page 3

Why keep the Consulate?

Halfway up Molesworth St., in our very own capital city, sits the South African Consulate. On Tuesday a forum was held by the Student Anti-Apartheid Movement (SAAM) to discuss the Consulate's presence in New Zealand. Speaking for the Consulate's continued presence were Prof. Murphy of the Political Science Dept and Malcolm Ross of the Correspondence School; speaking against were Trevor Richards from the Halt All Racist Tours movement (HART) and Dennis Rockell from the National Anti-Apartheid Council (NAAC).

The reasons for throwing out the Consulate fall into two main categories - International and Domestic. The International sphere was explained in the following terms by Trevor Richards. The South African Consulate does not represent the people of South Africa. In actual fact, it represents only a section of the white 18% who have the vote. It represents Apartheid, not South Africa, and as such is a direct appeal to racism and fascism.

Some people ask why the removal of the South African Consulate is concentrated on so much more than that of any other rotten Government. In the case of South Africa, there is a combination of factors which does not occur in any other state in the world and which makes it important that we no longer tolerate the Consulate's presence. The South African Government is regarded by most people of the world as an illegal and racist regime; for over twenty years the oppressed people have consistently called for the isolation of the South African Government; New Zealand's rejection of the Consulate would have some effect on South Africa as they like to think of New Zealand and Australia as their little friends down under; at present the Consulate is pouring propoganda into New Zealand schools and libraries.

Others argue that by throwing out the Consulate and thus cutting all diplomatic ties with South Africa, we will lose our one formal channel of protest. If the Consulate was here in any political capacity this might be so, but as the situation stands its function is solely to promote economic, cultural and commercial relations between New Zealand and South Africa. As such it is not a channel through which protest can be conveyed. Lindhorst's (the South African Consul-General) task is not to be influenced by New Zealand but to influence us.

Dennis Rockell elaborated on the Consulate's function. The information sent to schools and libraries is free and unsolicited, and according to a survey done by NAAC reaches nearly every such institution in the country. Lindhorst is very active personally, speaking at Rotary meetings and the like and often appearing in the New Zealand press making such statements as "Give us more time..." and "Black is not always beautiful."

He seems to feel that such remarks excuse the present exploitation and murder of black people in South Africa. The anti-apartheid movement does not deny Lindhorst's right to speak as an individual but it does deny his right to speak as a representative of the South African people. In his present role, Lindhorst is acting merely to build bridges between white New Zealand and white South Africa.

In 1971, the New Zealand Maori Council requested that the South African Consulate be closed because of its unfavourable effect on race relations in New Zealand. Their request was ignored but makes quite clear the harm which is caused by the Consulate's presence in New Zealand. Towards the end of Dennis Rockell's speech, Malcolm Ross fell off his chair, bringing a bit of light entertainment to an otherwise serious forum.

Ross announced at the beginning of his speech that although he didn't necessarily support it, he believed there was a good case to be made for keeping the Consulate. If this is so, he didn't make a very good attempt at letting us know what it was. His argument seemed to rest on the ideas that the Consulate can supply us with much "information", and that the New Zealand government must have good reason for taking the stand it has so we shouldn't question them before we knew what they were.

Professor Murphy said a bit more. The first point he made was that the New Zealand Government had in fact very little contact with South Africa, having no official representatives in South Africa. Although it recognised the South African Government, he did not feel that this in any way implied support or approval for their regime. True, South Africa was not democratic but after all, nor were any of the rest of the African countries.

As for the argument that most countries condemn South Africa, he recognised that there was United Nations majority against South Africa, but then again, countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal and West Germany all maintained representatives in South Africa. If they could, why shouldn't we have just a little Consulate? And anyway, 7000 New Zealanders visit South Africa each year. Murphy ended by berating the black African countries for condemning other countries (such as New Zealand) which maintain contact with South Africa while continuing to trade with South Africa themselves.

Question time and they poured in thick and fast. Andy Tees disagreed that the Consulate could not be used to register protest and cited the case of the Canadian "Consulate" being used to convey a political message. Unfortunately for him, the "Consulate" is really a High Commission! Lindy Cassidy felt in need of enlightenment as to just what sort of information we could get from South Africa, apart from a few clues on the old accidental suicide, torture and fall from an open window. Ross denied this was what he meant but didn't elaborate.

Gary Lewis wanted to know what Trevor Richards thought of NZUSA links with travel to South Africa. Richards said the issue had been discussed by NZUSA and HART, that he wasn't interested in shit-throwing at a fraternal organisation and that the question was really a bit irrelevant to the throwing out of the South African Consulate.

Jonathon Scott was a bit confused by Prof. Murphy's logic which seemed to say that "The black nations condemn apartheid and are hypocritical in trading with South Africa, therefore New Zealand should continue trading with South Africa." Prof. Murphy answered by reiterating his opinion that the black nations were hypocritical in urging New Zealand to cease links with South Africa.

Here again; it was difficult to find the actual argument in what was being said. By the time the forum ended, people would have gained a pretty good idea why the anti-apartheid movement is campaigning for the expulsion of the South African Consulate. Some may think this is wrong, but the reasons for their point of view did not surface during the debate. Others can see that while the Consulate remains in New Zealand it makes a mockery of any claims that we oppose apartheid and are prepared to do something about it.

Remember the March on June 16, Sowfto Day. It's Time we Stood up and Showed our Support for the Black People of South Africa and their Struggle!

Lamorna Rogers.