 My name is David Bose and I'm Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute. I'm pleased to welcome you to the sixth in our Distinguished Lecturer Series, a series that was launched in 1982 by Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel Laureate and perhaps our century's most distinguished social thinker. I was going to say that I was delighted that today's distinguished lecturer is not an economist, but I note in her biography that in fact, she taught economics for eight years. So we're still working to find non-economists for this series. She is not however being honored today for her accomplishments in economics, but for her distinguished career in public life in perhaps one of the most difficult, more or less democratic systems in the world. Helen Souzman has long been known as a one woman resistance movement to apartheid. She served in the South African Parliament from 1953 until last month. For 13 years, she was the only member of the liberal opposition in parliament. She was always a tenacious spokesman for political and economic freedom and her biting wit burned many deserving opponents during her parliamentary career. She once sent the Minister of Law and Order a postcard from the Soviet Union saying, you'd like it here, lots of law and order. My own favorite story from her parliamentary days is the time she told a government minister to go into the black townships and see their appalling conditions for himself. He would be quite safe, she said, if he went heavily disguised as a human being. Would that we had someone like Helen Souzman in the US Congress? It is a great honor to present to you the Cato Institute's distinguished lecturer, one of the world's great fighters for democracy and capitalism, Helen Souzman. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman, for your warm welcome. I'm always amused when people fish out anecdotes about me because they're mostly ones I've forgotten, and I really should write them down because next year I hope to do my memoirs and I know people like anecdotes. That's all they really do seem to enjoy reading. I remember on one occasion I came back from America when Harvard had given me an honorary degree, and it was 76, and the townships in Soweto had erupted in unrest. And when I came back to Parliament, the then minister of justice and police said to me bitterly across the floor of the house and where, he said, was the honorable member for Houghton. That was me, my constituency, while all this was going on. She was in America receiving a degree from some obscure university. Columbia liked that story. Well, I'm very pleased to be here and back in Washington again. And I must say, reading the newspapers over the last three days, I'm very impressed that Americans still continue to be concerned about South Africa, considering all the problems that you seem to have to be contending with right now at home, your deficit, the failed coup in Panama, the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo, the HUD scandal, all your inner city problems that I hear about every day, refugees, and of course, last but not least, Jackie Mason's comments about Mr. Dinkins. I would have thought that was enough to keep you all occupied with home affairs, but no, you are interested still in South Africa. And I want to say that I'm pleased about that genuinely. I'm not one of the South Africans and there are many of them who think America should mind her own business and who resent United States intervention or interference in South African affairs. In fact, I believe that it is absolutely essential that the most powerful democracy in the world with human rights as its basic value must use its influence everywhere to safeguard those rights. And South Africa has undoubtedly reached human rights. It is by no means the only country to do so. And indeed, there are many countries where race discrimination as practiced is even worse than in South Africa. But South Africa's unenviable position as the pariah of the Western world is, of course, due to the fact that it has entrenched race discrimination on the statute book. You find race discrimination everywhere. You find it in this country. You find it in England and you find it in all the democratic countries, but South Africa is the only country that has actually entrenched race discrimination by law on the statute book. Now I've had the privilege, if you like, the dubious privilege of having a ring side seat in the South African Parliament for 36 out of the 40 years that race discrimination has been put on the statute book. I've seen the government of the day, the National Party government, which has now been in power for 40 years, more than 40 years, must be the longest lasting, or is Sweden longer? I'm not sure, but certainly one of the longest, if not the longest lasting government regime in power in the Western world. I've seen the government place on the statute book legislation to entrench racial separation, let's put it that way, racial separation in every facet of life, economic bypassing laws which reserved all skilled work for white people and did not recognise black or racially mixed trade unions. I've seen them put on the law statutes which prohibited marriage across the colour line, and Americans shouldn't be too smug about that because I was surprised to see that it was only last year that the statute in Mississippi which prohibited racial marriage across the colour line had been abolished. Of course, nobody had been prosecuted for many years, but nevertheless the act was still on the statute book in Mississippi until last year. Further social entrenchment of racial separation was brought about by a law which prohibited mixed political parties, I mean racially mixed political parties. The Separate Amenities Act gave to local governments the power of allowing people to use the public amenities on a separate basis, racially separate but unequal. And of course the Group Areas Act laid down that land could be occupied or owned, land and property, only in the racial area set aside for the particular ethnic group that wished to live in that area. So all these factors have been, of course, developing over the years and as I say, eventually bringing South Africa to the status of a pariah nation. Politically blacks were taken off the common role in the one province where they enjoyed those rights in 1936, that is before the present regime came into power. Coloured people, so-called coloured people, people of mixed race, lost their common role franchise in the mid 50s and lost the separate role franchise which they had been given in the 60s. So in every field, educationally, the races were always segregated before this government came into power. And I might say, quite children are segregated as well. If they go to the state schools, Afrikaans speaking children, go to the Afrikaans medium schools and English speaking children go to the English medium schools. Private schools are ever integrated, not only English and Afrikaans children, but many of the private schools, in fact, practically all of them today have students of other races, the so-called white private schools, which is, of course, just the opposite from this country where people send their children to private schools to avoid integration in the state schools. In South Africa, it is only the private schools where you have integration. So all these are factors which developed over the last 30 to 40 years. And, as I say, I had a ring side seat watching these come on to the statute book and spend a good deal of my time opposing them, all my time in fact opposing them. Perry Pasu with this development came the erosion of what is called the rule of law. That is, the law whereby you may not be deprived of your liberty unless you have actually been taken to court, duly charged in a proper court of law, have had defense, and only after being found guilty and convicted can you be deprived of your law. That is habeas corpus, the normal law in democratic countries. But Perry Pasu with these laws coming on to the statute book, one found an erosion of the rule of law and on the statute book permanently in South Africa are laws that allow the minister of justice and the minister of law and order to detain people without trial indefinitely in solitary confinement. And that to my mind is one of the most, of course, oppressive aspects of the entire regime. It's was to be expected because if laws come on to the statute book, which do not have the approval of the people to whom they are applied, you may be sure that due process, normal due process is not sufficient to maintain law and order. And therefore the government takes additional powers, oppressive powers. And that has been the case in South Africa, which in fact has lurched from crisis to crisis over the years from Sharpeville in 1960 to Soweto in 1976 to the outbreak of sporadic unrest in the townships in Johannesburg, in Cape Town, Utenhaeg, Pretoria, ending in 1984 with a general unrest situation after the new constitution had been accepted by the electorate, the white electorate of South Africa, which set aside votes on on separate roles for the colored people, for the Indian people and for the white people, but made no provision for the votes of the black people in South Africa, so that 72% of the population were excluded when the new constitution was devised, the so-called tricameral system, which still exists. And there was an outbreak in the so-called Valle Triangle, which is Johannesburg Pretoria and the industrial area of Pharengen, which has continued ever since and has resulted in a declared state of emergency, as a result of which it is estimated that some 30 to 40,000 people have been detained over those years, some just for a matter of days, other for months, and a few for years. And that situation still obtains today. And it means, too, that we have strict censorship of the press, which is not allowed to report any unrest-related incidents without permission and has, of course, resulted, too, in the banning of all outdoor meetings, which are not allowed without permission. So that is the present state of affairs in South Africa. And it was under those circumstances that the general election of 1989 on September the 6th took place. Now, I think at this juncture to be fair, I should point out that during the past 10 years, under the leadership of Mr. P. W. Boater, the past Prime Minister and State President, unaffectionately known as Dichloet Crocodile, which means the great crocodile, the big crocodile, many changes have taken place in South Africa over the last 10 years. Some are considered cosmetic, such as the desegregation of sport, of hotels, theaters, cinemas, and many public places like post offices and beaches. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has finally been abolished. The section in the Immorality Act, which prohibited sex across the colour line outside of marriage, has also been abolished. And I must say I've had some rye moments in Parliament when I have seen laws which I opposed when they came on the statute book being repealed, say 10 and 15 and 20 years later. And I can remember when I moved private members' motions to get those laws repealed earlier on, I was told I didn't understand the mores of South Africa. Will the mores change? The laws were taken off the statute book, and the heavens did not fall. But of course, there are other laws which have also gone, such as the repeal of the so-called Job Reservation Law, which I mentioned to you, which reserved all skilled work for whites, the legal recognition of black and mixed trade unions, a very important future weapon in the black resistance movement and the black attempts at getting equality. Powers of collective bargaining have now been given to the black trade unions. Blacks have been accepted at last as permanent residents in the urban areas. And most important of all, what I consider perhaps the most offensive of all laws on the statute book, the past laws and influx control, which restricted the movement of black South African citizens, whereby they could not move from rural areas to urban areas, or from one urban area to another urban area. Now, this is the law that resulted in the arrest of thousands of black people every year for not having the correct permit in what are known as their passes. I used to ask questions year after year in Parliament, and indeed I think this to be one of the most important tasks of parliamentarians, to extract as much information as possible from ministers in Parliament. And the question I asked one of them, one of the many questions, was how many people had been arrested under the past laws? And in the last two years before the laws were abolished, I was told that half a million people had been arrested under the past laws. And when this question was put, one of the National Party members said to me bitterly, your questions embarrass South Africa. And I said to him, it's not my questions that embarrass South Africa, it's your answers that embarrass South Africa. And there's no doubt that getting illiciting that sort of information certainly was an embarrassment, but it was information which had to be obtained. Now, the laws which I have just mentioned to you are not cosmetic. They were in fact very real restrictions on the development of the black economy and their efforts to rise up the economic ladder in South Africa. The government of course did not receive much recognition from the Blacks for the repeal of these laws, because understandably they were not very grateful for the repeal of laws which should never have been enacted in the first instance. But the government also received no recognition from the rest of the world. Integration of sport, for instance, and there's a great deal of integration of sport in South Africa today, football, athletics, cricket is beginning to be integrated. Integration of sport has not led to South Africa's readmission to the Olympic Games or to any other international sporting events. And the Cabinet Minister said to me, sadly, in Parliament one day, our main problem is that we are confronted with a moving target. Whatever we do doesn't seem to be enough. We are constantly being asked to do more. And I said, and of course you're being asked to do more, you should abolish all the remaining laws of racial discrimination. Now I should mention that the laws that have been changed have been changed because of economic factors and also by the steady escalation of Black resistance within South Africa. The change in the laws were not the consequences of sanctions, as some people would like to claim. The changes took place between 1979 and June 1986. The United States Comprehensive Anti-Apartate Act was enacted in November 1986 after these laws had been abolished. Now I'm not trying to tell you that international pressures do not play their part. Of course they do. They do have an effect on the thinking of white people, on the thinking of politicians. And certainly they've had a special effect as far as the integration of sport is concerned. And in other areas where political power structure itself is not affected, particularly however in sport, because South Africans are mad about sport, they're rather good at sport too. And there's nothing they enjoy more than beating an international sporting team that comes to the country. So they're very anxious to get back into international sport. But nevertheless, I must again emphasize economic factors within South Africa have been the main motivating forces for the changes that have already taken place. So job reservation disappeared because there just were not enough whites to do the skilled work. Pass laws and influx control disappeared because they could no longer be implemented. There was such a massive urbanization as a result of the poverty push factor in the rural areas and the pull factor of job opportunities in the urban areas. Normal urbanization in the end, as I say, the pass laws simply could not be implemented. Day factor residential integration despite the Group Areas Act has taken place in some white suburbs because of the acute shortage of housing in the black urban areas. And the passing of what is known as the Free Settlement Areas Act last year will actually give day jury recognition to the areas which day facto have become mixed areas, not all of them, but some of them. It also, of course, the shortage of housing has given rise to tremendous squatter camps all over the country. Every metropolitan area has a proliferation of squatter camps around it. And an estimated 7 million black people today are living in squatter camps around these metropolitan areas. Now, all the factors that I've mentioned have played their part in precipitating South Africa into the throes of a silent revolution. I'm using the very telling phrase of Mr. J. John Cain Berman, who is the director of the South African Institute of Race Relations. According to his estimate by the year 2000, and that's very soon, blacks will outnumber whites in the cities in South Africa by three to one. Other factors are the increased number of blacks who are benefiting from secondary and tertiary education. Again, quoting the same source by the year 2000, seven out of every matriculance in South Africa will be black. It's a very significant figure. It also makes South Africa very different from the rest of the continent of Africa. Already 40% of university students are black. Here I am including the separate universities set aside for people who are not white. The University of the Western Cape for so-called colored people. The University of Durban Westville for Indian people. The three black universities. And also I am including the so-called white universities, which have, despite so-called quotas, which have simply been ignored, are taking more and more students who are not white. So that my own alma mater in Johannesburg and the University of Cape Town today have a student body of something like 25% of their students are not white. So that is a very important increase in the number of educated and trained black people. And it has led to the fact that middle level manpower, middle management, is becoming increasingly black in South Africa. And as you can imagine, this has had a considerable impact on income distribution in the country and on consumer spending. And there's no doubt whatever that the black share of disposable income is rising all the time. And the growing importance of the black market is being increasingly brought to the consciousness of white South African businessmen, as what happened just recently when there was a boycott of two areas which try to reintroduce segregation of public facilities, which in fact had been integrated. And those two towns found themselves practically bankrupt because the entire black population refused to buy in those towns and went to the nearby next door town to do their purchasing. We have black entrepreneurship today, which has taken off in a truly remarkable fashion, black taxi services, which are competing very successfully with established transport sections. And the entire informal sector activity has become a very important factor in taking up some of the slack of black unemployment, which is the result of the low growth rate in the economy due to the shortage of investment capital, due to sanctions and due to disinvestment. Now, I don't want to give you the impression that apartheid has disappeared from the landscape in South Africa. It has not. As long as laws like the Population Registration Act, which is the law that registers every child born in South Africa in a racial category, as long as the Gruberias Act, the Separate Amenities Act and the Land Acts remain on the statute book, apartheid is alive and well and living in South Africa. Most important, as long as black South Africans are denied the vote for parliament that passes the laws that govern their lives, what domination remains intact. Now, so much for the past. Let me come to the present and possibly the future. Though I have to tell you that I have a very clouded crystal ball as far as the future is concerned. On September 6th of this year, the National Party government was again returned to power. This time under a new state president, Mr. F. W. DeClaire, a marked improvement on his predecessor as far as personality and intelligence is concerned. The government was returned to power with a reduced majority. It lost 30 seats at the election. It lost 17 seats to the far right conservative party and it lost 13 seats to my old party, the Liberal Democratic Party. It nevertheless came to power with a majority of 27 and is able to govern without any alliances with either of the two parties. Some people were hoping for what in Britain is known as a hung parliament. I don't know what you call it here, but it's a parliament where the government doesn't have a sufficient majority to govern by itself and has to look for alliances among the other parliamentary parties. Now, there were three interesting factors in this election, apart from the government's losing 30 seats. I might say the losses do not so much to people favoring the policies necessarily of the other two parties. In fact, I'm sure a lot of people voted without knowing what the policies were, but they voted against the government and they voted against the government because of the high rate of inflation, which is around about 18% in South Africa. They voted against the government because there had been revelations of corruption in high places, something you're not unaware of here, I believe, and they voted against the government because they did not like the isolated situation in which South Africa was increasingly finding herself. All these factors played their part, though, of course, there are the stalwarts who voted for the Conservative Party because they did not want any progress in the dismantling of apartheid and they voted for the Liberal Democratic Party because they wanted further progress in the dismantling of apartheid. The interesting factor, which one can extract from the election, is that the mass democratic movement arose during this electoral period as sort of solidarity of the disfranchised and the people who sympathized with the disfranchised. So we have a mass democratic movement operating in South Africa today despite the bannings and restrictions and indeed they took to the streets of Johannesburg and of Cape Town, very short while ago and a significant factor of the new attitude by the new state president is that for once the police were kept out of it. The police were not sent in with their tear gas and their bird shot and their quits and that, I think, is a significant change. The other significant change is that for the first time a national party, state president or leader of the national party, has claimed that he has a mandate for change. He said he has a 70% mandate for change. Now he only got 50% of the vote. So quite obviously has thrown into this the 20% of the vote, which is the people who voted for the liberal democratic party. Those two together, the 50% he got and the 20% that the democratic party got has given him what he calls his mandate for power. What we want to know, of course, and by the way, there was a very low poll for the two other houses, the colored house and the Indian house, the poll was about 25%, showing that those communities still reject the idea of this tricameral parliament where they're separated from the white community. Now the state president, despite his mandate, has not yet told us what he's going to do with it. This is what we do not know. He has to clarify exactly what he intends to do to translate into reality the goal, which he said was, and this was in parliament at the beginning of this year, a new South Africa, a totally changed South Africa, a South Africa which has rid itself of the antagonism of the past, a South Africa free of domination or oppression in any form. Very good, laudable sentiments, but what in fact are they going to mean? The five-year plan which was released by the National Party during the election was vague, full of motherhood and apple pie, but it told us nothing about which laws were in fact going to be repealed. The plan reiterates the National Party's adherence to the concept of the protection of group interests based on racial identity, although defined less rigidly and with greater freedom of association. Now it is true the government says it is considering introducing a Bill of Rights, something desperately needed in South Africa, to guarantee individual rights. It favours the holding of a conference, a great enderber as it is known, at which representatives of all the racial groups will be present in order to negotiate the political accommodation of black people in the parliamentary structure, absolutely essential if we are to have this new South Africa with a new girl and without oppression or domination. Now whether he intends, the state president, to include the banned African National Congress and other banned organisations in the great enderber, whether he will soon release Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners, whether he'll lift the state of the emergency, all preconditions laid down by black leaders before they will agree to come to the negotiating table, we do not yet know. I was told in the car coming here today by Mr. Burrs, who'd been listening to the news that there was some talk of the release of Walter Sassulu, who is a fellow prisoner of Nelson Mandela. Whether that's going to happen or not, I don't know, but of course the key man remains Nelson Mandela, who undoubtedly is the undisputed leader of the ANC and of the vast majority of certainly of politically activated black people. Now I think it's obvious that concessions will have to come on both sides. If negotiations are to have any hope of success, otherwise the great enderber is going to be stillborn. Now I think DeClaire intends to try to restore South Africa's credibility in the Western world. I hope that he'll get a move on, for I've no doubt that time is running out as far as the patience of the Western nations are concerned. Though I do not believe that Mrs. Thatcher, for instance, is going to deviate from her announced policy against sanctions when she goes to the Commonwealth Conference at Kuala Lampur later this month. But I must tell you that sanctions and the threat of further punitive actions notwithstanding, the state president will not hand over power to the black majority. That is his bottom line. It is not elected to do that. Although I believe he will explore all ways in which to bring blacks into the parliamentary system short of threatening white domination. He will also certainly make incremental change. I believe he will allow many of the laws simply to erode by non-prosecution. Possibly the Group Areas Act will go that way. Certainly the Separate Amenities Act is already going. I think you may have seen in your newspapers that already the Johannesburg City Council, which is national party controlled, has, in fact, desegregated all public facilities. And that, I think, is an important thing. The other thing, too, which I think is important in the post-election scene, is that the government is now negotiating with the people's representatives in the urban townships. They are not insisting on negotiating with the people elected under the government, local government ordinance, but with people who are the natural leaders who have come forward in the civic associations as the representatives. Up till now, the government has never had anything to do with those people, has refused to recognize them. And I might say, up till now, no national party government has ever allied itself with a liberal so-called left, which is the Democratic Party. It has always distanced itself from the liberal side of the political spectrum in South Africa, saying that the liberals are soft on security, which is why the central minister of law in order that postcard from Moscow, soft on security and short on patriotism. So these are straws in the wind. And I think they're quite important straws in the wind. Now, of course, what you all want to know is what the world can do to accelerate the process of change in South Africa. Well, I have to say again that I'm on record and I still firmly believe that sanctions and disinvestment are ultimately counterproductive. You may get different political thinking. You may get changes in the whole political setup in South Africa. But if you do it at the expense of wrecking the economy of South Africa, you have done a disservice to everybody in South Africa, white or black. There's no point in inheriting a wasteland. It is of no use to anybody. And if disinvestment continues and if there is mandatory sanctions, comprehensive mandatory sanctions, and South Africa loses export markets, you can be sure there will be widespread unemployment, mainly among the black population, but of course also among the white. Now, I'm not impressed by the phrase which is often used by black leaders that blacks are suffering so much in South Africa that a little more suffering caused by unemployment as a result of sanctions will do no harm. I must remind you that South Africa has no social security safety net there is no dowel and there are no food stamps and unemployment is a dire experience. I must ask all of you why job creation is always a major issue in every election in this country. In every constituency, the man who's standing for election makes a point of telling his would-be voters that he's going to seek industry in the area, he's going to have job creation in the area. Why does anyone think that black Africans are any different in this regard? They also need jobs. They also want jobs. They also fear unemployment. Now, if you could say with certainty that sanctions and disinvestment will be a swift blow which will bring the regime down, dismantle apartheid and you can re-establish the whole economic setup, then of course there's some sense in it but nobody really believes that because it doesn't happen that way. It's a long drawn out process as the economy erodes, as unemployment increases, as growth ceases altogether and the half a million young black people coming onto the labor market every year find there are no jobs available. So the net result is not going to be a sudden conversion into a non-racial democracy in a prosperous South Africa. It is going to be a gradual descent into poverty for everybody and that means more oppression and it means more money diverted from education and from training and more money going into the military and the police. In other words, the sad scenario will be a long drawn out confrontation between a government backed by the military and the police. There's no chance of a Panama coup here, I can tell you as far as South Africa is concerned. If anything, the police are right-wing and the army is certainly loyal to the government. So it will be a long drawn out confrontation between a government backed by the military and the police and a popular mass movement which more and more must turn to sort of IRA type violence and that to me is not a very good scenario for South Africa, not a good South Africa. Now, there have been polls about this unemployment question. Some, a couple of years ago, there was a nationwide survey on black attitudes to sanctions in South Africa and 60% of the people were opposed to sanctions if job losses were to be sustained. Whether question was omitted about job losses then a far greater percentage were in favor of sanctions. Recently a Gallup poll was conducted, financed by the Chamber of Mines which of course immediately brought it into suspicion by a lot of people under suspect and that confirmed the finding that blacks do not support sanctions if as is inevitable loss of jobs result. Figures opposed to sanctions increased to 66 and 2 thirds if many people would lose their jobs and to over 70% if their own jobs were jeopardized. That I think is a much truer picture than to say blacks don't care if they lose their jobs. What they're to live on, of course, nobody tells us. Now, please again, don't misunderstand me. I totally understand the moral outrage that so many people feel about apartheid and the offensive practices of apartheid. And after all, I think I can claim to afford apartheid longer in parliament than anybody else in South Africa. But I don't believe that punitive measures which will wreck the economy and reduce the country to chaos will improve the situation. I must also of course admit that there are many black leaders that support sanctions. Among them, of course, Archbishop Tutu who says that the onus is on those who oppose sanctions to produce another method of dismantling apartheid. Well, I can only say the method is long-term. The method is the economic development of South Africa. The method is to draw blacks into the skilled occupations in South Africa and that can only happen in an expanding economy. Now, the front-line states also say they want sanctions. All of them, they say they want sanctions. That is their public pronouncement. I believe they, and I think Archbishop Tutu as well, believe that the whole issue will be resolved swiftly. So therefore, they don't see this long confrontational situation that I see. Now, the front-line states also believe it will be a very quick, swift punitive action. The national party regime will disappear. We'll have a non-racial democracy established thereafter. I must tell you that anything that affects the South African economy affects the economy of the front-line states. For the whole of Southern Africa is one economic unit. All the front-line states depend on South Africa for power, electricity, I'm talking about. For transport, they use South African rolling stock, South African ports, and of course, they're also dependent on South Africa for the provision of jobs for their unemployed people. So anything that affects the one affects the other. I think there is a mistaken impression among the front-line states that the West will pick up the tab to make good any damage that has been suffered. And that means, of course, America, Britain, and mainly Western Germany. Now, I believe what can you do? Now, first of all, there's a limit. And I know that upsets Americans, no end, to be told that there's a limit to what they can do. But there is a limit. And the solution to South Africa is gonna be found by the South African people, all the South African people, black and white. But I believe that countries, as I said right at the beginning, which have as their basic values, freedom and human rights, which are values that I share very fervently, must continue to use all diplomatic channels to protest long and loud against the miserable practices of apartheid and to employ all positive means to speed their demise. And this includes the valuable social responsibility programs, which many Americans firms, for instance, and many of the Western nations have in fact been implementing in order to help to educate and train blacks for the post-apartheid society that must evolve. I might say when the disinvesting firms go, very often their social responsibility programs go too. And that of course is to the detriment of the country as a whole. Generally, South African millionaires are created when companies go, they sell out at fire sale prices, the South African firms take over, some continue with social responsibility programs, others do not. I believe that the Western countries must assist in the development of strong black trade unions, which can then use the economic muscle to make demands beyond the workplace to redress the inequalities. Power takes many forms. And in South Africa today, blacks are slowly but surely accumulating economic power as they're drawn into the national economy, not only in ever increasing numbers, but at rising levels of skills. And economic muscle can be used, as has been shown in every industrializing country, to redress imbalances in wealth, privilege and power. I don't believe South Africa will be the exception, though I have to admit the solution that I suggest is long term, and I have to admit that black people understandably are impatient for fundamental change and they want it now, they don't want to wait. But nevertheless, I cannot understand why sanctions and disinvestment are advocated by those who are really working for black advancement, thus undermining the major power base that blacks can obtain, economic muscle. I believe that we have to create a climate for negotiation. I believe that the ANC and the other band organizations must be drawn into those negotiations. I am firmly of the belief that non-racial negotiations must include Nelson Mandela, and that means as soon as possible. And finally, I want to say that notwithstanding all the flagrant injustices of the apartheid system, despite the miserable laws and the glaring inequality between black and white standards of living, South Africa does not consist only of right-wing whites and radical blacks. South Africa abounds with fine creative people of all races, most of whom are determined to remain in the country and to strive for an end to all discriminatory practices and to be part of a non-racial democratic post-apartheid society. And that means to become the majority government, and that means all people of all races who want the same thing, who want peaceful progress, who want a decent standard of living, who want good education for their children, who want proper housing, that's everybody in all races. And that I believe is the majority in South Africa that should run the post-apartheid society. Thank you.