UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title PageDateTime

12106/06/200611:29:25 AM

S-0902-0005-05-00001

Expanded Number S-0902-0005-05-00001

Title ltems-in-Africa - Question of Namibia - concerned governmentsSouth Africa, Government of

Date Created 12/12/1972

Record Type Archival Item

Container S-0902-0005: Peacekeeping - Africa 1963-1981

Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit

Press ReleaseADVANCE TEXT

For use in connexion with theobservance of the InternationalDay for the Elimination ofRacial fdEcrimination321 March 1977

Office of Public InformationPress SectionUnited Nations, New York

SG/SM/2 25HR/ll*6o -16 March 1977

TEXT OF STATEMENT BY SECRETARY-GENERAL KJ;?.T WALDHEIM ON OCCASION

OF INTERNATIONAL DAY FOB ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DiSCRBJNATICN, 21 MARCH 1977

The anniversary of the Sharpeville tragedy reminds us that a primary 'purpose of ths United Nations is to promote fundamental human r:ghts. It alsoreminds us forcefully that flagrant violations of the principles of racialequality still exist in many parts of the world. Therefore, the need remainsfor an urgent sense of commitment and action to support, protect and promotefull racial equality. This demands our constant vigilance if we are to attainthis aim.

On this day let us pledge ourselves anew to the cause of racial justiceeverywhere. If we do not achieve progress toward this great goal, we face agrave threat of spreading violence and even conflict. Today, and everyday,let us work together to build a world of harmony, equality and understandingamong all races and nations.

•x- ***

For information media - not an official record

'

AAF/BFJ

cc: SG \/GH/APIK

Minutes of a meeting held in the Officeof the Secretarv-Goneral on 23 I lav 1975

Present: The Secretary-GeneralAmbassador Banda, Per nan en t Reprccentative

• of Zambia to the United NationsMr. Sara Nujoma, President of SWAPOMr. A. A. Far ah

Mr. Nujoma expressed appreciation of the role playedby the United Nations on 'the Namibian question. He wasparticularly encouraged by the action taken by the GeneralAssembly at its last session, and by various .United Nationsbodies. The Namibian people felt they were not alone^inthe struggle, and despite repressive measures by South

\ Africa, they would, continue demonstrating for self-determination and independence.

Referring to Prime Minister Vorster's statement on20 May, I-lr. Nujoma remarked that it contained, no newelements. It was a repetition of earlier positions andattitudes, and. implied South Africa's determ.ina.tion toproceed with the division of the Territory into bantustans.The statement was both ambiguous and contradictory. ?orexample, Mr. Vorster said he was in agreement with theposition of the United. Nations and the Organisation ofAfrican Unity on basic issues; yet, he maintained thatall options should remain open. In other words, whileSouth Africa would not oppose the formation of a unitarystate, by the same token, it would not oppose -the fragmen-tation of the state.

Mr. Nujoma said the statement attempted to give -theimpression that democratic and constitutional processeswere at work in Namibia and that the people were free toexpress their will. Yet, during the recent so-calledelections in Ovamboland, South Africa resorted to allforms of political, economic and criminal pressures tocompel people to participate in the elections and to voteaccording to its dictates. The open manipulation

of elections had enabled Vorstcr to, claim that 75%of the electorate were in favour of'-the constitutionalmeasures advocated by South Africa. South Africa'spolicy was to affect a permanent control over Namibiathrough the tribal system and through the appointmentof tribal chiefs who were prepared to work at itsbidding. South Africa would not allow political partiesor movements to operate within the country, except thatof the 'white' National Party.-

In the view of Mr. ITujoma, South Africa's policieshad created conditions between the white and blackcommunities which resulted in racial hatred. Basically,the situation within the country had deteriorated, overthe past two years and South Africa's military presencehad been strengthened, and extended throughout theTerritory.

Mr. Hujoma said that SWAPO remained solidly opposedto the continued, presence of South Africa in Namibia. Inits view, elections within the Territory could only b"econsidered valid if they were held under the supervisionof the United nations and conducted in accordance withnormal democratic principles e.g. one man, one vote.1-ir. Hujoma hoped that the Security Council, when it meton 3O .May, would, take appropriate action against SouthAfrica in the light of its refusal to comply with SecurityCouncil resolution 3GS. lie envisaged such action as theapplication of articles 39 and 41 of Chapter 7 of the Charter.

In reply to a question by the Secretary-General, Mr.Nujoma said that SwAPO would be prepared to participatein a constitutional conference on Namibia provided it washeld under United Nations auspices. S'-JAPO would also takepart in political elections in Hamibia provided the electionswere under United nations supervision and organized, onparty and not tribal lines, ."nilc he would prefer to seean immediate withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia, I-Ir.Hujoma did not exclude a situation whereby South Africawould, continue its presence in ITamibia along-side that ofthe United. ITations.

Mr. Hujoma drew an analogy with that prevailing inMozambique and Angola whore the colonial power continuedalong-side that of tlie transitional government pendingindependence. He considered the role and involvement of

3 -

the United Nations indispensable in any solution affectingthe future of LTarnibia. Mr. Uujoma recognised that SouthAfrica was attempting to create black governments in LTamibiafavourable to South African interests. With the supportof the people of Namibia, SWAPO would continue its strugglefor real and true independence, even if it meant resortingto arms against the puppet governments that were beinginstalled.

The Secretary-General said he appreciated the informationwhich Ilr. ITujonia had provided as it enabled him to have afuller view of the issues involved. Referring to the officialcommunication which Foreign Ilinister Iluller had addressedto the Security Council in response to resolution 355, theSecretary-General said that the position taken by South Africadid not differ from -the position which it had adopted inthe past. Although South Africa spoke of self-determination,independence and territorial integrity, its concept aridinterpretation of those terms were vastly different fromthose held by the United ITations. The Secretary-Generalsaid that difference became evident during -the course---ofhis talks with the South African Government two years ago.

Mr. Nujoma thanked the Secretary-General for hisinterest and assistance in -the matter and looked forward.to further co-operation with him in the future.

PERMANENT SOUTH AFRICAN MISSION

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

3OO EAST -43"° STREET

NEW YORK, N. Y. IOOI7

., f fCt I O -

-^

''/ • ^

27 May 1975

Excellency ,

I have the honour to attach the text of a letteraddressed to you on 27th May, 1975 > by the South AfricanMinister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. the Honourable H.Muller, on the question of South West Africa.

I should be glad if this letter and annexures couldbe issued as an official document of the Security Council.

•»-*L

Please accept, Excellency, the renewed assurancesof my highest consideration.

ACTINGV PERMANENT/REPRESENTATIVE.

H.E. Dr. Kurt Waldheim,Secretary-General of the United Nat ions ,NEW YORK.

E.A. 39.

ttPUBLIEK VAN SlMD-AFi!IKA.REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MINISTERS VAN BUITELANDSE SAKE.MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

CAPE TOWN

27 May, 1975.

Your Excellency,

In reply to your telegram of 17 December 197 in whichyou transmitted to me the text of Security CouncilResolution J66 (197*0, I have the honour to state thefollowing.

As is well-known, the basis of the South AfricanGovernment's approach to the question of South WestAfrica is that it is for the peoples of South West .Africa themselves to determine their own politicaland constitutional future in accordance with theirown freely expressed wishes. This presupposes thatthey should exercise their choice freely and withoutinterference from South Africa, the United Nations orany other outside entity. All options are thereforeopen to them - including that of independence as onestate if that is what they should choose.

In accordance with this approach any political groupin the Territory is free to campaign for and propagate-any constitutional changes it likes and to participatewithout hindrance in any peaceable political activities,including the election of representatives to the pro-posed conference on the constitutional future of theTerritory, provided only that they do so within therequirements of law and order.

While it is the earnest hope of my Government that theinhabitants will indeed express their view? on theirfuture in as short a time as possible and while myGovernment will do everything in its pow.ir to encouragethem to reach early agreement in this matter, it isclearly for them themselves to decide at what pace theywish to move. I am happy to be able to say that en-couraging progress has been made in this direction.Following upon the initiative of the Executive of theruling National Party in South West Africa towards theend of last year (vide U.N. document A/9775 - S/11519)the representatives of more than 80 per cent of thetotal population have already decided to participate inthe proposed constitutional conference and presentindications are that the conference will take place inthe near future.

His Excellency Dr. Kurt Waldheim,Secretary-General of the United Nations,NEW YORK.

As for as the question of South Africa's withdrawal fromthe Territory and arrangements for the transfer of poweris concerned, it follows from the policy enunciated abovethat South Africa will remain in and continue to, ad-minister the Territory only as long as the inhabitants sowish*

My Government has repeatedly stated that it recognizesthe distinct international status of South West Africaand that it does not,claim one inch of the Territory foritself. Its sole concern has been to develop theTerritory in the best interests of all its inhabitantsand to prepare them for the orderly exercise of theirright of self-determination. In his statement to theSecurity Council on 2.k October 197^, the South AfricanPermanent Representative to the United Nations brieflyoutlined some of South Africa1s major contributions inthis regard.

He pointed out the following:

"An Investment Corporation for Blacks has drawn up aneconomic programme with the object of creating 5,000employment opportunities for the Blacks of South WestAfrica during the period 1972-1977, entailing a capitalinvestment of over R22 (#33) million. -?~

A total of IJ139 (#208) million has so far been spent on177 domestic water supply schemes constructed andoperated by the State throughout the Territory.

The number of schools for Blacks and Coloureds has in-creased from 313 in I960 to SJ2 in 1973; the number ofteachers from 1,310 in I960 to 3,^53 in 1973; thenumber of pupils from '13,000 in I960 to l'iO,000 in 1973.

There are 1,55O Coloured and Black nurses in the Territory.

Total investment in respect of fixed and movable assets ofthe South African Railways amounted in 1973 to R170 (#255)million. Total expenditure on roads from 1953 to 1973amounted to R2'l3 (#36^) million. The value of telephone,telegraph and radio installations in the Territoryamounted to R35 (#52) million in 1973.

The total cost of running the Territory now amounts to R3'll(#511) million per annum. In evaluating these figures, itshould be remembered that the total present population isonly 850,000."

I would like to add that my Government is at present givingactive consideration to assisting the inhabitants with thefurther development of the water resources of the Territoryat an estimated cost of some R333,000,OOO (# 99,000,000).

In his statement the South African Permanent Representativealso outlined the many efforts of my Government since 1951to co-operate with the United Nations in finding an accept-able basis for negotiation on the issue of South West Africa.Despite our efforts in this direction, the attitude of theUnited Nations towards South Africa has become increasinglyhostile and uncompromising and last year culminated in theillegal suspension of her participation in the proceedingsof the 29th General Assembly.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that my Governmentis unable to accept Un'ited Nations supervision in respectof South West Africa, it remains prepared to negotiatewith your personal representative - be it Dr. Escher oranother mutually acceptable person - in order that he mayacquaint himself with the development of the process ofself-determination in the Territory.

Similarly my Government also remains prepared to welcomeleaders of Africa, cither personally or through theirrepresentatives, who may wish to visit South West Africain order to acquaint themselves at first hand withconditions in the Territory.

Furthermore, if the African Chairman of the UnitedNations Council for South West Africa and the SpecialCommittee of the Organization of African Unity areinterested in discussing the progress and developmentsin the Territory with my Prime Minister, they arewelcome to do so. The Prime Minister would in thatcase also be prepared to request the true leaders inthe Territory to talk to them. On the other hand,should the Chairman and Members of the Special Committeewish to receive these leaders in their own countries inorder to obtain from them first hand information onconditions and the progress of self-determination in theTerritory, my Government will do all it can -to make suchvisits possible.

I would like to draw your attention to the real attemptsbeing made to promote better understanding among all thepeoples in the Territory. On 21 March 1975 the Legis-lative Assembly in Windhoek adopted a motion unanimouslysupporting the endeavours of its Executive Committee topromote good human relations, peaceful co-existence andhuman dignity among all the inhabitants of the Territoryand requesting it to give attention to measures andpractices standing in the way of the advancement of goodrelations between Black and White. A Study Group whichpursuant to this motion was appointed by the ExecutiveCommittee to review, in consultation with the leaders ofall groups, other legislation which affects racerelations, commenced its work on 2 May and it is antic-ipated that its recommendations will be submitted tothe Executive Committee in the first week of June.

Apart from these developments, on 9 April 1975 variousproclamations long in force in the Territory were re-pealed or amended because they were obsolete or embodiedunnecessary restrictive or what might be termed dis-criminatory aspects.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that the primary re-sponsibility of the Security Council is the maintenanceof international peace and security and that the onlythreat to peace and security in South West Africaderives from countries outside its borders. SouthVest Africa is part of the constellation of.thecountries of Southern Africa, whose leaders areearnestly seeking a peaceful solution to the problemsof our sub-continent. My Government earnestlybelieves that given the necessary time and goodwill,the significant and constructive developments

v...

now taking place will be crowned with success and shouldbe welcomed and encouraged by the leaders of nationseverywhere and more particularly by those leaders ofAfrica who are equally concerned to find solutions by wayof communication and co-operation and to avoid the for-bidding alternative of confrontation.

For your further information I have the honour to encloserelevant excerpts from a speech made by my Prime Ministerat Windhoek on 20 May 1975.

Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my"highest consideration.

(Signed) H. MULLER,Minister of Foreign Affairs.

ANNEXURE

EXTRACTS FROM AN ADDRESS BY

1 THE PRIME MINISTER OF SOUTH AFRICA, THE HON. B.J. VORSTER,

IN WINDHOEK ON 20 MAY 1975.

I do not want to elaborate here on details of the internal

political developments in the Territory. The Government's

attitude in this connection is well known, viz., that it is for

the peoples of South Vest Africa themselves and for nobody else,

to decide upon their own political future. With this in view

the process of mutual consultation among the peoples of the

Territory has already begun. Nobody, surely, is under the

illusion that it will be an easy process, but the prospect does

exist that agreement can be reached among all the population

groups. .In this connection I refer once again to the

quotation, at page 49, from the South West Africa Survey of

1967 which was made available to the United Nations 'Organization

and to many nations, and which reads as follows:

"Another important consideration is that as the

political and economic organs and institutions

develop amongst the non-white peoples, the

importance of contact and consultation between

them and the central governing authority must

necessarily grow, and in increasing measure

their wishes will have to be taken into account

on matters of mutual concern.

However, at this stage it is impossible to fore-

see with any degree of accuracy the ultimate

interactions of the various population groups.

Circumstances will alter radically. What is

considered anathema today may well become sound

practical politics tomorrow, and vice versa.

Nor is it necessary to embark on speculation as

to what the ultimate future political pattern

will be - i.e. whether and to what extent there

may be amalgamations or unions of some kind,

federations, commonwealth or common market

arrangements, etc. The pcoples..thems elves

will ultimately decide.x

Meanwhile, South Africa's task and solemn duty

is to help the diverse peoples of the Territory

advance economically, socially and politically,

to the stage when they themselves will be able-',\, to decide their own future wisely, protecting,

guiding and helping them, in a spirit of

trusteeship, until their emancipation has been

attained. "

You will take note that these words were written, printed

and distributed in 196? •

1Without wishing to anticipate the results of these

consultations, I nevertheless want to put to you my firm

conviction that the peoples of South West Africa will not be

so shortsighted as to pursue a course which will disrupt the

foundations of the economic system of the Territory, to the

material detriment of all the population groups which have

their homes there.

l) Then I want to state that although we have never at any

stage acknowledged that the United Nations has the right to

exercise any supervision over our administration (of the

Territory), we have over the years repeatedly tried to find

an acceptable basis for negotiations with the United Nations

with a view to solving the problem. We have always been

willing to furnish information on the Territory and its

peoples to anybody who was really interested in circumstances

and living conditions in the Territory. In his statement to

the Security Council on 2'i October 197'l, our Ambassador at

the United Nations set out some of the. results of our

administration of the Territory as well as South Africa's

many efforts from early on to co-operate with the Unit-ed

Nations in finding an acceptable basis for negotiation on

the issue. I need only mention in passing the Arden-Clarke

Commission, the Carpio-De- Alva Commission, invitations to

.U Thant, which he did not accept, and' lastly, Dr. Escher's't,appointment as Personal Representative of the Secretary-

General, Dr. Waldheim, to which I shall presently revert.

The question may now be put to me:

2) Where do we stand at present? What in broad outline

are the fundamental issues in regard to this situation**and

' this problem as enunciated at the United Nations?

a) Firstly much emphasis is laid upon the separate

international status of the Territory. We respect

the separate status of the Territory. I again want

to put it very clearly; we, that is to say South

Africa, do not claim for ourselves one single inch

of South West Africa's soil.

b) It is demanded that the human dignity and rights

of all peoples, irrespective of colour or race, be

maintained and promoted. Once again, we agree, but

I have every right on this occasion to ask:

II • . . Is it not time that some of our critics should

also do so? - particularly those who invoke these

rights for themselves but deny to other peoples the

right to decide upon their own future".

Indeed, an important recent development in this area

was the adoption by the Legislative Assembly in Windhoek of

a motion giving unanimous support to the endeavours of the

Executive Council to promote good human relations among the

inhabitants of the Territory. The Legislative Assembly

furthermore requested the Executive Council to give

attention to measures and practices standing in the way of

'" good relations between white and non-white. Pursuant to

this motion the Executive -Council has appointed a study

group consisting of five members of the Legislative

Assembly to investigate this matter fully and to report on

it to the Executive Council. We in South Africa welcome

these initiatives because we believe that rela-tions among

all the inhabitants of the Territory can thereby be much

1- improved. I would like to commend all those who are

taking part and have taken part in this positive action and

I do not doubt that their efforts will be crowned with

success.

c) It is required that the inhabitants of South

West Africa should, as early as possible, be given

the opportunity to express their views freely on

their constitutional future. This too is in

accordance with our policy. And as I have said,

we had already formulated it in 19&7 ^n the

clearest possible terms.

The South African Government earnestly trust that

constitutional discussions will take place as quickly as

possible and also that the Representatives at these

discussions will decide upon their future as soon as possible.

Indeed, we shall do everything in our power to encourage them

to reach early agreement in this matter. But, I want to put

it clearly: we cannot and shall not interfere in the taking

of decisions on the constitutional future of .the peoples of

South West Africa. The inhabitants of South West AfricaNt

themselves and nobody else will decide upon their future.

The indications are that the proposed conference wiU. take

place in the near future. We for our part have not brought

and shall not bring pressure to bear upon them as to how they

must go about this. Our sole interest is that they should

freely and voluntarily reach agreement on their constitutional

'•-, future as soon as possible.

'd) Another important point which is emphasized

on the United Nations side, is that South Africa

should withdraw from the Territory and that the

arrangements for withdrawal and transfer of power

must be made according to the wishes of the in- '**

habitants. In regard to this matter I want to

\ put it Very clearly: we do not occupy the

Territory. We are there because the peoples of

the Territory want us there. We do not force

ourselves upon the peoples of the Territory and

in this regard we take cognizance only of the

wishes of the peoples of South West Africa.

e) Another demand which is made, is that all

political groups be allowed to propagate their

points of view and to participate without

hindrance in peaceful political activities in

the process leading to self-determination. With

this too we agree. As a matter of fact, where

elections have already taken place an open

invitation was issued to all to participate

therein. In the latest case of the election in

Owambo even those abroad who wished to come

peaceably to participate were invited, and the

majority of the Owambo's freely elected their

Government and appointed Chief Minister Elifns ns

their leader. There is thus no impediment in

the way of anybody to propagate any constitutional

form of government in a peaceable manner and to win

majority support for his point of view.

f) A further point which is insisted upon is that

the Territory should not be split up in accordance

with the policy of apartheid and that it should be-

':„. come independent as one state, unless the inhabitants

should freely choose otherwise. Anybody who knows

South West Africa will know that the different peoples

in South West Africa were there long before the

present South African Government came to power and it

is my position that nothing will occur in the

Territory which is not in accordance with the free—

. choice of its population groups. It is for them and

•L x nobody else to choose - and, as I have repeatedly said:

all options are open to them.

3) From this exposition it thus appears that in substance we

• are in agreement with the most important aspects of the points

of view which are put in the United Nations. As far as the

O.A.U. is concerned, in principle, and bearing in mind what I

have already said, we have no quarrel with their points of view

concerning self-determination, independence and the maintenance

of the territorial integrity of the Territory. Where we do

differ and very clearly differ, is in regard to the role

claimed for the United Nations and SWAPO. We do not hide,

nor have we ever been ashamed of, our administration of the

Territory. Indeed, we go out of our way to make information

concerning the Territory and its people freely available.

I also want to repeat here what I have said in the House

of Assembly, viz. that leaders of Africa who may be interested

in visiting the Territory in order to acquaint themselves with

••».*

conditions there, are very welcome to do so, either

personally or through their Representatives. I would

also be prepared, as I have said befor'e, to exchange

ideas with a Committee of the O.A.U. on the basis of the

points of view -which I have expounded here, but as I have

already stated in the clearest possible terms, I cannot

accept the role which is proposed for SWAPO.

If the African Chairman of the Council for South

West Africa and the Special Committee of the O.A.U., are

therefore really interested in discussing with me in

South Africa the progress of the peoples of the Territory,

I shall also ask the real leaders of the peoples of the

Territory to talk to them. Furthermore, if they would

like to receive these leaders in their own countries in ^

order to obtain from them first hand information, they

• are free to invite them, and we shall do all we can to

help make the visit or visits possible.

For the rest, we entered into an agreement with the

Secretary-General that he would appoint a Personal

Representative. Dr. Escher was appointed. We are

still prepared to negotiate further with him or, if he

is no longer acceptable to Dr. Waldheim to consult with

the latter on the appointment of another acceptable

person so that he may acquaint himself with the progress

of the process of self-development here in South West

Africa. It will be understood, however, that we will

not accept United Nations supervision.

The peoples of South West Africa have already chosen

their own leaders or are in the process of doing so.

They are rightly proud of their leaders, their institutions,

their traditions, their identities, and their rights.

These cannot and may not be interfered with and South Africa

will decidedly not be party to such interference - no matter

by whom. **

8/.00

8

If then the countries and nations of the world are

anxious to find a solution for this problem and to avoid

confrontation in the matter, each and every one of th^ese

reasonable proposals which I have here enunciated must

be accepted by them.

May I in conclusion make an earnest appeal from this

platform to all countries and leaders not to disturb the

peace and progress of South West Africa and without on

this occasion mentioning names, I say to them: just look

at the chaos and misery in certain countries and be assured

that South Africa, together with the leaders of the

Territory, does not see its way to allowing such chaos and

misery ever to occur in this Territory. I once again,^

give that plain assurance to the Territory of South West

Africa and to its peoples.

UNITED NAT IONSDistr.

r c r* i i n t T v /i^^%^ GENERALS E C U R I T Y if ifC O U N C I L ' 271May11975

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

LETTER DATED 27 MAY 1975 FROM THE ACTING PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SOUTHAFRICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

I have the honour to attach the text of a letter addressed to you on27 May 1975, by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. the HonourableH. Muller, on the question of South West Africa.

I should be glad if this letter and annexures could be issued as a documentof the Security Council.

(Signed) V. W. STEWARDActing Permanent Representative

75-10810

ROUTiMGSUP FiCHE DE

• vi /; \„_- \\ ' [ V i

'2i L^- - ^\ V^x~ ••TA:' The Sccrctary-Gencrr.l / »

; FOR ACTION

FOR APPROVAL

FOR SIGNATURE

P R E P A R E DRAFT

FOR COMMENTS

MAY WE DISCUSS?

YOUR ATTENTION

AS DISCUSSED

AS REQUESTED

NOTE AND FILE

NOTE AND RETURN

FOR INFORMATION

POUR SUITE A DCNN('E^ \

POUR A P P R O B A T I O N ' |;^

POUR SIGNATURE I/ V

PROJET A REDIGER

POUR OBSERVATIONS

"POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER ?

VOTRE ATTENTION

COMME CONVENU

SUITE A V O T R E DEMANDE

NOTER ET CLASSER

NOTER ET RETOURNER

POUR INFORMATION

AniJ^assador 3 and a of Zanbia is ^

aiA:-cious to- racet,- v/ith you.1

IG I question of llar^ibia, if

Lble today. It is in. v/ ;'/ connexion v/itli his recent visit

to Southeast Asia and v;ith the

stateraent of Prine Minister j

Vorster raacie on 20 I lav 1975. /

Dole:

22/5/75

CR.I3 17-73)

ROM:y\

A.A. parah

FOR YOUR MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR BAMDA

OF ZAMBIA AT 10.00 A.M. TODAY

Note for the Socretary-GGnoral

Herewith is the complete text of the address given

by Prime Minister Vorster in Windhoek yesterday., 2O Hay

1975, on the question of Namibia. The significant parts

of the statement follow.

%

1. South Africa maintains

a. that it has never acknowledged that the United

Nations has the right to exercise any supervision

over the Territory;

b. that constitutional discussions will take place

(within Namibia) as quickly as possible and that

-\ the representatives at those discussions will

decide upon their future;

c. that it cannot and shall not interfere in the

taking of decisions on the constitutional future '

of the peoples of South West Africa;

d. that it does not occupy the Territory as implied

by the United Nations demand for South Africa's

withdrawal from the Territory. It is there at

the request of the peoples of the Territory and,

consequently, any arrangements for withdrawal and

transfer of power must be made according to their

wishes.

2. New shifts in policy

a. Political activities

Prime Minister Vorster agrees "that all political

groups be allowed to propagate their points of view

and to participate without hindrance in peaceful

political activities in the process leading to

self-determination.

- 2 -

b. Homelands

Prime Minister Vorster maintains that "nothing

will occur in the Territory which is not in accordance

with the £ree choice of its population groups. It

is for them and nobody else to choose and all

options are open to them." Prime Minister Vorster

confirmed that it is South African policy that

"the inhabitants of South VTest Africa should, as

early as possible, be given the opportunity to

express their views freely on their constitutional

future. In this respect , he spoke of initiatives

already in progress within Namibia and hoped that

constitutional discussions would take place soon.

3. Prime Minister Vorster considered that in substance

South Africa was "in agreement with the most important

aspects of the points of view which are put in the

United Nations."

4. Concerning QUA, he said that South Africa had "no

quarrel with their points of view concerning self-

determination of the territorial integrity of the

Territory. However, it differed strongly in regard

to the role claimed for the United Nations and SWAPO.

5. Proposals

a. South Africa would like African leaders or their

representatives to visit South West Africa to see

conditions for themselves.

b. Prime Minister Vorster is prepared to exchange

ideas with the OAU Committee on the basis of the

points of view which ho has expoxinded in his

statement.

- 3 -

c. South Africa cannot accept the role which is

proposed for SWAPO.

6. Modalities for visits and tallcs

a. In the event of the African Chairman of the United

Nations Council for Namibia and the OAU Special

Committee expressing an interest in discussing

with him the progress of the peoples of the

Territory, he would arrange for "the real leaders'^

of the Territory to talk to them.

b» If the Chairman of the Special Committee would

Ii3ce to receive those leaders in their own countries

in order to obtain first-hand information, they are

free to invite them.

c. 5,'or other matters South Africa is prepared to enter

"into an agreement with -the Secretary-General that

he would appoint a personal representative so that

he may acquaint himself with the progress of the

process of self-development here in South VJest Africa."

21 1-lay 1975 A. A. Far ah

cc: IKGH/AP

EXTRACTS FROM AN ADDRESS BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF SOUTH AFRICA,™. B.J. VPRSTER, IN WINDHOEK OH 20 MAY 1975

nVi

I do net "..rant t:> elaborate • ere .-.:ii retails of t'.tc

internal polit ical dcvc.l -.-p, icjits :i.ii t T - c Territory. T. e

G.ivorn ;<;7it ' s a t t i tude in t' is c >rmoc tion is "..'eH'ov. vm,

viy. , t^at it is f-. r t'. e pc• -.p 1 cs of Scut'. . est Africa

tT CMCclves and for nobody <:l:;e, t.) decide upon t" eir •::-JYL

political future, ''it; t in in vieu t'.e process of i -utual

consultation ar'i.^ntj t;.c pc-.vploG of t'.c Territory "..ns already

bcnjun= Nobody, surely, is unc'.or t"...ux i l iuni- ' jn t" .at it -.vill

be an easy process, but t '-e prc.r jpect d'-:cG exist t! at

agreeuent can be raac'-.ed a;.i.:ng all t .a p^-nulatir.ri Croupe o -

In t;.is Cv..-nncc ti; n I ro:fer once a^ain tc t!_-e ruotation,

at page ^9, frov.i t: e Soi.it:, Tcat Africa Survey of 1967

%/].icI-; '.-;as ;.7ade available to t" e United Nations Or»;aiii:;ation

and to i.iany nations, and v.T:-.ic!i i-cads an follov:s:

/Aiiotliei- i t ipcrtant consic.7.r;rnti<:n is t^at as t:.e

political and econ.^:.iic .-/r^ans and in.'jtituti-:.na

develop ai'iongst t :_e non--v.rliitc po jp l c s , t'..G

ii iportance of contact and consultation between tT.oi.i

and ti'-,e central governing aut ;-ority I'.uct

necessarily £r:>T..r, and in incro.as3.ng i.icanure t"~cir

vis!:es uill ^.ave to be talcen iuto account on uatters

Howeveri at tl.-is stago it is impossible to foresee'

•v;it> any degree of accuracy t::e ultimate interactions

of't'.c various population groups. Circuits tanc es -.'ill

alter radically. ~..1;f»t is considered, anat'jcria today iI

nay v/cll bcco;.;c s.'uncl pi-actioal politi.cs toi.iorrovr, arid

vice vci^sa. M^r is it necessary to o.ibarlc on

spcjculatioji as to u'.at t '.e u l t imate future j^o l i t i cn l ,'

pattern './ill" be — i.e. i/'-.ot" or and to W'sat oxtont

tl ,c?ro nay bo au'.al^a; l a t i i -ns or unions of sone T ' ^ n d ,

federa t ions , en; v.'iojv.-'oal t1. or c (.•;.;• x;n ;.<ar:':et ai^ranro, ;cnts

etc. 'f.-o peoples t;.oi i.solvo;.; \;i 1.1 u l t i m a t e l y d e r i d e .

r.er.iiT.'i.ilo, Si.ut:. ^Africa ' s task and solemn duty is to

l.elp tiic diverse peoples of t":c Territory advance

economical ly , s . -cd ally and p . l i t i ca l ly , to t":e stager.r'-en t'-ey themselves v.'il 1 be able to decide t!:cir

o\-m future i.risc-ly, protec t ing , guiding and ". elping

t1;or.i, in a spirit of trustoos? .ip, until t"'.-eir

e;n.ancipati--.n has been attained.,"

You x;ill ta!:e n-. te t. at t'.-.osc ^rords -<.:oro i.Tritten,

printed and distributed in 1967,,

./itl.-o.ut vis'-.ing to anticipate t'.ie results of t':ece

consultations , I nevcrt] elesa v.'ant to put t^ yo~a ny firn

conviction ti.at t'.e peorjlac of Sout/i '.'ost Africa v/ill not

be so s',;ort si^: .ted as to pursue a ccurso x-.'T'ic-i vill disrupt

tV.e fonndatious of t; e eci-n'..;i.:ic syste:.i of ti.e Territory,

the i-iatcrial detriment r.f all t'.ie pciou.lation ^n-ups v.rl'.ic-li

t'i.-cir 1,. ai.--.es t;.ere.

to

l) Tl/'Gn I 1.-"ant t': state tl at altl.n

at any stage acj^aiov7].^^;rod t7;at' the Unite_d Nations ;-as t ' -o

rigl.-.t to e xerc i G c njiy _r; ui^C' r>/ _i^s _i /^ n over our administration

(of the Territory), v:e have over ±.".-.Q yoars repeatedly triorl

to find an acceptable basis for negotiations uith t';c

United Nations v/i •{;'•: a vic\? to solving t::e probloiu .'e I ave

always been vrilling t.; fvirnisli inf on sati-.-n on tl;e Territory

and its peoples t.- anybody ~./:.o '.:as really interested in

circiiviistances ancl living ccnc'itions in t'.e Territ--ry. In I'-ic

statcr.iont to t:.:e Security Council on ?/: October 197'--» "t-H-*

Ambassador at t'..c Uj i i t ed Mnti-ins set out sor:e of tv.o results

of our administration of t'.c Torrit-:>ry as -roll as South A f r i c a ' s

tr.any of forts frc;: early on to co — operate vit>. t'le T^iited

iojis in finding aii acceptal.ilc basis for nego t ia t i - n

issne. I need only :.iontion in passing t7.e Arilc?; i— Cl

- 3 -

Commission, the Carpio-Dc Alva Coi:i:.iissiori, invitations to

U Thant, v;hich he did-not accept, and lastly, Dr. Es-cher's

appointncnt as Personal IRepresontativc of tl;e Secretary-

General, Dr. Valdheir/i, to which I nhajl presently revert.

The question way now be put to ue :

2) '.There do Vvre stand at present? '/hat in broad outline are

the fundamental it;.'sues in. regard to this situation and this

problem as enunciated at the United Nations?

A) Firstly much emphasis is laid upon the separate international

status of the Territory. ^fe respect the separate status of

the Territory. I again v:ant to put it very clearly: we, that

is to say South Africa, do not clair.i for ourselves one single

inch of South Uest Africa's soil.,

B) It is dev.ianded that the hunan dignity and rights of all A

peoples, irrespective of colour or race, be rnaiiitexncd and \

promoted. Once again, we agree, but I have every right on \

th'is occasion to ask:

"... Is it not time that sonic of our critics should also do

so? - particularly those idio invoke these rights for them-

selves but deny to other peoples the right to decide upon

their own future".

Indeed, an i-viportant recent development in this area

vras the adoption by the Legislative Assoi.'.bly in V/indhoc!c

of a notion giving unanir.ious support to the endeavours of

the Executive Council to pron'ioto good huiian relations av.;ong

the inhabitants of the Territory. The Legislative Asscr.:bly

furthcri/iorc requested the Executive Council to give attention

to measures and practices standing in the way of good

relations between x.'hitc .and non-uhitc, Pursuant to this

notion the Executive Council has appointed a study group

consisting of five i.ienbers of tho Legislative Assonbly to

investigate this r:ntter fully and to report on it to the

Executive Council. We in South Africa welcome these

initiatives because we believe that relations among all

the inhabitant3 of the Territory can thereby be much improved,

I would like to conr.i-^nd all those /who are taking part

and have taken part in this positive action and I do not

doubt that their efforts will'be crowned with success.

C) It is required that the inhabitant^ of South V/est

Africa should, as early as possible, bo given the

opportu-qity to express their views freely on their

constitutional future. This too is in accordance with our'

policy. And as I have said, we had already. formulated i.t

in 196? in the clearest possible terns.

The South African Government earnestly~-trust that

constitutional discussions will take place 'as quickly as'5f possible and also that the Representatives at these

discussions will decide upon their future as soon as

possible. Indeed, we shall do everything in our power

to encourage then to reach early agroer-cnt in this matter.

But, I V7ant to put it clearly: we cannot aiiji__sh_r..1..1 _rig_tL

interfere in the taking of dec

future of the jpeojjles of Sg_uth__Wcst A.'fr j.c_a. The inhabitants^.M i rr -«r__-I-MJ n«i_ i i _-

u-- '

of South T'.Test Africa themselves and nobody else will

decide upon their future. The indications are that the

proposed conference will take place in the near fu.t\ire. Te

for our part have not brought and shall not bring pressure«>

to bear upon then as to how they raust go about this. Our

sole interest is that they should freely and voluntarily

reach agreement on their constitutional ftiture as soon as

possible.

D) Another important point which is e;;]phasir-:ed on the JJnitod

Nations, side, is' that South Africa should withdraw from the

Territory and that the arrangements for withdrawal and

transfer of power r:ust be undo according to the wishes of

the inhabitants. In regard to this r.iatter I want to put

it very clearly: wo do not occupy the Territory. ^To are

there because the peoples of the Territory want us there.

v.Te do not force ourselves upon the peoples of the Territory

and in this regard ve take cognizance only of the wishes

of the peoples of South West Africa.

E) Another demand which is made, is that all political groups

be allowed to propagate their points of view and to

participate without hindrance 5n peaceful political

activities in the process leading to self-determination.

V/ith this too we agree. As a natter of fact, where elections

have already taken, place an open invitation was issued to

all to participate thorin. In the latest case of the

election in. Owar.ibo cvon those abroad who wished to come

peaceably to participate were invited, and the majority

of the Ovrar.ibo ' s freely elected their Government and\ -Vf \ appointed Chief Minister Elifas as their loader. Thei'e is

thus no impediment .in the way of anydoby to propagate any

constitutional forr.i of government in a peaceable manner '

a*id to win majority support for liis point of view.

F) A further point which is insisted upon is that the

Territ-ory should not be split up .In accordance with the

policy of apartheid and that it should become independent

as one state, -unless the inhabitants should freely choose

otherwise. Anybody who l^riows South West Africa will Taiow

that the different peoples in South Uest Africa wez'c there

long before the present South African noveriinont came to

power and it is r.sy position that nothing will occur in the

Territory which is not in accordance with the free choice

of its population groups. It is for them and nobody else

• to choose — and, as I have repeatedly said: all options are

\ open to them.

3) Fron this exposition it thus appears that in substance

we are in agreement with the t.iost important aspects of the

points of view which are put in the United Nations. As far

as the O.A.U. is concerned, in principle, and bearing in mind

/ i

v:hat I have already said, we have no quarrel with their

points of vicv/ concei-nij-ig self-determination, independence

and the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the

Territory, './hare we do differ and very clearly differ,

is in regard to the ro3 e claimed for the United Nations and

Ss-APO. We do not hide-, nor have we ever been a.-haned of,

our adninistration of the Territory. Indeed, wo go out of

our way to make information concerning the Territory and its

people freely available.

I also want to repent here v:hat I have said in the House

of Assembly, vis. that leaders of Africa who nay be

interested in visiting the Territory in order to acquaint

themselves- with conditions there, are very welcome to do so,

either personally or through their Representatives. I would -

also be prepared, as I have said before, to exchange ideas

with a Coni.-xittee of t/.o G.A.U,, on the basis of the points of

view which I have expo' ,ndr:u hero, but as I have already

stated in the clearest possible terns, I cannot accept

"the role which is proposed for SVJAPO.

If the African Chair nan. of the Council for South West

Africa, and the Special Cor.raitt ec of the OnA,,U., are therefore

really interested in di.ocxissi.ng with r.ie in South Africa the

progress of the peoples of the Territory,. I shall also ask

the real leaders of the peoples of the Territory to talk

to then. Furthermore, xf 'they would like to receive these

leaders in their ov/n coxmtries in order to obtain from then

first hand information, they are free to invite thcr.i, and ?

we shall do all we can to help nake the visit or visits possible.

For the rest, we entered into an agrcorient with, the

Secretary-General that he would appoint a Personal Representative.

Dr. Eschcr was appointed. ~Jc are still prepared to negotiate

further with, hia or, if lie is no longer acceptable to DroWaldheira

to consult with the latter on. the appointnent of another

acceptable person so that lie :.:ay ac'raaint hii.iself with the

progress of the proce.s:; of sol f~devolop:.iont here in South V/est

\

Africa. It v;ill bo understood, however, that we will not

accept United Nations supervision,.

The peoples of South 'Tcst Africa have already chosen ;

their ov;ii loaders or are in the process of doing so. They are

rightly pro-:d of their loaders, thoir institutions, their

traditions, thoir identities, and thoir rights. These cannot

and nay not be interfered with and South Africa v.'ill

' r, decidedly not be party to such int erf crone e — no natter by':? :•whom.

If then the countries and nations of the vrorld are

anxious to find a solution, for this problem and to avoid

confrontation in the matter, each arid every one of these

reasonable proposals which I have here enunciated uust be

: accepted by them.

•. ;f. May I in conclusion make an earnest appeal from this'ft $ '

A s' platform to all countries and leaders not to disturb the

peace and progress of South West Africa and_without on this

occasion mentioning names, I "say to then: just look at the!

*• chaos and • misery in. certain, countries and be assured that I

South Africa, together vfith the leaders of the Territory, does

not see its way to a.llovrj.Tig such chaos and misery ever to I

occur in this Territory. I once again give that plain ;

assurance to the Territory of South VJest Africa and to its

peoples«,

O 0 0

t_-. 1- • I *' ~ \ -• f-

a -* . \fU N I T E D N A T I O N S §&$$ N A T I O N S U N I E S

s. N r. loot?

22 May 1975

V_Dear Secretary-General, \J\

I think that it might be useful if we could have

a discussion, possibly with Ambassador Farah,.on the subject

matter of the enclosed letter concerning Mr. Vorster's latest

proposals.

I have also written, in terms identical with the

enclosed letter, to Ambassador Banda as I think you will be

seeing him soon. I thought the enclosed letter might be of

assistance.

Yours sincerely

Sean Mac BrideUnited Nations Commissioner for Namibia

Mr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-GeneralRoom 3800United Nations

U N I T E D N A T I O N S • N A T I O N S U N I E S

TIONS. N .Y . 1OOI7

REFERENCE: CONFIDENTIAL 22 May 1975

Dear Secretary-General:

I thought that you might wish to have some comments on the extracts

from the address made by the Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. B. J,

Vorster, at Windhoek on 20 May, which has been circulated by the Permanent

Mission of South Africa at the United Nations today.

These extracts differ significantly from the text circulated by the

wire agencies yesterday afternoon. Accordingly, I would suggest that the

news agency reports of the extracts should be disregarded for negotiation

purposes. Indeed, it may well be that the somewhat different statement

circulated by the wire agencies was based on a different text intended

for local circulation in Windhoek. Or else, the differences may have

resulted from translation variations: I assuvne the speech was delivered

in Afrikaans. I will try to obtain the full text in Afrikaans and have it

checked against the version available to me.

In my view, there are some very important statements in Mr. Vorster's

speech which certainly represent an advance on his earlier statements.

To a certain extent, the positive portions of Mr. Vorster's speech are

somewhat concealed in a mass of statements intended either to justify South

Africa's past posture in regard to Namibia or in order to make more palatable

to his own supporters in Namibia and South Africa the proposals he is

addressing to the OAU and to the United Nations organs. These considerations

render it necessary to read Mr. Vorster's statement with great care.

Mr. Kurt WaldheimSecretary-GeneralRoom 3800United Nations

U N I T E D N A T I O N S f c i ^ O N A T I O N S U N I E S

In accepting the concept of self determination, independence and

territorial integrity for Namibia Mr. Vorster is reversing attitudes which

he and his Party had adopted and pursued with intransigence since the

revocation of the mandate by the General Assembly in 1966. He has been

under criticism by the right wing of his own party for wishing to compromise

and has suffered some political defections as a result. Inevitably, therefore,

his statement is couched in language intended to make as palatable as he can

the concessions which he now appears to be willing to make.

The following portions of his statement on pages 5 and 6 of the extracts

are, I think, of some considerable importance:

"From this exposition it does appear that in substance

we are in agreement with the most important aspects of the

points of view which are put in the United Nations. As far

as the OAU is concerned, in principle, and bearing in mind

what I have already said, we have no quarrel with their points

of view concerning self-determination, independence and the

maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Territory. "

The first sentence may, or may not be an acceptance of paragraphs 3, 4,

and 5 of Security Council resolution 366 (17 December 1974) ; the ambiguity

may be deliberate or it may be due to translation. As far as the second

sentence is concerned, it appears to me to be an absolute acceptance of the

right of the Namibian people to self-determination, independence and the

maintenance of the territorial integrity of Namibia.

He does go on to differ with what he alleges to be "the role claimed

for the United Nations and SWAPO" but in a later portion of the same statement,

on page 6, he indicates a willingness to discuss or "to exchange ideas" with

a committee of the OAU on all matters except "the role which is proposed for

SWAPO". I take it that by this he rejects the claim that SWAPO is to be«•.;•> -..,*• '

accepted by him as the sole authentic representative of the people of Namibia

but he does not appear to reject the possibility of SWAPO representation in

the Committee of the OAU or in any discussions.•

U N I T E D N A T I O N S N A T I O N S U N I E Siy Yr

-3-

In the following paragraph Mr. Vorster, I think, clearly acknowledges

the role of the United Nations when he invites the "Chairman of the Council

of South West._Africa.'.' (which is clearly intended to be the Chairman of the

United Nations Council for Namibia), as well as the special committee of

the OAU to discuss with him in South Africa the progress of the "peoples of

the Territory". True, he uses the expression "progress of the peoples",

which is an ambiguous term that can cover nearly any grouping of Namibians and

which is probably intended to make the proposal more palatable to those

Namibians who are unfortunately collaborating with him. He does not appear

to impose any limit to the scope of the discussions which are envisaged 'in

the second and third paragraphs of page 6.

In the following paragraph, the last on page 6, he recognizes that

Dr. Escher may no longer be acceptable and expresses willingness to discuss

the appointment of another acceptable person to negotiate: "...we are still

prepared to negotiate ...". Mr. Vorster, however, includes a last sentence.

to that paragraph in which he categorically states: "...we will not accept

United Nations supervision ...". He does not clarify whether this is intended-!.:.£ A.-—* ...-..•- -. • , -• •. ,L,

to be supervision of the present administration, as demanded in United Nations

resolutions or whether it is intended to refer to supervision in any elections

to be held in Namibia.

In this context it is well to refer to the provisions of General Assembly

resolution 2248 (S-V) of 1967 which defines the functions of the Council for

Namibia as being:

" (a) To administer South West Africa until independence with

the maximum possible participation of the people of the Territory:

" (b) To promulgate such laws, decrees and administrative

regulations as are necessary for the administration of the Territory

until a legislative assembly is established following elections

conducted on the basis of universal adult suffrage;

" (c) To take as an immediate task all the necessary measures,

in consultation with the people of the Territory, for the establishment

of a constituent assembly to draw up a constitution on the basis of which

elections will be held for the establishment of a legislative assembly

and a responsible government;

U N I T E D N A T I O N S N A T I O N S U N I E S

-4-

. t;

" (d) To take all the necessary measures for the maintenance

of law and order in the Territory;

" (e) To transfer all powers to the people of the Territory»-», —-.... . •.upon the declaration of independence."

While these four paragraphs are somewhat indefinite, they certainly envisage

"a legislative assembly established following elections, conducted on the

basis of universal adult suffrage" and also "the establishment of a constituent

assembly to draw up a constitution on the basis of which elections will be

held for the establishment of a legislative assembly and a responsible

government". This would, I think, presuppose the holding of elections under

United Nations supervision and control. In the light.pf the various abuses

and complaints made regarding the recent "elections" held in Ovamboland, it

does appear to me that no elections organised and held by the South African

Government in Namibia would be regarded as acceptable to the people of Namibia

or to the African States.

In the light of the foregoing analysis, it appears to me that it would

be open to either the Secretary-General, or his nominee and/or the President•>> _m, _1 ., __ =•• - -~- «~, . i»o*»w-w«&.*-»~*.»»-' ^ u-.r-» — ~i-.- -*-«-•--•«>.*«••«•».

oT"Tn"ertTriited Nations Council for Namibia and the African members of the

Council for Namibia (who are identical with the special committee of the OAU

set up to deal with Namibia) to enter into discussions with the South African

Government. Having regard to all the circumstances, I think that it may be

preferrable if such discussions were undertaken by the President of the Council

for Namibia and the African members of the Council than by the Secretary-General.

The negotiations could be undertaken on the following mandate from the'

Security Council:

Taking note that the South African Government is prepared to

accept the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination,

independence and the maintenance of the territorial integrity of

Namibia, the Chairman of the United Nations Council for Namibia and

the members of the Special Committee of the OAU are authorised to

enter into discussions as to the modalities for the conduct of

elections to a constituent assembly conducted on a basis of universal

adult suffrage, which constituent assembly would have the responsibility

U N I T E D N A T I O N S l|JOf N A T I O N S U N I E SV 5 r/

-5-

of drawing up a constitution for the establishment of a legislative

assembly and a responsible government for the sovereign independent

State of Namibia. It should be clearly understood that such dis-

cussions should envisage the co'ntrol and supervision of the elections

by the United N_atii.on,su and that the discussions should lead to a

* fixed time-table for every step leading to the elections.--—

Naturally, the above analysis and suggestions involve political decisions

which only the Security Council, which has seisin of the current Namibia issue,

could take.

This analysis and very preliminary tentative suggestions are made merely

in order to facilitate your consideration and discussions of the issues

raised by Mr. Vorster's statement. Perhaps it might be wise to await the

full official text of Mr. Vorster's declaration before taking any final

decision.

I would suggest that some consideration should also be given to the

South African Government's probable contingency plan if its proposals are

rejected. They must naturally have made such contingency plans. It appears

likely that they would proceed to implement their own proposal to set up

some sort of "elected" legislative assembly for an "independent" South West

African multi-racial State, ruled over by collaborating Namibians. This

would severely confuse the issues, intensify existing divisions and lead in

some areas to internecine dissension and, possibly, even conflicts.

With warm respects,*•

Yours sincerely

Sean Mac BrideUnited Nations Commissioner for Namibia

IJED N A T I O N SDistr.LIMITED

A/C.U/L.107225 November 197

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Twenty-ninth sessionFOURTH COMMITTEEAgenda item 65

QUESTION OF NAMIBIA

Draft resolution

The General Assembly,

Having; considered the question of Namibia,

Having; examined the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia I/ andthe relevant chapters of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples, 2_/

Having heard the statement of the representative of the South West AfricaPeople's Organization, ZS/-_who has participated in an observer capacity in the workof the United Nations Council for Namibia and also in the consideration of the itemby the 'Fourth Committee,

Having also heard the statements of the petitioners, h_/

Recalling its resolution 15lU (XV) of lU December I960, containing theDeclaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, andits resolution 2621 (XXV) of 12 October 1970, containing the programme of action $for the full implementation of the Declaration,

Recalling in particular its resolutions 2lUj? (XXI) of 27 October 1966 and22it8 (S-V) of 19 May 1967 and subsequent resolutions of both the General Assemblyand the Security Council relating to the question of Namibia, as well as the

I/ A/962U, vols. I and II and Add.l.

2_/ A/9623 (parts V and VI) and Add. 3.

3/ See A/C.U/SR.2100 and 2103.

k_/ See A/C.VSR.2092, 2101 and 2103.

7 -32519

UN 17 ED N A T I O N S

A S S E

Distr.LIMITED

A/L.73128 SeptemberENGLISHORIGINAL; ENGLISH/FRENCH

Twenty-ninth sessionAgenda item 3

CREDENTIALS OP REPRESENTATIVES TO THE TWENTY-NINTH SESSIONOF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Albania, Algeria, Burundi, Central African Republic,_Chad, Congo,Dahomey, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Kuwait,Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania.,Mauritius, Morocco, Niger,, Nigeria, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, To. o, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,,Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic ofCameroon,. United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volt a, Zaire,

Zambia; draft resolution•\v ;

Relationship between the United Nations and South Africa * •

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2636 (XXV) of 13 November 1970, 2862 (XXVI) of20 December 1971 and 29U8 (XXVII) of 8 December 1972 and its decision of5 October 1973, by which it decided to reject the credentials of South Africa,

Recalling that South Africa did not heed any of the aforementioned decisionsand continued to practise its policy of apartheid and racial discrimination againstthe majority of the population in South Africa, "-;_

Reaffirming, once again, that the policy of apartheid and racial discriminationof the Government of South Africa is a flagrant violation of the principles of theCharter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Noting the persistent refusal of South Africa to abandon its policy of apartheidand racial discrimination in compliance with relevant resolutions and decisions ofthe General Assembly,

Calls upon the Security Council to review the relationship between the UnitedNations and South Africa in the light of the constant violation by South Africa ofthe principles of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

7 -25992

u

PERMANENT SOUTH AFRICAN MISSION

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

3OO EAST 4Z«° STREET

NEW YORK. N. Y. IOOI7

26th September,

Sir,

I have the honour to send you herewith a CQpyof a statement issued by the Executive of the NationalParty of South West Africa in Windhoek on the 2^thSeptember, 197^- The Executive in question is composedof the leaders of the White majority party in South WestAfrica which at present controls all -the seats in theWhite Legislative Assembly in the Territory.

I should be glad if this letter and theaccompanying statement could be issued as officialdocuments of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncilo

Please accept, Sir, the assurances of my highestconsideration.

H. MULLERMINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS",

His Excellency Dr. Kurt Waldheim,Secretary-General of the UnitedNations,NEW YORKo

STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OF THE NATIONAL PARTYOF SOUTH WEST AFRICA IN WINDHOEK ON 2'l SEPTEMBER, 197'i.

(Unofficial translation)

At a meeting in Windhoek on 23 September,

the Executive of the National Party of South West Africa

decided unanimously that the time was now opportune for

the Whites of South West Africa, acting in a more positive

and practical manner, to undertake discussions with repre-

sentatives of the other population groups of the Territory,

more particularly on South West Africa's future pattern of

constitutional development.

The purpose is, firstly, in a spirit of voluntary

consultation, to promote a better mutual understanding of

each other's views on the constitutional future of the

Territory, and flowing therefrom, and on the same basis,

to conduct more positive discussions on the Territory's

future. It is trusted that these discussions will

proceed in. a spirit of goodwill to the point where final

agreement can be reached between all the population

groups.

The reference here to "representatives of population

groups" is not intended to compromise the other population

groups in respect of their views on their constitutional

future; it is merely that this constitutes the most

practical approach. It is the Executive's assumption

that each population group will decide for itself who its

representatives will be. It is, however, highly desirable^ 'N I'that these representatives should be accepted as such by[ «:

their people as a whole.

The Executive also recommended that for the purpose

of securing official backing of this initiative, the Legi-

slative Assembly should be convened as soon as possible.

So far as the Whites are concerned, the discussions

will be conducted by senior members of the Executive Committee;

in close consultation with the leader of' th'e National

Party of South West Africa, Mr. A.H. du Plessis. The

Executive will also devote continual attention to the

progress being made. Whenever considered desirable, Mr.

du Plessis will take part in the deliberations.

It must be emphasised that this decision is, on

the one hand, the result of discussions which have for some

time.been undertaken by the two senior members of the

Executive Committee, Messrs. Mudge and Van Zijl, and which

were in accordance with a decision of the Executive on

17 January, 197^? and is also on the other, the logical

extension of the position of the Prime Minister, Mr,

Vorster, that the people of South West Africa will decide

their own future. This position is accepted by the

Executive as being correct and one which was also adhered to

in practice by Mr „ Vorsterfs predecessors. The Prime

Minister was informed of these intended steps, which are

being undertaken with his good wishes.

The position of the National Party of South West

Africa as to what it considers the best way of ensuring

peaceful coexistence between people with different languages,

traditions, cultural backgrounds and outlooks, is generally

known. Nevertheless it is the party's intention to

approach the proposed consultations in a spirit of goodwill

in terms of which standpoints will be weighed against each

other and misconceptions eradicated, with the object of .

finding a solution which will, to the greatest possible

extent, enjoy the support of the various population

groups of South West Africa and ensure security and prosperity

i "••\ -.;

The Executive has set these objectives in the kj ow- .

ledge that the dispute over South West Africa, which has

dragged"on for almost three decades, is not in the interests

of progress and is thus to the disadvantage of all the

people of South West Africa. The hope is therefore

expressed that the greatest measure of co-operation will be

forthcoming from all popxilation groups so that the desired

objectives may be attained. ' ^, ^

Distr.GENERAL

A/9775I S/11519L 26 September 1971*

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

'GENERAL ASSEMBLY SECURITY COUNCILTwenty-ninth session Twenty-ninth yearAgenda item 65QUESTION OF NAMIBIA

Letter dated 26 September 197 from the Minister of Foreign Affairsof South Africa to the Secretary-General

I have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a statement issued by the, Executive of the National Party of South West Africa at Windhoek oh'? 2k September 197 . The Executive in question is composed of the leaders of then white majority party in South West Africa which at present controls all the seats

in the White Legislative Assembly in the Territory.

I should be glad if this letter and the accompanying statement could beissued as official documents of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

(Signed) H. MULLERMinister of Foreign Affairs

7 -25902

Distr.GENERAL

A/966US/1138326 July 197

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

GENERAL ASSEMBLYTwenty-ninth sessionItem 38 of the provisional agenda*POLICIES OF APARTHEID OF THEGOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

SECURITY COUNCILTwenty-ninth year

Letter dated 19 July 197 from the Permanent Representativeof South Africa to the United Nations addressed to the

Secretary-General

In the light of the attention which recent incidents at two South Africangold mines have attracted,, I have the honour to request that the attachedmemorandum "be circulated together with this letter as a document of the GeneralAssembly and of the Security Council.

(Signed) C. F. G. .von HIRSCHBERGPermanent Representative

A/9700.

*r7 ,-* r-j -;Y " -; • •, ti rj p ^ o 1 "p 7\ ^ ' r f% *") '^' i*\^ »- vJ .JO*J*^ - i.W-^- 1- A -f «KJtvO V ->

.

L^J 72 21 1620 lKFO COPY

FiLE NO.

I ACTION

; TO

•lit J am "•

ILLEGAL HOLD OVD1 ^Aill- 'JA TO 2TJ

cc: S. Mira

Kr, £. &, Sfoevehenfoo, Usider*Secretary«- 1C Deeesaber 2.973General, Political and Security CouncilAffairs

Anton Pxchas&a

n on General &ssesably resolution 3ODEof 29 October._I973_oii '•Qlitj.^griy?on^

I refer to your saesaorandxsa of 3O KoveK&er 1973addressed to the SecrataryHSeneral, £hc

«*.* has approved the draft note verbale to States, transmittingthe above resolution* Th© Scscretary~6en.«sxal also agreesto your suggestion that the resolution bo transsaitted tospecialised agencies and', regional organisations by youon behalf of the Secretiary»Geiieral«

& letter signed by the Secretary-General,mitting the resolution to the Foreign Minister of

«... South Jkfrisa is attached.

U N I T E D N A T I O N S

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

N A T I O N S U N I E S

MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR

TO:A:

THROUGH:SIC. DE:

FROM:DE:

OBJET:

The Secretary-General DATE: 30 November 1973

REFERENCE:

A.N. Shevchenko, Under-Secretary-General,Political and Security Council Affairs

SUBJECT: Action on General Assembly resolution 3055 (XXVIII)of 29 October 1973 on "political prisoners in South Africa"

.1. I am attaching for your approval a draft letter to theForeign Minister of South Africa and a draft note verbale toStates, transmitting the above resolution.

2. I am also attaching a draft letter to transmit thisresolution to specialized agencies and regional organizations,If you wish, I will transmit this on your behalf.

Draft letter to specialized agencies and

regional organizations

On behalf of the Secretary-General of the United ITations,

I am transmitting herewith, for your information, resolution

3055 (XXVIII) adopted by the General Assembly on 29 October

1973 on the "policies of apartheid of the Government of South

Africa."

I vould like to draw your special attention to operative

paragraph 3 in which the General Assembly has appealed to all

Governments, organisations and individuals to undertake more

vigorous and concerted action to publicise and support the

legitimate cause of all those persecuted in South Africa for

opposition to apartheid and racial discrimination.

-AS

Draft note verb ale to States

PO 230 SOAF (2-2-1)

The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his

compliments to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of

and has the honour to transmit herewith the text of resolution '

3055 (XXVIII), adopted by the General Assembly on 29 October

1973, which calls upon the South African Government to grant

forthwith the uncondition?.! release of all persons imprisoned,

interned, or otherwise restricted in South Africa for their

opposition to apartheid.

The Secretary-General wishes to drav particular attention

to the appeal contained in operative paragraph 3 of the resolution

urging all Governments to undertake no-re vigorous and concerted

action to publicize and support the legitimate cause of those

detainees and political prisoners.

ccs Mr, ShevchenkoMr. KittaniMrs. Mira

bef. filigg; GH/AP

/gs

7 December IS 73

Sir,

I have the honour to transmit herewith the textof resolution 3055 (XXVXIX) on the question of detaineesand political prisoners in South Africa, which wasadopted by the General Assembly on 29 October 1973.

X should like to draw your attention to operative'paragraph 2 of the resolution in which~the General&sseiably has reiterated its call to the Government ofSouth Africa to grant forthwith the unconditionalrelease of all persons imprisoned, interned, or otherwiserestricted for their opposition to apartheid.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of sny highest consideration.

Kurt Waldheim

His ExcellencyDr, Hilgard MullerMinister for Foreign Affairsof South Africa

Distr.GENERAL

A/9180S/11005U October 1973

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

GENERAL ASSEMBLYTwenty-eighth sessionAgenda item k2

POLICIES OF APARTHEID OF THEGOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

SECURITY COUNCILTwenty-eighth year

Military build-up in South Africa and implementationof the arms embargo against South Africa

Report of the Special Committee on Apartheid

V-

M

73-19669

T '

UNITED N A T I O N S

S E C U R I T YC

" • • ' ' ''pistr.GENERAL

S/10992".''? 10 September 1973

ORIGINAL: .ENGLISH

LETTER DATED 7 SEPTEMBER 1973 FROM THE PERMANENTREPRESENTATIVE OP SOUTH AFRICA TO THE UNITEDNATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

I have the honour to transmit to you the following communication from theMinister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Africa, Dr. the Hon. H. Muller.concerning the second session of the Advisory Council for South West Africa:

The second session of the Prime Minister's Advisory Council for SouthWest Africa was held in Johannesburg on l6th and 17th August, 1973, under theChairmanship of the Prime Minister.

You will recall that the Advisory Council was established to enablerepresentatives of the various regions and regional governments or authoritiesin South West Africa to discuss matters concerning South West Africa as awhole, and to advise-the Prime Minister on such matters.

The following regions or groups were represented at the second session.The names of their representatives are given in parenthesis:

Bushmanland (Mr. Geelbooi),,

Coloured Population Group (Messrs. D. Bezuidenhout andA. J. F. Kloppers) ;

.- Damaraland (Messrs. Justus Garoeb and Andreas Tja-tjamai) •

Eastern Caprivi (Messrs. M. Moraliswani and M. Mamili);,

Hereroland (Mr. Dawid Tjatjitua)•

Kavango (Messrs. Alex Kudumo and Leevi Hakusembe) ;

Mbandero Population Group (Mr. E. Tjingaete);

Owambo (Messrs. Filemon Elifas and Cornelius Njoba)j

White Population Group (Mr.-D. F. Mudge, M.E.C. and Adv. E. van Zijl,M.E.C.).

As in the case of the Council's first session in Windhoek on23rd March, 1973, Mr. Frank Basson and Mr. B. J. Africa were admitted to theproceedings as observers on behalf of interested groups in Namaland andRehoboth, respectively.

73-17387

f-o K

Visit of Ambassador von Hirschbergto Mr. Stavropoulos on 17 May 1973

(Note for the record)J \

Ambassador von Hirschberg visited Mr. Stavropoulos on 17 May to

inform him that he had received the following message from the Government

of South Africa concerning the arrest and detention of nine political

leaders in Ovamboland during the week of 3-10 May 1973.

The Government of South Africa wished to assure the Secretary-General

that it maintained in full the commitments which it had made in the

statement contained in the Secretary-GeneralTs report to the Security

Council (S/10921) to the effect that "all political parties of South West

Africa will have full and free participation in the process leading to

self-determination and independence" and that it "accepts, subjects to

the requirements of public safety, the need for freedom of speech and

freedom of political activity, including the holding of meetings".

The Ambassador was instructed to state that the recent incidents in

Ovamboland had nothing to do with the South African Government. They were

an effort by extremist adherents of SWAPO to ridicule and downgrade the

present authorities of the Ovambo nation by creating a riotous situation.

The purpose of their action was to undermine any positive results that

the Secretary-General's report may have.

The Government of South Africa was carefully examining the situation

with a view to re-establishing as soon as possible the freedom of political

activity to which it was committed and it was hoped that the situation

would be rapidly restored.

Ambassador von Hirschberg pointed out that his Government would

continue to respect its commitments in this respect depending upon the

outcome of the debate in the Security Council on the Secretary-General's

report. Should the position of his Government as set out in that report

prove to be unacceptable to the Security Council, the Government of South

Africa would feel free to act in any way it considered appropriate.

UNITED N A T I O N S

G E N E R A L

A S S E M B L Y

Distr.GENERAL

A/906518 May 1973

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Twenty-eighth sessionItem 70 of the preliminary list*

QUESTION OF NAMIBIA

Letter dated_l6_M_ay 1973 from the Permanent Representative of SouthAfrica-—to. the United Nations addressed, to the Secretary-General

I am directed to convey to you the strong objections of the South AfricanGovernment to the publication Namibia Bulletin, No. 1/73, which was issuedrecently. It is apparently the intention to issue this Bulletin on a quarterlybasis.

An explanatory paragraph on the cover page states that the first issue hasbeen published pursuant to a decision of the General Assembly requesting theSecretary-General to publicize certain matters relating to South West Africa. Thepresumption therefore is that responsibility for this publication rests with the vSecretary-General. Whether or not this is in fact the case, the Secretary-General' s'-cachet has undoubtedly been accorded the publication and its contents by theexplanatory paragraph.

The publication is riddled with distortions, misrepresentations and, in someinstances, outright falsification of the facts. Two examples will suffice to showthis.

Thus there is the statement on page 7 that "a few days after the encounter withthe guerillas, South African troops in retaliation invaded Zambian territory". Thisstatement is an outright falsehood. It refers to an incident which Zambia brought ,before the Security Council in October 1971. After considering the facts the Council,,was unable to substantiate Zambia's allegation and there is nothing whatsoever in ~'ithe findings of the Council nor in the outcome of its debate at that time which canjustify the statement. It may therefore well be asked how the "Office of the UnitedNations Commissioner for Namibia" , which was responsible for this falsehood , canmake such a categorical statement in the face of the Security Council's findings.

As regards the Advisory Council, it is alleged on pages 8 and 9 of theBulletin that:

* A/9000.

73-10558

A/9065EnglishPage 2

"Mr. J. de Wet... has been rounding up so-called representatives ofthe 'homelands' authorities and other Namibian groups to take seats on theAdvisory Council...

it ....

"These disturbances /the alleged riot in Katutura/ indicate thattempers are running high over the proposed Advisory Council. Some groupshave acceded under pressure to participate; others have refused to haveanything to do with this Council."

The Secretary-General has been kept fully informed of the purpose of the AdvisoryCouncil, its composition and the method of nomination of representatives. Wo onewas "rounded-up" and no one was put under any pressure whatsoever to serve on theCouncil. On the instructions of the Prime Minister, each population group wasafforded the free arid unfettered opportunity to nominate representatives. Thegroups which accepted the invitation did so of their own free will, and those whichrejected it presumably also did so of their own free will. By far the greatmajority of groups accepted the invitation. The alleged disturbances in Katuturawere not connected with the Advisory Council.

A foot-note on page 6 indicates that the section "Inside Namibia" emanatesfrom the Office of the so-called "United Nations Commissioner for Namibia". Therecord of the "Council for Namibia" (which is serviced by the said Commissioner andhis Office) in the matter of the South African Government's contacts with theSecretary-General is an unfortunate one. Since the inception of the contacts inFebruary 1972 the Council appears to have done its utmost to sabotage them. Thematerial contained in the section concerned is a further illustration of this.If this Bulletin does nothing else , it casts serious doubts on the credence to beattached to the utterances or writings of the "Office of the United NationsCommissioner for Namibia". The fact that it is the dignity and prestige of the '•'United Nations which is affected by the misrepresentation of facts and the use ofintemperate language seems to be of little concern to the responsible officials.

- It is unfortunate9 however, that such a publication should have been issuedat precisely the time that the South African Government was involved in delicatecontacts with the Secretary-General on the question of South West Africa.

I have the honour to request circulation of this letter as a document of theGeneral Assembly.

%:

(Signed) 0. F. G. von HIRSCHBERGAmbassador

Permanent Representative

- /?: ;C/_cX

5*/r-

oCM:£f*/ rsu;PERMANENT SOUTH AFRICAN M 5SION

TO THE U N I T E D N A T I O N S

I?™ FLOOR -300 EAST 42*° STREET

NEW YORtt, N.Y. IOOl"7

16 th May, 1973

Excellency,

I am directed to convey to you the strong objectionsof the South African Government to the publication "NamibiaBulletin No. 1/73" which was issued recently. It is apparent-ly the intention to issue this Bulletin on a quarterly basis.

An explanatory paragraph on the cover page statesthat the first issue has been published pursuant to adecision of the General Assembly requesting the Secretary-General to publicise certain matters relating to South WestAfrica. The presumption therefore is that responsibilityfor this publication rests with the Secretary-General.Whether or not this is in fact,the case, the Secretary-General'scachet has undoubtedly been accorded the publication and itscontents by the explanatory paragraph.

The publication is riddled with distortions, misrepre-sentations and, in some instances, outright falsification ofthe facts. Two examples will suffice to show this,

Thus there is the statement on page 7 that "a fewdays after the encounter with the guerillas, South Africantroops in retaliation invaded Zambian territory". Thisstatement is an outright falsehood, "It refers to an incidentwhich Zambia brought before the Security Council in October1971- After considering the facts the Council was unable tosubstantiate Zambia's allegation and there is nothing what-soever in the findings of the Council nor in the outcome ofits debate at that time which can justify the statement. Itmay therefore well be asked how the "Office of the UnitedNations Commissioner for Namibia", which was responsible forthis falsehood, can make such a categorical statement in .theface of the Security Council's findings. * '\

As regards the Advisory Council, it is alleged onpages 8 - 9 of the Bulletin that

"Mr. J. de Wet ..... has been rounding up so—called. .representatives to the 'homelands3 authorities and ..other Namibian groups to take seats on the AdvisoryCouncil ....," • -

"Thsse disturbances (the alleged riot in Katu.tu.ra)indicated that tempers are running high over the-',' -pro'oosed Advisory Council™ Some groups have .acceded under pressure to participate; others ,'•have refused to have anything to do with this ' -•Council," r.^ '

x /

- V':7 ~4 ;-- <•'<.. l T

The Secretary-General has been kept fully informed ofthe purpose of the'Advisory Council, its compositionand the method of nomination of representatives, No-onewas "rounded-up" and no-one was put under any pressurewhatsoever to serve on the Council, . On the instructionsof the Prime Minister each population group was affordedthe free and unfettered opportunity to nominate represen-tatives. The groups which accepted the.invitation didso of their own free will, and those which rejected itpresumably also did so of their own free will. By farthe great majority of groups accepted the invitation.The alleged disturbances in Katutura. ,wera not» connectedwith the Advisory Council;\-.,..\ . :'; /: ?

A footnote to page 6-indicates that 'the section"Inside Namibia" emanates from the Office of the so-called"United Nations Commissioner for Namibia". The recordof the "Council for Namibia" (which, is."serviced by thesaid Commissioner and his Office) in-the matter of the .- .South African Government's contacts-with the Secretary- •-••'.General is an unfortunate one. Since-the inception ofthe contacts in February 1972 the Council appears to havedone its utmost to sabotage them. The material containedin the section concerned is a further illustration of this.If this Bulletin does nothing else, it casts serious doubtson the credence to be attached to the utterances or writingsof the "Office of the United Nations Commissioner for

that it is the dignity and prestigewhich is affected by the misrepresen---

language seems-. •.officials . .- •!•=:.

Namibia", The factof the United Nationstation of facts and the use of intemperateto be of little concern to the responsible

It is unfortunate, however, that such a. publicationshould have been issued at precisely the -time that the ; ••-•• .South African Government was involved in delicate contactswith the Secretary-General on the question of South West •' .':Africa. * ' • . . . . . ' > * • ' • • ' '

I have the honour 'to request circulation of thisletter as a document of the General Assembly. . ~ " '•'.

Please accept. Excellency)my highest consideration.

the assurances of

*

C.F.G. VON HIRSCHBERGAMBASSADOR

PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE.

II, E,, Dr. Kurt Walclheim,Secretary-General of the United Nations,

: U N I T E D N A T I O N S

Press SectionOffice -of Public'' Information-..-• . • ;.

. . • , United Nations, N.Y. . ,

(FOR USE OF INFORMATION MEDIA -- NOT AN; OFFICIAL RECORD)

... Press Release16 April 1973

SECRETARY-GENERAL RETURNS TO NEW YORK AFTER .VISIT TO GENEVA

• (The following was- received from the United Nations InformationService, Geneva.)•

Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim arrived back in New York from Genevaat 1 00 hours (local time) on Sunday, 15 April.

The Secretary-General left Geneva, after attending the meetings 'of theAdministrative Committee on Co-ordination (ACC) and talks with the ForeignMinister of South Africa, Hilgard Muller, at 1050 hours (local time) on15 April. . ' ' - - ' >•

He was seen off at the airport in Geneva by Jean Humbert, PermanentObserver of Switzerland to the United Nations; Vittorio Winspeare Guicciardi,Under-Secretary-General and Director General of the United Nations Officeat Geneva; Sadruddin Aga Khan, United Nations High Commissioner for 'Refugees; Ilkka Olavi Pastinen., Special Representative of the Secretary- 'General to the Conference 'of the Committee on'Disarmament (CCD); : •Georges Palthey, Deputy Director-General of the United Nations Office atGeneva; Rolf Bjornerstedt, Alternate Representative to the CCD;Robert G.: Muller of the United Nations Secretariat; and Theodore D'Oultremont,Chief of Protocol at the United Nations Office at-'Geneva. . .

, ' Before departure from Geneva, the Secretary-General met informallywith correspondents in his hotel lobby and said that the situation in theMiddle East was serious, and that he'had already deplored the incidents. •The question was now with the Security Council, which would meet again .on Monday to hear the Egyptian Foreign Minister. "' ' . '

He was not in.a position to forecast the outcome of the debate andwhat kind of resolution would'be adopted. He would be present at theSecurity Council meeting on Monday, l6 April. • . •.••

Asked about his views on the Soviet resolution, the Secretary-Generalanswered that he had "no views on any resolution"-and that it was up to theSecurity Council to express its views. . - •

' ' • • ' • • (more) - .; ,

- 2 - Press Release SG/T/kQk16 April 1973

* - . . ,r

Regarding Namibia, the Secretary-General said that he believedMr. Muller had returned on Saturday afternoon to. inform his Government ofthe results of the conversations, and had told the Secretary-General thathe would inform him of the position of the South' African Government". TheSecretary-General added that he must report to the Security Council at theend of April and that "this will be done of course after I get the positionof South Africa". ' '- *

Asked whether he had any indication of South Africa modifying itsstand, the Secretary-General said he did;not wish to comment before havinginformed the Security Council.

Asked whether he expected an extension of his mandate, ,the .Secretary-General said he did not know, and that it was up to the Security Council todecide in the light of his report, "but I cannot make a report before I getthe answer from South Africa".

Asked whether he would recommend an'extension of his mandate, theSecretary-General answered: "This has to be dene in the light of theposition of Gouth Africa." .

On'the role which both the German States could play in a solution ofthe problem, owing to the presence of many German nationals in South'Africa,the &.-;-c re ;:.ary-General recalled that the two Germanys not yet Members'ofthe United Nations, "will probably become this year", and for the time beingdid not participate in United Nations deliberations to solve the problem.

Asked if the ACC had managed to get to.grips with the problem resulting .from the dollar devaluation, the Secretary-General said that no decisionwas made in this regar.d,- There was a very useful, helpful and thoroughdiscussion ''of the problem which is very serious". The United Nations',he added, was losing this year, roughly about $9 million. The problem wasthoroughly discussed in the presence of Mr. Schweitzer of the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF)-.and other .experts.. The matter was now being studied inthe light of the opinions of the different heads of the specialized agencies.

."' Questioned whether.the financial losses were upsetting the streamliningof the United-Nations programme, the Secretary-General answered negatively,thanks to last year's sayings. .The United Nations, he said, was .trying tofind other ways and means to overcome the difficulty, "but it is of course ^.a very serious situation" for the United Nations. :

Asked if. he would go to Addis Ababa for the next celebration of theOrganization of African Unity, the Secretary-General said that it was hisintention to go, but much depended on further international developments. •He recalled his participation at the-Rabat summit conference last year, andsaid he considered these'meetings to be very useful to maintain contacts withthe African Heads of State and Foreign Ministers, . .

Asked if the OAU could play a role within the United Nations or if boththe organizations were complementary, the Secretary-General said that regionalorganizations played a useful role and were helpful for the United Nations,enabling the discussion of important problems. They were thereforecomplementary, and he did not share a fear of competition. The regionalorganizations helped the United Nations "have a better understanding of theirproblems", he added.

U N I T E D N A T I O N S

Press SectionOffice of Public Information

United Nations, N.Y.

(FOR USE OF INFORMATION MEDIA -- NOT AN OFFICIAL RECORD)V .'

Press Release SG/T/48313 April 1973

SECRETARY-GENERAL HOLDS FURTHER TALKS WITH SOUTH AFRICAN FOREIGN MINISTER

(The following was received from the United Nations Information Service,Geneva.)

Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim held further talks yesterday evening athis hotel in Geneva with the Foreign Minister of South Africa, Hilgard Mueller.He will continue the private talks today.

The Secretary-General's schedule in Geneva today is as follows:

1100 hours (local time): attend the meeting of the AdministrativeCommittee on Co-ordination (ACC);

1500 hours: meeting with Maurice Strong, Executive Director of theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP);

1530 hours: meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees (UNHCR), Sadruddin Aga Khan;

1600 hours: meeting with the Chairman of the Geneva Association ofAccredited Correspondents, Johan-Georg Danea;

l800 hours: meeting with A. A. Roschin (Soviet Union) and, at 1830 hours,with Joseph Martin (United States), Co-Chairmen of the Conference of theCommittee on Disarmament (CCD); and

1900 hours: meeting with the head of the Indian mission to the United ^.Nations at Geneva, Purnendu Kumar Banerjee. . "

*

',*•

U N I T E P N A T I O N S

Press SectionOffice of Public Information

United Nations, N.Y.

(FOR USE OF INFORMATION MEDIA — NOT AN OFFICIAL RECORD)

Press Release SG/T/48212 April 1973

SECRETARY -GENERAL MEETS WITH SOUTH AFRICAN FOREIGN MINISTER PI GENEVA

(The following was received from the United Nations InformationService, Geneva. )

Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim held talks with the Foreign Ministerof South Africa, Hilgard Mueller, at his hotel in Geneva yesterday, andwill continue the talks today.

The following is the Secretary-General's schedule in Geneva today:

0900 hours (local time): meeting with the Executive Secretary of theEconomic Commission for Europe (ECE), Janez Stanovnik;

10JO hours: attend meeting of the Administrative Committee onCo-ordination (ACC);

1300 hours: attend luncheon given for the participants in the ACCmeeting by Vittorio Winspeare Guicciardi, Under-Secretary-General andDirector-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva;

1500 hours: attend ACC meeting; and

2000 hours: attend a private dinner given by the Director-General ofthe International Labour Organisation. (ILO), Wilfred Jenks.

y y \/A A K

INFORMAL WORKING) PAPER.

The following regions were represented at the firstmeeting of the Advisory Council in Windhoek on 23 March1973:

Datnaraland! Mr. Justus GaroebCouncillor Andreas Tja-tjaraai

Owambo; Chief Councillor Filemon ElifasCouncillor Cornelius Njoba

Kavango; Councillor Alex KudumoMr. Leevi Hakusembe

Eastern Chief Councillor M. MoraliswaniCaprivi: Councillor M. Mamili

Bushmanland; Mr. Geelbooi

Hereroland; Mr. Dawid TjatjituaMr. Munjuku Nguvauva

Tswanaland; Mr. Dominikus Mokalabatha

Coloured Mr. D. BezuidenhoutPopulation Mr. A.J.F. KloppersGroup.;

White Popu- Mr. D.F. Mudge, M.E.C.1ation Group;Adv. E. van Zijl, M.E.C.

The Rehoboth Baster Council nominated Messrs. M. Olivierand H.,Diergaardt to represent Rehoboth on the Council. On21st March, however, it withdrew these nominations until claritycould be obtained on certain questions. Subsequently, on 22March, the Rehoboth Baster Vereniging, which reflects the viewsof a section of the people of Rehoboth, indicated that it wishedto nominate Dr. B.J. Africa and Mr. P.J. Mouton as candidates.The Prime Minister ruled that Dr. Africa could attend the meetingas an observer.

In the case of Namaland, senior representatives of theNama people declined the invitation to nominate representativesto the Advisory Council. The Bondelswartz Group of the Namapeople subsequently nominated Mr. Frank Basson, their ActingHeadman, to represent them on the Advisory Council. The PrimeMinister accorded Mr. Basson Observer status.

In the case of regions for which there is no authority(i.e. Bushmanland, Kaokoland, Tswanaland, Hereroland, Namaland)all shades of opinion were consulted at meetings in the variousareas. With reference to Hereroland, the invitation to nominaterepresentatives was accepted by certain sections of this populationgroup and rejected by others.

As far as the South African Government is concerned, bymeans of contact with Authorities in regions where Authoritiesexist, as well as meetings in areas where Authorities do not exist

2.

as wide a cross section of opinion as possible was consulted.

The Advisory Council will occupy itself with thegeneral welfare of all the peoples of South West Africa.It will attend to matters where the peoples share a commoninterest. It is intended to foster co-operation betweenthe peoples. It is hoped that the first meeting on 23rdMarch will be the forerunner of future meetings that willcreate a good understanding between the peoples.

The Council does not possess the power to make lawsand it will not take over functions of the various RegionalAuthorities. Nor will it interfere in matters of purelydomestic concern to the different regions. It will alsonot be a forum where matters of interest only to individualregions may be raised.

The Advisory Council will rather provide an opportunityfor its members to discuss problems of territory-wide concernwith each other and with the Prime Minister in the best interestsof South West Africa. It will depend upon the co-operation andthe interest displayed by its members as to what the Council willeventually become.

The Council will meet periodically. Depending uponcircumstances, its next meeting will be held before the end ofthe year. No Agenda was prepared for the Opening Meeting on 23March, which was intended to bring the representatives of thevarious regions together so that they could get to know thePrime Minister and one another and discuss the road ahead. Asfar as future meetings are concerned, representativeswill have theopportunity to place items on the Agenda.

The Advisory Council will be serviced by a small Secreta-riat headed by Mr. G.H. Marais whom the Prime Minister hasappointed, with effect from 1 April 1973» to represent hisDepartment in the Territory. Mr. Marais's headquarters willbe in Windhoek. Mr. Marais will on a continuous basis co-ordinate matters relating to the Advisory Council. Questionsheld to be of common interest that it is desired to bring to thePrime Minister's attention will be directed to Mr. Marais who willrefer them to the Prime Minister and furnish the latter's answers.Mr. Maraisfs task will not, however, be to take over or replacethe functions of officials and Comraisioners-General concernedwith individual regions.

As stated above, the Advisory Council will advise thePrime Minister on matters of territory-wide concern.

The Prime Minister will continue to attend meetings ofthe Advisory Council. He will Chair such meetings at alltimes because it is an Advisory Council of the Prime Minister.As stated above, members will have the opportunity to placeitems on the Agenda for future meetings.

DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE

NATIONS IN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA AMENDMENT BILL

(Second Reading resumed)

The PRIME MINISTER: Mr. Speaker, -I know that it is not

customary for a Prime Minister to take part in a Second Reading

debate, but I think that hon. members- •will agree with me that

the subject matter of this Bill warrants my intervention in

this debate. Secondly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

has put certain questions, or rather, one important question,

to me in this connection, which I feel I must reply to across

the floor of the House in this debate.- The hon. the Leader

of the Opposition put this question to me (Hansard, 16/2,

page P.l):

Although there are certain aspects of this amending

legislation that we do not like, we would like to

be able to support this amending legislation. I

think it is very important, before we do so, that there

should be an assurance, preferably from the hon. the

Prime Minister, that he feels that this legislation

in no way is contrary to the spirit of, or will in no

way affect, his negotiations with the United Nations.

I then interjected, "I cannot see it at all". The hon.the

Leader of the Opposition then went on to say -

I can only tell him that this explanatory memorandum

is capable of real exploitation by our enemies. If

he cannot see it, I am very sorry indeed to hear that.

Sir. I want to say that as far as our worst enemies are concerned,

they will make political capital oat of anything we do or say

in this country- When it comes to making political capital

one of things, all of us here - hon. members on that side as

2.

well as hon. members on this si'de of the House - are kids

compared to these gentlemen at UNO and in other pl'aces. But,

Sir, I want to say that as far as the subject matter of this

Bill is concerned, it is not a new matter - I repeat that it

is not a new matter -that is -being raised by the hon. the

'^ Minister. . The subject matter of this Bill, or rather the gen-

; V eral principle of this matter, was in fact discussed between

Dr. Escher 'and myself;. Not only was it discussed between Dr.

Escher and myself, but it was brought to the notice of the -

Security Council itself by no less a person than Dr. Escher

himself inl; his - report, as I will point out to the hon. the

Leader of .-the' Opposition in a moment. For that purpose, Sir,

it is necessary for me to refer to the Press conference that

'* '•% I had towards the end of last year. Hon. members will just

"' have to bear with me, because I will have to quote certain

extracts from the report of that conference. The following

cuestion was put to me in Afrikaans by one of the Pressmen

present --

Mr. Speaker, there have been references in the Press

to the effect that the basis on which a solution

to South-Vest Africa must be sought should be a

federal basis.

To that I replied as follows —

I find nothing about a federal basis in this agreement -

What I do find in this agreement is the following

contained in paragraph k, which reads: "The Prime

Minister believed that experience in self-government was

an, essential element for eventual self-determination

and, bearing in mind the circumstances, he felt that

this could best be achieved on a regional basis".

HT.. members will appreciate, Sir. that wha b the Minister iri

;?act is asking the House to do now, as far as this Bill before

nhe House is concerned, is to give certain peoples of South-

'.-•"c-.st Africa the experience of self-government which, as we said

3-

at the time was an essential element for eventual self-

determination. I then went on to say —

I put my position in regard to South-West Africa

consistently, earlier to Dr. Waldheim and later

also to Dr. Escher, namely that the peoplej>_jof

South-West Africa must decide about their future

•;,. themselves. Indeed you will also find it in'?: " " • '

Dr.'Escher's report, which has just reached, me this

morning..- If you will give me a moment I shall find

the reference to it. You w-il:l find the following

in Dr.. Escher's unabridged report to the Security

Council, summaries of which appear in our newspapers:

"In the course of the discussion that followed, I

v explained the position of the United Nations and inx particular its position with regard to the national

unity and territorial integrity of Namibia".

May I pause for a moment here, Sir. Honourable members are

aware that the United Nations regards the Territory as a whole

and that they see the population as a- whole; that they will not

acknowledge the diversity of the peoples who live in South-West

Africa. Our attitude — and we have often expounded it --

is that there are different peoples in South West Africa. It

is not we who have created them. It is not a question of whether

we would wish it to be so; the position is that there are different

peoples, and if one has to deal with South-West Africa, then one

must take into consideration the reality that different peoples

do indeed live there. And I woiild add, Mr. Speaker, that nobody

yet who has visited South-West Africa, and who went there with

anything like an unprejudiced mind, could fail to be impressed

by the diversity of the communities,of the different peoples,

whose homeland is in South-West Africa. And I will go so far

as to say -- and this is also a matter which we have often,

expounded — that when we speak of and when _we discuss the

different peoples, we in fact are using the terminology of the

Charter of the United Nations. When, they speak of the Territory.

and only in the case of South-West Africa, they depart

from the Charter of the United Nations because the Charter

of the United Nations speaks consistently, as the Honourable

member for Middelland has indicated, of "peoples", of peoples

who should exercise self-determination and peoples who, if they

are not independent, should "be granted independence. "WTaen we

speak of peoples therefore, we speak within the framework of

the terminology of the United Nations itself. I quote again -

"In the course of the discussion that followed I

explained the position of the U.N. and in particular

its position in regard to the national unity and'

territorial integrity of Namibia. The Prime Minister

in reply stated that his Government's policy was to

prepare 'the inhabitants of the terrdtory for and to

lead them to- independence and self-determination.

Once there would be a fully representative view amongst

the inhabitants, both Soxith African and U.N. would have

to take cognisance of that view".

That is what appeared in Dr> Escher's full report. In other

words he himself submitted to the Security Council the positiont

to which we adhere, the position which also forms the basis of

ray colleague's Bill; in other words the Security Coxincil cannot

turn around, nor c-an anyone tell us, that we are now doing something

new of which they have no knowledge. I continue now with my

Press conference -

In other words my position throughout was that the

people's must be equipped to exercise their right of

self-determination and when they wish to exercise that

right of self-determination then the manner and the

way in which they wish to exercise it is solely their

own business; and it was my position that neither the

United Nations nor I can prescribe to them how they

must exercise it, for then it is their free right

to exercise it in a manner which will serve their

interests and according to how they see their own

future.

QUESTION: Do you think-that it is possible for

you to say that your advisory council would eventually

lead to some sort of a federation if the people wanted

it? You say the choice is theirs.

MY REPLY: It is not a question of my advisory council

leading to anything; it is a question of the peoples

making their choice, and -there are various peoples in

South-West Africa.

QUESTION: So the choice'would be theirs? . ' •

ANSWER:'.'';' The choice would be theirs naturally. I

have said that all along. •

QUESTION: To enter into a federation?

ANSWER: To enter into a federation or a confederation

or for each individual people -to stand on its own feet as

they prefer. The same applies to our own Blaclc people

in South Africa. What they do after they achieve their

independence and self-determination is their business

entirely.. I have said it time and again that if they are

independent they are independent.

QUESTION: The question is: "Is it possible that they

could enter into an agreement with Whites in a federation?

Is this a possibility?"

ANSWER: There are all sorts of possibilities. As a

matter of fact, all options are kept open. It is for

them to decide.

I continue on page 12 -

QUESTION: Mr. Prime Minister-, you said this just now

that it would be up to the people of South-West Africa to

decide for themselves. What method and procedure do you

envisage for them to be applied- Would It be through

elections and/or what options would be open? Would they,

for instance.;, be able to decide that they want a un.itp.ry

sincrle state rather than regional?

ANSWER: I can only again refer you to the document

itself, namely that I said, and Dr. Escher found that

acceptable ....

That is the important point, Sir -

... in principle, that the only way to set about it is

as stated in paragraph 4, namely "the Prime Minister

believed that experience in self-government was an

essential element for eventual self-determination.

Bearing in mind the circumstances, he felt this could

best be achieved on a regional basis". I think that

the whole amswer to your question is in that one sentence.

QUESTION: I would like to malce this point quite clear.

If paragraph 4, which was quoted, does not mean that it

is for confederation or not or who may or who may not

decide on confederation, is that not in itself an

essential part of self-determination?

.ANSWER: No, then you bind the people before they can

express their self-determination. If you tell them now

what they must do, there is no question of self-determin-

ation .whatsoever. The whole basis of self-determination

is that the people themselves must decide what is in their

interest. That is why my argument is that neither the

South African Government nor the UNO can tell the people

now what they must want and what they must have.

QUESTION: In other words, federation cannot be imposed

from or by the South African Government or anybody else?

ANSWER: No, it is for them entirely to decide whether

they want it or not, because there can be no self-deter-

mination if. you tell them now this is how you will develop

and this is what you must accept, whether you want it

or not. In other words, ultimately if it comes to a

confederation or a unitary state or anything else, ir is

for the people to decide that they want it and those who

want to opt out, opt out. That, to me, is the basis of

self-determination.

7,

In other words, my position towards Dr. Eschar was very clear

in respect of this matter, and our policy in South-Vest Africa

is designed, talcing into consideration the different peoples

who live there, talcing into consideration the areas which they

inhabit, to provide those peoples with the necessary opportunity

to gain experience in self-government, experience which is

essential for them. No step - and I wish to emphasize this

strongly for.the benefit of the outside world - that my honourable- . %&*- ' :.

friend is taking through this legislation is ever a final step./x

All that my friend is asking the House - it is necessary for

me to emphasize the point not to the House, "but to the world

without - is by means of this legislation to lead the peoples .

concerned to a certain stage to give them experience of self-

government*.". My friend goes no further than that.' If it

should ber.necessary to proceed further, it would not be the

decision of my friend, it would not be my decision, it would

not be the decision of my Honourable friend opposite and, I

am bound to_say not the decision of the United Nations, but

the decision of the people concerned what they would wish

to do further. That is my position - and I put it very

plainly to Dr. Valdheim - that I am not prepared to coerce

those people. The example was for instance quoted here of

the Ibo's who seceded from Nigeria. They were subsequently

compelled by force of arms to rejoin the Federation of Nigeria.

T think it 'is reasonable to express it thus. I, for my part,

am not prepared to keep people in by means of force and I

a;n also not prepared to expel other people by means of force.

The right of self-determination which those people have,

is to determine themselves whether they wish to enter a

certain constellation or whether they wish to remain outside

a certain constellation. That is their right and I am not

in. any way prepared to force them. But we have not yet

reached that point and :ny Honourable friend's Bill does not

bring us to that point. We are now still at the point where

'•••'"-• wish to give these people the necessary experience in

Connection with government so that after they have acquiredl';'-at experience, they can better decide what is in their

interest and can better decide where they wish to go.

As far as I am concerned, I was being honest when I said

at the Press conference, and it is still my attitude,

that as far as I am concerned all the options are open

for them to take their own decision thereafter. Since

this is what my friend in fact is asking the House to do

I think that we shall do we 1-1 to adopt this Bill with as

little discussion as possible and to give these people the

opportunity to acquire the essential experience in self--

government so that they can in due course, as and when

it may one day be necessary,- take their decision. That

is my answer* to my Honourable friend on the other side of

the House*- I will readily concede that there are people

who will, draw poisonous conclusions from this. Thsre

is not the slightest doubt about this but the people who

ought to'know and the people who have an interest in the_

aatter, the Security Council and the Secretariat of the

United Nations, have the knowledge and they know precisely

-,-hat the objective of this Bill is. They know very well

-chat this is not a final step but that it is being done

to give those people the necessary experience in connection

-.rith self-government. This is the path on which we wish

to lead these peoples. What happens further is their

decision and I am not prepared to force it upon them.

1. THE M I N I S T E R OF EANTU AIM I N i S T A T I ON, MR. M C BOTHA 5

INTRO:.::: T;:E ;;:;•:L:LA:::.:• r'Li rc1^ A SECOND R E A D I N G TODAY.-- >6

HE STATED THAT QUOTE GOVERNMENTS OF N A T I V E PEOPLES IN SOUTH

WEST A F R I C A UNQUOTE HAD REQUESTED THAT P R O V I S I O N BE MADE FOR

THEM TO ADVANCE TO A STATUS 0" QUOTE SELF-GOVERNING AREAS UNQUOTE,

THAT THEY HAD SEEN AND ENDORSED THE P R I N C I P L E S CONTAINED IN

THE BILL, AND NOW DESIRED THAT IT SHOULD BE PROCEEDED WITH.

AFTER B R I E F L Y RECOUNTING THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL

SEL1--GJV£r i , \ ( ;£ . \ : Y i i i THE T E R R I T O R Y . , HE S A I D THAT THE S T A G E HAD

NOW BEEN REACHED WHERE THE QUOTE N A T I V E N A T I O N S THAT HAVE

LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS UNQUOTE NEEDED ENABLING LEGISLATION

BY V I R T UE OF WHICH THEIR S P E C I F I C REGIONS MIGHT BE DECLARED " -

SELF-GOVERNING AREAS, AND THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS BILL

WAS AIMED AT P R O V I D I N G FOR SUCH E N A B L I N G LEGISLATION.

HE THEN WENT ON TO SAY: QUOTE THIS LEGISLATION IS MOT AUTO™

MATICCALY APPLICABLE TO THE POPULATION GROUPS OF THE VARIOUS

REGIONS-, WHAT IT IS CREATING IS THE NECESSARY MACHINERY FOR

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT ON A REGIONAL BASIS.

THEREFORE, .WHEN A GOVERNMENT OR REGION IS OF THE OPINION THiT

IT IS CAPABLE OF E X E R C I S I N G FURTHER POWERS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT,

IT WILL BE ABLE TO REQUEST THAT THE L E G I S L A T I O N CONCERNED '

BE MADE A P P L I C A B L E TO IT, AND THE STATE PRESIDENT MAY THEN APPLY

.IT IN ACCORDANCE W I T H THAT REQUEST BY WAY OF PROCLAMATION.

THE C H O I C E HERE RESTS W I T H ' T H E R E G I O N A L A U T H O R I T Y CONCERNED

UNQUOTE. HE C O N C L U L C D THE G E N E R A L I i .TRODuCT I 3N TO THE .; I L,

;::FO:K v,jrx ON T J - I . E A L WITY. IT seen:):; BY s~eu:.>; , V ; ! T H THE

OFTEN BEEN G I V E N THA T IT IS THE F IRM i N T c N T l O f - j OF THE GOVERN-

MENT TO A S S I S T THE N A T I V E N A T I O N S IN SOUTH WEST A F R I C A AND THE

EASTERN C A P R I V I TO O B T A I N E X P E R I E N C E IN SELF-GOVERNMENT

BEFORE E X E R C I S I N G ' T H E I R R I G H T O F D E T E R M I N A T I O N S I N C E T H I S I S

A U N I V E R S A L PHENOMENON FOR N A T I O N S ALL OVER THE WORLD. FURTHER-

MORE IT G I V E S EFFECT TO T H I S A S S U R A N C E IN A P R A C T I C A L V /AY

3Y M A K I N G FURTHER P R O V I S I O N 3Y LAW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH

SELF-GOVERNING N A T I V E N A T I O N S UNQUOTE,

2, IN THE SUBSEQUENT DEBATE THE P R I M E M I N I S T E R , MR. V O R S T E R ,* " *

CLAIMED THAT THE BILL SHOULD NOT IMPEDE IN ANY V/AY THE DISCUSS-

SECRETARY GENERAL. THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION SIR DE V ILL S E N S

GRAAFF SAID THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT COULD PROVE THAT THIS WAS '

SO, THE OPPOSITION WOULD SUPPORT THE BILL, . _ .

3. AT A PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY MR VORSTER SAID HE BELIEVED ' j

THAT HE AND DR. ESCMER HAD A R R I V E D AT A SOUND BASIS FOR AGREE- *: *•

MENT AND THAT HE WOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ADOPTING THIS

AGREEMENT AS A FUTURE BASIS FOR SOUTH WEST. AFRICA. HE SAID

THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL WHICH HE INTENDED

TO ESTABLISH (MY TEL NO, 57) WOULD 3E TO G I V E THE LEADERS

Of THE DIFFERENT PEOPLES OF o W A T,-i;" ^PORTUNSTY TC M"FT y.:* %

DISCUSS MATTERS OF COMMON INTEREST W i T l i THE PRIME M I N t

SOUTH AFRICA,

2 February 19T3. AP/jd ; : ..

•-Note for the Pile •'.

Meeting in the Secretary-General's Office,, KSnaay 29 January

Present: The Secretary-General . .." Ambassador von Hircchberg (South Africa.)Later: Mr. A.-Prohaska -' .Later: Mr. M. Chacko

Ambassador von Kirschberg came to see the Secretary-General at hisrequest in order to convey orally an interim message iron the PrimeMinister of South Africa to a -series of questions put forward by the -Secretary-General, regarding the fulfilment of the Security Councilmandate on Mai-iibia.

- •

Ambassador von Hirschberg stressed that the Eisssr.se of the PrimeMinister was not a detailed one since the South African authoritieswere at present considering the 'fundamentals of the problem. By vayof introduction he also tried to explain that the South African Governmentcould not go too far ahead in these matters, without putting itself indanger. ' . . . ... . . . :

. • In conveying the message he covered the following points:

a) When the Prime Minister and the Secretary-General discussedlast March in Cape Town, they considered that it would be desirable

..'.- to continue their contacts through a personal representative of•...'. • the Secretary-General. It was in this spirit that Kr. Eschar v.is.'.;•••'; - received in South Africa. The South African side was interested

. in a continuation of these direct contacts. , "

, b) The Prime Minister and Mr. Eaoher discusced the notion and the-"'•';.' complexities of self~deterraination. In his message the Prine i'inister

' •..' wanted to repeat a statement he had mr.de during these discussions, nsaiely,: -'. that in his view the future of South West Africa should not be decided' '• ' by the United Kations or South Africa, but by South Uest Africa alone.

c) Detailed discussion of the neaninn; and iir.plice.tion o? the concept;."' ''. of self-determination did not seem practical to hin at present:, this

. : was rather a problem that should wait until "the necessary ccrditicny"•'••;"•, have been broitght about. In order to bring about th-2 neccsKjy.-y'..•• . conditions development on a "regional bacir- seemed acceptable" to

,.- .Mr. Escher. - Here, the Secretary-General interrupted and oxplc.ir.ed

to which conditions Mr. Escher had subjected, his sfcrvteiacnt.Ambassador von Hirschberg then continued to olaborats thc.tefforts were Toeingr'made at present to consider the inclusionof an elective element "in the appointment cf the AdvicoryBody for South West Africa.

In somewhat summing up he stated that the Frine iliuiTter feltthat at present'the only practical thing to do \,-c.s to allow thsinhabitants of South West Africa to acquire experience on r, regionaJ.level. ' ; . . , , .

UNITED N A T I O N SDistr.

C C /•* I I n I T V !\&£3:3\ GENERALS E C U R I T Y |y mC \ I ^ S M 31 January 1973

V- I L ^^^ ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

LETTER DATED 30 JANUARY 1973 FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERALADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT CF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

I have the honour to transmit herewith the text of resolution 3031 (XXVII)concerning the question of Namibia,* which was adopted by the General Assembly atits 21ll+th plenary meeting, on 18 December 1972.

Paragraph 11 of the resolution reads as follows:

"11. Invites the Security Council to take effective measures, inconformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter, to secure thewithdrawal by South Africa of its illegal administration from Namibia and theimplementation of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the SecurityCouncil designed to enable the people of Namibia to exercise their right toself-determination."

(Signed) Kurt WALDHEIM

* Not reproduced in the present document; for the text see A/RES/3031-(XXVTl),

73-02330

I T E D NATIONSDistr.GENERAL

S/108TO26 January 1973

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

LETTER DATED 26 JANUARY 1973 FROM THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVEOF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT

OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

I have been instructed to transmit to you the following message addressed toyou by Dr. the Honourable II._ Muller, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republicof South Africa:

"With reference to the communication addressed to the President of theSecurity Council on 2^th January 1973 by the Permanent Representative ofZambia about the request for an urgent meeting of the Security Council, I havethe honour to draw your attention to the following statement issued on19th January by the Honourable B. J. Vorster, Prime Minister of the Republicof South Africa:

?In his statement the Prime Minister of Rhodesia explained thecircumstances which compelled his country, in its own interest and forthe protection of the life and property of its citizens, to close its ',borders with Zambia:

'From experience I know that Rhodesia did not seek this confrontation.Zambia, on the other hand, had done nothing on its part to prevent it orto promote good neighbourly relations and must throughout have realizedthat its actions and the granting of passage to, arid the harbouring of,terrorists will sooner or later lead to trouble. Also those whoencouraged it, defended it or closed their eyes to it, must bear theblame for this deteriorating state of affairs. It can only be hopedthat responsible countries will make efforts, as South Africa has alreadyin the past attempted to do, to normalize the relations and to avoid ^.further escalation. v":

'Although, as I have already announced., South Africa was not a party tothis decision on the part of Rhodesia3 and although one can expectdivergent speculation as to the wisdom or otherwise of this step,South Africa will continue' to treat the matter in accordance with thefollowing basic principles which have repeatedly been .stated by us:

vl. We do not interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries.

'2. We do not initiate boycotts, and we do not reply to sanctions withcounter-boycotts.

73-01963 /...

S/10870EnglishPage 2

'3. We are unconditionally opposed to terrorism, and we shall, in termsof our declared policy, render assistance within our means toGovernments who seek it in their fight against terrorism.

"U. Where and when we are directly threatened, we shall at all times takeall steps to protect the life and property of our people and ourterritorial integrity.

'Meanwhile, the interests of our country can best be served by calmlyawaiting developments and on our part doing nothing to make matters worse.The delicate nature of the matter makes this imperative.1

"The letter addressed by the Permanent Representative of Zambia to thePresident of the Security Council on 2Uth January also contains the allegationthat four thousand South African troops 'have been deployed along theUOO-mile-long border1 between Zambia and Rhodesia. This allegation wasofficially denied on the 19th January, The denial emphasized that no troopshad been sent. It appeared in all South African newspapers., and I have reasonto believe that it was also brought to the notice of the Government of Zambia.

"Under these circumstances, I find it most surprising that such unfoundedstatements and allegations could be made by the Permanent Representative of aMember State.

"I would be glad if this communication could be circulated as an officialdocument of the Security Council.1'

(Signed) C. F. G. VON HIRSCHBERGAmbassador

Permanent Representative

26 January 1973

To the Secretary-General:

The attached note from

South Africa will be circulated

as a Security Council document

in connexion with the Zambia

problem.

Since South Africa will

also publish this note as a press

release, I feel you should know

about it.

Anton Prohaska

PERMANENT SOUTH AFRICAN MISSION f>:.V '' ''

TO THE UNITED NATIONS

I7W FLOOR- 3OO EAST 4Z"P STREET

NEW Y O R K , N . Y . IOOI7

26th January, 1973

Excellency,

I have been instructed to transmit to you the followingmessage addressed to you by Dr. the Honourable H. Muller,Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Africa:

"With reference to the communication addressedto the President of the Security Council on 24thJanuary 1973 by the Permanent Representative ofZambia about the request for an urgent meeting ofthe Security Council, I have the honour to draw yourattention to the following statement issued on 19thJanuary by the Honourable B.J. Vorster, Prime Ministerof the Republic of South Africa:

JIn his statement the Prime Minister ofRhodesia explained the circumstances whichcompelled his country, in its own interestand for the protection of the life andproperty of its citizens, to close itsborders with Zambia.

From experience I know that Rhodesia didnot seek this confrontation. Zambia, onthe other hand, had done nothing on itspart to prevent it or to promote goodneighbourly relations and must throughouthave realised that its actions and thegranting of passage to, and the harbouringof terrorists will sooner or later lead totrouble. Also those who encouraged it,defended it or closed their eyes to it,must bear the blame for this deterioratingstate of affairs. It can only be hopedthat responsible countries will makeefforts, as South Africa has already inthe past attempted to do to normalise therelations and to avoid further escalation.

Although, as I have already announced, SouthAfrica was not a party to this decision onthe part of Rhodesia, and although one canexpect divergent speculation as to the wisdomor otherwise of this step, South Africa willcontinue to treat the matter in accordancewith the following basic principles whichhave repeatedly been stated by us:

1. We do not interfere in the domesticaffairs of other countries.

2. We do not initiate boycotts and wedo not reply to sanctions with counter-boycotts .

3. We are unconditionally opposed toterrorism and we shall, in terms of our

- 2 -

declared policy, render assistancewithin our means to Governmentswho seek it in their fight againstterrorism.

4. Where and when we are directly threatenedwe shall at all times take all steps toprotect the life and property of ourpeople and our territorial integrity.

Meanwhile the interests of our country can bestbe served by calmly awaiting developments and onour part doing nothing to make matters worse.The delicate nature of the matter makes thisimperative.*

The letter addressed by the Permanent Representativeof Zambia to the President of the Security Council on24th January also contains the allegation that four thousandSouth African troops 'have been deployed along the 400 milelong border1 between Zambia and Rhodesia. This allegationwas officially denied on the 19th January. The denialemphasised that no troops had been sent. It appeared inall South African newspapers, and I have reason to believethat it was also brought to the notice of the Governmentof Zambia.

Under these circumstances, I find it most surprisingthat such unfounded statements and allegations could bemade by the Permanent Representative of a member State.

I would be glad if this communication could be circula-ted as an official document of the Security Council."

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highestconsideration.

C.F.G. VON HIRSCHBERGAMBASSADOR

PERMANENT REPRES ENTATIVE.

His Excellency Dr. Kurt Waldheim,Secretary General,United Nations,NEW YORK.

ROUTING SUP FICHE DE TRANSMISSION

T * The Secretary-General

FOR ACTIONFOR APPROVAL

FOR SIGNATUREPREPARE DRAFT

FOR COMMENTS

MAY WE CONFER?

YOUR ATTENTION

AS DISCUSSED

AS REQUESTED

NOTE AND FILE

NOTE AND RETURN

FOR INFORMATION XX

POUR SUITE A DONNERPOUR APPROBATION

POUR SIGNATUREPROJET A REDIGER

POUR OBSERVATIONS

POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER?

VOTRE ATTENTION

COMME CONVENU

SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDE

NOTER ET CLASSER

NOTER ET RETOURNER

POUR INFORMATION

Date:

25 January 1973

CR. 13 (11-64)

FROM:DE:

CONFIDENTIAL

NOTE FOR THE RECORD

I telephoned Ambassador von Hirschberg of South Africa today at

11 a.m. and enquired whether there was any news from Cape Town. The

Ambassador said that he had not heard from Cape Town but that he would

telephone Mr. Fourie.

The Ambassador called me at 3.30 p.m. today and told me that he

talked to Mr. Fourie in Cape Town on the telephone and that Mr. Fourie had

informed him as follows: Preparation:, of the answers to the questions

put by the Secretary-General involved consultations with a lot of people,

including several Cabinet Ministers. Most of the spade work has been

completed and Mr. Fouriewas going to see the Prime Minister at 8 p.m.

today. Although he was not in a position to give a definite time by which

the answers would be ready, Mr. Fourie expected "something pretty soon".

M. E. Chacko

25 January 1973

iT/i/7,5

Mr. Hennig,

I attach the full text of Prime Minister Vorster's New Year message

quoted in the article which I sent last week. (The text is reproduced

in the daily renort of 3 January 1973 of the Foreign Broadcast Information

Service, Washington, D.C.) According to this text the quotation was

correct, y

It is also interesting to note what Mr. Vorster had to say about

the continued South African membership in the United Nations. He stated:

"If it was not for the fact that certain definite benefits flow from its

international agencies, it would have been problematical whether membership

in this world body brings any advantage."

I also attach an article published by Die Burger of P December 1973

commenting on the outcome of the last session of the Security Council

(Die Burger .which has the largest circulation of Afrikaans-language dailies,

is not only considered pro-Government but also as a newspaper of the ruling

Nationalist Party, since it has on its board of directors the Minister of

Defence. Mr. P.¥.Botha and the Minister of Justice, Mr. P.O. Pelser).

It considers that the last resolution has "a more unfavourable

appearance than the framework for further contact on which the Prime Minister

and Dr. Alfred Sscher, the Secretary-General's representative, agreed",

which may explain the reason why Mr. Vorster seems to insist on "the agreed

portion of the Escher report" for the continuation of the talks.

The basic issues raised in the article, namely the definition of the

concept of self-determination and the modalities of the consultations that

are required according to Die Burger may well constitute some of the main

points of the third "round" of the talks.

I-;. K. Pe'danou

cc: Mr. Chacko

ROUTING SLIP FICHE DE TRANSMISSION

TO:A: Henrii;

FOR ACTION POUR SUITE A DONNERFOR APPROVAL POUR APPROBATION

FOR SIGNATURE POUR SIGNATURE

PREPARE DRAFT PROJET A REDIGER

FOR COMMENTS POUR OBSERVATIONS

MAY WE CONFER? POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER?

YOUR ATTENTION VOTRE ATTENTION

rAS DISCUSSED COMME CONVENU

AS REQUESTED SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDE

NOTE AND FILE NOTER ET CLASSER

NOTE AND RETURN NOTER ET RETOURNER

FOR INFORMATION POUR INFORMATION

If the quotation in the lastparagraph is correct the third"round" of the talks would notlead us anywhere. I even feelthat if Prime Minister Vorster'sattitude remains unchanged therewould be no basis for the continuationof the contacts in view of theattitude of the African Group.

Date:11 January 1975

CR. 13 (11 64)

FROM:DE: -" ' . Pe'danou

-:rOn December'6 the Security' Cauricil resolved by ."13 votes'-to ni l , to empower" the'.TJN' Secretary

General, Dr. Xiirt "Waldheim, to continue'his "dialogue""with'-lfae South African. Government over" thefuture of South West Africa or Namibia. But his mandate' has been extended for a 'limited'period only—he must report back to the Security Council by April 30 on the result of his discussions. The Russiansabstained, and:: the-Chinese declared their non-participation. The two communist countries were apparentlypersuaded by African' states not to veto'the continuation-of-the dialogue/but they made clear their-viewthat ihe prolongation of-this contact was only a-delaying tactic riii favour of-Pretoria."- *-v-.i'.,-:/r* > - - • - - • •

• 'This -was--also Jth&. opinion.-of 1 the; South :West Africa--People's. Organisation .(SWAPO)—at least; a-._ statement-issued: by them..irt August:says that South.Africa;"does-not in. earnest contemplate falling in"•with UN.' demahdsJlf "anyrhmg, her. fesponse-;tO'Dr. Waldheim's-visit is an attempt to win- time and to

consolidate her-Town position- in the'^territory":- SWAPO iwasalso^ highly- critical- of- the-^report by Dr.'A.Escher, the Swiss diplomat whom Waldheim sent as his personal;-representative '-to South' -'Africa andNamibia in October. In fact, the displeasure over Escher's performance was widespread and pronouncedas .far as the^ African, representatives at.the UN.were concerned—so much.so that African support fora continuation of the "dialogue" over Namibia seemed out of "the question in .the days following thepublication of the Escher report.

The report:"'gave nine separats-poinfe-which-it claimed were'the "agreed. •/./.' substance of discuss-ions" betweenItherSduth'A'frican:Pnme Minister and the-Swiss - diplomat In particular; Yorsfer's viewthat "experience^ih'self-government'wag'an'-essential element for self-determination (which)-could-best beachieved on ;a -regional basis" Echer noted,-' "seemed -to -me- acceptable in'principle".'-The diplomatic

-: wording does:"nor disguise that this;meant the indefinite continuation of the ban tustan'-system,'.basicallyunchanged. In return Vorster agreed to establish a council for the whole territory "drawn from the rep-resentatives of the various regions, regional governments, or authorities"; he also undertook to "assumeoverall responsibility for the territory.as a .whole". The Africans did not consider this much of a consola-tion, nor .were.-they, impressed by Vorster's readiness to examine: the. possibility of removing restrictions onfreedom-pf movement, "without impairing influx control". Pretoria also promised to allow "legitimate"political activity/rf • i.r.ur-;;-.,- -H.-;--. w- Lr.L ••• : . - . : • ; • . --• - . - • • : .-;.-: vi\ .•-•.-... . - . - ' . . . : • - . ; • ;. .-..^ ;;:-., .-.,.,.,-

• EMTERPRETATIONS. The Africans had every reason to put the worst possible interpretation on this,for the South-Africans had leaked the. contents of the report before it was published. In fact, two daysbefore Waldheinureleased ihe text in the Security Council;.. Yorster .told a press conference-that he had"solemnly presided at the funeral of one man one vote" in-; Namibia. The council he had promised, hee;<Dlained, would be only an advisory one, and its members would be appointed by him from existing ban-tuscan authorities. The South African Press hailed the deal as a triumph. A UN spokesman quickly pointed

: The-Africaner the'UN felFthat if'this was'an example.of;what "dialogue" could achieve, there wasno justif5canon";for 'prolonging"it--The:report had stressed thaf'Vorster had refused to let himself benailed down by definitions;'her had-found-that "this was not the appropriate stage to go into a detailed dis-cussion of the interpretation of self-determination and independence"; and Waldheim suggested that hisdiplomatic campaign should continue/in order to gat clarification- on these points. (The Nigerians werenot convinced; a letter to the South-Africans.'demanding- a-reply within 48 hours might do the trick, theypointed out). Escher's ."general impression" had been that the majority in the Territory "supported theestablishment- of--a-united independent Namibia" and expected, UN help in bringing this about: andVvahlhsim argued that Escher's visit-had "removed any doubts thac might have existed about the politicalaspirations of the people of Namibia".. The resolution of December 6 reaffirms ''the inalienable and im-prescriptible rights of the people of Namibia to self-determination, national independence.-and .the pre-icrvition of their territorial integrity, on which any solution, for Namibia must be based";, it rejects"any incsrpretation,: m&asure or policy to-the contrary",-, . ••• .- • . • ' • . , . ; . ' .

1

But despite this formally ^expressed reassurance th^t-'principtes'were not entirety abandoned, it is sur-prising that the Africans did in the end support an extension of Waldheim'sr mandate. There was a lot ofbehind-the-scenes pressure by the Western powers, but this does not entirely explain the Africanacquiescence—particularly, since .there were a number of other surprising aspects to the. proceedings:, ;,-• v;

. . . . . • . . . . . , i . . . . . • ..., . . . . _ . . . . „ .l.-.-.Sam Nujoma, the President ofvSWAPQ, failed to turn up in New York," (although atelegram from

him rejecting the Escher report was'"received).-No explanation was given about 'his absence; according toone — unconfirmed— -rumour he, was- in .Namibia! Pater .Katjavivi, another important . SWAPO. member,"arrived at the UN only at a late stage. ' - ' • • > > '• 'V:';v; •••-'"•'• • • ' • ' • • . - . : - ' . - : • . • • - • • - ' • > -••>- •->-x:-.*:->. ~^-.

2. Lord Caradoa^—Britain's. foiimer, representative in- the -Security .Council — was also not- presenteven though he- had -been chosen to head' the -Standing Committee, formed by the Namibia InternationalConference' in. Brussels last

- .,3. Bishop Colin' -Winter, .'who- was expelled earlier .this year from Qyamboland,- was- in New Yorkapparently- with the intention* of giving- evidence before- -the: Security Council,. But he' departed -withoutappearing as J.a. witness. . Tr was. said that' he had' been kept;;waiting 'too long, "'and that he had to go ona fund-raising tour... It. is more likely .that he did not wish to appear on his own initiative, and waswaiting for SWAPO to- turn up so that he could- speak, on . their behalf and. at their request; but theSWAPO leadersjwere tardy: '(SWANLT. was- there and one- of their members attacked' the Bishop for hispro-SWAPO reputation)..;'^ "' " • ' • • " ' " • " ; . . . . . . . . . . . . • ' . ' • • ' . ' - - •

4. SWANU- representatives -had come- at considerable expense.to state their case, but allowed them-selves to be dissuaded by the Africa-group" from putting their case to the Fourth Committee. They would

-.,. .•> not have been heard by the Security Council, as they knew, because, unlike SWAPO, they are not re:

;_' \ cognised by .the OAU. SWAPO has-fought some guerrilla actions, and can claim to be militant and "in'L tha field". SWANU does not even pretend'to be fighting. However, SWANU is said to enjoy soms

Chinese support:"(The Chinese as 'well as the Russians have now become members of the UN Councilfor Namibia; no .Western nation "responded to invitations to join this mainly Third World body, which,according to a 1971 resolution, is to be given more weight, through the inclusion of powerful countries).SWANU was dissuaded from addressing the UN at this session, by promises that the OAU would reviewthe movement's standing,, with possible, recognition, at the forthcoming meeting of tha Liberation Com-mittee. ' •• i" ••:-.-•: _ . • . - . -<• : . ! • . : . - . - • .-. '. . ' . "..'.'/,."..'.' _ _ - ' • ' . '

5. SWAPO^was closely questioned about its military plans, and could not furnish any convincingpromises of action. It is said to have been criticised about-.its-expenses, outside the battlefield, and itsOAU funds may be .cut back.. '.,,'....,. ,'.. '• , . " :.";...-";-. .;.-... ' . . . ; .. ;. '

SWAPO SPLIT? Putting-these indications together, SWAPO seems- to be split—at least at its high-level leadership; There seems-to be-disagreement about the use- of personalities like Caradon and ColinWinter; there probably is also a divergence of political opinion about the extent to which co-operationwith Pretoria should-be- pursued.. As far as the Africans are concerned, it seems likely that ' the extensionof W.ildheim's1 mandate was agreed-to because some decision.on Namibia is impending at che "forth-coming OAU meetings. These will probably involve the question of SWANU and the "possibility ofsanctions against companies operating in Namibia without UN consent. (This was recommenced by theBrussels conference a n d discussed-at the-last O A U summit).' - . . . . . - .

As for South Africa, Vorster said in his New Year message: "From UNO, as it- now functions-, one'V .-' cannot expect anything worthwhile The basis of the accusation of maladministration (of Namibia)•J -, has r.ie?.nwhile collapsed completely, and the legal argument has no foundation. Our willingness and bona

fides to solve this problem cannot today be questioned. If therefore there is desire- on their part to seek a• solution to this problem they will allow the Secretary General 'to co-operate with us to lead the peonies[• of South-West (Africa) on the'road of self-determination and independence on the basis of :ht: iram?-

\vork stipulated In the agreed portion of the Escher report"-?} . . ' .

bouT,;i S

Jy VORSOUTH AFRICA

VORSTER SEES 1973 AS TEST OF STRENGTH, PATIENCE

Johannesburg in English to Africa and the Middle East 1900 GMT ;H Dec 72 L

[New Year's message to the people of South Africa by Prime Minister Vorster]

[Excerpts] We are on the point of taking leave frora 1972, and once again .It is myprivilege to wish yovi one and al'J a happy and prosperous new year. Some of tha worriesand problems of 1972 we leave behind, but others=-or the results of others--will movewith us into 1975 and will have to be taken into account in the coming year.

One of the outstanding features 01° the year 197t, without a doubt, was the gieatoutbreak of violence and various foims of terrorism in practically all parts of theworld. The tempo with w'r-lch ic escalated, the moral and f inancial support it receivedfrora churches and other sources, the -steady .flow of better and more aangerous armsfrora comnunisb countries it OOUJ.Q ..'ely upon, .and the unwillingness of the" UnitedNations to deal e f f ec t i ve ly with this ever-increasing menace Is one of the legacies of •1972 that will bang 11 *e a millstone round the neck of all of us in 1973.

There are already people, governments and countries who appear to accept this as anormal characteristic: of our times with which we Just have to live. This we cannot doin South Af r i ca„ and we will not do it. Two byproducts of this problem ars alreadymaking themselves f e 3 t also in our society, the one being the tendency to gloss overcrime and the other the tendency of minorities to claim as their right to fores theirwill upon the major i ty by what can best be described in a democratic country asextraparliamentary action. This last tendency will, I believe, manifest itself moreforcibly also in our country in 1973 and will be dealt with firmly and effectively.

A further characteristic of 1972 was what one Is * srr.pted to describe as the almostindecent haste with which democratic states- vied with each other to come to anunderstanding and to enter into diplomatic relations with comnmnist dictatorships.

It" seems a hopeless task for Mr Waldheim to salvage anything from the wrec* «*x^. ....terms of U Thant's leadership. If it was not for the fact that certain definite pbenefits f low from its international agencies, it would have been problematical whether \membership in this world body brings any advantage. Responsible countries will |definitely have to curb the irresponsible actions of the Afro-Arabias [as heard], will |have to eliminate the double standards and the deliberate violation of the charter if ;this world body is to have any chance of survival in the long run. One of our differences|with the United Nations, of course, arises from our administration of Southwest Africa. ,The history of their feud with us over- this issue is well-known. The basis of the jaccusation of maladministration has meanwhile collapsed completely and the legal | - -argument has no foundation. Our willingness and bonafides to solve this problem cannot .-,,

today be questioned. [I

If therefore, there is a desire on their part to seek a solution to this problem they 5will allow the secretary general to cooperate with us to lead the peoples of Southwest : *[Africa] on the road of self-determination and independence on the basis of the framework Kstipulated in the agreed portion of the Escher report. OUr stand is very clear and thenew year will bring the answer.

Daily I-ews l\e:-.ort - _3Quth_ern_ ATr:ca - 3 Janua-ry 1:'7

PPAPER VIEWS UN POSITION ON SOUTH-WEST AFRICA f

Cape Town DIE BURGER IN Afrikaans 8 Dec 72 p 18 X . [

[Text] It can be regarded as a gain that the UN Security Council achieved a somewhat .vacillating consensus about continued contact between the secretary general and South *Africa in regard to South-Wast Africa. This at least indicates that the dominating .sntiment against confrontation is continuing at the headquarters of the world *•organization. This is not merely a question of confrontation between the UN and SouthAfrica, but at once also of confrontation within the UN between the "doves" and the "hawks"in the dispute relating to South-West Africa. If the hawks push too hard, the doyesveto, and vice versa. The most recent decision is accordingly, as always, a compromisewhich does not mean the same thing to all of the participants. Jfevjsrtheless, it Jias amore unfavorable appearance than the framework for further contact on which the PrimeMinister and Dr Alfred Escher, the secretary general's representative, agreed. For" thatmatter, it looks as though this simply swept aside that framework and prescribed to DrWaldheim that self-determination and independence for South-West Africa should proceed " 'from the unity of the area and its population. This brings us back to the old clash •"-of views regarding the interpretation of self-determination in a multipopular situationsuch as in South-West Africa.

It is quite conceivable and even probable that true self-determination for the peoplesof South-West Africa cannot lead to the maintenance of the political unity of the area—in whatever way "unity" may be defined--nor to the independence of the area as a whole.One or more- peoples nay opt for a sovereignty of their own, others a common independencewithin a federation, and still others joining the Republic of South Africa in either afederal or confederal relationship.

Tf the Security Council wants T;r Waldheim to constrain South Africa to give a more exactdefinition of our conception of self -determination, . then we on our part can rightly askthe UN to define its own interpretation of self -determination a bit more clearly.Should a common electoral list for the entire population on the basis of one man, onevote be drawn up, and ought a referendum to be held about all the possible combinationsand permutations of political structures? And supposing that the Ovambos--who numberalmost half of the total population—vote substantially in favor of a centralizedunitary state, while all of the other peoples come out with big majorities against this-- .*but together yet failing to ciake a decisive total--should then the will of the Ovambos be''imposed on the others? How and by whom? •?

There is material for almost endless dialog in the situation, as at least the secretariatof the UN knows only too well by this time. It is suspicion that tits .situation maydevelop into such a dialog which makes the hawks impatient and induces them to insist onfixed dates for reports to the Security Council. If, however, they cannot definespecifically what Dr Waldheim is to get South Africa to concede, they can hardly expectan early and clear solution. A new and dangerous heating up of the situation has at least Ibeen avoided, the efforts of the hawks to the contrary notwithstanding. . I

ROUTING SLIP FICHB iPE TRANSMISSION

TO: / _- -*""'A. The Secretary-General J ^J

FOR ACTIONFOR APPROVAL

FOR SIGNATUREPREPARE DRAFT

FOR COMMENTS

MAY WE CONFER?

YOUR ATTENTION

AS DISCUSSED

AS REQUESTED

NOTE AND FILE

i'AkE AND RETURN

FTOINFORMATION

POUR SUI'iE A j5|)NNERPOUR APpAojAr|pN

POUR SIGNATUREPROJET A REDIGER

POUR OBSERVATIONS

POURRIONS-^MOUS EN PARLER?

VOTRE ATTENTION

COMME CONVENU

SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDE

NOTER ET CLASSER

NOTER ET RETOURNER

POUR INFORMATION

The attached note is submitted

for the consideration of the Secretary-

General .

19 Dec. 1972CR. 13 (1L-64)

FROM:DE:

M. E. Chacko

Note for the meeting to be held with Ambassador von Hirschberg(South Africa) at 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 December 1972

At the meeting held on 12 December 1972, the Secretary-General

informed Ambassador von Hirschberg that at the next meeting to be held on

20 December, he would bring up specific points in order to ascertain the

views of the Government of South Africa.

The text of Security Council resolution 323 (1972) adopted on

6 December 1972 was cabled to the Foreign Minister of South Africa by the

Secretary-General on the same date.

The Ambassador had followed the debate in the Security Council, which

led to the adoption of resolution 323 (1972) and the South African Government

should be fully aware of the views expressed by various delegations in the

course of that debate.

Since Ambassador von Hirschberg did not participate in the discussions

which Dr. Escher had in Pretoria, the Ambassador may be expected only to

obtain information from Pretoria and to transmit it to the Secretary-General.

In seeking information in the context of the mandate contained in

resolution 323 (1972), it may be better not to go into any great details

at this stage. The first attempt could be limited to ascertaining the

present thinking of the South African Government on some points. On the

basis of their reaction to these points, the Secretary-General can decide

on further issues to be raised during the next round. The following points

are put down on that basis:

1. At the last meeting, the Secretary-General told the Ambassador

that, with regard to the immediate future contacts with South Africa

pursuant to resolution 323 (1972), he favoured a low-key approach with as

little publicity as possible. To that end, the Secretary-General suggested

that initial clarification be sought through diplomatic channels. This

-— 2 —

could be followed by a visit to New York by Dr. Muller or Mr. Fouri or by

both. After that the Secretary-General could send a member of the Secretariat

to South Africa. It would be useful to obtain confirmation that this procedure

is acceptable to South Africa.

2. The vast majority of the speakers in the Security Council emphasized

the need for South Africa to provide an unequivocal clarification of its

/policy regarding self-determination and independence. Taking into account

the importance of such a clarification for useful future contacts, South

Africa may be requested to consider the possibility of making its position

more clear on this matter.

3. South Africa may be asked to provide details regarding the proposed

Advisory Council, including (a) membership; (b) the various regions, regionalsgovernments or authorities from which they will be drawn; (c) how they will

be chosen; and (d) what its functions would be.

4. The Prime Minister stated that: (a) he would examine the possibility

of removing restrictions on freedom of movement; and (b) he was in agreementshat there should be legitimate political activity, including freedom of

speech and the holding of meetings. What measures have the south African

Government taken or proposes to take in connection with these two points?

5. As the South African Government is aware, continued implementation

of the "homelands" policy will not be in the interest of the present contacts.

It would be helpful to receive confirmation that no further steps in furtherance

of the "homelands" policy are contemplated at present.

Points to be raised during the next round will depend largely on the

comments of South Africa on the above five points.

Confidential

I'iote for the file

l-'eeting held on Tuesday, 12 December 1972 (12 to 1 p.m.)

Subject: Namibia

Present: Ths Secretary-GeneralAmb, von Kirschberg (South Africa)Mr. Chacko

'•_, The Secretary-General said that, as the Ambassador v;as aware, the initial

"? reaction of many delegations, particularly of African delegations, to the

Escher report was very negative. In their view, the report did not contain

any positive elements. Some of them even felt that certain expressions used

by Escher, such as, "This seemed to me acceptable in principle", compromised

the position of the United Nations concerning Namibia. Many delegations, were"*••»..

particularly critical of South Africa's refusal to clarify its policy of

self-determination and independence.

\ •§ Even those delegations (including the Western Powers) which saw some'\

'*- positive elements in the Sscher report, did not feel that South Africa had

-mads sufficient concessions to serve as a basis for further useful contacts.

As a result, the majority opinion in the beginning was opposed to the

continuation of the mandate.

In this connection, the Secretary-General said that certain statements

attributed to official sources in Pretoria and some reports in the South

African Press, which appeared under headlines such as "agreement reached

between Vorster and Escher" and "Triumph for South Africa", provided support

to those who advocated the discontinuance of the mandate.

The Ambassador said that he was aware of the damage done by the circulation

of the reports referred to by the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General went en to say that, when he first saw the Zschsr

report in New York, and he was not consulted by Escher before, he himself had

the feeling that it did not contain sufficient positive elements on the basis

of which the Security Council could approve a continuation of the mandate.

It was for that reason that he deliberately refrained from making any recommendation

to the Security Council.

The Secretary-General said that, after submitting the report, however,

he held numerous consultations with leaders of various delegations, Chairmen

of various Committees concerned with Namibia, the Group of three and the

— 2 ~

President of the Security Council. Following these consultations and after

careful evaluation of the situation, the Secretary-General prepared thei

statement which he made at the opening of the debate 'in the Security Council,

In that statement, he made an attempt to answer some of the doubts and fears

expressed to him in the course of the consultations in the hope that the Council

irdght thus be persuaded to authorize the continuation of the mandate.

After a great deal of consultations by the Secretary-General with the

African delegations and the use of his own prestige, it was possible to turn

the tide. Finally, the Security Council adopted resolution 323 (1972) on

6 December 1972 inviting the Secretary-General to continue his efforts and to

report again not later than 30 April 1973-

The Secretary-General emphasized that unless there was positive progress,

the Security Council is certain to discontinue the operation in April 1973.

The question therefore was how best to go about the next stage in the contacts

with South Africa.• •>.

The Ambassador stated that he had followed the debates in the Security

Council and understood the position e:cplained by the Secretary-General. With

regard to the criticism about Sscher, the Ambassador said that South Africa

' would naturally look to its own interests in negotiations of this type. It

could not be expected to worry about protecting the other party. South Africa,

however, had conducted the negotiations in good faith and felt that it had

agreed to certain measures on the basis of which progress could be made in

creating the conditions for the exercise of self-determination and independence.

The Ambassador also pointed out that the South African Government had to

keep in mind the repercussions of its policy regarding Namibia on the situation

in South Africa itself.

The Secretary-General said that with regard to future action, it would

be essential to clarify certain basic points, such as interpretation of

''self-determination and independence", procedure for the establishment of

the Advisory Council including whether the members would be elected, etc.

'/Jith regard to the procedure, the Secretary-General would be in favour of a

low-key approach with as little publicity as possible. To that end ha

suggested .that initial clarifications be sought through diplomatic channels.

This could be followed by a visit to New York by Dr. I-jailer or Lir. Four! or

by both. After that, the Secretary-General could send a member of the

Secretariat to South Africa.

1 /

I

The Ambassador said that he appreciated the Secretary-Gen2ralTs efforts

and that ha would report the conversation to his Government. He pointed out

that the Prime llinister, the Foreign Minister and Mr. Fouri would be away

from Pretoria fron about 15 Decsnber till they assemble in Cape Town on

15 January.

Cn the suggestion of the Secretary-General it was agreed that another

meeting should be held at 4 p.m.. on Wednesday 20 December 1972. At that

meeting the Secretary-General would bring up specific points in order to

ascertain the views of the Government of South Africa.

The Secretary-General also suggested that a further meeting ntighV take

place early in January 1973.