Mr. O'HARA. Digressing a little bit, you mentioned the fact that you are not a political economist.

Mr. HOUSER. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. I have only the deepest respect for the political economist, but I learned years ago that they are just as human as the Army Engineers. You have a depression. The political economists study it and they come up with a program that is going to stop them forever. Then old man human nature goes on a rampage and makes monkeys out of the economist. We have floods, and the Army Engineers say "We are going to stop this," and they draw up plans that are going to stop them forever, but old man Mississippi goes on a rampage and makes monkeys out of the Army Engineers. I suppose that means that all that has nothing to do with South Africa.

But maybe it does have something to do with South Africa. Here you have a situation that all the world denounces. You know we make speeches but we do nothing about that. That can't go on forever. Would you say that if nothing is done that within perhaps as brief a period as 10 years in Africa there will be one of the greatest blood baths of history? Is that possible?

Mr. HOUSER. I think it is possible. I think it could be a blood bath with the worst racial overtones that we have ever seen, also. Mr. O'HARA. And it would affect the whole world, wouldn't it? Mr. HOUSER. It certainly would.

Mr. O'HARA. It would bring on a racial feeling all over the world and set us back a good many generations.

You have come up with some good suggestions here. I want to study them, and with your permission and your approval I shall put your address in the Congressional Record immediately.

I have been getting a number of letters suggesting that this subcommittee should force three persons, one a businessman, and two bankers to appear before the subcommittee.

Are there only three Americans who are responsible for American investments and business dealings in South Africa?

Mr. HOUSER. Certainly not.

Mr. O'HARA. How many are there?

Mr. HOUSER. I think the figure Mr. Trowbridge gave in his address about the number of American firms was 240. Let's say there is certainly well over 200 involved to varying extents. They are not all involved that heavily.

Mr. DIGGS. If the gentleman will yield, certainly Charles Engelhard should be one of these people.

Mr. HOUSER. He certainly should.

Mr. DIGGS. He is the chief foreign financier in South Africa and happens to be an American citizen.

Mr. HOUSER. Correct.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you think that all these men should appear before this committee and testify?

is

Mr. HOUSER. I think it is a shame that they haven't done so, and it very difficult for me to believe that they have all come to this conclusion without at least some discussion among them. I can recognize that to some of them it may be a bit embarrassing. They can be caught between indicating some of the compromises they have to make, or, if they go too far in criticizing the South African Government, they will be caught because of their relations with the South

African Government, which presumably they have to keep on something of a friendly basis in order to do effective business there, but I think from my point of view I would like to see some of the more important American businessmen before this committee to answer the kinds of questions that should be put to them.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, I am in hopes that they will appear before this subcommittee and that they will appear voluntarily.

I might say that I got a letter from Clarence Randall, for whom I have great respect. I had written him a personal letter, having known him for years, and suggested it would be a great service if he appeared. I got a letter in reply, which I am going to put in the record later on, where for the first time I learned that he had had two very serious heart attacks and under the advice of his doctors. he can't participate in any public discussions, but in his letter he raises a question of the propriety of these hearings. I am going to put his letter in the record. (See p. 213.)

We appreciate your being with us today. We want your continuing help and cooperation. These hearings are going on for a long time. We would like to close them up within 2 or 3 weeks, but it is impossible. The full committee is meeting now, and our subcommittee has to meet in the afternoon, so it is a long-drawn-out program.

But time is no element, except I feel our investigation and our hearings must be completed and the report printed well before the convening of the 21st General Assembly of the United Nations.

Congressman Diggs, have you any further questions?

Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Chairman, you raised one point that is covered in a very thoughtful report here, a special report by Mr. Houser's organization. You raised a point about the involvement of the American banks. The January issue of Africa Today, which is published by the distinguished witness' organization, if it were possible to get that in the record behind his testimony, I think it would be a very useful contribution toward the education of anybody reading such testimony. It involves the whole framework of American involvement in South African economy. It covers our involvement in terms of the banking and finance world, the conditions prevailing with respect to labor there, the minerals, metals, the mine workers.

There is a special section on this one particular individual, Mr. Engelhard, who as I characterized it earlier is the most prominent foreign financier in that country and who happens to be an American. It points out the involvement of the automobile industry, the rubber industry, and it has references to support all of the points that they make.

If it were not too cumbersome, I would respectfully suggest that you might want to consider making it a part of the record following the gentleman's testimony.

Mr. O'HARA. Are there any further questions, Mr. Fraser?

Mr. FRASER. No, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Houser.

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

UNITED STATES-SOUTH AFRICAN RELATIONS

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barratt O'Hara (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. O'HARA. While the Chair is waiting for other members of the subcommittee to arrive, I wish to make a statement for the record.

I have written a personal letter to Clarence B. Randall of Inland Steel Co., retired, requesting him to testify. I have always had high regard for Mr. Randall, and he and I were of the same mind some years ago when I was strongly advocating the building of the Volta Dam in Ghana, and Mr. Randall joined in the recommendation of that project.

I did not know how he felt about South Africa, but I wrote him, and in his response he says he had had two bad heart attacks, and because of that had withdrawn from public activities, but he seemed to feel very strongly on the matter of South Africa, and he wrote this letter to me, and, I think, wished it made public. I am now reading it for the record, and there being no objection, it will be put in the record. It might be that the men and women of the press might want to look it over, because of Mr. Randall's prominence. (The letter referred to reads as follows:)

Hon. BARRATT O'HARA,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

INLAND STEEL Co.
Chicago, Ill., February 28, 1966.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN O'HARA: I have your letter of February 17, and am complimented that you should think I might be able to make a contribution to the hearings which the Subcommittee on Africa proposes to hold with reference to the social problems in South Africa.

I am sorry to have to say that for health reasons I shall have to decline your invitation to appear in person. I have had two coronary thromboses, and, although my day-to-day health permits me a wide range of activity, my doctors have asked me not to participate in public occasions because of the emotional experience that might be involved. I ask your indulgence, therefore, and hope that this letter may be received in lieu of the testimony which otherwise I should have been happy to present to you directly.

May I say with entire candor at the outset that I somewhat doubt the propriety of the holding of hearings by the American Congress with respect to social problems that lie within the sovereignty of another nation. I live in the Chicago area, and am disturbed that we have not here found solutions for our racial problems, but I should be deeply concerned if it were announced that the British Parliament had decided to conduct hearings with respect to racial relationships in Chicago.

Due somewhat to the accidents of life I have come to know quite intimately the situation in South Africa, having made three visits to that country in recent years, the last having been in October and November of 1965.

I make no defense of apartheid, but I do think the American people should examine that subject objectively, and without raising their voices in emotional outbursts.

There is much in South Africa that no thoughtful American would care to accept in his own country, but there is also much that is good. For the most part we hear the bad and do not hear the good. It must be remembered that when the white man first landed at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 the Bantu tribes of black men were nowhere to be found in the geographical limits of what is now the Republic of South Africa. They were north of the Limpopo River. As time moved on they entered the area, but the white man had already established sovereignty. For this reason the whites have always regarded the blacks as a separate nation much as our States in the Southwest regard the underprivileged lying across their border in Mexico as a separate nation.

The whites in South Africa therefore developed the philosophy that if the blacks wishes to enter their employment they were welcome, but that in so doing they must accept the conditions imposed by the white man. Of these the principal one was residential segregation.

Today that segregation is a matter of law, and, if we are honest with ourselves, we will recognize that in many parts of the United States the same result is achieved by common consent instead of doing it frankly by law as is done in South Africa.

Today in South Africa this physical separation has brought to pass for the employed Bantu far better living conditions than prevail in many areas of our country where minority groups live. Outside of Johannesburg, for example, the Bantu live in what are called townships. They lease their homes from the Government. The typical residence is built of brick, has a little garden in the back, has two bedrooms, plus a combination living-dining room, and a kitchen. the facilities are modern, including water, sewers, and electricity. For all of these amenities he pays about $7 a month rent, which, of course, has no parallel anywhere in the United States. Serving the area is a modern hospital for Bantu that has 3,000 beds.

All

His standard of living in terms of per capita income is far and away the highest for men of color anywhere in all Africa. In Liberia, which is governed by blacks, there was a strike recently in protest over the fact that the average daily wage was only 64 cents. In South Africa several industries have now adopted a daily minimum wage for black workers of 1 rand, or $1.40 per day. In the construction industry, the Bantu may now perform 90 skilled functions, and monthly wages for such African workers may reach as high as 100 rand, or $140. It is said that more automobiles are owned in South Africa by Bantu workers than are privately owned in the whole country of Russia.

Literacy is higher among the Bantu groups in South Africa than in the countries to the north, and there presently are among them 3,000 university graduates, which is a larger total figure than in all of the black countries to the north combined.

I could not accept in my country the so-called Job Reservation Act of South Africa by which certain callings and positions of responsibility are closed to the Bantu. I believe that if a man is worthy of employment at all he should be judged entirely on merit, and receive promotion when it is due him, regardless of color. Many industralists in South Africa now share that view and I feel confident that as the economy of that country grows, more opportunities are certain to open to men of ability found in the black groups.

This is but one of the evolutionary factors that are at work in the Republic of South Africa. Others are to be found within the churches and among the intellectuals. External pressures and threats such as economic sanctions, and military force, block the impact of these evolutionary factors due to the natural instinct of the citizen of any country to resent and resist dictation from outside.

I hope, therefore, that the American people will advance their knowledge and understanding of these problems, but that we will limit the expression of our opinions to a quiet dialogue with the citizens of South Africa in which neither we nor they will raise our voices intemperately.

Very truly yours,

CLARENCE B. RANDALL.