participating in sporting events in the U.S. and indicating that it is opposed to any United States sportsmen participating in events in South Africa until such time as an assurance is given that ALL U.S. sportsmen will be welcome in South Africa and that none will be barred on the grounds of race.

I make these submissions in my capacity as a South African citizen and sportsman, exiled from my country because of my opposition to racism in South African sport, and as the President of SAN-ROC-the South African Non-Racial Open Committee for Olympic Sports, which was established in South Africa in October 1962 (at Durban) and of which I was elected president at the time of its inception. I have been actively engaged in opposition to racism in sport in South Africa for more than 15 years, particularly since 1958, as Secretary of the non-racial South African Sports Association, and have worked actively with sportsmen in other parts of the world who are opposed to racism, including sportsmen in the United States, Britain, Europe and most of Africa.

I would draw the attention of the Subcommittee to the fact that the practice of racism in South African sport has received the attention of many international sporting bodies, particularly the International Olympic Committee, which has studied this matter, and which excluded South Africa from participation at the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964 and in Mexico City in 1968 and that a number of the bodies controlling particular codes of sport have already excluded South Africa from participation-these include Table Tennis, Weightlifting, Boxing, Football (Soccer), Fencing, Judo, and that others are giving consideration to this matter, including Gymnastics, Athletics, Cricket, and Swimming. Numerous prominent Americans have asked that the U.S. should take a firm line on this issue; these include Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt and Mr. Jackie Robinson. The question of racism in tennis has been debated for about 8 years. On the refusal of a visa to Mr. Arthur Ashe, I submit the following:

1. The refusal of a visa to Mr. Ashe was announced on January 27th by the South African Minister of Sport, Mr. Waring, after a Cabinet meeting, and reported to the U.S. Ambassador in South Africa by the Prime Minister, Mr. Balthazar Vorster;

2. Mr. Ashe's application had been supported by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. William Rogers;

3. It is clear from the refusal that it was politically motivated and that a major consideration was the fact that Mr. Ashe is classed in South Africa as a non-white; 4. There is no doubt that the decision is a political one, made by the government of South Africa, and therefore one to which it is appropriate that the U.S. Government should reach;

5. That this act is a discriminatory one, and an affront to a U.S. citizen, and one which the U.S. government cannot countenance;

6. That there is a clear obligation on the U.S. to assert that it is opposed to discriminatory treatment of its citizens, and that it will not condone this;

7. That the appropriate response to this discriminatory act is to declare that the U.S. will bar the use of its sporting facilities to all South Africans until such time as the facilities of South Africa are open to all U.S. citizens, without any race barriers;

8. That the U.S. government should declare that it is opposed to the use of S.A. sports facilities by any U.S. citizens, until such time as these are open to all U.S. citizens;

9. That the U.S. should immediately move to give support to and implement the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1968, calling on all nations to break off sports relations with nations which practise racial discrimination, specifically South Africa;

10. That these actions would be consistent with the declared purpose of the U.S. government to seek equality of status and equality of opportunity for all its citizens, without regard to racial or ethnic origins;

11. That in practical implementation of this, the national sports bodies in the U.S., which express the national position, should declare their attitudes and give support to the moves for the exclusion of South Africa from all international sport until racism is removed from sport there, and that this should particularly be expressed by the U.S.L.T.A.-the body governing tennis in the United States. In support of these submissions, I would refer to the statements of the President of the U.S.L.T.A., Mr. Alistair Martin; of South African tennis players-who recognise the prospects of exclusion; and of sports administrators throughout the world, who have condemned racism in sport, and especially in lawn tennis. I trust that these submissions, and the supporting statements, will achieve a speedy and effective outcome.

Mr. BRUTUS. I wish to direct myself in particular to the recent issue of the refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen, Mr. Arthur Ashe, but also to make certain general references with regard to the nature and structure of sport in South Africa, the extent to which it is dominated by political considerations and particularly the racist-political ideology which in fact dominates all forms of life in South Africa.

The submissions I make to the subcommittee are to ask that it should recommend to the U.S. Government that it should react to the refusal of a visa for Mr. Ashe since this refusal indicates a clearly discriminatory attitude by the South African Government, and that this reaction should take the form of barring all South African sportsmen from participation in sports events in the United States until such time as there is an assurance that all sportsmen from the United States would be welcome in South Africa, and that none would be barred on the grounds of their racial origins.

You have, Mr. Chairman, kindly referred to my past activities on behalf of nonracial sport but I think I should just make it clear that I speak now in my capacity as president of the largest and most representative sports body in South Africa. It is called the South African Nonracial Open Committee for Olympic Sports, and I was elected to the presidency of this body when it was formed in 1962 in Durban.

I had been prior to that secretary of the largest body at that time, the South African Sports Association.

I have been actively engaged in opposition to racism in sports for more than 15 years, particularly since 1958, and have worked actively with sportsmen in other parts of the world who are opposed to racism in sports, including sportsmen in the United States.

I think I would like to mention here, Mr. Jackie Robinson, the baseball player who was a very early campaigner against racism in sports, as well as sportsmen in Britain and Europe and in many parts

of Africa.

Mr. DIGGS. We have a telegram from Jackie Robinson that I would like to have included in the record, by the way. It is very short.

Heartily congratulate the committee on its investigation in the South African racial policies. I support the action and strongly urge the State Department to bar white South Africans from participating in American professional events enabling them to win thousands of dollars to be spent in that racist country.

It is signed Jackie Robinson.

You may proceed, sir.

Mr. BRUTUS. Thank you, sir.

I should like to draw the attention of the subcommittee to the fact that the practice of racism in South African sport has received already the attention of many international sporting bodies, particularly the International Olympic Committee, which studied this matter and excluded South Africa from participation at the Olympic games, both in Tokyo in 1964 and again in Mexico City in 1968.

In addition to this a number of the international bodies which control a particular code of sport throughout the world have in fact expelled South Africa from membership. These include the world governing bodies, for table tennis, the International Table Tennis Federation; for Weightlifting throughout the world the FIH; for boxing the AIBA; football-this is soccer-the FIFA; for fencing, and judo.

Other international bodies which have the exclusion of South Africa under consideration at present include the world governing bodies for gymnastics, for track and field-this is athletics generally-and for swimming and cricket.

I would ask you, sir, to bear in mind that almost 12 years ago people like Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt were questioning the wisdom of sports relations with a country which made no secret of the fact that it discriminated against sportsmen on the grounds of color.

The question of tennis, which is the sport under immediate consideration, has been debated in world tennis circles for more than 8 years, and it has taken a number of forms. There has been a series of formal attempts to appeal to the constitution of the world body, the International Lawn Tennis Federation, and ask this body to take action against South Africa. Unhappily, five countries command the majority of votes in this particular federation, they each have 12 votes, whereas approximately 20 countries have no votes at all. Since one of these countries with 12 votes is South Africa itself, they have been able to block any attempt to seek constitutional redress. It has been impossible thus to get a motion carried calling for the expulsion of South Africa because of the voting structure of the world federation.

In spite of this, for almost 8 years now there have been attempts to get such a motion tabled, and in fact when these failed there have been in various parts of the world other responses to the South African issue.

In 1964 in Norway students invaded the tennis courts where the South Africans were playing and made it impossible for the match to continue. As recently as last year when the South African all-white team played the Davis Cup match against Britain at Bristol, the match was disrupted, bags of flour were thrown onto the courts which obliterated the lines of the courts and made play for a time impossible. This kind of unconstitutional protest has only been resorted to, I believe, because it was evident that because of the voting structure, attempts to get constitutional reforms were almost certainly bound to fail. It is in this context that we must view the issue of Mr. Ashe because the failure to take action against South Africa has meant that the evidence about this matter could never be formally voted on at a meeting of the World Federation.

We have here a very clear and unmistakable case of prejudice against an individual sportsman, prejudice clearly based on race and (perhaps even more significantly) direct interference at Cabinet level, an instruction being given not by the sports administrators but by the Minister for Sport who himself decides after a Cabinet meeting that a particular individual sportsman is not permitted to enter South Africa.

It seems to me then that the essence of the matter rests on these two points: The first that this kind of exclusion has been practiced only against a person whom the South Africans call "non-white," and that in making this exclusion the Minister for Sport says that "the grounds for the refusal are bearing in mind our stated policy."

This "stated policy" which one can read in Hansard and the parliamentary records in South Africa is very explicitly one of racial discrimination in sport, that no black man can be allowed to play against a white man in South Africa, and that if he did he would be subject to arrest and to imprisonment for the crime of having hit a ball across

a net on a tennis court. This would be sufficient to secure his imprisonment.

There is no doubt, I believe, that the basis for the rejection is a political one, is a racial one. Indeed, Mr. Ashe is accused of "trying to crack the racist wall" and by implication they declare their determination to preserve this racist wall. They have no intention of allowing anyone to crack it.

Mr. Chairman, as one who has negotiated with international sports bodies for a long time, I know there is a very strong and very deep prejudice against any interference by a Government in the administration of sport and I am extremely reluctant to come before you and suggest that this is a matter on which the State Department must take a decision. Normally I believe sportsmen ought to settle the affairs of sportsmen.

I think this is an abnormal case because the decision was not made by a sports body. There is very clear evidence that this was a decision taken at cabinet level, that the decision was a political one, and therefore a new situation is created where the response to a political act can only be another political act.

On the other occasions where governments have stepped in, whether they are African or Communist or Western European, as a sportsman I have had to say that this is unfortunate and undesirable because sportsmen ought to be allowed to run their own affairs. But here where the decision has come from the political center, from the Government itself, I believe that the U.S. Government must take cognizance of this. I do not think I am wrong in saying this because we know it is common knowledge that the application of Mr. Ashe was supported by the Secretary of State, Mr. William Rogers. We know too that the Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. Balthazar Vorster, summoned the U.S. Ambassador to Pretoria, Mr. William Rountree, and advised him as a political matter of information between governments that Mr. Ashe was going to be refused a visa. It seems to me then that there is no doubt that this is in fact a political issue and one for the attention of Governments.

I propose only to make two points in setting out what I believe are the forms of response which one ought to expect from the U.S. Government in this situation. I believe first of all that the Government of the United States must make it clear that it will neither tolerate nor condone discriminatory treatment of any citizen of the United States, and that as long as there cannot be an assurance of fair and equal treatment to all citizens of the United States there should be active discouragement of this kind of situation when it is so clearly one where people are scrutinized and examined in terms of race, where only white Americans can be admitted, where nonwhite Americans cannot be admitted. I do not believe that the United States should condone or in any way tolerate such a state of affairs.

Because this is an affront to a citizen of the United States, I believe that the State Department should make it clear that until such time as all U.S. sportsmen are welcome in South Africa, until that time South African sportsmen of whatever color are unwelcome in this country unless they are prepared themselves individually to say that they repudiate racism, that they stand for treatment of all sportsmen on the basis of equality and without any racial discrimination-only, I believe, if such an individual clearance can be given so that the

individual sportsman is exonerated from a racist policy, should a sportsman from South Africa be admitted.

I believe unless such conditions are fulfilled, no sportsman from my country should come to the United States.

I deliberately make this point in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because I can anticipate one query. Do I as a South African desire the isolation of the sportsmen of South Africa from the rest of the world? My answer is no, I do not desire their isolation. But as long as they do not play the game the way the rest of the world plays it, as long as they are guilty of allowing their sport to be dictated by political and racial considerations, I believe they deserve to be excluded. I believe they deserve to be isolated and I know that there will be a change in such a situation only when they realize that there is a penalty for breaking the rules, that they have to play the rules like the rest of the world.

It may be, Mr. Chairman, that you would like to question me on some of these points.

I would like to express my appreciation for the comment of the president of the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association, Mr. Alistair Martin, who has said that he believes that the time has come for the expulsion of South Africa from the International Lawn Tennis Federation for its violation of the rules of sportsmanship.

In conclusion, if you would pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote your own comment on this and place on record as a South African sportsman our appreciation for your opinion. According to a San Francisco paper you have said that Gary Player, for instance, should be barred from this country as a reprisal, and there is a quote, "The rejection reconfirms my conviction that the white minority government of South Africa is both abhorrent and inhuman.” And with that comment I would like to concur.

Thank you.

Mr. DIGGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brutus. You have added some special insights into this whole matter that I think are very important with respect to the committee's deliberations.

As you probably know, there are some people that are troubled by the morality of our reciprocating in kind, as Mr. Ashe pointed this out and Gowen made mention of it.

I am troubled as to how you can differentiate in this matter when you look at it from the standpoint of the principle that is involved. If they or anybody else that is for the exclusion of South Africa from these international organizations because of their racist policies, and everybody who has been here has expressed himself strongly, it would then appear to be a logical followup that they would be opposed to the admission of anybody on an individual basis for the same reason.

I find it difficult to draw this fine line between the individual and the action that is going to be taken by these tournament organizations. Further, the intransigence of the South African Government as so amply reflected in many statements, would indicate that unless there is some kind of penalty they just are not going to make any changes.

Is that a fair assumption?

Mr. BRUTUS. Yes. Except, Mr. Chairman, I think that I tend to have a certain sneaking sympathy for the individual sportsman. I would almost like to find an out for them: but I accept that, in