404. Telegram From the Embassy in South Africa to the Department of State0
140. Reference: Embassy telegram 115.1 I took advantage of Foreign Minister Louw’s absence from country to request interview with Prime Minister Verwoerd in his capacity as Acting Foreign Minister. This took place yesterday afternoon and lasted more than an hour. I first told him of my concern re Bantu laws amendment bill. This bill was so long and complicated that our Embassy had made an analysis of it. It would appear clearly from this analysis that all Bantus outside Bantustans of which there must be some six to seven million would in future be deprived of all their present rights to permanent residence in such areas. They would moreover be entirely subject to decisions of Ministry of Bantu Administration and lower officials and these decisions could not be appealed to Courts. I was therefore leaving him a copy of our analysis in hope that he would have it examined and let us know if it is wrong in any material respect. If not I thought he should know that reaction of US and world opinion in learning of harshness of the terms of this law would be alarmingly strong and would more than negate favorable aspects of Bantustan program with which his Government was moving forward in Transkei.
Prime Minister said he would not go over our analysis now but would give me some background on subject. He began with consolidation of previous Bantu administration laws made in 1945 and talked at considerable length about his own experience as Minister of Native Affairs (1950-1958). He described misunderstanding by outside world of actions he had taken as Minister to bring Missionary Schools under Government control. This was done however because he had found that under previous system more and more money was being spent annually by Government on same number of Bantu students. As result of steps he had taken this situation was corrected although Missionaries disliked it and it was widely misunderstood abroad. In case of present amendment he said that actually these amendments would go a long way in removing certain frictions. Nevertheless he recognized that certain clauses did present “something new” but did not believe that these clauses went so far as to nullify all favorable aspects of the legislation. At conclusion this discussion he promised to have our analysis examined by appropriate [Page 632] officials and I again emphasized strong reaction such extreme legislation would have on US and world opinion.
Comment: During discussion this subject Prime Minister exercised all his charm and powers of persuasion on me. While I cannot hope that our analysis and my presentation will dissuade him from going ahead with this legislation, they will at least serve to warn him of our strong reactions to this inhumane measure. Analysis handed him is rearranged version of that transmitted Embassy telegram 115 except for deletion of our own comments and slight softening certain wording without however altering meaning.