee on Amnesty International's utterly damning report that Israel is a state that is operating a system of apartheid, and in doing so are committing crimes against humanity, and call for sanctions to ensure that that system, that inhumane and inhuman system, is dismantled.

Now we called for this debate prior to the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin. And all of us have rightly condemned the crimes against humanity that are being committed by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And the government has moved instantly, within five days, to sanction Putin's regime and take urgent action. And the strength of language that was used, rightly against Putin, as a barbarian, as a thug, as a murderer, as a warmonger, all of which are true, all of those things, all of those things applied, applied to the state of Israel in its treatment of the Palestinians. And yet the government is 'concerned' about its use of language, and doesn't feel it is appropriate to even use the word apartheid, when Amnesty International, the most respected human rights organisation in the world, and Human Rights Watch, within a very short period of time, issue these damning reports saying that Israel, since its foundation, has been built on a system of oppression and domination and apartheid and racism Involving the murder of unarmed innocent civilians on a regular basis, arbitrary detention and imprisonment, land annexations, the displacement of people, the denial of basic fundamental rights to six million Palestinians who are displaced outside Israel in the Occupied Territories to the rights of their return to their homes, to the illegal blockade of Gaza, which is left, as they say in the report, 'Gaza in a permanent state of humanitarian crisis', denying people access to food, to water, and treating the Arab population as a whole, the Palestinian population as a whole, as an inferior race.

I mean, it doesn't get stronger than this, And yet you want to be careful about your language. You are happy to correctly use the most strong and robust language to describe the crimes against humanity of Vladimir Putin, but you will not use the same strength of language when it comes to describing the Israel's treatment of the Palestinians when it is now being documented and detailed by two of the most respected human rights organisations in the world. And indeed has been alleged by dozens and dozens of non-governmental organisations. And to be honest, anybody who looks honestly at the decades of brutal inhumane, persecution of the Palestinian, successive assaults on Gaza, the annexation of the land and territory, the systematic application of apartheid rules, you don't want to even use the word 'apartheid'. Nevermind sanctions. Five days, sanctions against Putin and his thugs, Seventy years of oppression of the Palestinians. And it wouldn't be —what was the word you used? — It wouldn't be 'helpful' to impose sanctions.

Amnesty International are calling for Israel to be referred to the international criminal courts for crimes against humanity. Will you support it? They are calling for targeted sanctions against Israeli officials who are perpetuating the system of apartheid. Just exactly the same types of sanctions you've just initiated against Vladimir Putin, will you support it? And I think the answer is clearly, you're not going to.

And then we asked the question why. Why? With such strength of feeling Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and Green TDs stood up one after the othe,r saying it was intolerable the thuggery and the warmongering and the brutality of Putin, you wouldn't stand for it, urgent action had to be taken, but we've got to be much more careful with the Palestinians and their treatment. And I haven't even got time to [talk about] the briefing I organised this week about the people of Yemen, and how Saudi Arabia, the most despotic regime in the world, armed to the teeth by the United States, Britain, France, and others, killing 337,000 people in Yemen in the last five years, 10,000 children, any action against the United States for arming them? Or Britain or France? Or Saudi itself?

No, no action, no sanctions, no outrage, words of concern. 'We'll raise it'. 'We'll raise it'. 'We'll call on them to do things'. Now you see, if you're going to have moral standards, those standards have to be consistent, otherwise they are not standards at all. They are just cynicism. And of course, we all know the reason that the standards are not consistent is because to call out the apartheidstate of Israel, would be to run foul of the concerns of certain states that are now presenting themselves as defenders of democracy.and so on, such as the United States, the UK, Germany, and other powers. Whose relationship with Israel, supporting it and backing, it, means that the European Union's moral credentials are bankrupted. And that they are not willing to take the action.

And we go along with that.

That is not acceptable. So I appeal to you, minister. I appeal to you, to uphold the tradition this country has, going right back to its foundation, to opposing oppression of peoples, and standing up against brutal powers that are willing to subjugate people, like the Palestinians or any others.

Show some moral backbone, show some consistency, and support the motion that we have circulated to every TD in this house, which Sinn Fein have now signed, which the number of the Left Independents, which People Before Profit have signed, calling for the adoption of the recommendations of the Amnesty report and for the sanctions that must follow that they recommend. Will you support those things? Because if you don't, to be honest, all the words of concern, all the raising it, means nothing to the Palestinian people.



Hendrik Verwoerd: 'They will become the conquerors of White South Africa', Senate Speech promoting apartheid - 1959

20 May 1959, Cape Town, South Africa

… Furthermore, I want to argue as follows. If that will be the result, if through the capabilities of the Bantu it happens that here in South Africa there will be a White state, a big and strong White nation, along with various Bantu national units and areas (or states, if you like) how is that different from what we have in Europe? Are there not in other parts of the world such as Europe, South America and Asia, various nations and states next to each other within the same continent or part of a continent? What would have happened to France, to Germany and to Britain if they had lost all their borders and their populations had become intermingled?

And if those nations do not desire anything like that, and if it is not necessary there, and if it cannot happen there, why is it so terrible if in South Africa there are also various nations and territories and even neighbouring states? Do we find that the all-white nations and states in Europe try to or succeed in becoming one unit without borders? Have those nations become intermingled or has a multi-racial state been established in Europe? Or did we see throughout the centuries, even after the one state conquered the other, e.g. when Charlemagne established his empire, that the various nations again split up and re-established their national borders? Therefore, just as in other parts of the world, we must be able to accept that in Africa there can be various states on one continent or part of it.

These states can nevertheless have a bond, the bond of common interest. Such a bond has even become the modern ideal in Europe, viz. in the economic sphere where they are trying to form a common European market. It is the ideal to retain political independence with economic interdependence. That is the spirit which prevails in other parts of the world where states with various borders, large ones and small ones, occur, but suddenly now something like that is inconceivable in South Africa, and dangerous. Now I ask further: If there cannot be such a division, if the possibility of having separate territories as an eventual settlement of political aims is not possible – how long that development will take, I do not know – what is the other way out? The United Party [opposition] has said over and over: Nothing else is possible but a common South Africa, a multi-racial country, although numerically the Bantu will outnumber the Whites three or four times. I repeat, with candour and in the best interests of the White people of South Africa, that I choose an assured White state in South Africa, whatever happens to the other areas, rather than to have my people absorbed in one integrated state in which the Bantu must eventually dominate. One Bantustan for the whole of South Africa is the inevitable consequence of the policy of the United Party.

Therefore to talk about partition and sub-division as being a distasteful pattern is utterly nonsensical, because in terms of both policies there will be Black areas, and in terms of the policy of apartheid the White man will at least control his own area, whatever the difficulties might be and however hard it might be. He at least has the opportunity to save himself, which under a multi-racially controlled state he will not have.

The next argument I want to deal with is the allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition that our course of action shows a lack of confidence in the ability of the White man to retain his leadership. I will have more to say about leadership at a later stage, but at the moment I want merely to say this in regard to that argument, that leadership in a democracy is not retained by men of pious words. It depends on numbers, as anybody who has made a study of the history of any nation knows. In the final result it is force of numbers which predominates – high or low, poor or rich, Black or White – and therefore it is necessary to apply all our energies and to make sacrifices and to work hard to ensure that there will be a White part of South Africa (even though we must accept the presence of the Coloureds) where the Bantu population will not predominate in that community as part of that community.

The next argument of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition was particularly surprising to me. He said that as recently as the First World War the races in South Africa were still separated, and then the policy of Botha, Smuts and Hertzog, who believed in separate governmental areas, was possible. His further argument was that since the First World War the Bantu workers streamed into the industrialised areas of South Africa, which now makes it impossible to have separate governmental areas. The migration of Bantu from other parts of Africa to South Africa, is also concerned here. Therefore the inflow of the Bantu into the industrial areas in the White parts of South Africa, and also the inflow of Bantu from other parts of Africa, make the ideal which was possible in the past, the ideal of separate government, impossible.

Does the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition realise what he is really saying? He says he admits that before the First World War there was a definite White governmental area here, and therefore Botha, Smuts and Hertzog were justified in saying that we had our own area, and that the Bantu were separate, but that that became impossible as the result of the inflow of Bantu workers from our Native reserves, from the rural areas and from other parts of Africa. My reply to that is that he then accepts a bloodless conquest of the White area by the Bantu, whom the White man wanted to accept only as workers and not as people who would become partners and later the conquerors of this country. If there is any nation in the world which is prepared to allow itself to be robbed of its country by those to whom it only did good and whom it provided with work, then I say that we on this side are not prepared to be “hands-uppers” together with the United Party and to surrender and hand over our country as the result of a bloodless conquest.

I want to compare the position with what would happen in Britain if Britain were to allow Jamaicans to enter the country to seek work to such an extent that in the end they would be in the majority (if immigration on such a scale were possible in such a small country). Would the British just quietly say: We will not stop the inflow, and as soon as they number 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 and we are only 59,000,000 (or whatever the figure may be), then they are in the majority, and because everybody should have equal rights therefore England in future will belong to them! That is ridiculous, but it is in line with what now has to happen in South Africa according to the argument of the United Party.

The in-flowing Black workers have increased in number to such an extent that a multi-racial Government must follow and in that way they will become the conquerors of White South Africa, just as the Jamaicans would be in England if they were permitted to do the same thing that the Leader of the Opposition says took place here since the First World War. That is the most peculiar argument I have ever heard as a plea for the granting of political rights to the Bantu, as is the statement that we should not protect ourselves and should not keep the government of the country in our own hands. In the time of Botha, Smuts and Hertzog it was correct, but not in our time, it seems, because we have been conquered already by the large number of immigrants.

The next argument was that we are changing the map of South Africa; we are forming a horseshoe of the Prime Minister’s Black states. Has the Leader of the Opposition ever considered that neither I nor this party but history, and partly the history of the time when the White man was still landing in Africa, placed the Bantu in the areas where they still are? They inherited it, as we inherited our area. This horseshoe was not created by us or by any organisation we established or by any Act we passed. The Bantu themselves settled there, where the White people found them and where they still are. Is the Leader of the Opposition going to deprive them of that horseshoe? If not, why does he attack us?

He does not want to unify the whole of South Africa, as I said a moment ago. He wants the Bantu to retain their horseshoe. In fact, the heart-lands (in situation, not in numbers) of that horseshoe are Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. Just look at the map; those are the heart-lands of that horseshoe, apart from the Transkei and Zulu-land. He therefore also knows that Britain has been in control of that horseshoe from 1910 until now. Did he therefore intend to say that Britain wants to bind South Africa in a vice of Black states in the form of that horseshoe? No, only now, when the National Party is considering safeguarding South Africa by recognising Bantu self-government in those areas, suddenly this is a dangerous horseshoe. It was not us who put the Bantu there. He was there. The United Party wants him to remain there. Nor can we disregard the fact that he is there.

Therefore to say that we are changing the map of South Africa is absolute nonsense. But let me ask this further question: Should one throw up the sponge when one finds oneself in difficulties? If it is true that there is a horseshoe of Black states, due partly to the actions of Britain, must we say then that consequently we must simply allow the rest of South Africa to become mixed and in the final result to become dominated by the Bantu? I look upon this horseshoe argument as one fit for a debating society but not for a serious discussion on the destiny of a nation.

In spite of that, Hon. members on the other side enlarged on it. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition even came along with the argument about the dangers which would develop on our border under such a future arrangement; inter alia, that it would become a springboard for foreign ideologies, that Communists would be able to take over the areas and that the Bantu states would be able to enter into their own treaties. He also asked which navy, which air force, might perhaps dominate those states? He says that in this way our coastal area is handed over to foreign powers!

These are alarmists stories he is spreading in advance of a far-distant future, when there will be the fullest development. He does not use those stories for the transition period. He is afraid of what will happen if Bantu states come into being one day. Let us assume that it is possible that some of the dangers which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned may arise. Let me then point out to hon. members opposite that they must be logical.

While I accept for the sake of argument that that may be so, it must be noted in the first place that the same Leader of the Opposition who accused us about these “dangerous” states, later in the debate accused me of wanting to create such weak little states! I believe he even spoke about the immorality of this. On the one hand he talks about the tremendous danger and, on the other, of the creation of weak little states, which would be an injustice.

Let us examine the position if we accept for argument’s sake that they may become dangerous independent states. I contend, of course, and it is my belief, that there are no grounds for the fear and anxiety of the Leader of the Opposition. My belief is that the development of South Africa on the basis of this Bill will create so much friendship, so much gratitude, so many mutual interests in the process of the propulsive development that there will be no danger of hostile Bantu states, but that there will arise what I called a commonwealth, founded on common interests, and linked together by common interests in this southern part of Africa. In other words, I believe that these dangers of foreign ideologies, of foreign navies, and so on, will not materialise.

If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to frighten people, however – fear which I believe will be proved to be unfounded – then my reply to this type of reasoning is that in the long run I would prefer to have a smaller White state in South Africa which will control its own army, its own navy, its own police, its own defence force, and which will stand as a bulwark for White civilisation in the world and which, in the event of an emergency and a clash with ideologies in neighbouring states, will also have the support of the outside world to enable it to maintain itself (in other words, rather a White nation which can fight for its survival), than a bigger state which has already been surrendered to Bantu domination.

I propose now to sketch the consequences, in terms of this same type of reasoning, of the United Party’s policy. What would be the (remember this) eventual position – because after all the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition argues in terms of the situation which will eventually arise when our policy is carried out – what would be the eventual situation in the event of his policy being carried out? Then you would have a multi-racial community and a multi-racial state with ever-expanding control by, and a joint say on the part of, continually developing Natives in one joint country, with the Natives outnumbering the Whites four to one.

(Do not let us take the other groups into account.) What would that involve? A South African army and a South African police force under black generals; an air force under a Black air-marshal; a government with Black Cabinet Ministers; a Parliament with Black Members of Parliament; administrators and mayors, all Black! Now I ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition: With such an end in view, what hope would there be for the White man? Not only would he not have his own army, his own defence force and his own diplomatic channels to protect himself against foreign ideologies, if there is an emergency, but he would already be under the domination and under the superior power of the army, navy, air force, police service, government – nation-wide – of the Black man. Is that the eventual picture which the leader of the Opposition wants South Africa to choose?

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to come along with alarmist stories about imaginary eventual consequences of our policy than I can do the same about his! Hon. members over there laugh. But if they were not prepared to ridicule their own Leader when he put forward this sort of proposition, why is it so ridiculous when one outlines to them the consequences of the other alternative, the road to Bantu domination?

Their laughter is born out of despair; it is an admission of the weakness and senselessness of this type of argument. In any event this type of speculation gets us nowhere. What we are trying to achieve under our apartheid policy is a South Africa which endeavours to build up reasonable opportunities for the Bantu in such a way and of such a nature that we can secure their permanent friendship and co-operation without giving them domination over the whole of our own area in addition to their own.

And if in the coming years all the wisdom of statesmen is harnessed to allow development to take place in this way, and if the Opposition and its Press and the liberals who oppose this peaceful neighbourly development would stop their venomous attacks, then there would and must be great hope for South Africa. Then friendship with other racial areas and also other colour groups here would grow. But only then, never otherwise.

Nelson Mandela: 'I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands', first speech after release from prison - 1990

11 February 1990, Capte Town, South Africa

Friends, comrades and fellow South Africans.

I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all.

I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today. I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands.

On this day of my release, I extend my sincere and warmest gratitude to the millions of my compatriots and those in every corner of the globe who have campaigned tirelessly for my release.

I send special greetings to the people of Cape Town, this city which has been my home for three decades. Your mass marches and other forms of struggle have served as a constant source of strength to all political prisoners.

I salute the African National Congress. It has fulfilled our every expectation in its role as leader of the great march to freedom.

I salute our President, Comrade Oliver Tambo, for leading the ANC even under the most difficult circumstances.

I salute the rank and file members of the ANC. You have sacrificed life and limb in the pursuit of the noble cause of our struggle.

I salute combatants of Umkhonto we Sizwe, like Solomon Mahlangu and Ashley Kriel who have paid the ultimate price for the freedom of all South Africans.

I salute the South African Communist Party for its sterling contribution to the struggle for democracy. You have survived 40 years of unrelenting persecution. The memory of great communists like Moses Kotane, Yusuf Dadoo, Bram Fischer and Moses Mabhida will be cherished for generations to come.

I salute General Secretary Joe Slovo, one of our finest patriots. We are heartened by the fact that the alliance between ourselves and the Party remains as strong as it always was.

I salute the United Democratic Front, the National Education Crisis Committee, the South African Youth Congress, the Transvaal and Natal Indian Congresses and COSATU and the many other formations of the Mass Democratic Movement.

I also salute the Black Sash and the National Union of South African Students. We note with pride that you have acted as the conscience of white South Africa. Even during the darkest days in the history of our struggle you held the flag of liberty high. The large-scale mass mobilisation of the past few years is one of the key factors which led to the opening of the final chapter of our struggle.

I extend my greetings to the working class of our country. Your organised strength is the pride of our movement. You remain the most dependable force in the struggle to end exploitation and oppression.

I pay tribute to the many religious communities who carried the campaign for justice forward when the organisations for our people were silenced.

I greet the traditional leaders of our country - many of you continue to walk in the footsteps of great heroes like Hintsa and Sekhukune.

I pay tribute to the endless heroism of youth, you, the young lions. You, the young lions, have energised our entire struggle.

I pay tribute to the mothers and wives and sisters of our nation. You are the rock-hard foundation of our struggle. Apartheid has inflicted more pain on you than on anyone else.

On this occasion, we thank the world community for their great contribution to the anti-apartheid struggle. Without your support our struggle would not have reached this advanced stage. The sacrifice of the frontline states will be remembered by South Africans forever.

My salutations would be incomplete without expressing my deep appreciation for the strength given to me during my long and lonely years in prison by my beloved wife and family. I am convinced that your pain and suffering was far greater than my own.

Before I go any further I wish to make the point that I intend making only a few preliminary comments at this stage. I will make a more complete statement only after I have had the opportunity to consult with my comrades.

Today the majority of South Africans, black and white, recognise that apartheid has no future. It has to be ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. The mass campaign of defiance and other actions of our organisation and people can only culminate in the establishment of democracy. The destruction caused by apartheid on our sub-continent is in- calculable. The fabric of family life of millions of my people has been shattered. Millions are homeless and unemployed. Our economy lies in ruins and our people are embroiled in political strife. Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement will be created soon so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.

I am a loyal and disciplined member of the African National Congress. I am therefore in full agreement with all of its objectives, strategies and tactics.

The need to unite the people of our country is as important a task now as it always has been. No individual leader is able to take on this enormous task on his own. It is our task as leaders to place our views before our organisation and to allow the democratic structures to decide. On the question of democratic practice, I feel duty bound to make the point that a leader of the movement is a person who has been democratically elected at a national conference. This is a principle which must be upheld without any exceptions.

Today, I wish to report to you that my talks with the government have been aimed at normalising the political situation in the country. We have not as yet begun discussing the basic demands of the struggle. I wish to stress that I myself have at no time entered into negotiations about the future of our country except to insist on a meeting between the ANC and the government.

Mr De Klerk has gone further than any other Nationalist president in taking real steps to normalise the situation. However, there are further steps as outlined in the Harare Declaration that have to be met before negotiations on the basic demands of our people can begin. I reiterate our call for, inter alia, the immediate ending of the State of Emergency and the freeing of all, and not only some, political prisoners. Only such a normalised situation, which allows for free political activity, can allow us to consult our people in order to obtain a mandate.

The people need to be consulted on who will negotiate and on the content of such negotiations. Negotiations cannot take place above the heads or behind the backs of our people. It is our belief that the future of our country can only be determined by a body which is democratically elected on a non-racial basis. Negotiations on the dismantling of apartheid will have to address the over- whelming demand of our people for a democratic, non-racial and unitary South Africa. There must be an end to white monopoly on political power and a fundamental restructuring of our political and economic systems to ensure that the inequalities of apartheid are addressed and our society thoroughly democratised.

It must be added that Mr De Klerk himself is a man of integrity who is acutely aware of the dangers of a public figure not honouring his undertakings. But as an organisation we base our policy and strategy on the harsh reality we are faced with. And this reality is that we are still suffering under the policy of the Nationalist government.

Our struggle has reached a decisive moment. We call on our people to seize this moment so that the process towards democracy is rapid and uninterrupted. We have waited too long for our freedom. We can no longer wait. Now is the time to intensify the struggle on all fronts. To relax our efforts now would be a mistake which generations to come will not be able to forgive. The sight of freedom looming on the horizon should encourage us to redouble our efforts.

It is only through disciplined mass action that our victory can be assured. We call on our white compatriots to join us in the shaping of a new South Africa. The freedom movement is a political home for you too. We call on the international community to continue the campaign to isolate the apartheid regime. To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid.

Our march to freedom is irreversible. We must not allow fear to stand in our way. Universal suffrage on a common voters` role in a united democratic and non-racial South Africa is the only way to peace and racial harmony.

In conclusion I wish to quote my own words during my trial in 1964. They are true today as they were then:

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Haile Selassie: 'Peace is not an "is", it is a "becoming".' United Nations - 1963

6 October, 1963, United Nations HQ, NYC, New York, USA

Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates:

Twenty-seven years ago, as Emperor of Ethiopia, I mounted the rostrum in Geneva, Switzerland, to address the League of Nations and to appeal for relief from the destruction which had been unleashed against my defenseless nation, by the Fascist invader.I spoke then both to and for the conscience of the world. My words went unheeded, but history testifies to the accuracy of the warning that I gave in 1936.

Today, I stand before the world organization which has succeeded to the mantle discarded by its discredited predecessor. In this body is enshrined the principle of collective security which I unsuccessfully invoked at Geneva. Here, in this Assembly, reposes the best - perhaps the last - hope for the peaceful survival of mankind.

In 1936, I declared that it was not the Covenant of the League that was at stake, but international morality. Undertakings, I said then, are of little worth if the will to keep them is lacking. The Charter of the United Nations expresses the noblest aspirations of man: abjuration of force in the settlement of disputes between states; the assurance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion; the safeguarding of international peace and security.

But these, too, as were the phrases of the Covenant, are only words; their value depends wholly on our will to observe and honor them and give them content and meaning. The preservation of peace and the guaranteeing of man's basic freedoms and rights require courage and eternal vigilance: courage to speak and act - and if necessary, to suffer and die - for truth and justice; eternal vigilance, that the least transgression of international morality shall not go undetected and unremedied. These lessons must be learned anew by each succeeding generation, and that generation is fortunate indeed which learns from other than its own bitter experience. This Organization and each of its members bear a crushing and awesome responsibility: to absorb the wisdom of history and to apply it to the problems of the present, in order that future generations may be born, and live, and die, in peace.

The record of the United Nations during the few short years of its life affords mankind a solid basis for encouragement and hope for the future. The United Nations has dared to act, when the League dared not in Palestine, in Korea, in Suez, in the Congo. There is not one among us today who does not conjecture upon the reaction of this body when motives and actions are called into question. The opinion of this Organization today acts as a powerful influence upon the decisions of its members. The spotlight of world opinion, focused by the United Nations upon the transgressions of the renegades of human society, has thus far proved an effective safeguard against unchecked aggression and unrestricted violation of human rights.

The United Nations continues to sense as the forum where nations whose interests clash may lay their cases before world opinion. It still provides the essential escape valve without which the slow build-up of pressures would have long since resulted in catastrophic explosion. Its actions and decisions have speeded the achievement of freedom by many peoples on the continents of Africa and Asia. Its efforts have contributed to the advancement of the standard of living of peoples in all corners of the world.

For this, all men must give thanks. As I stand here today, how faint, how remote are the memories of 1936. How different in 1963 are the attitudes of men. We then existed in an atmosphere of suffocating pessimism. Today, cautious yet buoyant optimism is the prevailing spirit. But each one of us here knows that what has been accomplished is not enough.

The United Nations judgments have been and continue to be subject to frustration, as individual member-states have ignored its pronouncements and disregarded its recommendations. The Organization's sinews have been weakened, as member-states have shirked their obligations to it. The authority of the Organization has been mocked, as individual member-states have proceeded, in violation of its commands, to pursue their own aims and ends. The troubles which continue to plague us virtually all arise among member states of the Organization, but the Organization remains impotent to enforce acceptable solutions. As the maker and enforcer of the international law, what the United Nations has achieved still falls regrettably short of our goal of an international community of nations.

This does not mean that the United Nations has failed. I have lived too long to cherish many illusions about the essential highmindedness of men when brought into stark confrontation with the issue of control over their security, and their property interests. Not even now, when so much is at hazard would many nations willingly entrust their destinies to other hands.

Yet, this is the ultimatum presented to us: secure the conditions whereby men will entrust their security to a larger entity, or risk annihilation; persuade men that their salvation rests in the subordination of national and local interests to the interests of humanity, or endanger man's future. These are the objectives, yesterday unobtainable, today essential, which we must labor to achieve.

Until this is accomplished, mankind's future remains hazardous and permanent peace a matter for speculation. There is no single magic formula, no one simple step, no words, whether written into the Organization's Charter or into a treaty between states, which can automatically guarantee to us what we seek. Peace is a day-to-day problem, the product of a multitude of events and judgments. Peace is not an "is", it is a "becoming." We cannot escape the dreadful possibility of catastrophe by miscalculation. But we can reach the right decisions on the myriad subordinate problems which each new day poses, and we can thereby make our contribution and perhaps the most that can be reasonably expected of us in 1963 to the preservation of peace. It is here that the United Nations has served us - not perfectly, but well. And in enhancing the possibilities that the Organization may serve us better, we serve and bring closer our most cherished goals.

I would mention briefly today two particular issues which are of deep concern to all men: disarmament and the establishment of true equality among men. Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.

Ethiopia supports the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty as a step towards this goal, even though only a partial step. Nations can still perfect weapons of mass destruction by underground testing. There is no guarantee against the sudden, unannounced resumption of testing in the atmosphere.

The real significance of the treaty is that it admits of a tacit stalemate between the nations which negotiated it, a stalemate which recognizes the blunt, unavoidable fact that none would emerge from the total destruction which would be the lot of all in a nuclear war, a stalemate which affords us and the United Nations a breathing space in which to act.

Here is our opportunity and our challenge. If the nuclear powers are prepared to declare a truce, let us seize the moment to strengthen the institutions and procedures which will serve as the means for the pacific settlement of disputes among men. Conflicts between nations will continue to arise. The real issue is whether they are to be resolved by force, or by resort to peaceful methods and procedures, administered by impartial institutions. This very Organization itself is the greatest such institution, and it is in a more powerful United Nations that we seek, and it is here that we shall find, the assurance of a peaceful future.

Were a real and effective disarmament achieved and the funds now spent in the arms race devoted to the amelioration of man's state; were we to concentrate only on the peaceful uses of nuclear knowledge, how vastly and in how short a time might we change the conditions of mankind. This should be our goal.

When we talk of the equality of man, we find, also, a challenge and an opportunity; a challenge to breathe new life into the ideals enshrined in the Charter, an opportunity to bring men closer to freedom and true equality. and thus, closer to a love of peace.

The goal of the equality of man which we seek is the antithesis of the exploitation of one people by another with which the pages of history and in particular those written of the African and Asian continents, speak at such length. Exploitation, thus viewed, has many faces. But whatever guise it assumes, this evil is to be shunned where it does not exist and crushed where it does. It is the sacred duty of this Organization to ensure that the dream of equality is finally realized for all men to whom it is still denied, to guarantee that exploitation is not reincarnated in other forms in places whence it has already been banished.

As a free Africa has emerged during the past decade, a fresh attack has been launched against exploitation, wherever it still exists. And in that interaction so common to history, this in turn, has stimulated and encouraged the remaining dependent peoples to renewed efforts to throw off the yoke which has oppressed them and its claim as their birthright the twin ideals of liberty and equality. This very struggle is a struggle to establish peace, and until victory is assured, that brotherhood and understanding which nourish and give life to peace can be but partial and incomplete.

In the United States of America, the administration of President Kennedy is leading a vigorous attack to eradicate the remaining vestige of racial discrimination from this country. We know that this conflict will be won and that right will triumph. In this time of trial, these efforts should be encouraged and assisted, and we should lend our sympathy and support to the American Government today.

Last May, in Addis Ababa, I convened a meeting of Heads of African States and Governments. In three days, the thirty-two nations represented at that Conference demonstrated to the world that when the will and the determination exist, nations and peoples of diverse backgrounds can and will work together. in unity, to the achievement of common goals and the assurance of that equality and brotherhood which we desire.

On the question of racial discrimination, the Addis Ababa Conference taught, to those who will learn, this further lesson: That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.

The United Nations has done much, both directly and indirectly to speed the disappearance of discrimination and oppression from the earth. Without the opportunity to focus world opinion on Africa and Asia which this Organization provides, the goal, for many, might still lie ahead, and the struggle would have taken far longer. For this, we are truly grateful.

But more can be done. The basis of racial discrimination and colonialism has been economic, and it is with economic weapons that these evils have been and can be overcome. In pursuance of resolutions adopted at the Addis Ababa Summit Conference, African States have undertaken certain measures in the economic field which, if adopted by all member states of the United Nations, would soon reduce intransigence to reason. I ask, today, for adherence to these measures by every nation represented here which is truly devoted to the principles enunciated in the Charter.

I do not believe that Portugal and South Africa are prepared to commit economic or physical suicide if honorable and reasonable alternatives exist. I believe that such alternatives can be found. But I also know that unless peaceful solutions are devised, counsels of moderation and temperance will avail for naught; and another blow will have been dealt to this Organization which will hamper and weaken still further its usefulness in the struggle to ensure the victory of peace and liberty over the forces of strife and oppression. Here, then, is the opportunity presented to us. We must act while we can, while the occasion exists to exert those legitimate pressures available to us, lest time run out and resort be had to less happy means.

Does this Organization today possess the authority and the will to act? And if it does not, are we prepared to clothe it with the power to create and enforce the rule of law? Or is the Charter a mere collection of words, without content and substance, because the essential spirit is lacking? The time in which to ponder these questions is all too short. The pages of history are full of instances in which the unwanted and the shunned nonetheless occurred because men waited to act until too late. We can brook no such delay.

If we are to survive, this Organization must survive. To survive, it must be strengthened. Its executive must be vested with great authority. The means for the enforcement of its decisions must be fortified, and, if they do not exist, they must be devised. Procedures must be established to protect the small and the weak when threatened by the strong and the mighty. All nations which fulfill the conditions of membership must be admitted and allowed to sit in this assemblage.

Equality of representation must be assured in each of its organs. The possibilities which exist in the United Nations to provide the medium whereby the hungry may be fed, the naked clothed, the ignorant instructed, must be seized on and exploited for the flower of peace is not sustained by poverty and want. To achieve this requires courage and confidence. The courage, I believe, we possess. The confidence must be created, and to create confidence we must act courageously.

The great nations of the world would do well to remember that in the modern age even their own fates are not wholly in their hands. Peace demands the united efforts of us all. Who can foresee what spark might ignite the fuse? It is not only the small and the weak who must scrupulously observe their obligations to the United Nations and to each other. Unless the smaller nations are accorded their proper voice in the settlement of the world's problems, unless the equality which Africa and Asia have struggled to attain is reflected in expanded membership in the institutions which make up the United Nations, confidence will come just that much harder. Unless the rights of the least of men are as assiduously protected as those of the greatest, the seeds of confidence will fall on barren soil.

The stake of each one of us is identical - life or death. We all wish to live. We all seek a world in which men are freed of the burdens of ignorance, poverty, hunger and disease. And we shall all be hard-pressed to escape the deadly rain of nuclear fall-out should catastrophe overtake us.

When I spoke at Geneva in 1936, there was no precedent for a head of state addressing the League of Nations. I am neither the first, nor will I be the last head of state to address the United Nations, but only I have addressed both the League and this Organization in this capacity. The problems which confront us today are, equally, unprecedented. They have no counterparts in human experience. Men search the pages of history for solutions, for precedents, but there are none. This, then, is the ultimate challenge. Where are we to look for our survival, for the answers to the questions which have never before been posed? We must look, first, to Almighty God, Who has raised man above the animals and endowed him with intelligence and reason. We must put our faith in Him, that He will not desert us or permit us to destroy humanity which He created in His image. And we must look into ourselves, into the depth of our souls. We must become something we have never been and for which our education and experience and environment have ill-prepared us. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community."