61/ 009
PRESS CONFERENCE
Given by the Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies in London
On March, 19th. 1961
Mr. Menzies: I notice that there is a good deal of speculation
and perhaps something more about the final stages of this
conference so perhaps I might as well add my own little bit to
its For some time it looked as if we could evolve a form
of communique u~ hich would confirm South Africa's membership
while at thc same time containing a fair summarised statement
of the criticisms of South Africa's racial policy and of Dr.
Verwoerd's reply. In point of fact, as I have followed
this, and I took a very active part in it in drafting various
things, Dr. Verwoerd wias at first very reluctant to adopt the
form of communique that was suggested because he felt that it
was too much like a concerted judgment on South African policy,
the language, he thought being put in a rather too positive
way. Ultimately after considering his position he agreed that
tho communique should go out in that fashion. And, quito
frankly, I thought at that time that the problem looked as if
it wure over. But when he announced, or Mr. Macmillan announced,
that he was agreeable to a communique of this kind he was
promptly told by several of the Prime Ministers that it was not
good enough. One or two of thien indicated quite plainly that
they didn't accept his continued membership; that if it
became necessary to move for the expulsion of South Africa they
would do so. At least half the Prime Ministers there made it
clear that they would pursue this matter every time there was
a meeting, and between meetings on any convenient opportunity.
In other words looking at the substance of the mattei', at
least half the Primo Ministers there indicated that thoy didnot
want South Africa in.
Dr. Verwoerd, I thought with very groat dignity,
accepted the logic of that position and indicated that he
would withdraw his application. Porsonally I don't think he
had any choice. I would have withdrawn the application in his
place. One reason that I know that he had in his mind I
thought did him very great credit, and that was that if he
had remained and in some way or other his application for
continued nienbership had been agreed to I don't undertake to
say how it could have been under these circumstances, but
suppose in some way or other it had then he would have
remained in and would have divided his colleagues into those
who would co-ntinue to want to be rid of him and those who would
continue 2/
L6968/ 9
-to want to have South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth.
And-rather than expose the rest of us to that risk he decided
to. rzv. e-his appliation . and avoid that possibility.
I think of course this is the most unhappy affair.
-1 make no secret of my own view. I wanted to keep South Africa
in. Last year at the conference we all agreed that South
Africa's racial policy was a matter of domestic jurisdiction.
We all agreed and that was why we didn't discuss it in full
conference. Quite true there has been a good deal of international
argument about it since but it will be remembered
that the former Prime Ministers' Conference was after the incidents
Sharpeville and after there had been world wide reaction and
we all agreed upon that occasion that this was a matter of
domestic jurisdiction. This year Dr. Verwoord indicated
that he would waive that point for once because he thought
that we ought to clear our minds about the question of policy.
He dy'd not abandon the proposition that it was domestic but
he ' aid " very well I am prepared tc sit in here and now and
have an argument about it" and he expressed his own case very
powerfully I may say at considerable length.
But even though there has been a great deal.
of international agitation this is still a matter of domestic
policy in South Africa.' South Africa does not seek to apply
that policy to any other country. It is as much a matter of
domestiu policy for South Africa as Australian migration policy
is a domestic matter for us. And to have a member of the
Commonwealth virtually excluded from the Commonwealth on a
matter of domestic policy presents, in my opinion, a ratherdisagreeable
vista of possibilities for the future. We may
object very strongly to racial discrimination practiced in
one country. We might equally object very striongly to the
absence of any form on democracy in nnothor. / 3
V
-c' I1.6968/ 69
We niight--take,-exception to the absence of Parliamentary machinery
or the presence of imprisonment without trial or any uf these
things that lend themselves to examination if we adopt the
attitude that one or our tasks is to examine each others policies.
A-d--that is why-think this is a ver unhappy development.
It is quite true that in fact every Prime
Minister, except the Prime Minister of South Africa was critical
of all or some aspects of South Africa policy. I dont need to go
into that with any elaboration but I have up to now acted on the
principle which I believe is sound that I do not make public
comments on the oolicies of another member of the Commonwealth.-.._
A very good old fashioned rule that, and did a let of good when
it used to be practiced. But since the things is all out now
and this has been thrashed out and most people have made statements
about it I just want to say this: my objection to the policy
of apartheid is in simple terms that in my opinion it won't
work. It is a policy ofsapearate development, it is a policy
that the white ran occupies the superior position. In other
words it is the same policy that existed in all colonial
establishments until a few years ago. The South African Prime
Minister says and with great sincerity he is a man of singular
* integrity a most impressive man he says wo are spending far
more money on education and health for the Bantu population
than any other African community. That is quite right. He
-had figures to support it. He indicates that every step is
being taken' to raise the living standards and the educational
standards of the Bantu. That is very good. Excellent.
But I don't believe that when that object has been achieved
the Bantu is going to be satisfied and adopt the second rate
position in the general social struoture in South Africa or in
the political structure of South Africa. In other words,
the more this policy succeeds in a sense, the more certain is it to
fail in the long run. Now that is a puroly practical
objection. I haven't, like some, moralised about this matter.
That, if brief is my view as to why their policy is wrong.
Of course it has some to me inexplicable detailed
Sconsequences. Mr. LHenzies continued " I told Dr. Verwoerd I just
didn't begin to understand why he adopted the views that there
should not be an exchange of diplomatic missions with other
African and Asian members of the Cormmonwealth. I said we did that
kind of thing very successfully in Canberra and nobody seemed to
be very concerned about it. We ate in each others houses . nnd co.. on,'
but he had his own reasons and he said " no, it couldn't be done.
I thought that psychologically that had a bad effect. You
know that seemed to be carrying it a bit too far.
Q( UESTION: How do you see the future relationship of South
Africa with other Cormmonwealth countries?
ANSWER: Well I'm very troubled about it because a lot
of people don't understand anything about the Conmmonwealth;
they seem,-to think the British Commonwealth is a court of morals
or of law. You sit down and sit in judgment on each other. It
never was So. You meet to discover what you agree about
I. 6968/ 9
not to discover-what you disagree about. I spoke about
this'las-t--yar in the Smuts Lecture; we are not sitting in
judgment on one other; thatts not the point. We can talk
very intimately and frankly with each other. We learn a lot
from each other. Occassionaily you go away and find your
mind has been influenced more than you thought by something that
Was said, but there it is. Apparently techaracter-ofour
eliberations are to be changedc--I--th'hk it a great pity, but
in particular this is the last time we will ever have a discussion
on racial policy in-the Commonwealth itself,/ Anmeeting of Prime
Ministers. South Africa is out unless, of course, somebody wants
to discuss the racial policy of some other member of the
Commonwealth. But so far as South Africa is concerned, we will
iever have a discussion of this kind again. Now the discussion
-is going on, the passions of other people were roused on this
matter and they won't be silenced. But instead of having the
discussion in a meeting of a limited number of Heads of Governments
who are men of experience and restraint, this thing will now be
put into the United Nations; it will be debated hotly in the
General Assembly; it will transferred in other words to areas
where there will be much loss restraint and much more passion,
and I think that is a great pity.
There is one other point I would like to make
about my approach to this refusal of membership or expulsion.
Your dontt admit a Government to the Commonwealth, you admit
a Nation to the Commonwealth. The other day we didn't' admit
Archbishop Makarios, we admitted Cyprus; and one of the
foundation members of the Commonwealth is South Africa South
Africa, the nation. We diCdnt admit only those people who had
a vote, to wit the Europeans, we admitted the whole who included
nine millinn BTlntu. True, they don't have the vote. But there
are one or two other Commonwealth countries in which the voters
are by no means in the majority let us put it as delicately
as possible. Your don't, in due course put out the Verwoerd
Government, you put out South Africa all of its people.
How do we know whether the Bantu as they come along, are not
very very hopeful of such protection as they get by the
Commonwealth association? I don't know, but I can guess that they
might be. How do we know what the attitude is of people who are
for the time being, in the minority among the voters; people
who support the opposition in South Africa. Governments come
and go.-That is a very healthy reflection. But in effect South
Africa has gone, including all those who are pro this policy and
those who are against the policy, and those who are pro the
Government and those who are against the Government. And I think
that misconceives the nature of the Commonwealth. The
CoQmnLiwalthas--I -have'kn ow' it for many years at any rate.
Question: What was the answer to that argument, Sir?
Answer: The answer was a lemon. That didn't
cut any ice.
Question: Do you think that she's out for good now?
5 1.6968/ 9
Anmswer: " Well frankly I do, If-I were being very tactful now,
I would sayr '" Well of course, in a year or two, you will be
back-with-s". The world doesn't work that way, nor do I think
that this decision is likely to have a tempering effect upon
South African racial policy. It may very well stiffen their
attitude, I don't know. I hope not. But it's possible.
Question: Dr. Verwoerd has referred to enomoaus attacks from the
f ricAans, Asians and he also incl_ ud-eC'-anada.
Answer; No, I won't name any namos, but certainly the nost
extremo speeches were made-at the very closing stages at this
time wh_ I though. t-wo were probably going to get by with a
statement of-the criticisms, Dr. Verwoerd's answer, and continuance
of membership. Venomous is not my word, but there were very
pungent attacks made then as I said.
Question: Sir, on this precedent, do you fear any attacks,
possibly oh Australia's nigration policy?
Answer: Well, once the precedent is established, its obviously
a possibility.
Question: Was there any hint of that?
Answer: Oh no. Nobody. They all concentrated this'time on the
one thing. I made a glancing reference to it myself.
Question: What would our attitude be if?
Answer: That is like " If you had a brother would he like cheese".
I can't answer that one. I know what mine would be and they know
what mine would be; but leave it at that. I might not be there.
Question: In the case of Australia, sir, our own future
relationships with our new foreign government I take that the
High CorLmission will take on another diplomatic status?
Answer: Yes, We've never contemplated any of those things like
boycotts or things of that kind. Somebody did suggest very
powerfully that we ought to boycott South Africa so I sent around
word to find out what things we bought from South Afric., What
were the main items? When I got the answer back, it turned out
that ninety per cent of the people engaged in the production of
those things were black people, I said I didn't think there was
much sense in penalising these fellows under the guise of helping
them. I don't think economic measures are going to be taken in
Australia, certainly not by us.
Question: Is there any indication how other members of the
Commonwealth might feel about the continuation of Comonwealth
preferences; they apply mainly of course to Britain. We know that
they do give South Africa the same privileges in the British
market as we enjoy and Now Zealand.
Answer: I would be guessing if I tried to speculate about that.
No doubt there will be a lot of consequential nmtters that have
to be looked into. I don't think nost of us have h. ad time to
think about those yet.
Question: Mr Menzies, two or three of the Sunday papers today
refcr to the possibility of a visit by the Queen to Australia
fairly soon. I wonder if you ha. ve any comment on that?
./ 6
6 I, 698/ 9
Answer: When was aStfwr fay paper without that story? You know
my rule-on this jmttor. I an having a general discussion with
the Queen abou-tR-Royal visits in the general, you know, trying to
look ahead, but that's as far as its gone. But any announconent
of those things to be made is to be made, as always, by the
Palace, not by me. Nor do I wrant to infer that we e r likely to
have any_. arly visit by a member of the Royal Fanily, I have a
list of requests that I brought with ne that I an going to discuss
with the Queen next week.
Question: Can you give any indication, sir, as to when the name
of the new Governor General will be announcod?
Answer: No, I wish I know the nare of the new Governor General.
Until I know that, I can't put a timetable on it.
Question: It still hasn't boon settled then,
Answer: No.
Question: Will you be seeing the Queen again before you leave?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Do you know what date?
Answer: I think it's on Friday.
Question: Coning back to the conference, Mr. Monzies, there is
a reference from Melbourne saying that there is a debate boiling
up now on you taking the load in arguing the constitutional
objection to interference in South Africa's internal affairs,
that you may have taken on yourself a role which will be
difficult to explain to our Asian neighbours. Do you foresee
any. difficulty in that?
Answer: Not at all. That sounds almost like one of the Sydney
papers which has a bee in its bonnet on that problem, I must say
I find no difficulty whatever in explaiinng nyself to our African
and Asian neighbours in Conference. None. We are cn the best of
terns. Anyhow, ny principal duty and role is to express the nind
of my own Government, not the nind of other Governments. When
I am no longer able to do that, I will go out,
Question: Mr. Menzies can you tell us anything of your discussions
with Dr. Luns of the Dutch Government on the future of Dutch
New Guinea?
Answer: No.
Question: Will yci nake any comment, sir, on the latest position
of Wst Now Guinea?
Answer: As far as I know, the position is as it was. There's
been no change, our policy has been stated tine after tine.
There's no chanog in that.
Question: It seens to be a little hotter than it was.
Answer: Well you ] now we keep on getting stories about that,
anyhow I h-. ve nothing to say about that.