FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF RACIAL EXCLUSION IN GRANTING VISAS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Mr. DIGGS. The subcommittee will come to order. There was an article which appeared in the pro-government Capetown, South African newspaper, Die Berger, which stated: "South Africa's ultimate power lies in her ability to unleash international difficulties of which the end cannot be foreseen.” I think that article properly reflects the concern of this subcommittee with respect to racism, South African policy in the sports area and its implications for United States foreign policy. South Africa is unique among the smaller nations in that it spends some upward of $10 million on overseas propaganda which involves the subject that we are about to take up this morning. The dissemination of propaganda from that country is actually an industry in itself and the case is continually being made that South Africa with its three and a half million whites and 11 million blacks, and other non-whites, is a Western Christian Democratic state with all such a state implies with respect to freedom and safeguards. If one will look in the dictionary under the definition of sportsmanship, you will note that it generally is described as something giving everyone a fair chance, something which judges a person on its merits alone, and may-the-best-man-win kind of concept. This concept. collides with the official policy of the South African Government, apartheid or separate development, particularly as it relates to the sports field. Through the issue of sports one gets the clearest insights that I know into the true nature of the South African race policy and the way in which it is applied. There is no question that there are masses of facts, decisions, testimony from various sources proving that the South African Government practices overt and universal racialism in its sports field. Moreover, the South African Government is not very subtle about it, it is actually part of their national policy, and therefore, part of their political policy. One just cannot separate the question of the denial of a visa to an Arthur Ashe from the political questions that are generally involved and which have implications for the United States. I might add that this policy not only covers sports participants but also spectators, because by law whites and blacks in South Africa cannot be spectators at a sports event except on a segregated basis. There have been some exceptions to that, the South Africans are very skilled at the technique of minor exceptions, and these exceptions notwithstanding, policy has continued to be maintained. The announcement on January 28 of this year denying Mr. Arthur Ashe a visa confirms my conviction that they maintain this policy and, as has been previously stated, this policy is perverse and twisted. Mr. Ashe, the top ranking tennis player in the United States, had applied for a visa to participate in the 1970 South African National Tennis Championships and on applying for a visa stated that his principal desire in visiting South Africa was only to play tennis. It is quite obvious that he was denied entrance solely because he is black because there have been other athletes that have been critical of South African policy and still have been permitted to come into that country and therefore this arbitrary action reinforces our contention that something should be done. We are hopeful that our Government is going to develop some kind of policy to implement the pronouncements that they have made here in Washington and other international forums that this policy on the part of South Africa is a part. We have as the leadoff witness here today the Director for Southern Africa, Department of State, Mr. Oliver S. Crosby, who we hope will give us some enlightenment as to the implications of this matter for U.S. foreign policy and, hopefully, can give us some indication of what our Government is doing and is prepared to do in order to avoid this degradation which has been experienced by Arthur Ashe in the instant case. STATEMENT OF OLIVER S. CROSBY, DIRECTOR FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. CROSBY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the African Subcommittee, it is an honor to represent the Department of State before this subcommittee as it examines the question of the application of Mr. Arthur Ashe for a South African visa to play tennis in the South African National Tennis Championships. The case is, as you have said, a particularly unfortunate one, and one in which the Department of State has taken. a keen interest. From the first, it was apparent that Mr. Ashe would have difficulty in securing a South African visa. He had been given to understand in early 1969 that he would not be admitted to South Africa. Then, on December 3, 1969, South African Sports Minister Waring, having learned that the South African Lawn Tennis Association had accepted Mr. Ashe's application to compete in the National Tennis Championships this spring, had taken strong exception. Mr. Waring alleged that Mr. Ashe had made a number of unfriendly and threatening statements against South Africa, and he concluded that Mr. Ashe did not. intend to go to South Africa to play tennis but rather to engage in political activity. On December 7 Secretary of State Rogers met Mr. Ashe at an exhibition match in Paris. Mr. Ashe told the Secretary of his interest in playing tennis in South Africa and voiced concern over the visa problem. Secretary Rogers expressed his interest in the matter and said he would see what could be done. Accordingly, on December 15, 1969, the same day Mr. Ashe made formal application for his visa at the South African Consulate General in New York, high level representations were made to the South African Government, both through its Ambassador in Washington and directly to the Foreign Minister in Pretoria. In both these conversations, Assistant Secretary of State Newsom and Ambassador Rountree made clear the Secretary's personal interest in this case and his hope that a visa would be granted. Our high regard for Mr. Ashe was made clear and the belief was expressed that he genuinely wanted to play tennis in South Africa, not to engage in politics as had been alleged. It was pointed out that from the time this question had arisen Mr. Ashe had conducted himself in an entirely appropriate manner, consistent with his own stated reason for wanting to visit South Africa. Reference was made to the recent cases where the South African Government had regrettably refused visas to prominent American citizens, and it was pointed out that discriminatory treatment such as this was bound to have an unfortunate effect on the atmosphere of United States-South African relations. Both in Washington and Pretoria the approach was concluded with the urgent request that the South African Government approve Mr. Ashe's visa. Ambassador Rountree followed this up with a special meeting with Prime Minister Vorster to reiterate our concern and interest in Mr. Ashe's visa application. The Prime Minister promised to give the matter careful consideration and put it up to his Cabinet when it next met late in January of this year. On January 27, 1970, Prime Minister Vorster invited Ambassador Rountree to meet with him and Foreign Minister Muller. The Prime Minister reported that Mr. Ashe's visa application had been thoroughly discussed in the Cabinet meeting of the day before and that it had been the unanimous decision of the Cabinet that the visa should not be granted. Once again, reference was made to hostile statements Mr. Ashe had allegedly made about South Africa, and his wish to play in South Africa was termed inconsistent with his support of efforts to exclude South Africa from the 1968 Olympic games. The Prime Minister then stated that if Mr. Ashe wanted to go to South Africa as a member of a Davis Cup team, he would be granted a visa. The Department greatly regrets the refusal of the South African Government to allow Mr. Ashe to play in the national tennis championships. This is particularly regrettable because of the overtones of racial bias in the case that you have already mentioned. Over the years the U.S. Government has made clear its unalterable opposition to the policy of apartheid, or racial separation, in South Africa. It has done this in bilateral representations and in the U.N. and other multilateral organizations. As we have so often stated, it is our conviction that it is in South Africa's deepest interests to foster foreign contacts and exchanges-not to shut itself off in sterile isolation. There is unfortunately a limit to our ability to bring the South African authorities to a reasonable stance in such matters, as one of the attributes of national sovereignty is the right of a state to determine for itself who shall be allowed to enter its territory. However, this does not render any more tolerable the South African Government's decision in cases such as that of Mr. Arthur Ashe. The story is not over as this kind of case will come up again and again as long as the South African Government persists in pursuing apparently discriminatory policies with respect to American citizens. And again and again we will do our utmost to defend the rights and interests of our citizens before the Government of South Africa. Thank you. Mr. DIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Crosby. Will you identify for the record your colleague at the witness table? STATEMENT OF FREDERICK SMITH, JR., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR OFFICERS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. SMITH. I am Frederick Smith, Jr., Deputy Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Crosby, you stated what the committee expected you to say about American policy on this whole question, that "unfortunately, there is a limit to our ability to bring South African authorities to a reasonable stance in such matters." Are you saying that there was no way in which the United States can, for example, reciprocate in kind with respect to athletes who come from that country to this country and who have been coming to this country and enjoying all of the benefits pertinent thereto without any kind of restrictions at all? Are you saying that our hands are tied and we cannot do anything about this matter from the reciprocation standpoint? Mr. CROSBY. Mr. Chairman, from the standpoint of possible reciprocation, retaliatory visa refusal, there are two general categories of considerations that pertain to the U.S. position, one concerning visa regulations, on which I will ask Mr. Smith to speak to you, and one of general principle I would like to discuss very briefly for a moment. It is our strong feeling and a source of pride to us that the United States is an open country. We cherish this fact and we are determined to keep it so. Part of this quality that we value so highly is the objective basis on which we admit foreigners to the country; we believe that an exchange of ideas and the exchange of people is a fruitful thing. We very strongly regret the restrictions that the South African Government places on this, but we don't think that it is in our interest to emulate them in such actions, and we believe that for policy reasons we should continue to handle these applications for South African athletes in the fashion that the regulations call for. I think that is enough on that aspect of it. Mr. Smith could give you specific discussion of the regulations themselves. Mr. DIGGS. Without objection, I would like to enter into the record, supplemented in any way you wish, the information sheet and classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas, which outlines the various classes of excludables and sets forth the legal framework that is the basis for policy that you have just enunciated. Mr. SMITH. These are the papers we had sent you earlier? Mr. DIGGS. Right. (The material follows:) |