Five

Five of S;olida rity Edited by INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS

The bonds of friendship between India and Namibia are, indeed, unique. They were forged at a time when India was not yet fully independent and Namibia, then called the mandated territory of South West Africa, was threatened with extinction as a separate entity. India took the lead in preventing the incorporation of South West Africa by its mandatory power, the Union of South Africa at the very first session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946. Since then, India never wavered in her determination to secure full independence for the people of Namibia, bending all her efforts and her resources to this end. The documents presented in this collection have been selected with a view to highlight the distinct stages in the evolution of Namibia's nationhood and to bring into focus the principled and consistent support extended by India to the people of Namibia through their long and arduous struggle. A new chapter opened with Namibia's independence and the solidarity between the people of India and Namibia now gets strength through bilateral agreements and reciprocal visits at high levels., ISBN: 81-224-0772-2

Namibia-India Five Decades of Solidarity Edited by T G Ramamurthi INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS NEW DELHI & NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, PUBLISHERS WILEY EASTERN LIMITED NEW DELHI o BANGALORE o BOMBAY * CALCUTTA o GUWAHATI HYDERABAD* LUCKNOW & MADRAS o PUNE o LONDON

Copyright © 1995 ICCR (Indian Council for Cultural Relations) New Delhi NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, PUBLISHERS * WILEY EASTERN LIMITED NEW DELHI 4835/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-I10 002 BANGALORE 27, Bull Temple Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560 004 BOMBAY 128/A, Noorani Building, Block No. 3, First Floor, L.J. Road, Mahim, Bombay-400 016. CALCUTTA 40/8, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta-700 019 GUWAHATI Pan Bazar, Rani Bari, Guwahati-781 001 HYDERABAD 2412/9, Gaganmahal, Near A.V. College, Domalguda, Hyderabad-500 029 LUCKNOW 18, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow-226 001 MADRAS No. 6, Ist Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Madras-600 020 PUNE Flat No. 2, Building No. 7, Indira Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (Indira Height), Paud Fatta, Erandawane, Karve Road, Pune-441 038 LONDON Wishwa Prakashan Ltd., Spantech House, Lagham Road, South Godstone, Surrey, RH9 8HB, U.K. This book or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher This book is not to be sold outside the country to which it is consigned by Wiley Eastern Limited ISBN: 81-224-0772-2 Published by V.S. Johri for Wiley Eastern Limited, 4835/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110 002, and printed at Indraprastha Press, New Delhi-I 10 002. Printed in India

FOREWORD The bonds of friendship between India and Namibia are, indeed, unique. They were forged at a time when India was not yet fully independent and Namibia, then called the mandated territory of South West Africa, was threatened with extinction as a separate entity. India took the lead in preventing the incorporation of South West Africa by its mandatory power, the Union of South Africa at the very first session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946. Since then, India never wavered in her determination to secure full independence for the people of Namibia, bending all her efforts and all her resources to this end. While India always considered that her own freedom was incomplete until all colonial peoples and nations had been freed, it has also been her conviction that no country can be really independent unless political freedom is speedily followed by self-reliant development with the mutually beneficial cooperation of friendly countries. That this is no cliche came home to me when I had the privilege to be India's first High Commissioner in independent Namibia. As President Sam Nujoma observed, while opening the first Indian Trade Fair in free Namibia on 14 September 1991, The new chapter, opened with Namibia's independence, has increased the opportunities and strengthened the bonds of friendship that had been created during the struggle.... The solidarity between the people of India and Namibia now gets strength through bilateral agreements and reciprocal visits iv at high levels. The visit of the President of India to Namibia in June 1995 is thus an appropriate occasion to recall the stages through which India had stood firmly behind the people of Namibia for five decades. This documentary survey brings into focus the principled and consistent support extended by India to the people of Namibia through their long and arduous struggle and describes the steps being taken through mutual agreements to further strengthen our brotherly relations. p,. (Shiv Shankar Mukherjee) Director-General Indian Council for Cultural Relations

EDITOR'S NOTE The documents presented in this collection do not merely speak of India's contribution to Namibia's independence. They reflect the course of the tortuous yet determined struggle of the people of Namibia for their independence, integrity and progress, under the leadership of the South West Africa Peoples Organisation (SWAPO). Essentially, the progress of Namibia to independence was marked by three stages, the most important of them being the preservation of the territorial integrity and international status of the former mandated territory, followed by the taking over of the administration de jure by the United Nations through its Council for Namibia and the drawing up of an agenda for full freedom under international guarantee and aegis. India is legitimately proud to have a played a useful and effective role in all these stages, especially in the early years of the United Nations, when African-Asian strength in the world body was negligible. The first stage began with the thwarting of attempts to incorporate the territory of South West Africa into the then Union of South Africa in 1946 and ended with the termination of the League of Nations Mandate of the Union of South Africa over the territory of South West Africa in 1966 and the renaming of the territory as Namibia in 1968. India welcomed the assumption of direct responsibility by the United Nations as 'unique, historic and sacred'. The second stage was marked by the emergence of the SWAPO as the 'sole and authentic' representative of the people of Namibia. While favouring peaceful negotiations to hasten the independence of Namibia, India had no hesitation in extending moral and material support to the armed struggle which the SWAPO found ineluctable in the face of fierce and ruthless oppression by the occupying power. The third stage began with the adoption of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978 which laid down an agenda for Namibia's independence. From then on, India directed all her efforts to get that Resolution fully and faithfully implemented. To this end, India gave diplomatic recognition to the SWAPO and provided it with facilities to publicize its cause and mobilize support from important and influential groups of countries, including the Non-aligned Movement and the Commonwealth. The Brazzaville accord of December 1988 ushered in an era of hope and challenge in India-Namibia relations, having established a definite time-frame for the implementation of the Security Council Resolution of 1978. India participated fully and fervently in the Nationhood programme for Namibia launched by the U.N. Council for Namibia through direct programmes of human resources development as well as through multilateral schemes. The documents presented in this collection have been selected with a view to highlight the distinct stages in the evolution of Namibia's nationhood and to recall the solidarity that marked India's relations with the people of Namibia. Africa Quarterly wishes to gratefully acknowledge the cooperation extended by the Library of the Ministry of External Affairs, in particular Shri V.K. Jain, Director (Information & Library) by providing access to the bulk of the documents included in this collection. Thanks are also due to the Africa Division of the Ministry of External Affairs, to the National Archives of India and to Mr. E.S. Reddy, formerly Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations. The Editor wishes to record his sincere appreciation of the encouragement and support given by the Director General of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, Shri Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, who took personal interest in this project. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Council, in particular Shri O.P. Madan, Programme Director, for making available various facilities to complete this project speedily. vii The Indraprastha Press and Shri A.K. Saini deserve our sincere thanks for bringing out the journal in a record time of two months and making available the material for the book. Shri Asang Machwe of Wiley Eastern Limited came forward with his usual enthusiasm and energy to undertake the publication of the book, for which we record our sincere appreciation. (T.G. Ramamurthi) Editor

CONTENTS Foreword i Editor's Note v Introduction I 1. Annexation Averted 11 2. Trusteeship an Obligation 15 3. No Option but to Prevent Annexation 17 4. Trusteeship not Sovereignty 20 5. Partition Opposed 26 6. Partition but a Ruse for Annexation 38 7. World Court Decision Regrettable 43 8. Terminate the Mandate 47 9. A Grave Situation 54 10. Sanctions only Solution 57 11. Encouragement of Racist Regime Deplored 60 12. India Thanked for Material Support 65 13. Warm Welcome to a Hero 68 14. Internal Settlement Rejected 71 15. U.N. General Assembly Must Act Now 79 16. Subversion of U.N. Plan Condemned 80 17. SWAPO'S Victory is Certain 86

18. NAM Solidly Behind SWAPO 88 19. Namibia's Freedom Remains a Test for U.N. 91 20. Namibia Shall be Freed 97 21. Plan of Action for Independence 102 22. India Welcomes Brazzaville Accord 107 23. SWAPO Victory Hailed 108 24. President Sam Nujoma Congratulated 109 25. India Promises Cooperation in Nation-building 112 26. First Ever Indian Commercial Delegation 114 to Namibia 27. Cultural Agreement Signed 116 28. First Ever Indian Trade Exhibition in Windhoek 117 29. President Sam Nujoma Honoured 120 30. Drought Relief Assistance to Namibia 126 31. Gift of Trucks and Buses to Namibia 127 32. Supply of Platform Trucks to Namibia 128 33. Assistance for Water Project 129 34. Visit of Namibian Parliamentary Delegation 131 Index 132

0 kin 200 400 miles 16 0 Min roads -~-~Main railways -Iiiiernaliaml boundalie.s (iMain a~'por ZAMBIA Angola Kolm Muic Ostiakaii Sestontein ok .ikuejo' ATLANTIC OCEAN Botswana South Af rica Namibia

INTRODUCTION T.G. Ramamurthi The people of Namibia would forever value and appreciate the brotherly and sisterly support that you rendered to us during our bitter struggle for the independence of our country. When President Sam Nujoma of Namibia wrote these words in a letter to President Venkataraman of India, immediately on his return to Windhoek after his State Visit, in March 1992, he was not practising polite diplomacy. Indeed, known for his patently sincere and honest simplicity, he was incapable of such niceties if he did not mean them. The words came from his heart, not for the first time. In November 1989, immediately after the South West African Peoples Organisation (SWAPO) won a resounding victory in the elections, he declared that the 'future independent and sovereign Namibia will grant India special status because of its support for the people of Namibia during the 23-year liberation war'. Earlier, in 1986, when India extended honours due to a Head of State to Sam Nujoma, then President of SWAPO, he recalled, with a keen sense of history, that as early as 1946, India took the 'initiative to abort the fraudulent attempts of General Smuts' then Prime Minister of South Africa, to annex South West Africa. 'Since then', he declared, 'India has been second to none in support of the struggle' in Namibia. Indian initiative to abort annexation It is important to recall that the first shot in defence of South West Africa, then a League of Nations mandated territory administered by South Africa, was fired by India in 1946 at the very first session of the United Nations General Assembly. India was not yet fully independent, but an Interim Government under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had assumed office in September 1946. The South African Government had submitted a proposal to the U.N. General Assembly allowing it to incorporate the territory of South West Africa into the Union of South Africa on grounds of proximity, ethnic similarities and allegedly popular wishes. The British administration of India, which had already complained to the U.N. General Assembly against the discrimination against the people of Indian origin in the Union, decided to oppose the move for incorporation since 'South Africa was not noted for freedom from racial prejudicerather the reverse' and had not shown any special sympathy for the weaker races. On assuming charge of the Department of External Affairs, in the Interim Government, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru instructed the Indian delegation to the U.N. General Assembly, then led by Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pundit, to oppose the South African proposal vigorously, adding that 'if necessity arises, India can even take a leading part'. The necessity, indeed, arose. For, the United Nations, in 1946, was not a friendly ground for the emerging Asian-African nations. It was a body dominated by the Western powers and, though the United States of America (U.S.A.) was as yet not fully embroiled in the Cold War, the United Kingdom (U.K.) still held the ground as far as Asian and African issues were concerned. It was with the assurance of backing from the U.K. that the Union of South Africa at all dared submit its audacious proposal to incorporate a territory which it had been administering under a Mandate granted in 1919 by the League of Nations, with a view to lead the people there to political maturity and self-government. However, it was no cake-walk, as anticipated by the U.K. and the South African Government. India, by herself and with the support of friendly Asian and Latin American countries, managed to arouse the concern of the Member-States. Besides, the African National Congress of South Africa had sent its President- General, Dr. A.B. Xuma, to present its case against the proposed incorporation. While his trip was sponsored by the (American) Council for African Affairs, he worked closely with the Indian delegation as well as with the representatives of the Joint Passive Resistance Council of the Transvaal and Natal Indian Congresses of South Africa, then in New York to present their case against the Union. The majority of the delegations was, thus, persuaded to disagree with the South African proposal for incorporation, though the name and prestige of the South African Prime Minister, Field Marshal J.C. Smuts deterred them from altogether rejecting it. Only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) tabled a resolution rejecting the South African proposal and requiring it to place the territory under international trusteeship as provided for in the United Nations Charter. The United States of America (U.S.A.) was convinced that the data before the U.N. was insufficient but was not willing to support a strong resolution as tabled by the U.S.S.R. When the Indian delegation saw that the U.S.S.R. recommendation to reject the proposal was likely to be superseded by a milder U.S.A. recommendation merely stating that 'the data before the General assembly do not justify action of ... approving the incorporation ...', leaving undecided the question of placing the territory under U.N. Trusteeship System, it submitted a draft resolution which recommended that the mandated territory of South West Africa be placed under the international trusteeship system and that the mandatory power concerned be requested, in accordance with Article 79 of the Charter, to prepare and submit forthwith a Trusteeship Agreement to the United Nations. However, after a series of debates in the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee, followed by negotiations among the delegations of India, Denmark and the U.S.A., in the Plenary Session of the General Assembly, a joint draft was adopted on 14 December 1946 by a vote of 37 to 0 with 9 abstentions. In the operative part of the Resolution 65 (I), the General Assembly declared that it IS UNABLE TO ACCEDE to the incorporation of the territory of South West Afrita in the Union of South Africa: and

RECOMMENDS that the mandated territory of South West Africa be placed under the international trusteeship system and invites the Government of the Union of South Africa to propose for the consideration of the General Assembly a trusteeship agreement for the aforesaid territory. The battle had been won, but the war was not over. For, despite assurances to the United Nations that it will not proceed with the proposal to incorporate and that it will administer the territory in the spirit of the Mandate, the South African government refused to submit a draft trusteeship agreement to replace the original mandate. Moreover, the South African Government, aided and abetted by the U.K., before and even after the apartheid regime took the reins, brought up all the tricks in its bag to escape placing the territory under international trusteeship and to annex it in all but name. The fraudulent process was intensified and hastened after the racial fundamentalist party, the National Party (NP), came to power in 1948. In October 1948, on the eve of the U.N. General Assembly session, the Government of South Africa negotiated with the National and United Parties of South West Africa, both representing only the white minority population, a so- called agreement on the question of integration. Under this 'agreement', South West Africa was to be represented in the Union Parliament by 6 members in the House of Assembly and 2 in the Senate, one of whom being nominated on grounds of special knowledge of the non-European population. At the same time, the Union Government appointed a 'Joint' Commission to report on the feasibility of financial integration. The move was officially touted as one of 'bringing closer relations without incorporation of SWA in the Union'. However, the South African Prime Minister was quoted by the Rand Daily Mail as having said that he would proceed with the 'incorporation' of the territory and declaring that he 'shall not allow South West Africa to fall into the hands of the United Nations Organisation'. This open defiance of world opinion was possible only because at this time Cold War rivalry had already begun to affect issues concerning the third world. Thus, ironically, as the racial policies became more pronounced and vicious in South Africa, the regime there began to be seen as a potential ally in the Cold War. This was evident when the South African government managed to stall the issue of an American visa for the Reverend Michael Scott, who was to present the petition of the Herero, one of the larger tribal groups in South West Africa. Informed of this, the Indian High Commission in London arranged for his visa by writing to the American Consulate that the Reverend's services were required personally by Sir Maharaj Singh, then Governor of Bombay and a member of the Indian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly. At the same time, the Herero petition, signed by Senior Chief Hosea Kuteko, had been despatched by the High Commission of India in South Africa to the Indian delegation in New York. Thus it was that for the first time the true feelings of the native people of the territory were brought to the notice of the United Nations, though the petitioners, represented by Reverend Michael Scott, were not received by the Trusteeship Council, in the absence of a Trusteeship Agreement. Therefore, when the question of South West Africa came up before the United Nations again, for the third time, in 1948, the leader of the Indian Delegation, Mrs Vijayalakshmi Pandit warned the Assembly that it had only two courses open to it: either to admit defeat and acquiesce in the annexation of South West Africa by the Union or give its final verdict on the question of South West Africa trusteeship and secure compliance with its recommendation. However, thanks to the pressures of the Cold War, the Indian delegation found it increasingly difficult to get any effective resolution endorsed by the required two- thirds majority. Mrs. Pandit attributed this to growing Anglo-American pressure. On being informed of this, Prime Minister Nehru characteristically declared that he was not so concerned about any particular vote (as for) some principles for which we stand and among these are end of colonialism and racial equality.... In the case of South West Africa, these questions are involved in a big degree .....

Viewed in this context, the final Resolution adopted on 27 November 1948, even though it was a compromise draft sponsored by Norway, Denmark and Uruguay and all efforts by India to put teeth in it failed, was no mean success. For, the crucial significance of the 1948 Resolution was its reaffirmation of the international status of South West Africa. Even more significant was that the proceedings of the Third (1948) Session drew forth from the South African delegate the categorical assurance that the separate identity of South West Africa would be maintained. This was in no small measure due to India's efforts to expose the Union's 'double agenda' in promoting legislative, administrative and financial integration at home and denying attempts to annex. Reacting to assertions made by the Indian delegation, quoting the South African press reports, the Union delegate declared solemnly The South African government does not mean to absorb or incorporate the territory. I give you a solemn assurance from the rostrum of this Assembly on that. The honour of South Africa is at stake. This so impressed the Union's supporters that it was written into the operative part of the final resolution which read TAKES note of the assurance given by the representative of South Africa that the proposed new arrangements for the closer association of Soutir West Africa with the Union does not mean incorporation and will not mean absorption of the territory by the administering authority. The total effect of the 1948 U.N.General Assembly proceedings was thus to call a halt to the process of annexation and to guarantee the international status and integrity of South West Africa. This was a major success in India's efforts to ensure justice to the people of future Namibia. India supports direct U.N. administration The next major landmark in India's solidarity with the people of Namibia came in 1966 when she urged revocation of the mandate of South Africa and assumption of direct control by the U.N.O. By then the South West Africa Peoples Organisation (SWAPO), founded in 1960 under the able leadership of Sam Nujoma, had already been given full moral and material support by India. After the World Court had quibbled over the issue of South Africa's accountability under the original mandate, India saw no point in carrying on the farce any longer. India's Minister of External affairs, Sardar Swaran Singh deplored the World Court's pusillanimity and declared in the U.N. General Assembly: The only course of action left to the world community is to terminate South Africa's mandate and to take upon itself the responsibility of administering the Territory until such time as arrangements can be made for the people of South West Africa to assume the reins of government themselves. When this was done under the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2145 of 27 October 1966, India welcomed it as ,unique, historic and sacred' responsibility. Support to SWAPO's armed struggle In the same year as the assumption of direct responsibility by the U.N., SWAPO decided to launch armed struggle in the face of increasingly vicious oppression by the racist government of South Africa, though it was only in 1969 that the People's Liberation Army officially took shape as the military wing of SWAPO. By then, South West Africa had been renamed as NAMIBIA by the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2372 of 12 June 1968, 'in accordance with the desires of its people'. India fully supported the resort to arms and the then External Affairs Minister, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao declared: We are convinced that we should recognize the right of every people to choose its own method of liberating itself from oppression and tyranny and remain prepared to contribute our mite to SWAPO's struggle. Even when another political party came to power in India, this policy was not changed. In 1977, the Minister of External Affairs under the Janata Party, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee told the General Assembly: We cannot expect the people of Namibia not to resort to armed struggle if that is the only means left to them to achieve their goal of independence. Not stopping with words, India extended material support to the military struggle of SWAPO which included contribution of U.S.$ 20,000 to the special Non- aligned fund set up by the Nonaligned Summit at Havana in 1980. Support for effective U.N. action However, India continued to urge effective U.N. action to terminate South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia. These efforts were intensified after the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2372 recommended that the Security Council should take urgently all appropriate measures to ensure the immediate removal of the South African presence from Namibia and to secure for Namibia its independence as envisaged in Resolution 2145 of 1966. India welcomed the Security Council Resolution 435 of September 1978 incorporating a plan for free and fair elections under the auspices of the United Nations, leading to independence. India stood firmly by the plan outlined in the 1978 Resolution of the Security Council and demanded its implementation 'without modification, dilution, prevarication or delay'. This support was maintained until the elections of November 1989. India resolutely opposed all attempts to balkanize Namibia by imposing apartheid structures including 'homelands' and never wavered in her demand for preserving the territorial integrity of Namibia. Thus, the restitution of Walvis bay was axiomatic for India and she maintained the pressure for this until 1994, when almost four years after its independence Namibia regained control over the port and its off-shore islands. Faith in the people of Namibia India never entertained any doubts about the resumption of control over their own affairs by the people of Namibia. This became a conviction with the gathering strength of SWAPO under Sam Nujoma's leadership. In 1983, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared, in her message to the U.N. Conference on

Namibia, held in Paris: India's solidarity with and support for the brave people of Namibia under the leadership of the South West Africa Peoples Organisation is a matter of record. I reiterate the pledge of the Government and people of India to continue to support the freedom struggle of the Namibian people. In the same year, SWAPO was given permission and facilities to open an office in New Delhi. In 1985, at the Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-aligned Countries, in the presence of Sam Nujoma, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi announced India's decision to grant full diplomatic status to SWAPO, whose office in New Delhi was raised to the status of a diplomatic mission. It was logical, therefore, that in the next year, when Sam Nujoma visited India, he was accorded all the honours due to a Head of State. When Sam Nujoma visited India, again in 1988, after the Brazzaville accord laid down a time-table for Namibian polls and independence, he was accompanied by a high level delegation, including SWAPO Defence Secretary, Peter Mweshihange. Describing his talks with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi as 'very useful', Sam Nujoma thanked the Government and people of India for their 'unstinted political, diplomatic, moral and material support to his organisation'. While he ruled out any possibility of Angolan-type insurgency in Namibia, he said, with full confidence, that in the event of any such trouble 'we have the legitimate right to call on India to come and help us'. India hailed SWAPO's unqualified success in the 1989 elections and congratulated Sam Nujoma in leading his people to freedom through peaceful negotiations. In 1990, President Venkataraman in his message of felicitations to President-elect Sam Nujoma declared: It is but fitting that you, who have led the Namibian people during the long years of freedom struggle, should be called upon to lead the nation once that freedom is achieved. Prime Minister V.P. Singh, expressing similar views, added: We are happy to have been of some assistanco in the Namibian struggle for independence. The co-operation between our two countries will, I am sure, expand after the independence of Namibia. President Sam Nujoma paid a State Visit to India for six days from 24 February 1992. During the visit, he was also honoured with the award of the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development for the year 1990. At a special ceremony to confer the award on 25 February 1992, President Venkataraman observed: By choosing you for the award of the Indira Gandhi Prize, the international jury has given us an opportunity to pay tribute to your valiant contribution in leading the people of Namibia to liberty. Speaking on the occasion, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao said: We have had the privilege of welcoming you, Mr. President, to India on many earlier occasions. We count on you as an old and trusted friend but what an added pleasure it is to have you with us as the leader of a sovereign nation, a symbol of free Namibia. He added: I wish to assure you, Mr. President, that we are as firmly committed now in our support for the task of nation-building in independent Namibia as we were during the days of the struggle. Responding to these sentiments, President Sam Nujoma noted that 'it was Namibia's great good fortune that India achieved its independence first'. He added: No other people had adopted Namibia's struggle and made it its own struggle in the manner in which the great people of India had done. The documents presented here are from official sources. Where only extracts are given, indication is given. Where necessary brief editorial notes are appended in indented text.

1. ANNEXATION AVERTED The delegation of the Union of South Africa had submitted a proposal to the second part of the first session of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the approval by the Assembly of the annexation of South West Africa which the Union was administering under a League of Nations mandate since 1919. The Department of External Affairs of the 'then British government of India, which had already complained to the United Nations against South Africa's treatment of persons of Indian origin in the Union, issued instructions to its own delegation to oppose the proposal, without arousing bitterness. However, when the Interim (national) Government under the vice-presidency of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru took over in September 1946, the Indian delegation was instructed to vigorously oppose the proposal and, if need be, to take the lead in doing so. Extracts from the Proceedings of the Government of India, External Affairs Department, Co-ordination & Conference Branch, File no. 6 (75)-CC/46 (1946) (NA[ holdings). Supplementary Item 4-Proposed incorporation of South West Africa in the Union of South Africa: (Brief for the Indian delegation:The delegation should oppose the proposal on the following grounds:(a) The annexation of a mandated territory is fundamentally opposed to the conception of trusteeship. (b) The proposed consultation of the people of South West Africa will be no more than an eyewash since the natives are too primitive to understand the issues involved. (c) South Africa should first put the territory under trusteeship and then represent whatever case she may have to the Trusteeship Council. There is no danger that the Council will take a one-sided view as it consists of an equal number of powers administering trust territories and those not administering them. (d) South Africa is not noted for freedom from racial prejudice-rather the reverse- nor has she shown any sympathy for the weaker races. The proposed annexation of a mandated territory is therefore the more objectionable. (e) India has no particular interests in South West Africa but she must support the interests of the people in whom sovereignty ultimately resides and whose wishes and interests must be paramount. As a matter of tactics and to avoid any charge that India's attitude is dictated by feelings of bitterness arising from the case against South Africa, the Delegation should be careful to state their arguments as dispassionately as possible. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who, as vice-president of the Interim Government, was in charge of the Department of External affairs agreed, generally, with the brief but added significantly: As regards supplementary item 4 (e) (South West Africa), while I agree to the approach indicated, it must be clearly understood that the South African proposal (for incorporation of South West Africa) must be vigorously opposed. If necessity arises, India can take the leading part. This will be for the delegation to decide. J.N. 6-10-1946 Italics added.

The italicized lines were added to the Brief sent to the Indian delegation, enabling them later to take the lead in calling upon the United Nations not to accede to the proposed annexation, but to ask South Africa to place the territory under international trusteeship, as other mandatory powers had done. After the South African Prime Minister Jan Smuts moved his proposal for annexation, presenting specious arguments of geographical contiguity, ethnologic kinship and, popular wish, Indian delegate Sir Maharaj Singh, a former AgentGeneral of India in the Union, exposed the nature and character of South Africa's policy towards its non-European subjects and refuted the claims of popular wish. Sir Maharaj's intervention, immediately after Smuts', set the tone for the ensuing discussions. A majority of the representatives, including the American, expressed doubt that the natives of South West Africa had fully understood the nature and extent of the consultation allegedly carried out by the Union government and opined that it was not possible for the natives to express their choice freely. The only action appropriate under the circumstances was to place the territory under international trusteeship system. After a general discussion in the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee, which also debated and voted upon different Drafts for an Assembly Resolution, the debate shifted to the General Assembly. Here, the leader of the Indian delegation, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit effectively argued against annexation and in favour of trusteeship. After further discussions, the General Assembly passed the Resolution 65 (I) of 14 December 1946 by a vote of 37 to 0, with 9 abstentions:-

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 65(1) on the Question of South West Africa adopted on 14 December 1946. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HAVING CONSIDERED the statements of the Delegation of the Union of South Africa regarding the question of incorporating the mandated territory of South West Africa in the Union; NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the Union of South Africa, by presenting this matter to the United Nations, recognised the interest and concern of the United Nations in the matter of the future status of territories now held under mandate; RECALLING that the Charter of the United Nations provides in Article 77 and 79 that the trusteeship system shall apply to territories now under mandate as may be subsequently agreed; REFERRING to the resolution of the General Assembly of 9 February 1946, inviting the placing of mandated territories under trusteeship; DESIRING that agreement between the United Nations and the Union of South Africa may hereafter be reached regarding the future status of the mandated territory of South West Africa; ASSURED BY the Delegation of the Union of South Africa that, pending such agreement, the Union Government will continue to administer the territory as heretofore in the spirit of the principles laid down in the mandate; CONSIDERING that the African inhabitants of South West Africa have not yet secured political autonomy or reached a stage of political development enabling them to express a considered opinion which the Assembly could recognise on such an important question as incorporation of their territory; THEREFORE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IS UNABLE TO ACCEDE to the incorporation of the territory of South West Africa in the Union of South Africa; and RECOMMENDS that the mandated territory of South West Africa be placed under the international trusteeship system and invites the Government of the Union of South Africa to propose for the consideration of the General Assembly a trusteeship Agreement for the aforesaid territory.

2. TRUSTEESHIP AN OBLIGATION In response to the U.N. General Assembly Resolution of 14 December 1946, the Union of South Africa informed the U.N. Secretariat that it had decided not to proceed with the incorporation of South West Africa but could not comply with the demand to place the territory under international trusteeship. The Union argued that it was under no legal obligation to do so. This 'astounding' claim was effectively refuted by Sir Maharaj Singh of the Indian delegation, who pointed out, by quoting Article 79 and 80 of the U.N. Charter, that it was obligatory on Mandatory powers to start negotiations for conclusion of Trusteeship agreement. Apart from legal obligations, there was a clear moral obligation as trusteeship was inherent in the mandate system. Later, in the plenary session of the U.N. General Assembly, India moved a Resolution urging the Union Government to submit a draft trusteeship agreement for consideration at the Third Session of the Assembly. Extracts from the Statement made by Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit on 1 November 1947. It is argued that there is neither moral nor legal obligation on the part of the Union Government to place South West Africa under trusteeship and that the stand taken by the Government of the Union is not open to question. This, I want to emphasise in all seriousness is a view which will at one stroke undo the work of the last 30 year in the field of international trusteeship and retard the progress that has been achieved.

I fully share in the view that this organisation owes General Smuts' a great deal. Dr. Evatt2 said we may safely leave the question to the wisdom and statesmanship of General Smuts. But we are faced with issues which far transcend personal considerations. We must not, in our consideration for a great personality, forget the fate of hundreds of thousands of Africans in South West Africa who look to this Assembly to safeguard their interests. It is clear beyond doubt and indeed has never been questioned that the territories which were brought under the international system of supervision shall continue under such supervision till the peoples of the area were fit to take over the responsibility of their own government. Even the Union of South Africa, however grudgingly, recognises the validity of that position by asserting that it proposes to administer South West Africa in the spirit of the mandate. The spirit of the mandate is international supervision. If, as they claim, they propose to administer in the spirit of the mandate, why then do they wish to take shelter behind legal quibble? The Union Government have argued that there is neither legal nor moral obligation on them to place South West Africa under trusteeship. I do not claim to be a lawyer but speaking purely from the commonsense point of view, and with the history of the last quarter of a century behind us, it seems to me an astounding statement to make in this Assembly before nations of the world that no moral obligation exists in this matter. What would the Charter itself be but a medley of words were it not to be sustained by the spirit that lies behind it and which has inspired the peoples of the world to join together to solve their common problems? 1. Prime Minister of South Africa. 2. Representative of Australia.

3. NO OPTION BUT TO PREVENT ANNEXATION Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit's Speech in the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 November 1948. (Extracts) The problem of the future of South West Africa has come up before us for the third time. That this is so is a matter of no small regret; indicating, as it does, a mounting disrespect for the decisions of the United Nations and of world public opinion. The Hon'ble Representative of South Africa has contended that on the demise of the League of Nations, the Union of South Africa acquired full authority over the mandated territory of South West Africa and could deal with it in such a way as it pleased. My delegation believes this to be a wholly erroneous idea. We agree with the Hon'ble Representative of China that the mandate system was not designed to, nor did it in fact, confer sovereignty over the peoples of the mandated territory on the mandatory power. This position was not changed in any way by the passing of the League and there is no warrant for. the conclusion that the event justifies the incorporation or annexation of South West Africa. The Hon'ble Representative of South Africa refuses to admit any moral obligation on his Government. This is a strange remark. After all, what is this moral obligation which South Africa rejects? It is the expression, through the channel of the United Nations, of the collective conscience of the world. If such an expression has ceased to have any value, then the very foundations on which our organisation is built are undermined.

It is clear from the repeated recommendations of the General Assembly that an obligation exists which has the backing of a great force, call it by whatever name you will. The question before us is what should the Assembly do, in the face of the repudiation of the assurances given to the United Nations by the South African Government last year and the clear defiance by the Union Government of the General Assembly's specific directive against incorporation? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the General Assembly has only two courses open to it: either to admit defeat and acquiesce in the annexation of South West Africa or to give a final verdict on the question of South West Africa Trusteeship and secure compliance with its recommendation ...... We have to declare unequivocally that the United Nations cannot acquiesce in the position taken by the Union Government; that the proposed incorporation is contrary to the undertaking given by the Union Government; that the repeated recommendations of the Assembly to place South West Africa under Trusteeship have been ignored and the clear directive of the Resolution of 1946 against incorporation has been defied; that South Africa must place the territory of South West Africa under Trusteeship without further delay; that in the meantime, the status quo should be maintained and South West Africa should be administered as if it was a mandated territory. No steps should be taken towards incorporation and any proposal to that effect should be abandoned or suspended. And, finally, it is most important that an impartial commission appointed by the United Nations should visit South West Africa to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether they were against Trusteeship and in favour of incorporation as alleged by the Union Government. This would be a perfectly reasonable step for the Assembly to take in view of the South African delegates' repeated assertion that they were backed by the wishes of the inhabitants of South

West Africa. Such a Commission will also be justified in view of the numerous petitions forwarded to the United Nations challenging the so-called referendum. Mrs Vijayalakshmi Pandit's Speech in the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 16 November 1948. The distinguished delegate of South Africa said in his speech .... that the Indian delegation and the Government of India have been pursuing a 'vendetta' against the Union of South Africa for three years. I submit that it is highly improper to use words in such an irresponsible fashion ..... my delegation and my Government pursue no vendetta against any country. The only vendetta we pursue is against injustice in all forms wherever it exists and from that nothing can deter us.... We feel that all Members of the United Nations owe a special responsibility in this matter to peoples and countries who are not directly represented here but who look up to us for a vindication of their rights. If such a conception of our duties is to be characterised as vendetta, I can only say that the Indian delegation must continue to discharge its obligations to the United Nations, undeterred by attempts to misrepresent our views and motives.

4. TRUSTEESHIP NOT SOVEREIGNTY At the request of the Assembly, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion on July 11, 1950, that South Africa continued to have international obligations under the Mandate and that Chapter XII of the Charter provided a means by which the territory may be brought under the Trusteeship System. While the Union was not under a legal obligation to place the territory under the Trusteeship System, the Court added, it alone did not have the competence to modify the international status of the territory. Statement of Mr. VK. Krishna Menon in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, 12 November 1953. (SummaryExtracts) Mr. Krishna Menon said that the establishment of the Mandates System gave concrete expression to the ideal of the international community, of which President Wilson had been one of the staunchest champions; that ideal required that certain territories should no longer be regarded as the spoils of war and treated accordingly, but should be administered with regard for the interests of their inhabitants. That new concept raised the question of where the sovereignty over such territories lay. To disregard that question was to place the matter in a false perspective from the very outset. There could be no doubt about the answer : wherever there was a people or a nation, sovereignty was vested in them. It so happened that certain peoples were not yet capable of exercising that sovereignty, which in such cases was reserved. That was true of South West Africa; in its case, it was the Government of the Union of South Africa which exercised sovereignty, doing so, however, under conditions which had been explicitly laid down, and any authority it enjoyed was by delegation. The stand the Union of South Africa was at present taking was the one Field Marshal Smuts had taken in the League of Nations before the establishment of the mandate; as the Committee was aware, he had later taken a different view. The League of Nations had not admitted the arguments Field Marshal Smuts had used in favour of incorporating South West Africa in the territory of the Union; it had not accepted the Union of South Africa's proposal, but had established a Mandate for South West Africa which contained important reservations. Analysing the nature of the relationship which the Mandate had established between the Union of South Africa and South West Africa, Mr. Menon said that the Mandates System, of which the Trusteeship System was a logical development, had conferred upon the Mandatory Power the role of trustee over the territory it administered. The concept of trusteeship had already been present in the minds of those who had introduced the Mandates System, as was indicated by the expressions they had used to describe what that system was intended to be. The role of trustee had been well defined by Sir Arnold MacNair, a member of the International Court of Justice. Three fundamental principles were brought out by his analysis-the trustee was not in the position of the normal complete owner, who could do what he liked with his own, because he was precluded from administering the property of his ward for his own personal benefit; secondly, the trustee was under some kind of legal obligation, based on confidence and conscience, to carry out the mission confided to him for the benefit of some other person or for some public purpose; thirdly, any attempt by such a person to absorb the property entrusted to him into his own patrimony would be illegal and would be prevented by the law. Hence, the relationship of the Union of South Africa towards South West Africa was purely that of a trustee to whom powers had been delegated and upon whom an obligation based on confidence and conscience had been imposed, which would not come to an end until South West Africa had attained full self-government. That obligation did not rest upon a contractual agreement; if that had been the case, the contracting parties-the League of Nations, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and the Union of South Africa-could have made whatever modifications they wished in the status of the territory by joint agreement. It was a question of natural law, in virtue of which it was the duty of the Union of South Africa to guide the people of South West Africa towards the highest level of human development. It was precisely for that reason that, under the terms of the Mandate, the status of the territory could not be modified without the consent of its inhabitants. For the same reason, the rights of those inhabitants, which were similarly derived from natural law, had not lapsed with the dissolution of the League of Nations. Moreover, it was not primarily rights that the trustee had, but obligations; his rights are limited to those essential for the discharge of his obligations towards his ward. Since the rights of South West Africa persisted, it could not be claimed that the corresponding obligations of the Union of South Africa had been extinguished with the demise of the League of Nations. Having demonstrated the legal impossibility of the disappearance of the international obligations undertaken by the Union of South Africa, Mr Menon pointed out that the South African Government had, moreover, solemnly proclaimed its intention of continuing to carry out in South West Africa the sacred trust of civilisation conferred upon it by the League of Nations Mandate. Field Marshal Smuts in the League of Nations and the South African delegation in the United Nations had stated that the Union would continue to discharge its obligations under the Mandate until some new provision was made governing the future status of the territory. Thus the Union had recognised that its obligations remained valid and had accepted them. The disappearance of the League of Nations had had only one effect: it had made it necessary to revise the methods by which those obligations were to be carried out. The Court's* opinion concerned those methods of implementation rather than the principle of the existence of obligations. The South African Government rejected that opinion in its entirety and justified its * The International Court of Justice, The Hague. rejection by pointing out that the Court's opinions had no binding force, which was, of course, true. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that those opinions had great moral force and that, moreover, the League of Nations had expressly transferred to the International Court of Justice the power of compulsory jurisdiction which article 7 of the Mandate conferred upon the Permanent Court of International Justice. If, therefore, the Government of the Union of South Africa did not accept the Court's opinion, it was to be feared that it did not recognise the Court's power of compulsory jurisdiction. Yet the Court was part of the United Nations, to which the League of Nations had transferred the powers formerly exercised by its Permanent Mandates Commission with respect to mandated territories. By its resolution of April 18, 1946, which had been adopted without objection on the part of the South African representative, the League of Nations had taken note of the intention of the mandatory Powers to continue to administer the mandated territories in accordance with the obligations set forth in the various Mandates until new arrangements had been entered into between the United Nations and the various mandatory Powers. The resolution added that the principles stated in Chapter XII of the Charter corresponded to those contained in Article 22 of the League Covenant. The League had referred to the United Nations-and to the United Nations alone-as the party with which the mandatory Powers were to conclude new agreements. Moreover, at that time, the drafting of the Charter had been sufficiently advanced for the League to have a very clear idea regarding the Trusteeship System. The resolution was therefore a perfectly valid act of succession, from the legal point of view, for its text specifically designated the organ which was to inherit the functions of the League of Nations, and it had been adopted in full knowledge of the facts. The International Court of Justice had considered that the Charter did not impose on the Union of South Africa a legal obligation to place South West Africa under the Trusteeship System provided in Chapter XII. That statement, however, should not be interpreted outside its context, for the Court had also declared that the Trusteeship System provided the best means for a mandatory Power to continue to carry out the sacred trust of civilisation referred to in Article 22 of the Covenant. Consequently, there was on the one hand an obligation to administer a mandated territory in the best interests of the population, and on the other, the only genuinely effective means of carrying out that obligation; the inevitable conclusion was that the territory of South West Africa should be placed under the Trusteeship System established by the United Nations. Article 10 of the Charter was couched in rather general terms, which accounted for its vagueness, but nevertheless it unquestionably empowered the United Nations to protect the peoples who were still dependent. The South African representative had said that the Indian delegation had accused the Union of having annexed the territory of South West Africa. That accusation was justified: the Union was actually administering South West Africa as if the territory had been incorporated into the Union, although that de facto situation had never been officially recognised in any legislative text. In that connection, there was a flagrant contradiction in the assertions of the South African Government, for it claimed on the one hand that the League of Nations Mandate authorised it to consider South West Africa as an integral part of the Union, and on the other, that the constitutional measures it had adopted respecting the territory were wholly legitimate and in no way amounted to annexation. It was not only in the letter that the Mandate precluded any notion of incorporating South West Africa in the Union; that idea was also incompatible with the spirit in which the League of Nations had established the Mandates System. The League of Nations had rejected Field Marshal Smuts' proposal to treat the territory of South West Africa as though it were an integral part of the Union. President Wilson had said that the objective of the Mandates System was to guarantee dependent territories against any future annexation, and, in addition, to promote the advancement of the under-developed peoples of those territories so as to enable them to decide their own future. President Wilson had added that it was the special duty of the League of Nations to protect the people of South West Africa from exploitation and abuse, owing to the bad administration to which the territory had been subjected under Germany. Although the Mandate implicitly and explicitly precluded any idea of annexation of South West Africa to the Union, the South African Government had nevertheless conferred South African citizenship on the (European) inhabitants of the territory and had granted them representation in the South African Parliament. Those two facts proved that, in fact, South West Africa had become the fifth province of the Union. The Indian delegation would have no objection if the Union had incorporated the territory in response to the freely and clearly expressed will of its inhabitants. Similarly, it would be pleased to know that the territory of South West Africa had its own legislative body if that were a sign of its independence. On 1 June, 1956, the International Court delivered an Advisory Opinion, following a request by the General Assembly in 1955, on the admissibility of hearings of petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa. The Court held, by a majority opinion, that the granting of hearings would be consistent with its Opinion of 11 July, 1950, provided that the Assembly was satisfied that the hearings were necessary to maintain effective international supervision of the administration of South West Africa. On the proposal of India, the General Assembly requested its Committee on South West Africa to study legal action open to United Nations organs or governments to ensure the fulfilment by the South Africa of its obligations under the Mandate.

5. PARTITION OPPOSED Statement of Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon in the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, 13 October 1958. (Extracts) On October 25, 1957, the General Assembly appointed a Good Offices Committee to discuss with the Government of the Union of South Africa a basis for an agreement which would continue to accord an international status to the territory of South West Africa. The Committee was composed of the United States, the United Kingdom and Brazil. Sir Charles Noble Arden-Clarke of the United Kingdom was Chairman. In discussions with this Committee, the Union Government suggested that partition of the territory merited consideration, with the northern portion being administered under a trusteeship agreement with the United Nations and the rest of the territory being annexed to the Union. The Good Offices Committee reported that some form of partition of the territory might provide a basis for an agreement and recommended that the General Assembly should indicate its willingness to consider partition so that the Union Government could investigate the practicability of partition and submit proposals to the United Nations. India strongly opposed the recommendations of the Good Offices Committee. The Assembly rejected the recommendations by a large majority. ...Mr. Chairman, may I have your permission to express our gratitude to the three members of the (Good Offices) Committee, to Sir Charles Noble Arden Clarke, Chairman, who comes to us with a vast wealth of experience as a colonial administrator in the good liberal tradition, who has made a great contribution towards the termination of trusteeship in Togoland and who, along with those who went before him, established in that part of Africa the colonial tradition which has led the indigenous people to independence and is continuing to do so. I would also like to say that Senor da Cunha of Brazil comes to us with a vast wealth of experience as a veteran diplomat of international relations. The third member of this Committee, Mr. Walmsley, represents a country which has always said that it cannot live half-slave and half-free, a country which is putting up a gallant fight against the problems of discrimination and is wedded to the ideals of self-government of peoples. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable for us that we have to join issue not only on one particular part of its recommendations but the whole of this report lock, stock and barrel... The first attack on the United Nations comes from the Union of South Africa in denying the one point on which there could be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has signed the Charter, and on which the World Court, in spite of dissenting views, was unanimous: the international status of this territory. Now, the South African Government wants to say that this territory has only an "international character". I submit, Sir, that every territory, including the Emerald Island of Ireland, has international character because the aeroplanes of international airlines go through Shannon. When radioactivity goes on around the world in an indiscriminating way, probably every country will be infected; that also in a way lends international character to every country or territory. But what is peculiar to these mandated territories is that they have got a "status" which is different from "character", and the differences between status and the position established by contractual obligations are well defined in text-books of international law, and these differences are clear to any person, who has even an elementary knowledge of them. Therefore, when the Government of the Union of South Africa put out that this territory does not possess international status, it is denying its entity, its personality; in fact it is denying its parentage. The status of South West Africa derives from its parentage, going back to the days, to take a shortterm view of history, of the League of Nations where the first obvious technical abandonment of colonialism was undertakenthanks largely to President Wilson's fifth point-and a kind of trusteeship-by whatever name it is called; they called it "Sacred Trust", and we call it "Trusteeship"-was established. And, here, I would like to hark back to the World Court's advisory opinion on this matter, in which no dissenting judge, and no dissenting opinion had ever questioned the international status of this territory. I promise a few minutes later to come back to this and examine what is the content of this international status. I should first like to turn to the concluding remarks of this report of the Good Offices Committee. In paragraph 2 of these remarks, Mr. Chairman, the Good Offices Committee gives us in some sense a jolt of hope and says that the Good Offices Committee would have felt able to recommend to the General Assembly that certain arrangements should be accepted for inclusion in an agreement to which the United Nations would constitute second party. Practically the whole of this report contradicts that because South Africa will not agree to the United Nations being the second party. We shall be able to understand the unacceptability, the fallacy of this position only when we examine the content of status. Therefore the second paragraph, apart from this mention of the United Nations constituting a second party, is really a proposal of some sort of "horse- trading", whereby a small part of this territory will be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations in a strategic or other context, of a limited character, of a limited place, so that the rest of the territory may lapse into colonialism. Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistake about it: when we speak about annexation, about absorption, about integration, what we are really doing is not adopting one device in preference to another: what we are doing is abandoning the whole conception of the mandates, abandoning the whole conception of trusteeship, and going back to predatory colonialism. And neither in Asia, nor in Africa, nor even in more enlightened continents today, would there be people that could be pushed back into slavery once again. In paragraph 3 this hope is completely belied. It is a false hope. It is stated that the Union Government is not prepared to accept the United Nations as a second party to such an agreement, nor to undertake any obligations towards the United Nations. That comes from a member State of the United Nations and, what is more, from a State which produced one of the draftsmen of the Charter itself, and, earlier in the mandate period of thirty years ago, put out the philosophy of the Mandates system in a little pamphlet called, "The League of Nations", in a more practical form than any of us could describe. Though afterwards he might have contradicted it, General Smuts had himself said that the "mandatory State should look upon its position as a great trust and honour, not as an office of profit or a position of private advantage for its nationals". This is what was said by General Smuts, and not by the delegate of India. General Smuts adds further: And in the case of any flagrant and prolonged abuse of this trust the population concerned should be able to appeal for redress to the League, who should in a proper case assert its authority to the full, even to the extent of removing the mandate, and entrusting it to some other State, if necessary. No pegging out of claims should be allowed under the guise of the Mandate. Now what we have before us is almost a verbal contradiction of this position taken up by South Africa sometime ago. On page 22 of its report Sir Charles Arden-Clarke's Committee points out that their own approach precluded any agency other than the United Nations being the second party to the agreement, and it did not, therefore, consider itself in a position to express an opinion on this proposal. Well, if that is the position I am rather at a loss to find out what the opinion of the Committee is in this matter. On the one hand it says that its terms of reference precluded any arrangement to which the United Nations is not a second party. Now that is quite true. Such an arrangement is precluded not only by the terms of reference but by the whole concept of the United Nations-loyalty to the Charter. And yet, when we read the earlier part of the report, we find that proposals had been put forward by the Good Offices Committee for the examination of information to be submitted by the Union Government which would set up machinery of various kindsthe new Mandates Commission or whatever it may be calledin direct contravention of the machinery already set up by the United Nations, such as the Committee on South West Africa. In paragraph 5 of the concluding remarks it is stated that if the General Assembly should indicate that it would be willing to consider as a possible alternative basis for agreement the partitioning of the Territory, part of it to be placed under Trusteeship and the reminder to be annexed to the Union of South Africa, the Union Government would be prepared to carry out, by its own means, an investigation as to the practicability of such partitioning, and if that Government finds it practicable, it will submit to the United Nations proposals for partition. Now what does it all mean? It really means that the United Nations should come forward and sanctify annexation. Now if the General Assembly were to consider annexation, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be acting ultra vires, because at its first session, the General Assembly, after considering a similar proposition, had already rejected annexation. The United Nations has not rescinded that resolution by a two-thirds majority. How can it, then, go back upon its own decisions? As regards annexation-and it makes no difference whether part of the territory or all of it is to be annexed-it means that the territory held in sacred trust is to be pushed back to become a colonial empire in a country whose racial laws are nauseating in the extreme, apart from their being harsh on the people concerned. So much for one part of this proposal for partitioning the territory. As for the other part of partitioning, Mr. Chairman, I must say, I am quite sure that the authors of this report, probably, had not looked at it from this point of view; and I do hope I do not exaggerate when I say that the second part of this proposal is a demand-a request to the Assembly to internationalise apartheid, not merely in the Union of South Africa but in what is now an international territory. There will be set up two territories; one for the whites and the other for the nonwhites; and in this way apartheid will be internationalised. That is the proposition. I am afraid-and I am sure I am not being optimistic-this matter will gain no vote in this Assembly except that of the Union of South Africa, and since she is absent it will be unanimously rejected. Of course the Union is quite willing to carry out an investigation, and who wouldn't in those circumstances? Therefore, I join with the delegate of Haiti in saying that my Government will not in any way lend any support to any proposals for the partitioning of this territory, not because the territory may not be partitioned as a trust territory-it is conceivable that in the future a Trusteeship Agreement instead of providing for administration in one unit, may provide for administration in five units, or two units, or three units; that is not the point-but because we could not agree to a proposal whereby a part of this territory is to go out of what is called the "sacred trust". Even this trusteeship, contemplated for a part of the territory, is to be of a limited character, and we regret that in paragraph (7) the (Good Offices) Committee expressed to the General Assembly the view that partition might provide a basis for an agreement 'concerning the Territory of South West Africa. With great respect we entirely reject this view. This will not provide the basis of an agreement; this will be the expression of the sanctification of apartheid by an international authority; it will take away the richest part of this territory for colonial exploitation and for economic imperialism; it will be disregarding the provisions of the Charter and bowing before the challenge that has been thrown out to the United Nations. It will merely create a situation in which while we criticise, when criticism is due, the record of administration of countries like the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, Australia and the United States, who, voluntarily placed other mandated territories under the United Nations trusteeship, we shall be putting a premium on bad behaviour to put it mildly. And then we are asked to encourage this partition idea! I think in discussing a question of this character we ought to go back to the basis on which the whole of this position rests. The South African claim, in as far as it has been acclaimed in opposition to the United Nations, is based upon the idea that they had this territory mandated to them by the League of Nations. They are not prepared to accept any greater obligations than under the Mandate. For myself ..... I am prepared to accept the position that we do not ask the South African Government to accept any more obligations than those under the Mandate. But what are those obligations under the Mandate? First of all, the essence of this Mandate system is the idea of a sacred trust. One doesn't have to belong to one religion or another or to any at all, in order to accept this conception. The element of sanctity in a trust is that it is dedicated, devoted exclusively, to a certain end, and that end in this particular case is the wellbeing of the people, who have not yet attained selfgovernment or independence. This was repeatedly stated by President Wilson at that time in his speeches and statements, and it was embodied in Article 22 of what is called the Covenant of the League of Nations. It is quite true that in those days, forty years ago, the advocacy of indigenous populations assuming the rights and obligations of self-government was not easily acceptable; but it was accepted by implication in the Covenant in so far as it said that this applied to peoples, who had not yet attained selfgovernment, meaning thereby that they would attain, should attain self-government. "Sacred" also is something entitled to reverence and respect, but more than anything else sanctity involves inviolability of purpose, and is not to be profaned. We cannot abandon the basic purposes of the original foundation of this sacred trust. Secondly, the Government of South Africa is not the Government of South West Africa. The Union Government is not the Government, much less the sovereign authority, over South West Africa. The Union of South Africa is the Administering Authority. It has no dominion over this territory, is not a sovereign power of this territory, it is truly a mandatory of this territory. The League of Nations called upon it to look after this territory. It has already been set out in so many documents and so many text-books of law, in the advisory opinion of the World Court itself, that the Union Government has no sovereignty over South West Africa. No mandatory Power has any sovereignty over the mandated territories. Sovereignty does not rest neither in the Union Government, nor even in the United Nations or the League of Nations. Sovereignty over this territory rests in the people of that territory alone and lies latent, and the purpose of development of the territory is to make it actual. The latent sovereignty-some people call it retarded or reserved sovereignty-vests in the people and the South African Government has a right to be there only to the extent that Administration had been conferred upon it by the League of Nations under certain conditions. That is the second aspect of the content of the international status of the territory of South West Africa. The third aspect is that there is no unlimited or residuary power vesting in the Union. The Union acts in the territory, and administers it under a definite arrangement. Now therefore, I come to that part of it, for the South African Government and their friends bank a great deal on that part of Mandate, which says that the territory is to be administered as an integral part of the Union, and the laws of the Union are applicable to the territory. Now, Mr. Chairman, subject to certain reservations, I submit that similar provisions exist in some Trusteeship Agreements whereby the trust territories may be treated as integral parts for administrative purposes only. In the case of South West Africa and the Union Government there is one factor which we may never forget, and that is that the laws which were to be administered and which were to be applied in this territory were the laws of the Union as they existed in 1920 It is since then that South Africa has made lawg, which make the existence of a human being, who is not a white citizen of South Africa, very unenviable. As a distinguished South African judge once said, they make so many laws in that country that if an African steps out of his house he commits a crime. The laws that are applicable to South West Africa are the laws framed by an imperialist government in a period of liberal thinking, in the days of Wilson. None of the laws, whether it be the Suppression of Communism Act, so called, or the White Bill, or the Black Bill, or the Blue Bill, none of these laws is applicable to this mandated territory. In the same way the old Common Law that is applicable to certain British territories is the Common Law that they took from England at the time they went away. Any developments that took place in England thereafter are not included in it. And, therefore, if you take this view of the status then we come to the question, not whether South Africa would place these territories under trusteeship in the future ....but what the obligations of the Union are in relation to the Mandate. There is the question of accountability. First there is no accountability to the indigenous population because they are not citizens, they are denied freedom. There is no accountability to the international authority. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that the League of Nations, in this case, any more than the United Nations, is not a super-state. The League of Nations had no authority over this territory, except in regard to the supervision of the Mandate. And, therefore, the argument that the League of Nations is dead is not relevant. The League of Nations may be dead, may have passed away; but, as Justice MacNair has pointed out, though the Mandator may not be there, the mandatory Power is there, the Mandate is there, and the Mandate cannot be disturbed. Now, the question arises: who are the parties? Sir Charles Arden Clarke's report speaks about the second party; it does not speak about the third party. As far as the Mandate is concerned, there are three parties: the League of Nations, the South African Government as the Mandatory Power, and the principal party concerned, the people of South West Africa. They are the real owners of this place in whom sovereignty rests. So, if it is argued that the League of Nations having passed away the Union of South Africa becomes the residuary legatee of the League in so far as this territory is concerned, that is a position that cannot be accepted. (Italics added) If I go back, the conception of the sacred trust and of the discharge of this trust, which is not an invention of the modern age, and does not come from what may be called an extreme doctrine, comes from the arch-priest of British Conservatism,

Edmund Burke, when he impeached the government of the day for maladministration. The charges were the assumption of autocratic powers, breaches of trusteeship-breach of trusteeship now is worse than in the days when there were no trusteeship agreements-and injustices to the people under its charge in India. Burke ended his historic speech of February 15, 1788and we do not seem to have moved very much further with South African relations; we seem to have moved very much backwards-with an indictment and impeachment of Warren Hastings, who is alleged to have perpetrated so many bad things in India. The impeachment was made not by him as individual but as a leader of the House of Commons. He said: "I impeach Warren Hastings... "I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain in parliament assembled... I impeach him in the name of the people of India, I impeach him in the name of human nature itself..." The whole of this conception stands convicted today in the name of the people of South West Africa. It stands convicted in the name of what we call the Declaration of Human Rights. And here we are asked to hand over these people to a country which has practised apartheid and glorifies it, which tells the world shamefacedly that this is the pattern you should follow in order to solve the racial problems of the world; we are asked to hand over a territory whose people have said here that their position is that of helots, that they are foreigners in the land that gives them birth, whose toil makes its wealth. It is not my intention to go into very many legal aspects of this case. My colleagues will deal with other aspects of the question of South West Africa. Mr. Chairman, it is sufficient for the day to say that there is no reason at all why these territories should not be placed under Trusteeship. The strongest argument one sometimes hears in various circles is that the World Court's advisory opinion has said, or rather a majority opinion has said, that there is no legal obligation on the part of South Africa to place this territory under trusteeship. It would be wrong, if I may say so, to quote three summarising paragraphs of this minute without reading the whole of the judgement. What does it say in regard to question B?-that the provisions of Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter do not impose on the Union of South Africa a legal obligation to place the territory under the trusteeship system. I submit, Mr. Chairman, a legal obligation in the sense of the interpretation of legal texts-perhaps not. But certainly there is placed upon the Union of South Africa a Charter obligation. I am not referring to a moral obligation, but a Charter obligation. The Charter placed the obligation. Now in this matter a great play is made of the use of the word "may" in the relevant article of the Charter. There again I have not the advantage of reading other translations of this article. I turn to Article 75 of the Charter which reads: "shall establish under its authority a trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements." These territories are, hereafter, referred to as Trust Territories. I submit Mr. Chairman, that this 'may' is merely an expression of simple futurity. And when it comes it will be so placed, this is not the intention. The reason for this is that the territories that come under trusteeship are not contemplated to be only those that were mandated, but others as well. And that is the reason for this 'may', because in other cases-in cases of territories not under mandate-it must be purely a voluntary choice, because they are not under any kind of trusteeship. I want to conclude by saying that it should not be sufficient to analyse this problem. My Government will be prepared to take into account the fact that South Africa may want to stick to the letter of the law and say: the Mandate-and no farther. Yes, why not the Mandate? There is enough in the Mandate. It may not be as explicit, as well-worded. And yet there is enough in the Mandate to carry out the principle of accountability; there is enough in the Mandate to enable close examination of the administration of the territory; there is enough in the Mandate for the fresh winds of world publicity to go into reactionary methods and inhuman ways of treating people. Machinery should be set up so that the United Nations side is concerned, that is our business. That is to say, the Mandate-the texture of the Mandate-ought to be transferred to the United Nations (and the words "United Nations" should be substituted wherever the word "League" appears), and then it would be for the United Nations, without disregard for the obligations in relation to South Africa, under the terms of the Covenant and of the Charter, to produce the machinery which will take care of the doctrine of accountability, and of the progressing of this people in conditions of freedom. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we submit that the Assembly as a whole, unanimously, both in this committee and in the plenary session, should refuse to countenance this report, and demand from the South African Government, appeal to them to take into account the wails, the appeals and the cries that come from the suppressed peoples of South West Africa. And who today would use the words against freedom, that are used in a memorandum of the South African Government? Only this morning, at the Trusteeship Council, we had the pleasure of hearing the distinguished delegate of France who told us of a great event, of the march of progress taking place in Togoland. The Prime Minister of the new Togoland is the man who was petitioning before us a year ago. So, the petitioner of today is the administrator of tomorrow. Changes can take place, even in South West Africa. For the last thirty years, the changes have been in one direction, but, of course, the bottom will be touched some day and there will be a change, because the spirit of men cannot be crushed, whether he be African or of some other continent. And there are large number of people in Africa, not merely indigenous populations, people who helped to build the economy of the country, people who come from your country, Sir, and from other countries, from liberal traditions, and who are as opposed to this system as any others. The duty of the United Nations, of world public opinion, is to lend support to these great moral forces that exist in the world in order that the freedom of man may grow from more to more. Italics added.

6. PARTITION BUT A RUSE FOR ANNEXATION Statement of Mr. V K. Krishna Menon in the Fourth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, 23 October 1959. (Extracts) When the General Assembly resumed consideration of the question of South West Africa in 1959, it had before it a report by the Good Offices Committee that its discussions with the South African Government had not succeeded in finding a basis for an agreement. The Committee on South West Africa had submitted an extensive report on conditions in the territory, expressing grave concern at recent developments. The representative of the Union of South Africa reiterated that his Government would not accept any authority of the United Nations in respect of South West Africa. After discussion, the Assembly adopted six resolutions. In resolution 1360 (XIV) of 17 November 1959, it invited the Union Government to enter into negotiations with a view to placing the territory under the International Trusteeship System. It also requested the Union Government to formulate proposals to enable the territory to be administered in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Mandate, with the supervisory functions being exercised by the United Nations. ...We start this year's debate on the basis of the report of the Good Offices Committee we reappointed at the thirteenth session. The Chairman of that Committee commands the respect of the

Trusteeship Committee. He commands the respect of the rest of the Assembly. He has a great record in standing up for human rights, for the liberties of people, and his country stands also as an example of democratic institutions and of the insistence upon carrying out the principles of the Charter. The findings of the report of the Committee now before us are regrettably, failure. It says: "The Committee regrets to inform the Assembly that it has not succeeded in finding a basis for an agreement under its terms of reference." Now this is a very carefully worded sentence. It says "it has not succeeded", which is a little different from saying, "it has failed". In other words, that is to say, that it can make a further effort. Secondly, it says, "an agreement under its terms of reference". That might mean that it is an invitation to us to examine these Ierms of reference, if necessary. Now, the Good Offices Committee could probably have been of a greater potency if some of the other member States, who perhaps would not take exactly the same view as most members on this Trusteeship Committee, had found it possible to share our views in this matter. That may well be the position, let us hope, this year or next year or the year after. Now, coming to the basic positions: the Union view is-and we must not miss this fact-the Union still speaks in terms of a 'new look' or 'new approach' that is said to have been created by statements made in 1957. However cynical some people might be, I think it will be unwise to throw this out of the window. When the Union Government says that its attitude is in conformity with the spirit of the new approach and the resolution which was agreed to- by a large majority in 1957 we may profoundly disagree with the Union's interpretation, but we do not disagree with the fact that in recognising the new approach there may be subconsciously this desire that there should be a new approach. Therefore, whatever little support there is in this difficulty we have to catch up and persuade the Union Government, particularly through States who are nearer to it than we unfortunately are; we should try and make some progress. We may not be led away either by the feelings that may be aroused in us by the very authentic, from our point of view very authentic, and moving stories we heard-not stories in any fictional sense-moving descriptions we heard from the petitioners who appeared before us, by the information we have from the documents before us, such as the reports of the Good Offices Committee and the Committee on South West Africa or the provocative observations of the distinguished chairman of the Union delegation. These are incidents in the resolving of a problem which is so complex, which is rooted in the desires of strong people to maintain their strength and the weak to break the power of repression. That has been the history of all nations in the world; and if all of us were to carry with us only the remembrance of the wounds and the scars that struggle has left upon them, it will not be necessary for us to move to a peaceful world. Now the unfortunate part of this is that while the Union Government has reminded the Committee that it has reiterated its willingness to reach an agreement, the agreement it wants to enter into is with what it calls the surviving Allied and Associated Powers. It is difficult to know who the Allied and Associated Powers are. In the strict terms of international law, India would be one of the Allied and Associated Powers, because partly we are signatories to these agreements or treaties signed at that time on behalf of the British Crown. The five Dominions of that time were part of the Allied and Associated Powers. The United States is one of the Allied and Associated Powers; and, no doubt, therefore, the States associated with her, such as Puerto Rico perhaps, and others, may also come in under similar interpretation. France is an Allied and Associated Power and, therefore, Guinea would be able to take its place in the same way as we do, as one of the Allied and Associated Powers. So, if I may say so with great respect, the South African Government would be in no better position if it summons the Allied and Associated Powers, because there will be a large number of members of this family, who at that time were not regarded as legitimate but are now legitimate; and, therefore, today the Union would be in no better position vis-a-vis the Allied and Associated Powers than it would be vis-a-vis the United Nations. On the other hand, I feel sure that the country of Field Marshall Smuts and the Government that succeeded his Government would not want to plead before us that in 1959 they want to resurrect the ghost of the League of Nations- the League of Nations that foundered in its incapacity to meet the rapacity of the war elements in the world; they would not want to resurrect that! Nor would they want to go back from their own point of view into the commitments of Allied and Associated Powers. We, on our part, would be very happy if the South African Government would hold to commitments made in Geneva at the time of the negotiations in regard to the Mandates and no one could have made more radical, more fundamental, more farreaching statements-statements which cut into the position today held by the Union, than the distinguished former Prime Minister of South Africa... The other condition the Union makes, in order to find a settlement, is to partition South West Africa. Now partition has now become a well-known imperial device. In the old days the Empire ruled territories by dividing their populations. From times of the Roman Empire, empires have followed the principle: divide and rule. Now in the post-war years the fashion seems to be: divide and leave. They divided our country and left it; they divided our people and left them. So it is divide and leave. So now division seems to be the position. Now, I would like the Assembly, however, to look at this problem of partition from another point of view. Partition is only one aspect of it; the proposal is not to partition in order to create two independent units of South West Africa. Partition is another name for annexation. Partition means cut the country up, take all the good part and amalgamate it with the Union and leave the remainder, if you want, to experiment with trusteeship. Those are some of the aspects of this problem of partition. So partition should not be viewed merely as partition. After all, there is no objection to partition as such, there being other things to compensate for it. There are many nations sitting around here today, which a hundred years ago were parts of much larger units, whether they be Austro-Hungarian Empire, or any other empire, not to speak of the British Empire. As I said, there is no objection to partition if it were intended to take off the parts which have become matured in order that they may express themselves or rule themselves better. But partition is only the other name for annexation. Now the motive, the purpose, the political purpose, and indeed there is no secret about it, is to integrate and take over the richer part of South West Africa which contains all the diamonds. I think poor people like ourselves must pray, must wish that there were no minerals under the earth in our country, for they attract civilisation. The minerals of a country give that country its name, but they are exploited by, they belong to, somebody else. That is the experience of our colleagues in Ghana. So, this partition means the amalgamation of the richer part of Africa with all its great mineral wealth and with the most salubrious climate-there is one way of finding in Africa where the climate is agreeable: that would be where the white populations live. I remember distinctly the debate that went on about East Africa when the first Labour Government took office in England. The then Colonial Secretary, who had come under attack at that time, had said that the high lands were for the whites and the low lands for the others-he did not use the expression "the others",; he said something else which I do not wish to repeat. So the high lands are for the white. There it is. So the high lands, the most salubrious places of occupation in the great riches of South West Africa, will be amalgamated with the Union. My position is confirmed by all that we have heard, by the information we do not get, and by the implications of the small information that came from the expert of the Union delegation, who very kindly spoke to us. All these point to the fact that the picture in South West Africa today is that of a colonial empire. This picture exists in 1959 and not in 1919... Italics added.

7. WORLD COURT DECISION REGRETTABLE Statement made in the Parliament of India on 2 August 1966 by the Minister of External Affairs, Sardar Swaran Singh. The Government of India has seen with deep disappointment the judgement of the International Court of Justice on South West Africa. The Government of South Africa has persistently refused to place the territory of South West Africa under UN Trusteeship as required under the Charter. On the other hand, the South African Government has been taking measures to incorporate South West Africa as one of its provinces applying to it all the evils of apartheid to which it has subjected its own non-white population. It will be recalled that certain aspects of the question of South West Africa were referred by the General Assembly to the International Court for advisory opinion which was given in 1950, in 1955 and again in 1956. These opinions clarified certain issues and were generally helpful; whereafter the UN Committee on South West Africa was asked to consider what legal action was open to ensure that South Africa fulfilled the obligations assumed by it under the mandate until such time as it is placed under the trusteeship system. The UN Committee on South West Africa suggested taking the matter to the International Court. In 1959 the General Assembly welcomed this suggestion as a result of which in 1960 Ethiopia and Liberia, both original members of the League, filed their application in the International Court. The General Assembly commended the two applicant Governments upon their initiative, thereby indicating the importance the UN attached to the issues placed before the World Court for a decision. The judgement (now given) is not likely to inspire confidence in the International Court or in the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs. The fact that it took nearly six years for the Court to decide that Ethiopia and Liberia have not established any legal right or interest in the subject matter of their complaint is regrettable. In 1962 the Court rejected the preliminary objection of South Africa that the Court had no jurisdiction and that Ethiopia and Liberia had no standing to bring the case. Yet four years later the Court has decided that Ethiopia and Liberia have no locus standi in the matter. It would seem, therefore, that the Court has reversed its own judgement of 1962. It is unfortunate that the Court has failed to answer the substantive questions raised, namely, that since the mandate has not been converted into a trusteeship it continues to remain in effect; that South Africa continues to be subject to the obligations of the mandate and cannot unilaterally alter the status of South West Africa without the consent of the UN; that South Africa must accept UN supervision of this territory and submit annual reports and forward petitions to the UN General Assembly; that South Africa has violated the obligation of the mandatory power to "promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants" by the application of apartheid and other arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust measures detrimental to human dignity. In our view, the answer to all these questions is in the affirmative. Indeed the General Assembly has adopted numerous resolutions condemning the Government of South Africa for its persistent refusal to cooperate with the world body in applying the principles of the UN Charter and implementing the various resolutions of the General Assembly on South West Africa. India's attitude has been throughout to strongly support the African countries in their legitimate demand for the grant of independence to South West Africa. As early as 1946, the Government of India were the first to raise this issue at the United Nations, and expressed their opposition to what amounted to the annexation of South West Africa. We urged that the territory should be put under the trusteeship system which would lead progressively to independence. The international community has long recognised the basic fact that the problem of South West Africa is not only a judicial one; it is more basically a political and colonial problem. The UN General Assembly has passed numerous resolutions, the last one being Resolution 2074(XX), 1965-which reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of South West Africa to freedom and independence and has called upon the Government of South Africa to remove immediately all bases and other military installations located in the territory of South West Africa. Whatever the judgement on the limited legal issue of the competence of Liberia and Ethiopia to seek redress from the International Court, the problem of South West Africa remains and demands urgent attention of the UN. The Government of India continues strongly to support the view that General Assembly and, if necessary, the Security Council must ensure that the Government of South Africa is not permitted to take any further steps-administrative, legal or constitutional-to incorporate the territory of South West Africa into South Africa, and such steps as have already been taken are declared null and void. Further, that the future of South West Africa must be governed by the UN Resolution on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Res. 1514). Finally, till such time as the people of South West Africa attain independence in accordance with the freely expressed will of the people, the mandate should be replaced by effective UN presence in place of the administration by the Government of South Africa. It is now for the UN to take firm and decisive action in support of the people of South West Africa to thwart the aggressive plans of the South African Government. As in the past, the Government of India would lend vigorous and full support to all Afro-Asian and like minded members of the UN towards the achievement of these objectives. For this purpose, the Government of India is in touch with the members of the Organisation of African Unity and the Afro-Asian Group at the

46 UN. We are actually participating in the Sub-Committee appointed by the Special Committee of 24. We are also in touch with others so as to cooperate with them to end this vestige of racialism and colonialism. Unless this is done in the near future, there is grave danger that the present situation may lead to a most serious racial conflict throughout Africa endangering international peace and security.

8. TERMINATE THE MANDATE Extracts from the Statement made by Sardar Swaran Singh, Minister of External Affairs and Leader of the Indian Delegation to the United Nations, in the General Assembly on 26 September 1966 on South West Africa: Mr. President, it is a great honour and pleasure for me to offer you on behalf of the Government of India and my own behalf our warm and sincere congratulations on the well-earned distinction conferred on you by this world Assembly in choosing you to direct its work as President of the twenty-first session of the General Assembly of our Organisation. It adds to our pleasure to felicitate you on your success not only because you are a fellow Asian, but also because you are an eminent representative of a neighbouring country with whom we have close, vibrant and constructive understanding and relations. As a matter of fact, there is a sense of participation for us in your election to this high office because of the close and brotherly ties extending over centuries which bind India and Afghanistan. I offer you, Mr. President, our wholehearted co-operation in the tasks that lie ahead. There is no graver issue before the United Nations today than the future of the mandated territory of South West Africa, with the serious threat it poses to international peace and security. The recent verdict of the International Court of Justice lays on the world body an even greater responsibility to act in the interests of freedom and justice. The people of South West Africa have been deeply injured and sorely neglected for many decades; and it behoves the United Nations to take swift and effective action to bring to an end their subjugation and oppression.

My delegation, like most others, closely followed the proceedings before the International Court instituted by Ethiopia and Liberia. We had hoped that the Court would hand down a learned judgement on the substance of the complaint, after a thorough examination of all the issues involved, and keeping in mind the basic principles of international law and morality. The earlier Advisory Opinions of the Court as well as its judgement of 1962 led many of us to believe that the final verdict of the Court would uphold those principles of international law which govern the conduct and the relations among civilised nations. It was with deep regret and disappointment, therefore, that my country received the Judgement of the International Court of 18 July 1966. The Court chose a most doubtful and controversial technical ground to dispose of the case without dealing with the substantive questions before it. What is worse, the Court took six long years to come to the conclusion that it did in the end. It is deplorable that the Court has now reversed its earlier Judgement of 1962, wherein it clearly recognised the applicants' standing to take the matter to the Court. The latter Judgement has disturbing implications for the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs and the role of the Court in the settlement of disputes. The Judgement is unlikely to inspire confidence in the International Court. There is a growing feeling in the world that the International Court as it is constituted today is outmoded in its concepts and is incapable of responding to the needs of modern times. My delegation does not wish to enter into a detailed discussion of the Court's decision. It is interesting to note, however, that the ground on which the Court has now denied the right to an answer to Ethiopia and Liberia is one which even the Government of South Africa itself did not put forward in its final submission. Mr. President, the International Court of Justice has categorically rejected South Africa's contention that its mandate had lapsed with the dissolution of the League. In its advisory Opinion delivered on 11 July 1950, the Court unanimously declared that South West Africa was a Territory under the international Mandate assumed by the Union of South Africa on 17 December 1920 and that the Union was not competent to modify its status except with the consent of the United Nations. In its Advisory Opinion of 1 June 1956, the Court itself interpreted the general purport and meaning of its 1950 Opinion as follows: The general purport and the meaning of the opinion of the Court of 11 July 1950 is that the paramount purpose underlying the taking over by the General Assembly of the United Nations of the supervisory functions in respect of the Mandate for South West Africa, formerly exercised by the Council of League of Nations, was to safeguard the sacred trust of civilisation through the maintenance of effective international supervision of the administration of the mandated territory." Again in its Judgement of 21 December 1962, the International Court repeated the conclusion it had reached in 1950 that "to retain the rights derived from the Mandate and to deny the obligations thereunder could not be justified. The 1966 Judgement, despite its grave and disturbing political consequences for the Territory has left unimpaired the validity of the Court's previous decisions. Those decisions remain the basic and authoritative statements of the International Court of Justice on important substantive legal questions, including the existence and scope of South Africa's obligations and the rights of the inhabitants of South West Africa. The most important lesson to be learnt from the long exercise of proceedings before the International Court is that there is not, and cannot be, an dffective substitute for the willingness of the members of the international community to enforce with vigour and conscience, the principles of their own Charter, the dictates of their own decrees and the plain terms of their own undertakings. In other words, the only course of action left to the world community is to terminate South Africa's Mandate and to take upon itself the responsibility of administering the territory until such time as arrangements can be made for the people of South West Africa to assume the reins of the government themselves.

Mr. President, that the Mandate is a trust and the abuse of the trust entitles the United Nations to revoke the mandate is indisputable. As early as 1922, the Indian representative to the Third Assembly of the League of Nations had declared: A mandate is, in theory and essence, revocable. These 'C' class territory are a separate legal entity and all possessed the indestructible potentialities of independent existence. The absence of any clause for the revocation in the mandate agreement does not imply that it cannot be revoked. The International Court has also affirmed, in its opinion of 1950, that from the dissolution of the League of Nations one cannot conclude that no proper procedure exists for modifying the international status of South West Africa. Under the general principles of international law, breach of agreement by one party justified denunciation by the other. To grant that the misdeeds of the mandatory Powers could never, in any conceivable circumstances, lead to revocation would merely encourage governments like that of South Africa in their evil intentions. In the words of Judge Padilla Nervo, and here I quote from his dissenting Opinion on the 1966 Judgement: The sacred trust is not only a moral idea, it also has a legal character and significance; it is in fact a legal principle. This concept was incorporated into the Covenent after long and difficult negotiations between the parties over the settlement of the colonial issue. If I may quote from another dissenting Opinion, Judge Jesup, in discussing the competence of the United Nations to grant a request for the termination of the Mandate said : "Such competence is one of the highest manifestations of supervisory power". The intention and purpose was to internationalise instead of annex, to make the principle of self-determination applicable, to keep in view the goal of self- government and, in case of abuse of the trust to appeal for redress, to exercise international authority to the full, even to the extent of revoking the Mandate. Surely, Mr. President, what was given by the international community to a member nation as a Mandate to be administered according to certain conditions can also be taken back, if those conditions are grossly violated. Thus there are ample justifications, both by way of provisions in the Charter and through various pronouncements of the International Court of Justice, to put an end of the hideous control of South Africa over South West Africa and thus to assume direct administrative control over it and to take other necessary steps for the promotion of the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the Territory. The United Nations, acting under the Charter and in its capacity as the representative of the international community and guarantor of the new world order, has the power to decide on the reversion of a mandated territory to the international community. This was recognised even by General Smuts, who stated: Reversion to the League of Nations should be the substitute for any policy of national annexation. The revocation of the Mandate is now the first necessary step to enable the inhabitants of the Territory to exercise their fundamental right to self- determination, which has been guaranteed to them under the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 of the General Assembly. The position of my country on this question is well known. India's attitude has been throughout strongly to support the African peoples in their legitimate demand for the grant of independence. At the very first session of the General Assembly, in 1946 the Government of India focussed attention on this issue and expressed its opposition to what amounted to annexation of South West Africa by South Africa. The fate of the people of South West Africa has always been a matter of great concern to us. The inhuman and criminal policies of the racist rulers of South Africa have been condemned by my delegation and by my country on innumerable occasions. It has been our view that the problem of South West Africa is basically a political and colonial problem and that it must be dealt with as such. We fully and unreservedly support to right of the people of South West Africa to become masters of their own destiny by exercising their right of self-determination which has been guaranteed to all colonial countries and peoples by the General Assembly in its resolution 1514 (XV). The time has now come for the United Nations to take firm and decisive action in support of the people of South West Africa to thwart the aggressive plans of the South African Government. Its administration of the mandated Territory has been a blatant violation of the explicit requirements and implicit principles contained in the Mandate, in the Charter of United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Right. The Members of this body assembled here today are only too well acquainted with the number of General Assembly resolutions against racial discrimination that have been ignored by South Africa. The world community has tried everything possible with a view to persuading the racists of South Africa to mend their ways and to discharge their obligations in fulfilment of the sacred trust, and has totally failed in this vital responsibility. The only response of South Africa has been to extend, with increasing severity, its abominable policies of racial discrimination to South West Africa and to strengthen its grip on the Territory. This has been made evident by the various committees of the United Nations that have examined in detail the nature of the administration of the mandated territory. The fact that South West Africa is a political problem and that it has to be dealt with accordingly has been demonstrated forcefully by the recent verdict of the International Court of Justice, which has caused a further deterioration in the situation prevailing in the Territory. My Government believes, as I am sure most of the Members assembled here do, that the United Nations, as the inheritor of the obligation that the League of Nations took upon itself to help the much-wronged peoples of South West Africa to progress towards self-government, cannot now shirk its responsibility. This obligation has recently assumed added significance in view of the disturbing situation obtaining in the adjacent High Commission Territories due to the aggressive policies of South Africa. We are also firmly convinced, as I mentioned earlier, that the United Nations has the right to terminate the Mandate and to assume direct administration of the Territory. I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is to save the indigenous people of South West Africa from being totally subjugated by the white rulers of South Africa. Unless this is done there is a great danger that the present situation may lead to a most serious racial conflict throughout Africa, endangering international peace and security. Mr. President and Distinguished Delegates, my delegation, in common with other like-minded delegations, and conscious of its moral responsibility as a Member of the United Nations, will lend its full and unreserved support to such action as the General Assembly at its current session must and will take to bring justice to the long-suffering people of South West Africa. Any prolongation of the existing state of affairs which permits the pathologically racist rulers of South Africa to continue their criminal policies of apartheid and racial discrimination in the Territory, policies which have been repeatedly condemned by the world community as constituting a crime against humanity, must not be allowed. It is the sincere hope of my delegation that all the Members of this august Assembly, leaving aside consideration of narrow, parochial interests, will rise to the occasion and join forces in taking effective action to end the evil and barbarous rule of South Africa in the mandated territory of South West Africa. Italics added.

9. A GRAVE SITUATION Extracts from the statement made by Mr. G. Parthasarathi, Permanent Representative of India in the United Nations Security Council on 5 March 1968 on the question of South West Africa. It is not my intention to comment at length on the draft resolution contained in document S/8429 and co-sponsored by India, among others, but merely to lend my delegation's support to the explanations given by Ambassador Shahi of Pakistan, Ambassador Bouattoura of Algeria and Ambassador Silos of Brazil at our meeting on 4 March. These three distinguished colleagues of mine have very ably presented our point of view to the Council and I congratulate them on the effectiveness of their presentation. I had explained the position of my delegation on the question of the illegal trial in Pretoria of thirty-five South West Africans at our meeting on 19 February 1968. I shall, therefore, be extremely brief. My delegation was and is of the view that it is imperative for the Security Council to take urgent and adequate steps, not excluding sanctions, to deal with the situation created by South Africa's defiance of the Security Council's own resolution 245 of 25 January 1968. These steps will necessarily have to be of such a nature as to convince South Africa of the futility of persisting in its stubborn arrogance. It has been said within and without these chambers that our draft resolution by referring to Article 25 of the Charter necessarily commits the Council to take action under Chapter VII. In general, India is among those Members of the Organisation which believe that Article 25 of the Charter has very close and perhaps exclusive links with Chapter VII. However, I am tempted to agree with Ambassador Bouattoura's statement yesterday in this Council that allusion to Article 25 does not necessarily imply a mechanical reference to a specific chapter of the Charter. This I do because the case we are considering today is sui generis. We are not now dealing with the usual situations envisaged under Chapters VI and VII of the Charter. This is not a dispute between two or more Members States of the Organisation. It is a dispute-although that is a mild word for it-between the Organisation and a Member State which has persistently defied the Organisation. In such a situation it is necessary to warn the Member State concerned that any further defiance of the United Nations will not be tolerated by the Security Council. Hence, the reference to Article 25 of the Charter. Such a clear warning is desirable so that the Government of South Africa shall know what the position of the Council would be the next time we considered this case. We have agreed to co-sponsor the draft resolution contained in document S/8429 even though it does not fully conform to the position of my delegation. We have done so in a spirit.of compromise and with the clear understanding that this is only the first essential and immediate step. If South Africa refused to comply with the provisions of the present draft resolution the Council, in terms of operative paragraph 4 of the draft, will have to meet immediately to decide on the application of effective measures as envisaged in the Charter. My delegation, for one, has no doubts about what those effective measures should be and when the time comes we would press for their adoption. While, therefore, fully backing the draft resolution now before us, which is the very minimum of action which the Council can take at present, my delegation hopes that when the time for effective action comes all delegations will leave aside their reservations and join their efforts in the common cause. The situation is very grave and urgent, as is emphasised by the decision of the Pretoria regime to hold another illegal trial of eight more South West Africans under the same discredited Terrorism Act. Furthermore, we have received disturbing reports

56 that there are about 150 more South West Africans detained by the'South African Government whom it plans to bring to trial in batches with a view to terrorising the African people of South Africa and South West Africa. In the circumstances my delegation hopes that all the members of the Security Council conscious of their obligations and responsibilities, will support the objectives of the draft resolution. As has already been stated here in the Council yesterday, the co- sponsors are ready to engage in further consiltations with a view to arriving at mutually acceptable formulations. It is in this spirit that we shall examine any and all proposals which have'been and may be made.

10. SANCTIONS ONLY SOLUTION Extracts from the statement made by Mr. G. Parthasarathi, India's Permanent Representative in the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1968 on the question of Namibia. Mr. President, the General Assembly is once again seized of the important question of Namibia. The issue at stake is as simple as it is serious. It relates to the continued failure of the World Organisation to pursue to its logical conclusion the historic decision of this assembly to terminate South Africa's mandate over the Territory and to bring it effectively under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. The significance of resolution 2145 (XXI) lay in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Members of the United Nations committed themselves irrevocably to securing freedom and independence for the Territory not later than June 1968. That date has passed and there is no indication that sufficiently earnest efforts are being made to honour the pledge made by the adoption of the resolution. At the same time the South African authorities are adopting a series of measures outlined in the report of the Council for Namibia (A/7388) to further consolidate their illegal control over the Territory and to accelerate the process of destroying its unity and territorial integrity. I do not propose to refer to these matters in any detail, as previous speakers have done so only too eloquently. The causes for this unfortunate state of affairs merit urgent examination, as it is only such a review which can form the basis for the kind of remedial action which is required. There does exist the widest possible agreement on the central objectives, namely the withdrawal of South Africa from the Territory and the attainment of freedom and independence for its tortured people. It is on the means of achieving this objective that there have been differences of opinion. It is an inescapable fact that these divergencies of view have arisen as a result of what amounts to a withdrawal from their commitments on the part of those States which have persistently pleaded that the action this Assembly should take should enjoy wide support and should lie within the capacity of the Organisation. There can be no quarrel with these propositions in themselves. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that in the view of these States the appropriate action of the General Assembly is limited to fruitless diplomatic demarches or the adoption of peripheral programmes of assistance to Namibians abroad. The Fact of the matter is that the South African authorities are encouraged to defy the United Nations with robust confidence and impunity, as a direct result of the tacit support they receive from the States which have thought fit to evade their responsibilities in this manner on one pretext or another. There can be no mistaking the fact as our distinguished SecretaryGeneral has so poignantly pointed out more than once, that the United Nations is nothing but a reflection of the attitudes and aspirations of its Members. My delegation has consistently supported the application of the mandatory provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter as the only effective solution to the problem with which we are confronted. This remedy can be put into effect if the political will to do so can be created. This is the task before us to which we must address ourselves with seriousness and determination. The question naturally arises as to why we are unable to reach agreement on the course of action we should take. We have been frustrated in our attempts to act resolutely on the question of Namibia by the States which have subordinated their moral and political obligations to their desire to maintain and consolidate their trade relations with South Africa. It is ironic that States which support the view that South Africa has forfeited the right to administer Namibia do not hesitate to acquiesce in economic and commercial dealings with South Africa in regard to Namibia. The investments of these States in Namibia are part of a well-planned operation to consolidate their involvement with the colonial Powers in Southern Africa in such a way as to deprive them of any real interest in bringing self-determination and freedom to the peoples in this troubled part of the world. This is the central issue which must be faced and tackled if we are to find an effective solution to the problem of Namibia. I submit that the time has come to put an end to prevarication and to act in all conscience and responsibility, in common agreement to bring to early fruition the objectives enshrined in resolution 2145 (XXI) by which this Assembly committed itself to securing the early independence of Namibia. Italics added.

11. ENCOURAGEMENT OF RACIST REGIME DEPLORED Extracts from the statement made by Mr. J. S. Teja, Member of the Indian Delegation to the United Nations, in the Security Council on 30 January 1970 on the situation in Namibia. We have asked to be allowed to participate in this debate because of our firm conviction that the United Nations must decide its responsibility in securing freedom and independence for Namibia. It is because of our abiding concern for the freedom of the people of Namibia that over the past twenty-four years my country has taken an active part in the United Nations discussions of this issue. The Security Council is meeting at a time when there is a great deal of pessimism and even cynicism about the role that the United Nations can play to solve the many long-standing problems of the Southern half of Africa. It has been said that our Organisation should not take any hasty actions which might close the door to a peaceful solution or expose its own weaknesses. Consequently, the argument runs, the only practical step that the United Nations can take is to mobilise public opinion which some day, it is hoped, might induce a change of heart in the racist and colonialist regimes. We reject that philosophy of resignation and permissiveness, which is precisely what the South African regime would most like to see in the United Nations. There is no doubt in our mind that on the issue of Namibia the will of the international community has been clearly and repeatedly expressed, both in the United Nations and elsewhere. It was that determination that led the General Assembly in 1966 to revoke Pretoria's Mandate over South West Africa and to decide to administer the Territory directly, through the Council for Namibia. Two years latter the Assembly formally set a date for the independence of the Territory. Last year the Security Council in its resolution 264(1969) specifically reaffirmed and recognised the Assembly's termination of the Mandate and the assumption of direct responsibility for Namibia until its independence. Even more significantly, the Security Council decided that in the event of South Africa's non-compliance it would meet immediately to determine upon the necessary steps or measures under the relevant provisions of the Charter. It is thus quite clear to us that both principal organs of the United Nations are committed to take further action to implement their decisions on Namibia. Today, when the Security Council meets under the shadow of South Africa's continued defiance, it is pertinent to ask ourselves a question that has so often been raised in the AfroAsian world: Why has the United Nations so far failed in its declared duty and responsibility towards the people of Namibia? Is it the indifference of the international community to the plight of a small people living under the subjugation of a powerful, ruthless and technologically advanced regime, or is it the defiance of South Africa alone, that is to blame for that failure? Or is it the overt and covert support of South Africa's powerful friends and allies in the Western world? Surely, the community of nations is not indifferent and devoid of concern towards the future of Namibia. For the vast majority of Member States of the United Nations do support the idea of effective action against South Africa. However, the history of this problem shows that but for the political encouragement and active economic and financial succour of South Africa's major trading partners and suppliers of armaments, that country would not have been able to defy the United Nations for so many years and with such impunity. Indeed, that fact is also generally recognised here. It is a matter of record that the General Assembly has called for the imposition of sanctions against South Africa, including an embargo on the supply of arms to that country. Further, in its resolution of 12 August 1969 [resolution 269 (1969)] the Security Council called upon all States to refrain from all dealings with the Pretoria regime purporting to act on behalf of Namibia. However, it is no secret that certain Members of our Organisation have not seen fit to comply with those decisions of the Assembly and the Council. On the contrary, some of them have even intensified economic and financial relations with South Africa, thereby encouraging that country to persist in flouting its obligations under the Charter. The pursuit of narrow, short- term and selfish gains has thus undermined the prestige and authority of our Organisation and exposed it to contempt and ridicule. The Security Council finds itself at a particularly decisive and historic moment today. The need for meaningful action by the United Nations is widely recognised and has been amply reaffirmed on many previous occasions. At this particular moment, therefore, the Security Council faces the issue of what to do next to implement this will of the United Nations. In our opinion the question is not so much to decide whether to apply this or that Article of the Charter as to follow the logic of the Council's own decisions within the totality of the Charter. In March last year, when the Security Council recognised its special responsibility towards the Territory and the people of Namibia, it recorded its intention to take some steps to fulfil that responsibility. The Council affirmed the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to freedom and independence and recognised the Assembly's decisions and recommendations. Further, the Council made the pronouncement that the presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and contrary to the Charter and detrimental to the interests of the population. Finally, the Council called upon South Africa immediately to vacate its administration from the Territory. In short, the resolution of 20 March 1969 [resolution 264 (1969)] committed the Security Council to give further substance to the Assembly's decision to assume direct responsibility for Namibia until independence. The United Nations has thus a perfectly legal and valid basis for further action. South Africa's refusal to comply with those decisions is not only an insult and challenge to the Security Council but an act of aggression on a Territory where it has no locus standi whatsoever. By its refusal to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of the Charter, South Africa has also forfeited all rights and privileges of membership of this Organisation. At the last series of meetings of the Security Council on this subject in August 1969 my delegation emphasised that the time had now come to take more effective action. As indicated in the statement of the representative of India, Ambassador Sen, on 4 August 1969, our proposals were aimed at loosening the Pretoria regime's economic and political stranglehold on the Territory of Namibia. Since then many ideas and suggestions have already been put forward, and my delegation would particularly like to see the Security Council take action along some of the following lines. First, the Security Council should decide that Member States should take effective steps to prevent the flow of arms and other military hardware to South Africa directly or through third countries. Second, all States must take suitable measures to stop fresh investment in Namibia by their nationals or private companies registered under their laws, so long as South Africa continues its illegal occupation of Namibia. Third, all States must be asked to ensure that their companies and nationals operating in Namibia pay the taxes and levies for such operations not to the South African regime but to the Council for Namibia. Fourth, the Council should request Member States to discontinue recognition of travel documents issued by the South African Government in so far as they pertain to the citizens of Namibia and take positive steps to extend recognition to travel and visa documents issued on behalf of the United Nations. Fifth, United Nations Members should be asked to give full legal effect to the United Nations termination of South Africa's Mandate by all possible means. These interim measures should be applied immediately by the Security Council. My delegation is fully conscious, however, that more energetic action under Chapter VII will be necessary to bring about the full implementation of the United Nations Mandate to secure the freedom and independence of the people of Namibia. My delegation is convinced that only speedy and effective action can avert the breach of peace in Southern Africa. Many years ago on the eve of the Second World War-I believe it was in 1938- Jawaharlal Nehru speaking of fascism, said: Freedom, like peace and war, is indivisible. If the aggressors of today haye to be checked, the aggressors of yesterday have also to be called to account. Because we have sought to cover up past evil, though it still persists, we have been powerless to check the new evil of today. Those prophetic words apply with equal force to the neofascism of South Africa. The forces of oppression, domination, hate and bigotry, unleashed by South Africa and enthusiastically supported by Portugal and the minority regime of Southern Rhodesia, can be adequately dealt with if all Member States present here exhibit the same will and firm determination. On this threshold of the seventies we dare to hope that the Organisation will fulfil the expectations that were reposed in it twenty-five years ago. Italics added.

12. INDIA THANKED FOR MATERIAL SUPPORT Joint communique issued in New Delhi on 4 May 1975 at the end of the visit of the Mission of the United Nations Council for Namibia to India. A Mission of the United Nations Council for Namibia visited India from 29th April to 3rd May 1975. The Mission was led by the President of the Council, His Excellency Ambassador Rupiah B. Banda from Zambia, and included representatives from Colombia, India, Indonesia, Rumania and Turkey. The Mission was accompanied by Mr. Theo-Ben Curirab, the Representative of the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO). During their visit the Mission called on the Vice President, Shri B. D. Jatti. The Mission also held discussions with Shri Bipinpal Das, Deputy Minister for External Affairs, Shri G. Parthasarathi, Chairman, Policy Planning Committee, Shri V. C. Trivedi, Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Shri B. K. Sanyal, Secretary in charge of economic affairs and other senior officials. The Mission of the Council and the Government of India reaffirmed their conviction that policies of Colonialism, Racialism and Apartheid are flagrant violations of fundamental Human Rights. The Government of India reiterated to the Mission of the Council its consistent opposition to all racist and colonial policies in Africa as also its continuing support to national liberation movements in territories still under Colonial domination. The Government of India welcomed the significant success achieved by liberation movements in some parts of Africa and hoped that these developments would hasten the inevitable end of colonial rule and racial discrimination in other areas. The Mission and the Government of India emphasised that the continued illegal occupation of Namibia and the suppression of the fundamental rights of its people by the racist Government of South Africa in violation of the Charter, the decisions and Resolutions of the United Nations as well as the Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, constitute a threat to international peace and security. The Indian Government reiterated the paramount importance of putting an end to South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia. The Government also reaffirmed its full support to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter as the basis for finding a solution to the problems of peace and security that faced the international community and, in this context to the work done by the United Nations Council for Namibia. The Mission and the Government of India discussed the efforts being made to implement Security Council Resolution 366 of 17 December 1974 asking South Africa, inter alia, to make a solemn declaration to recognise the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia as a nation. The Government of India reaffirmed its full support to any positive and concrete measures taken by the U.N., in pursuance of the Resolution, to achieve the withdrawal of the illegal administration and the transfer of power to the people of Namibia. The Government of India also reiterated its full sympathy and support for the legitimate struggle of the people of Namibia for freedom and independence under the leadership of SWAPO, the sole representative of the people of Namibia. The Government of India assured the Council's Mission of its continuing and active support to the Council in all its activities. The visiting Mission expressed its deep appreciation of the continued economic and material support which the Government of India has been giving to the people of Namibia through SWAPO, the UN Fund for Namibia and the OAU Fund against colonialism and apartheid. Discussions were held between the members of the Mission and the senior officials of the

Government of India to consider how to strengthen further their co-operation in these fields, particularly for post-independence reconstruction of Namibia. The Government of India agreed to provide training facilities to 150 people from Namibia immediately and to send experts, professors and lecturers to serve in the Institute proposed to be set up in Lusaka for the people of Namibia. The Government of India would also supply to this Institute whatever equipment could be made available. The two sides further agreed to remain in close touch regarding additional facilities and supplies which might be required. The Mission conveyed its appreciation for the efforts made by the Government of India to disseminate information about the struggle of the Namibian people for independence and the Council's activities. The Government of India assured the Mission of its continued cooperation in this regard, including, in particular, the observance of Namibia Day on 26th August. The Mission of the Council thanked the Government and the people of India for the warm welcome extended to it and the programme of visits and discussions arranged for it and expressed its gratitude for the firm and consistent position taken by Indian Government on the question of decolonisation and with particular reference to Namibia. Italics added.

13. WARM WELCOME TO A HERO Speech by Minister of External Affairs, Mr A. B. Vajpayee at the Dinner in Honour of Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of the South West African People's Organisation in New Delhi on 1 April 1978. Your Excellency and Friends, I should like to begin by extending to you and to the members of your delegation a warm and affectionate welcome to our country. The Government and the people of India have watched with admiration the leadership and guidance. Your Excellency has provided to the South West African People's Organisation, which is the sole and authentic representative of the people struggling for the independence of Namibia. We have extended our full and unequivocal support to the people of Namibia to their inalienable right to self determination and independence. Your Excellency, your visit to India is particularly timely in view of the forthcoming Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Namibia, to which India attaches great importance. We are happy that your visit has provided us with the opportunity to have an extremely useful exchange of views. This will assist us greatly in endeavoring together with other Non-Aligned countries to utilise the occasion of the Special Session to make rapid progress towards the independence of Namibia. It is a matter of deep concern to the Government and the people of India that although more than 11 years have elapsed since the United Nations terminated South Africa's Mandate and made the territory of South West Africa a direct responsibility of the United Nations, the racist regime in South Africa has continued its illegal occupation and has even attempted to further consolidate its oppressive rule over Namibia. The numerous resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and of the Security Council, clearly denouncing the illegality of South Africa's occupation of Namibia, have had no impact on the policies of the regime in South Africa. The entire world community has condemned South Africa for its .refusal to withdraw from Namibia and for its actions to consolidate its illegal occupation by extending its policy of Bantustans to Namibia. The credibility and the authority of the United Nations has been flouted and defied by South Africa by its policies relating to Namibia, which has the status of an international territory. The Fifth Conference of the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned countries meeting in Colombo in August 1976, had strongly condemned South Africa for its persistent refusal to withdraw from Namibia and for its manoeuvres to consolidate its illegal occupation by its policy of Bantustans or the so-called homeland aimed at violating the national unity and the territorial integrity of Namibia. The Summit Conference strongly condemned the so-called constitutional talks as calculated to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people, defy the international community and perpetuate South Africa's domination of the territory. The Conference also took the view that if the South Africa's regime was really interested in just solutions, it should meet immediately under the auspices of the United Nations, with the legitimate representatives of the Namibian people, that is, SWAPO, for the purpose of making the necessary arrangement for the transfer of power. Alternatively, South Africa should scrupulously and unequivocally comply with the decisions of the Security Council as contained in Resolution 385 of January 1976. This Resolution, inter alia, stipulated that free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations be held for the whole of Namibia as one political entity. We are aware that there has been an initiative by the FivePower contact group and although it appears to make some movement, the progress towards the independence of Namibia has been painfully slow. We trust that the right conditions will be created which would enable the holding of free and fair elections in Namibia. Your Excellency, India has consistently supported the struggles of the peoples under colonial yoke to become free, because we firmly believe that freedom, like peace, is indivisible and that mankind's struggle for true freedom is incomplete until we have succeeded in completely eradicating political domination, economic exploitation and racial discrimination wherever these evils continue. The liberation movement in Namibia represents perhaps the last of the freedom struggles waged by the peoples of the world against colonial domination. In Southern Africa itself, the emergence of independent Angola and Mozambique has extended the frontiers of freedom to the borders of Namibia and Zimbabwe and we feel confident that under the leadership of SWAPO, Namibia will soon gain its independence and occupy its rightful place in the comity of nations. The Government and the people of India are determined to continue unstinted moral, political, diplomatic and material support to the speedy achievement of independence in Namibia. I would now request all those present here to join me in a toast-to the health of His Excellency, Mr. Sam Nujoma; to the health of the members of his delegation; to the people of Namibia; and to the speedy success in the struggle waged SWAPO against oppressors and occupiers in Namibia. rtalics added.

14. INTERNAL SETTLEMENT REJECTED Extracts from the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee's speech in the 9th Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly on Namibia in New York on 25 June 1978. We have assembled here at this Ninth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to the question of Namibia at a very crucial phase in the momentous struggle for human rights and freedom in Southern Africa. We are gathered together to proclaim our continued determination to make Namibian independence a reality. In the last three decades, the map of Africa has changed swiftly. Winds of change have been blowing all over what was dubbed by colonial powers as a "Dark Continent". Colonial empires have vanished. Africa is awake. Africa is resurgent. And yet pockets of colonialism, racial discrimination and apartheid still exist in Southern Africa. The racist minority regimes pose a challenge to the collective conscience of humanity by their continued and brazen defiance of world opinion, callous intransigence and ever mounting barbarism, brutality and repression. The Special Session provides the United Nations with a last chance to take decisive steps to bring genuine independence to the people of Namibia. We meet here in an atmosphere of both challenge and opportunity. It is our hope and expectation that the much delayed process of change would come through a negotiated settlement. All our combined energies should be bent towards finding a solution through peaceful means. For if these efforts fail, the only alternative would be stepped up armed liberation struggle with all its attendant consequences. When I addressed the 32nd session of the General Assembly last year, I had stressed the collective and direct responsibility of the U.N. for securing the complete withdrawal of South Africa's presence from Namibia and had underlined the fact that the U.N.. had all the means at its disposal to do so. The success of this special session has relevance to not only what the United Nations can do for the people of Namibia, but what it can for the universal freedom of man. Seen in this context, Namibia is not just a geographical entity on the map of the world. It has become a symbol of the final phase of struggle against colonial domination and the pernicious doctrine of superiority on grounds of race or colour of skin. Till such time as we do not completely eliminate racial discrimination and exploitation from the face of the earth, we would not be able to make liberty and human dignity a universal phenomenon. Why are we meeting now in a Special Session? It is because South Africa has not only continued to ignore the legal advice of the World Court and to defy the will of the international community, but is also trying to consolidate its position in Namibia by offering it spurious independence under its own auspices. South Africa has consistently refused to recognise the legitimacy of the interests of the U.N. in Namibia. Nowhere is the credibility and authority of the U.N. at stake than in the case of Namibia which has the unique distinction of being the only national entity which is legally an international responsibility. The U.N. here has a direct responsibility by virtue of General Assembly Resolution 2145 adopted at the 21st session on 27 October, 1966. It is now for us in this Special Session to take measures which would enable the United Nations to discharge its obligations and prevent this world body from being made a mockery by one of its own Member States. India fully shares the sense of frustration and outrage over the fact that even though 11 years have elapsed since the United Nations terminated South Africa's Mandate over Namibia. South Africa not only retains its unlawful presence but seeks to further consolidate it by installing a puppet regime and promoting a fake internal settlement. Evidently the danger of so-called internal settlement is a very real one. South Africa would like the U.N. to observe the elections to be organised by it for the purpose of legitimising an internal settlement. It is obvious to my delegation that the U.N. should denounce in advance any such internal settlement, for it will result in depriving the people of their birth-right, their natural resources and their national self-respect as well as mortgaging their future to permanent dependence on South Africa. South Africa has master-minded the internal negotiations with a view to breaking up the territory into various tribal units, each in a state of permanent dependence on South Africa. Its aim is clearly to perpetuate Namibia's continued overlordship by the whites so that they would remain in control of 43 per cent if the area containing the best agricultural land, mineral resources and the main sea ports. The Blacks, who outnumber the Whites by 8 to 1, are to be given only 40 per cent of the areas consisting of poor quality land divided into the non-contiguous tribal enclaves. The remaining 17 per cent of the territory containing diamond and other mines is to remain under direct South African control. The right of Namibians to self-determination and genuine independence is inalienable. That right must be restored to them. The historic Maputo Declaration of 1977 and the more recent Lusaka Declaration adopted by the U.N. Council for Namibia at its extraordinary session in Lusaka have provided us with a correct and genuine perspective of the serious crisis and the consequences if a right solution is not found expeditiously. The U.N. Security Council Resolution 385 of 1976 provides an appropriate basis for the orderly progress of Namibia towards genuine independence through free and democratic elections on the basis of one man one vote under U.N. supervision and control and with no interference of any sort from South Africa. Mr. President, India's commitment to the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa dates back to 1893 when Mahatma Gandhi launched his non-violent crusade against apartheid in South Africa. Bonds of shared experiences and common sufferings unite us with our African brethren. I recall with pride that in 1946 at the first session of the U.N. General Assembly, it was India which raised the issue of apartheid and racial discrimination in South Africa. At this Special Session may I once again reiterate India's firm and abiding support to the struggle of the people of Namibia for liberation from the illegal occupation by the racist minority regime. I would like to declare our complete solidarity with our valiant Namibian brethren who are carrying on the struggle for the liquidation of colonialism and racial discrimination with courage and determination. On behalf of the Government and the people of India I would like to pay homage to all those freedom fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the long struggle, to all those who are languishing in prisons and are victims of colonial exploitation and apartheid. I would like to tell them that our prayers are with them and, more than our prayers, all the support which we can give. Notwithstanding the odds against which the Council for Namibia has been working it has succeeded in the difficult task of mobilising international opinion in favour of the just and legitimate struggle of the Namibian people. It has undertaken imaginative efforts to ensure that Namibia enters the comity of nations well prepared for its duties and functions. India has been an active member of the Council for Namibia ever since its creation and has cooperated in evern, possible manner to make the Council for Namibia effective. India would continue to render assistance to the Namibian people both bilaterally through SWAPO, which we regard as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, as well as multilaterally through the various U.N. agencies. India pledges its full support for the successful execution of the nationhood programme of Namibian not only for the present period of struggle for independence but also for the initial years of independence. In keeping with our tradition of non-violence and resolving conflicts along the path of peace and negotiations, we would be happy if even at this late hour, the questions of Namibia is settled peacefully without bloodshed or violence.

We are at the same time aware of the historical circumstances in which armed struggle has been forced on the liberation movements of Namibia and Zimbabwe. It is upto the United Nations and its Member States to try to minimise bloodshed and further suffering and frustration by using all means at their command in ensuring a peaceful and rapid transition to genuine majority rule and independence. Mr. President, Negotiated settlement should not be a ruse for buying time or finding temporary palliatives. My government will lend its support to all initiatives which sincerely and seriously aim at working out a peaceful transition to total and complete independence of the people of Namibia and the total eradication of the evil practices of racism and apartheid. We would welcome if the change is brought about peacefully. But if these efforts do not succeed due to the obduracy of the South African regime and armed struggle becomes necessary, India would continue to fully support and help the patriotic forces both morally and materially. The Security Council has not so far taken any formal action to implement its Resolution 385, although the Contact group of 5 western countries-Members of the Security Council-who have diplomatic relations with the Pretoria Regime, have been discussing with that regime and SWAPO the mechanics of implementing that Resolution. SWAPO has expressed its readiness to follow the path of negotiations and has been considering western proposals. Recently we had the pleasure of welcoming Sam Nujoma in New Delhi. My talks with him convinced me that SWAPO has an open mind for any peaceful initiatives that could lead to a genuine change in Namibia and a just solution of all connected problems. For nearly a year, talks have been going on on the initiative of the 5-member contact group of Western countries. The latest proposals of 30th March presented by the contact group of Western countries to SWAPO and the Government of South Africa are in the right direction but fall short of certain crucial elements. We recognise that these efforts are well meaning. However, we have to see if they go far enough.

SWAPO has shown flexibility in the negotiations and as Sam Nujoma has repeatedly said in recent weeks, SWAPO has made concessions and displayed a constructive spirit. Mr. President, India feels that the world community should not fritter away a change if there is one for reaching negotiated settlement in case honorable and reasonable conditions are being created for it. However, there has been no evidence so far that South Africa is sincerely interested in giving up its colonial designs in Namibia. On the contrary, it has tried to annex Walvis Bay. While carrying on negotiations with the 5 Western Powers it has also been promoting an internal settlement, creating tribal armies, dividing up the territory along tribal lines and persecuting nationalist forces. There are also disturbing reports of preparations for testing nuclear weapons in the Namibian desert. Given South Africa's record of aggression against its African neighbours, there is no doubt that the policies and actions of the Pretoria regime in Namibia constitute a threat to international peace and security. Unless effective political, economic and diplomatic pressure is brought to bear on the South African regime, the process of negotiations is likely to make real headway. On the recommendations of the Maputo Conference the Security Council adopted a Resolution last year placing arms embargo on South Africa. If South Africa continues to be uncooperative and does not accept reasonable proposals, the United Nations would have to take the next logical step of applying sanctions against it in terms of chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, demanded in the recent Lusaka Declaration. In any solution which is being worked out, we cannot acquiesce in any effort seeking to limit or diminish the role of the U.N. and the U.N. Council for Namibia in the transition to independence nor can we grant any measure of recognition to the illegal occupying forces of South Africa in Namibia. The announcement by South Africa today of the acceptance of western proposals suffers from these two serious limitations. According to South Africa "the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order during the transitional period shall rest with the existing police forces" and "that the issue of Walvis Bay is not included in the proposals". We would like to know the attitude of the Western powers on these points and the assurances or clarifications given by them to South Africa based on which it was announced the acceptance of the western proposals in a very dramatic way. According to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada the decision concerning the future of Walvis Bay should be discussed between the South African Government and the elected government of Namibia. But we would like to know their view on this question. Do the western powers regard Walvis Bay as an integral part of Namibia? A clear declaration in this regard is necessary. The silence of the western powers on the question of the future of Walvis Bay and the hesitation to adopt a clearcut attitude regarding the leading and not secondary role of the U.N. in the transitional period and in ensuring completely free and impartial elections leaves further room for negotiations. Mr. President, in our view, the following elements should determine the conditions and steps which could ensure immediate and genuine independence of Namibia through peaceful negotiations: (i) Termination of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and accession to complete independence by the end of this year. (ii) Free and democratic elections under direct U.N. supervision and control on the basis of one man one vote. This clearly implies rejection of any so-called internal settlement. (iii) Recognition of the territorial integrity of Namibia and of Walvis Bay as an integral part of Namibia. There should be withdrawal of military bases of South Africa in Walvis Bay since they constitute a threat to the territorial integrity and national security of Namibia. (iv) Stepped up assistance to Namibians by the international community in the task of economic reconstruction in the postindependence phase. Full support should be given to the nationhood programme and all other projects and plans designed to prepare the people of Namibia in the skills and expertise needed to build a strong, stable and independent Namibia. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have to supplement and complement each other in promoting an early and effective solution to the problem. Time is running out. The U.N. must act and act quickly and purposefully. The U.N. cannot afford to fail. If it does, it will be a severe blow to the cause of freedom and human rights. It will be a severe set-back to the role of the United Nations in international affairs. It will have grave consequences on the tenuous fabric of peace in the region and in the world. Freedom has been too long denied to Namibia. Let it not be delayed any longer. Let us work for bringing the day nearer when like their fellow brethren elsewhere the people of Namibia would breathe the air of liberty and join, on the basis of equality and justice, in the collective endeavors of the human race to build a new world of its dreams. Much has been spoken on Namibia over a whole decade. Year after year Resolutions have been adopted and Declarations made. Enough lip service has been paid to the principle of majority rule. We must now proceed from deliberations to decisive action. The time for a final step is here and now. Italics added.

15. U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY MUST ACT NOW Extracts from the speech of Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Minister of External Affairs, while inaugurating a Seminar on "International Struggle Against Apartheid" in New Delhi on 16 March 1979. In Namibia, South Africa has converted the territory into a theatre of repression and brutality, suppressing the spirit of black consciousness. The expansion of apartheid to the territory has resulted in economic exploitation, asphyxiation of the rich and variegated culture of the black community, denial of opportunities for education, and denudation of natural resources. India has long supported the liberation struggle of the Namibian people. Our support for SWAPO, both political and material requires no elaboration. Today, as events gain momentum towards the establishment of majority rule under UN supervision and control, the intentions of the South African Government are not clear, but suspect. It is evident that they have deliberately sought to create difficulties by making unreasonable demands such as the monitoring of SWAPO bases outside Namibia. That these moves are only a cover for their real motives, i.e. to legitimise the puppet DTA regime the socalled 'Democratic Turnhalle Alliance' illegally installed last December, none can doubt. Should South Africa thus frustrate the Security Council sponsored effort to bring majority rule to Namibia, the General Assembly, with its near universal membership, must act. In keeping with the UN Charter and its various resolutions, it must unite to terminate South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia.

16. SUBVERSION OF U.N. PLAN CONDEMNED Press Release of Indo-UN Council for Namibia Joint Communique issued in New Delhi on 5 August 1981. At the invitation of the Government of India, a Mission of Consultation of the United Nations Council for Namibia, composed of the following members, visited India from 2 to 6 August 1981: His Excellency Mr. Michael E. Sherifis, Chairman (Cyprus), Mr. T. P. Sreenivasan (India), Mr. Semiou Aleksandrovich Dzakhayev (USSR), Mr. Tommo Monthe (United Republic of Cameroon), Mr. Tuli Hiveluah (SWAPO), and Mr. John F. Robson (United Nations). During its stay in India, the Mission was received by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. The Mission held substantive discussions in the Ministry of External Affairs with an Indian delegation consisting of the following: Shri S.K. Singh, Additional Secretary, Shri Ramesh Mulye,.Joint Secretary, Shri Susheel Dube, Director and Shri Gurcharan Singh, Director. The Mission held consultations with the Government of India and examined ways and means of strengthening the cooperation between the Government of India and of the United Nations Council for Namibia during the forthcoming emergency special session of the General Assembly on the question of Namibia. The Government of India reaffirmed its wellknown support for the Council as the only legal Administering Authority for Namibia, until its independence. The Government of India and the Mission declare that South Africa's policies of repression of the people of Namibia, militarisation of the Territory, use of the Territory as a springboard for repeated acts of aggression against neighbouring African States, possession and exploitation of massive reserves of uranium in Namibia, and efforts towards development of nuclear weapons with the assistance and collaboration of certain countries, constitute a threat to international peace and security within the meaning of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The Government of India and the Mission consider that the strong political, economic, deplomatic and military support which South Africa receives from certain Western permanent members of the Security Council encourages South Africa to refuse to comply with United Nations resolutions and decisions on Namibia. This stand by certain Western countries has prevented the Security Council from imposing mandatory sanction(s) against South Africa. This encouragement confirmed existing doubts about the real intentions of the five Western Powers which had been the authors of the United Nations Plan for Namibia. The Mission welcomes the paramount role played by the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries in seeking a solution to the problem of Namibia and expresses appreciation for the policies advocated for Namibia by India, a founder member of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The Government of India and the Mission are opposed to any attempt at distorting the nature of the question of Namibia which is specifically a problem of decolonisation and of illegal occupation. The Government of India and the Mission reject any attempt to present the Namibia issue as a regional conflict, with the aim of depriving it of its universal dimensions and underplaying the degree of defiance by South Africa of the decisions of the United Nations as a whole. At the same time, the Government of India and the Mission denounce attempts by South Africa and its allies to characterise the liberation struggle in Namibia as part of an East-West confrontation, thus distorting and undermining the purpose of the struggle of the Namibian people against the illegal occupation of their country and for genuine independence. The Government of India expressed support for the peaceful resolution of the problem of Namibia on the basis of Security Council resolutions 385(1976), 431(1978), 435(1978) and 439(1978). It also reaffirms its principled position of total support for the legitimate struggle of the Namibian people for selfdetermination, freedom and genuine independence, in a United Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, which is the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The legitimacy of the armed struggle by the Namibian people led by SWAPO has been solemnly proclaimed by resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Government of India and the Mission denounce efforts by South Africa and certain of the Western Powers to elevate the so-called internal parties to equal status with SWAPO and any moves to revise or modify Security Council resolution 435(1978) which provides the only universally acceptable basis for a settlement. It also denounces any manoeuvres by South Africa to impose a neo- colonial regime upon Namibian people through a so-called internal settlement. The Government of India and the Mission express their support for the imposition of mandatory comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations as called for by the General Assembly, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organisation of African Unity as one of the most effective ways to obtain South Africa's compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Government of India supports the early convening of an emergency special session of the General Assembly to review the question of Namibian and take measures as appropriate under the Charter of the United Nations. The Government also supports the intention of the Council to recommend for adoption by the General Assembly, at the emergency special session, of resolutions that would provide for measures to be taken by Members of the United Nations, in accordance with the Charter, to ensure the complete economic and political isolation of South Africa. The Government of India and the Mission reiterate that

Namibia's accession to independence must be with its territorial integrity intact, including Walvis Bay and the offshore islands, and that any action by South Africa to fragment the Territory would be illegal and null and void. The Government of India reaffirm its position that Namibia is the direct responsibility of the United Nations and rejects any attempts at reaching a settlement without the direct participation of the United Nations. The Government of India and the Mission strongly condemn the activities of all foreign corporations operating in Namibia under the illegal administration of South Africa. These activities constitute a major obstacle to the genuine independence of Namibia. The Government of India and the Mission consider that in the light of the failure of the Geneva pre-implementation meeting in January 1981 and the subsequent failure of the Security Council to act, the efforts for the implementation of the United Nations Plan have reached an impasse. The two sides commend the positive attitude of SWAPO which has worked for the implementation of the United Nations Plan and condemn the persistent refusal of South Africa to comply with United Nations resolutions and its rejection of the United Nations Plan. The Government of India and the Mission consider that in these circumstances, it is necessary for the international community to prepare for an active and concerted political campaign in support of the struggle of the Namibian people. The Government of India and the Mission consider that it is essential to ensure the non-recognition, as called for by the Security Council, of any fraudulent entities which may be established by South Africa in Namibia. The Government of India and the Mission consider that it is essential to seek the full implementation of Security Council resolutions on the question of Namibia all of which are binding on all Member States. The Government of India and the Mission consider that programmes of assistance to the Namibian people should be strengthened. In this connection, the United Nations should consolidate all activities which are directed toward support of the Namibian people. The Government of India and the Mission consider that the programme for a voluntary boycott of South Africa embodied in the Panama Declaration of the United Nqations Council for Namibia should be adopted by the General Assembly at its forthcoming emergency special session. In this context, the Mission notes with appreciation that, as far back as in 1946, India was among the first countries to impose comprehensive voluntary sanctions against South Africa by appropriate legislation. The Government of India and the Mission consider that in order to ensure the effectiveness of a boycott it is necessary to increase the assistance to neighbouring African States. Such assistance should envisage not merely the overcoming of shortterm difficulties but should be designed to enable these States to move towards self-reliance. The Government of India and the Mission reiterate the importance *of the implementation of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia. In this connection, the two sides express support for the development of a comprehensive programme to enforce the implementation of the Decree consisting inter alia of exertion of pressure on Governments which have not yet done all in their power to carry out their obligations, institution of effective legal action in appropriate courts and action by non-governmental organisations. The Mission, on behalf of the Council, expresses its appreciation to the Government of India for the moral and material support which it has extended to SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, and welcomes the recent decision of the Government of India to receive a resident mission of SWAPO in New Delhi. The Mission, on behalf of the Council expresses its appreciation to the Government of India for its contribution to the United Nations Fund for Namibia and for the scholarships which it has awarded to Namibian students. The Mission expresses its gratitude for the firm and consistent position taken by the Government of India with respect

85 to the efforts of the Council in support of genuine independence for the Namibian people and expresses its sincere thanks to the Government and people of India for the warm welcome extended to it and for their generous hospitality.

17. SWAPO'S VICTORY IS CERTAIN Speech by the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. P. V Narasimha Rao, at a dinner hosted by him in honour of Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of South West African People's Organisation in New Delhi on 2 February 1983. In welcoming you in our midst this evening, we pay tribute to the leader of a real, popular and-pulsating people's organisation. Excellency, we recall with happiness your last visit to India in 1978. It is a pleasure not untinged by sadness because we realise how in these five long years so little has been the success in the effort to bring nearer to fulfilment the hopes of your people in whose future we, in India, have an abiding faith and commitment. Under your guidance and the stewardship of SWAPO, the inevitability of Namibia's freedom is now recognised. While negotiations cQntinue for the implementation of a plan charted by the United Nations, South Africa remains intransigent. The world waits and hopes for a settlement that has so far proved illusory but the will of your people and the strength of their struggle are bound to be crowned with success. We look forward to negotiations of the contact group aimed solely at the well-being of your people. It is a tribute to your sagacity and maturity of vision that you have given negotiations their chance to succeed, however, arduous the path may be. Only recently, at the United Nations, representatives of all Governments joined in a universal affirmation of rights of the Namibian people, which the arrogance of your southern neighbour has obstinately denied you so far. One cannot but notice that the regime in Pretoria today is unamenable to moral persuasion and unmoved by considerations such as the dignity of man. Its main motivation is the brutal acquisition of the resources with which geography has endowed your nation. There are partners too in this scramble for spoils. Were it not for the crucial and tangible support Pretoria receives, politically and often militarily, from lands far from its own frontiers, your history would not have been what it has been. Speaking at the United Nations, a generation ago, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru mentioned the new life coursing through the veins of Africa. That vitality and urge have not been dimmed or erased by time. Your struggle and the assurance of your final victory is ample proof of this. We, in India, hope that those powers in a position to mould the thinking of the rulers of South Africa would still use their leverage to a purpose in harmony with their professions and public assertions. We have noted a recent evidence of desperation, at times bordering on panic, on the part of the regime in South Africa. This in itself is not reassuring because we are convinced that it is only sober realism which can fashion the future of that troubled land. Yet this is a pointer to the inner weaknesses and a realisation slowly seeping into their minds that the tide of time is getting the better of them. It is now nearly 22 years since the provisional headquarters of the SWAPO were established in 1961. The organisation has developed and matured in its struggle for total independence and social liberation enshrined in its constitution. Over the years, there have been various efforts to weaken the fibre of resistance of your organisation. But you have withstood all these machinations and the clumsy attempts to carve self-styled political alternatives to SWAPO have failed. Your courage and determination are sure to usher in the time when the waters of Walvis Bay will shimmer in the sun of your freedom and your people find fulfilment like those in the rest of the world. Ladies and gentlemen, may I now request you to raise your glasses in a toast to His Excellency Sam Nujoma, President of the SWAPO, to his distinguished colleagues here and to the people of Namibia whom he has so ably led and to the freedom fighters and people of that land.

18. NAM SOLIDLY BEHIND SWAPO Extracts from the speech of Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, while inaugurating the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on Namibia in New Delhi on 19 April 1985. More than a hundred nations are represented here today with one purpose-to express solidarity with Namibia, that brave nation yearning for freedom. It is a great cause that brings us together, for the call of freedom is ever exciting and ennobling. The people of India are proud to play host to this meeting. On behalf of them all, I offer you a warm welcome. We specially value the presence in our midst of Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of the South-West African People's Organisation and the true voice of Namibia. We greet him warmly. India, may I say, has always felt close to Africa. For centuries ships plied between our coasts and built up links of commerce and culture. Colonialism, which was a curse on both of us, tied our political fates closer together. Mahatma Gandhi symbolised this connection. It was in the laboratory of South Africa that he forged that priceless political weapon, non-violent mass action, with which he later won freedom for India. A few days from now, in Bandung a meeting is being held to mark the 30th anniversary of the Afro-Asian Conference of 1955. What Jawaharlal Nehru had said at Bandung three decades ago rings in my ears today. "There will be no yes- men any longer in Asia and Africa", he declared. About Africa he said: "There is nothing more terrible than the infinite tragedy of Africa in the past few hundred years."

It is now more than 100 years since imperialism first cast its covetous eyes on Namibia from across Luderitz Bay. Since the end of the First World War, South Africa has tried directly or indirectly to annex South West Africa and make it its fifth province. The ravages of 'Settler-colonialism' imposed by South Africa in the lands under its military occupation are there for all to see. For close to 70 years since its seizure of Namibia, South Africa has practised unabashed deception and illegality. These moves were exposed and castigated, first in the League of Nations, then at the United Nations, yet in clear violation of the mandate of the world community, the South African regime b~as fortified and militarised the territory. Today, the regime's military build-up in Namibia has reached a new peak where there is one soldier for every 12 Namibians, perhaps, a record in the history of colonialism. This military might is aimed at terrorising the Namibians into withdrawing their support to SWAPO and for aggressive strikes against neighbouring states. How has. a minority regime defied the world community for so long and with such impunity? Because of open and hidden abetment from others. The responsibility of the United Nations for the independence of Namibia must once again be strongly affirmed. Proposals by South Africa to push the role of the United Nations to background must be resisted. This gathering of the Non- Aligned Movement proclaims that Namibian independence is the direct obligation of the United Nations. The Security Council must seek new ways to enforce Resolution 435(1978). That Resolution remeans the only acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. We oppose any effort to by-pass the U. N. and promote spurious schemes of internal settlement. The announcement of an interim Government in Namibia represents a brazen affront to the Namibian people, to SWAPO, indeed to the entire international community. Is it mere coincidence that the South African authorities have been driven to take a step on the eve of the 25th anniversary of SWAPO which we are celebrating today in Delhi? The world can ill-afford to sit by the latest actions of the South African regime. History has proved time and again the futility of such efforts to defy the will of the people. I suggest that this meeting should send an urgent telegram to the President of the Security Council registering its strong condemnation of the illegal act of the minority Pretoria Regime and calling upon the Council to meet urgently to reaffirm its commitment to an unqualified implementation of Resolution 435 of 1978. This is not a matter merely to be deplored but a question of the Council having to counter a challenge to its authority and credibility. Through twenty-five years of travail and tribulation, SWAPO has spearheaded the struggle of the Namibian people. We salute SWAPO for the courage and single- mindedness of its brave warriors. Under Mr. Nujoma's inspiring leadership SWAPO has shown farsightedness, determination and resilience in its political and diplomatic responses. It has striven to promote a negotiated settlement of the Namibian question. This attitude has been in contrast to the duplicity and intrigue of the minority regime in South Africa. The latest turn in Pretoria's game is the attempt to set up a "transitional government", with a so-called 'MultiParty Conference', indeed to fabricate possibilities of unilateral declaration of independence on the part of this puppet body. We must not let this pass. SWAPO is the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian people. It must receive greater political support as well as more tangible material assistance in pursuing its struggle. Today, we observe the 25th anniversary of the establishment of SWAPO. All of us must demonstrate our solidarity with SWAPO through concrete pledges of assistance to the' Non-Aligned Solidarity Fund for the liberation of Namibia. India on its part will make a further contribution to the Fund. I am also glad to announce that the Government of India has decided to accord full diplomatic status to the SWAPO representative in New Delhi. Italics added.

19. NAMIBIA'S FREEDOM REMAINS A TEST FOR U.N. Extracts from the statement made by the Minister of State for External Affairs, Mr. Khurshed Alam Khan in the Security Council debate on Namibia which commenced in New York on 10 June 1985. The Security Council meets in response to call made by the members of the Non- Aligned Movement at the recent meeting of its Coordinating Bureau in New Delhi. The Bureau had sought an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council to resume its consideration of the question of Namibia and to give effect to its own resolutions in this regard, in particular, Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978. The Bureau had further invited the Foreign Ministers of a number of countries to personally participate in this meeting. It is my privilege to be here in pursuance of that mandate. The presence here of several distinguished Ministers from Non-Aligned countries including the Prime Minister of Peru, -is a reflection of the high importance and urgency we attach to the cause of Namibia's independence. Mr. President, the Security Council is now meeting to consider the situation in Namibia After a lapse of almost two years. That, in itself, is a sad commentary on the lack of progress towards implementation of the United Nations Plan for Namibia's independence, a plan which has been in existence for nearly seven years. When the Council last met in October 1983, it took one of the most important decisions of the question of Namibia in Resolution 539 of 1983. That resolution, inter alia, reiterated that Security Council Resolution 435 was the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem, condemned South

Africa for its objection of the implementation of that Resolution by insisting on conditions contrary to the provisions of the UN Plan and rejected South Africa's insistence on linking Namibian independence to irrelevant and extraneous issues. It declared that the independence of Namibia cannot be held hostage to the resolution of issues that are alien to Security Council Resolution 435. Finally, Resolution 539 expressed the resolve of the Council to meet as soon as possible following the SecretaryGeneral's report for the purpose of reviewing progress in the implementation of Resolution 435 and, in the event of continued obstruction by South Africa to consider the adoption of appropriate measures under the Charter of the United Nations. Mr. President, South Africa's response to Resolution 539 came no later than the day After its adoption. With familiar arrogance and defiance, Mr. Botha once again insisted that no settlement plan could be implemented unless a firm agreement was reached on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Members of the Security Council will therefore understand the deep sense of frustration and profound concern felt by the international community at the manner in which the situation has evolved. It is a frustration that stems not merely from the fact that an unequivocal and firm message from the Security Council has been spurned and repudiated even before the ink was dry on it. In a more fundamental sense, it is frustratingindeed alarming-to see the United Nations, which assumed direct responsibility over Namibia nearly two decades ago, watch helplessly from the sidelines. Meanwhile efforts, purportedly aimed at facilitating the implementation of Resolution 435 continue to be talked about and the impasse is prolonged. For that reason alone, if for no other, we are happy that the Council is once again seized of the matter. In so doing, the Council is asserting its critical role and assuming its legitimate and inescapable responsibility in this regard. This meeting, therefore, is of crucial significance. Mr. President, the recent extraordinary ministerial meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned countries, devoted specially to the question of Namibia, was a reflection as much of the high priority and importance which the Non- Aligned countries have traditionally attached to the question of Namibia as of the urgency of bringing about the independence of Namibia, through the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435. The final document of the New Delhi meeting has already been circulated as Document S/17184 and I need not therefore dwell in detail upon the assessment made by the Ministers assembled in New Delhi and the conclusions reached by them. I may, however, recall that the Bureau, at this meeting, reiterated that the United Nations has primary responsibility for Namibia and that it is, therefore, incumbent upon the United Nations to ensure the speedy attainment of genuine and internationally recognised independence by Namibia. It remains the firm conviction of the Bureau that the UN Security Council Resolution 435, which seeks to put into effect the UN plan for Namibian independence, constitutes the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. The Bureau reiterated the categorical rejection of the linkage of Namibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. It called upon the Security Council to act in a decisive manner, in fulfilment of the direct responsibility of the United Nations with regard to Namibia and to take urgent measures in order to ensure that the United Nations Plan, as contained in Resolution 435, is immediately and effectively implemented, without modification or preconditions. With regard to the latest obstacle posed by Pretoria in the way of implementation of Resolution 435, namely, the decision to establish a so-called "Interim Government" in Windhoek, the Bureau expressed its strong condemnation and observed that this development made it all the more imperative that the Security Council meet forthwith and assume its responsibilities fully to ensure the speedy and unconditional implementation of Resolution 435. It is pertinent to recall here that the Security Council, through the statement made by the President on 3 May 1985, has condemned and rejected any unilateral action by South Africa leading towards an internal settlement outside Security Council resolution 435, as unacceptable, and declared the establishment of the so-called interim Government in Namibia to be null and void.

It is, again, characteristic of South Africa that it should choose to defy international public opinion and the Security Council and press ahead with its plans to instal a puppet administration in Namibia. We have learnt with indignation and grave concern of reports regarding the ceremony planned for 17th June in Windhoek. In its communique of 4 June 1985 issued in the course of its Extraordinary plenary Meetings in Vienna, the Council for Namibia has called upon the Security Council "to take appropriate measures to preempt the installation of the 'Interim Government' and to ensure the immediate and unconditional implementation of the United Nations Plan for Namibian independence". We fully endorse this call by the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until independence. We have noted the contents of the latest report submitted by the Secretary General, contained in Document S/17242 dated 6 June, 1985. His concluding remarks cannot but cause deep disquiet and profound concern. He has noted that implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 continued to elude us for reasons which are irrelevant and extraneous and has stressed that it is imperative for all concerned to respect the provisions of the United Nations Plan, which is binding on the parties, and remains the only agreed basis for independence of Namibia. Mr. President, the situation that confronts us today is strangely ironic. There is universal agreement that the travail of the Namibian people must come to an end, that Namibia must be free. Similarly, there is universal agreement that the United Nations Plan for Namibian independence, contained in Security Council Resolutions 385 and 435, constitutes the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. We are thus all agreed on the end, and the means to achieve that end. Why, then should it have taken so long to resolve this question? Why is South Africa being permitted to defy the unanimous call of the international community? With what conscience can anybody hold the independence of Namibia hostage to issues that have no bearing on it? Can we remain silent spectators of the suffering people of Namibia being used as pawns in a game involving larger strategic interests? Can we Afford to continue to tolerate South Africa's aggressive actions against the Front-line States and its duplicity-as evidenced again by its latest act of sabotage deep inside Angolan territory? It is our earnest hope that this meeting of the Council will lead to more resolute action than we have seen in the past. It is our expectation that the Council will chart a course of action which would bring independence to the people of Namibia, without delay in conformity with Resolution 435. We should also give our distinguished Secretary General a clear mandate within that framework to monitor and secure compliance by South Africa. Mr. President, I should like to add a word about the position of my own country with regard to the question of Namibia. Our attachment to the Namibian cause and our espousal of it is a matter of public knowledge and record. We were the first country to take up the question of South Africa before the United Nations General Assembly in 1946. The same year, we became the first to voluntarily impose comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. As a founder member and Vice-President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, India has striven to promote the interests of the Namibian people. We are proud to be of assistance to SWAPO-the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people-whose leadership is present here today with us in the person of its distinguished President, His Excellency Dr. Sam Nujoma. We remain firm in our conviction that the people of Namibia shall ultimately prevail, for theirs is a just cause. Mr. President, I would like to close with a quotation from the inaugural address by Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned countries, at the recent New Delhi meeting. I quote: Just a few years ago, Namibia's progress towards independence appeared so sure, today it has become a casualty to power politics and multinationals' profit. In the process, the very credibility of the institution that had guaranteed this independence, the United Nations Security Council, has come under question. The issue now is whether a wronged and dispossessed

96 people will be supported or deserted by the world body. It is thus a challenge to the United Nations. Will the United Nations now in its 40th year, fulfil its moral and political obligations or will military and economic might prevail over right? Italics added. 20. NAMIBIA SHALL BE FREED Speech by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at the banquet in honour of His Excellency Sam Nujoma, President of SWAPO, in New Delhi on 22 May 1986. (Extracts) Your Excellency President Nujoma, Madame Nujoma, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a privilege to welcome you to India, appropriately enough on the eve of Africa Day, a day of great importance and significance. We welcome you as the sole, authentic representative of a brave people who are valiantly struggling against racial exploitation and colonial repression. We welcome you as one of the heroic generation of freedom fighters who was present in Belgrade at the historic first summit of Non-Aligned Movement. Twenty five years later, yours alone remains the country to be freed. It shall be freed. Independence is being denied to Namibia for reasons that have nothing to do with your right to freedom. Action is stalled because human rights and human dignity have been made hostage to conflicts which should have no place in Non-Aligned Africa. How can there be a nexus between the Security Council implementing unconditionally its own plan for unconditional independence of Namibia and Angola's sovereign right to take such measures as it deems fit to preserve its freedom and integrity? Puppets are propped up in Namibia. Traitors are encouraged in Angola. There is gross interference and intervention in the internal affairs of countries who offer succor to Namibians fleeing terror in their country. The right of the Front-line States to grant sanctuary to the freedom fighters of South Africa and Namibia cannot be abridged or abrogated.

The people of South Africa and Namibia are not going to wait indefinitely for their independence, they have abundantly demonstrated their spirit of defiance. They will wrest their inalienable rights, whatever the cost. The Members of the NonAligned movements are one with the people of Southern Africa in their struggle. We will continue to extend to them our moral and material support. They can count on us. We reiterate our total commitment to the cause of Namibian independence. We believe that every remnant of colonialism will have to go. Freedom, like peace and prosperity, is indivisible. The continued colonialisation of Namibia is an affront to the conscience of humankind. We see your struggle as our struggle. We see that the tide of public opinion everywhere in the world is surging forward in the direction of freedom. Victory cannot be far away. History has seen many a tyrannical regime. None has been able to perpetuate itself. They have collapsed, confronted with the moral force of truth and freedom, their vain posturing relegated to an inglorious footnote of history. Ladies and gentlemen, I request you to join me in a toast: to the health of His Excellency Sam Nujoma and Madame Nujoma; to the freedom and prosperity of Namibia; to the inevitable victory of the heroic fighters of the South West African Peoples' Organisation; and to the restitution of human dignity and human rights to all those who are deprived of them. Speech by the President of SWAPO His Excellency Mr. Sam Nujoma at the banquet hosted in his honour by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in New Delhi, 22 May 1986. (Extracts) On behalf of the Central Committee of SWAPO and on my own behalf, I bring to you fraternal and warm greetings from the oppressed but struggling people of Namibia. May I also seize this opportunity to express our profound gratitude to the Congress (1) Party, the Government and brotherly people of India for concrete material, political and diplomatic support and above all, for extending full diplomatic recognition to our Movement. SWAPO considers this recognition as a genuine expression of solidarity and support to the oppressed people of Namibia by the government and people of India. This gesture of immense solidarity is a source of overwhelming encouragement to us. We can only really express our appreciation by pledging ourselves to you, Honourable Prime Minister, that we will leave no stone unturned in our determination to intensify military and political actions in Namibia in order to ensure a speedy and complete liquidation of colonial oppression and foreign domination in our country. Honourable Prime Minister, my visit to India takes place just after your successful visit to four Front-line States. We in SWAPO join the Front-line States in thanking you and your Government for such a timely visit, particularly in view of the forthcoming Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement to be held in Harare, next August. At this point, allow me, Honourable Prime Minister, to pay special tribute to India for the leadership it has provided to our Movement for the past three years. We are looking-forward with confidence that the handing over of the Chairmanship of Non-Aligned Movement to Zimbabwe, a Front-line State, will help to accelerate the decolonisation of Namibia and the dismantling of Apartheid in South Africa. We were extremely outraged that shortly after your visit, the Apartheid regime launched barbaric simultaneous attacks on three of the Front-line States: Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe.... We in Namibia have bitter experience of South Africa's resort to military force whenever efforts are being made to find negotiated solutions. For example, on May 4, 1978, while SWAPO and the Front- line States on one hand and South Africa and the Contact Group on the other, were in New York trying to reach final agreement on Resolution 435, South African racist troops attacked a Namibia refuge Camp at Kassinga, People's Republic of Angola killing thousands of people, including women and children and maiming many more. Again in January 1981 while SWAPO and the South African delegations were attending pre-implementation talks in Geneva organised by the UN Secretary General aimed at signing a cease-fire between SWAPO and South Africa, the racist troops 6f South Africa invaded and occupied some parts of Southern Angola. I am citing these ex-

100 amples to illustrate the fact that racist South Africa is not interested in a negotiated settlement of the problem of the independence of Namibia and South Africa itself. SWAPO strongly condemns the aggression against the Front-line States. In Namibia, the Apartheid regime is daily increasing acts of atrocities and repression against the civilian population by extending to our country its barbaric laws such as the Suppression of Terrorism Acts of 1967, State of Emergency of 1972 and Marfial Law of 1982 re-inforced by a chain of other Draconian laws such as AG 8, AG 9, AG25, etc. and the so-called District Security Act which prohibits people, especially journalists, from travelling from one area to another. These deliberate restrictions are imposed in order to prevent the people from seeing atrocities such as killings and torture that are daily committed against our people. The racist regime has also transferred the so-called South African Defence Act to Namibia. This measure empowers the colonial governor to forcibly conscript Namibians into the South African army of occupation. Today, there is the so-called South West Africa Territory Force, Koevoat, etc. which are daily committing atrocities against innocent civilians. In the face of the persistent intransigence of the South African racist regime, the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO have no other alternative but to intensify the armed liberation struggle. It is 20 years now that we have been engaged in the heroic armed resistance against the illegal occupation of our country and we will persevere in our resolve until our country is genuinely independent and our people truly free.... Honourable Prime Minister, we are greatly inspired by the Indian freedom struggle and its great leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. We are further inspired by the fact that Mahatma Gandhi started his non-violent resistance to oppression in South Africa, and when he returned to India he led a protracted struggle against British colonial domination until India gained her independence. Allow me also Honourable Prime Minister, to express our gratitude to the role played by India right from the formation of the United Nations when India strongly opposed attempts by the racist Prime Minister General Smuts to annex Namibia as ,a fifth province of South Africa. We also remain grateful for the consistent generous material, diplomatic and political support given to our people by successive Indian Governments from Pandit Nehru through to the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was a great friend of our people and more eloquently by Your Government, Honourable Prime Minister. Honourable Prime Minister, the international community has a responsibility to help bring a rapid end to the colonialism in Namibia and the abolition of Apartheid in South Africa by imposing comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against Apartheid South Africa. No amount of moral persuasion will force South Africa to relinquish its legal occupation of Namibia and abandon the obnoxious system of Apartheid in South Africa. Only concerted internal actions and international pressure will bring South Africa to its knees. SWAPO, therefore, rejects with contempt the argument by certain Western Governments, especially the USA, FRG and UK that sanctions will hurt the black majority in Apartheid South Africa and occupied Namibia. The African peoples of Namibia and South Africa have nothing to lose as a consequence of economic sanctions and they themselves call for punitive measures against the Apartheid regime. Finally, Honourable Prime Minister, dear friends, I once again want to say how humble I felt at the warmest reception I have ever received anywhere and the greatest honour such a reception has been conferred on our people. Honourable Prime Minister, the victory of India over the forces of colonialism, is the victory of the people of South Africa, Namibia and the victory of the entire progressive people of the world. The struggle continues, victory is certain. Italics added.

21. PLAN OF ACTION FOR INDEPENDENCE Extracts from the speech of the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. P. Shiv Shanker, delivered in the U.N. General Assembly at the 14th Special Session on the question of Namibia on 17 September 1986. At the time when India was not yet independent, in 1946, the Indian delegation, acting under the instructions, of the interim Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, forcefully lent its voice in the rejection by the General Assembly of South Africa's preposterous claim to incorporate South West Africa into its Union. Twenty years later, in 1966, Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, gave clear and unambiguous directions to our delegation which were reflected in the decision of the General Assembly terminating South Africa's mandate. After another twenty years, in 1986, the Indian delegation has come to this special session with the firm commitment of the Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi, to spare no effort to expedite the much delayed emancipation of the oppressed people of Namibia. This commitment was affirmed by Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi at the Harare Summit earlier this month. He declared: First and foremost is our pledge to Namibia. Eight long years ago Namibia was on the doorstep to freedom. It was eight years ago that the Security Council unanimously agreed on a plan for freeing Namibia. Power bloc rivalries and extraneous interests brought extraneous issues to the fore. The Security Council has been placed, in the tragic predicament of failing to execute its own will. Pretoria has thwarted

103 in Namibia the will of the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly and the Security Council. This outrage has been possible only because imported rivalries have been given preference over human dignity and the right of the Namibian people to self-determination. Mr. President, the faith placed by the people of Namibia in the United Nations all these years has been betrayed. The commitment of the United Nations to its own Charter has been infringed. The actions of a regime we have condemned have been allowed to continue with impunity. The territory for which the United Nations has assumed direct responsibility has been used as a base for aggression against members of the United Nations. The chasm between professions and actions by certain powers has widened. Acquiescene seems to have replaced action. Even as Pretoria continues to enslave Namibia, it pursues a simultaneous and far more sinister plan of trying to ensure that Namibia, when independent, will be crippled economically and otherwise. The fortitude of the Namibian people will call Pretoria's bluff, but the world community cannot allow the territory to be so impoverished that it begins freedom's arduous journey, bereft of the rights given to it by nature, by history and by geography. The resources of Namibia belong to its people. They are being plundered by South Africa. Friends of South Africa are no less active in helping themselves while the going is good. Decree number 1 of the United Nations Council for Namibia protects these resources and we urge all members of the international community and all entities, individual or corporate, national or multinational, to respect it. Namibia and its people are entitled to full compensation for the loss that they have suffered through such illegal exploitation of their resources. The Council for Namibia has done commendable work in the area of enhancement of public awareness. The selfless and dedicated work carried out by numerous non-government organisations has given the international quest for Namibia's freedom the critically needed popular dimension. No Government can remain immune to the sensitivities and the anger of its people. No Government can, for long, pursue policies at variance from those sought by their people. The General Assembly and the Council for Namibia must offer encouragement, support and alliance to these popular sentiments the world over. The General Assembly is more than a democracy of nations. It is a global democracy of people. And it is to the world citizen that we must reach out. Mr. President, the United Nations has played a crucial role in trying to ensure to the people of Namibia the freedom that is rightly theirs. The personal efforts and single mindedness of purpose displayed by our distinguished Secretary General personify this. But as he himself has said in his most recent report to the General Assembly, the work of the Secretary General cannot be considered as distinct from that of this body itself. Our goal must be a united effort, our solidarity firm. The United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee on Decolonisation have been tireless in their articulation to get over the crisis. They have consistently suggested the means for its resolution. The Council, and its executive agent, the Commissioner for Namibia, have not wavered in the discharge of their obligations. Their efforts, I am sure, would ensure at the earliest that this mandate remains temporary and that Namibia's freedom becomes a reality and no more remains an illusion. Mr. President, eight years have elapsed since Resolution 435. In these critical years the world has been waiting even as South Africa continues to entrench itself in Namibia. Let us not be fooled by the saccharin of sweet reasonableness with which we are promised evolution and reform. Let us not be under an illusion that the mere convening of this special session and our journeying to New York alone will deliver the goods. Together, we must find the means to redeem the pledge that we made 20 years ago. Mr. President, a group of eminent persons participating in the International Conference for the Immediate Independence for Namibia has issued an appeal in July this year. With your permission, I should like to quote its conclusion which sums up, I am sure, our collective feelings here:

105 Our final remarks are addressed to the Namibian people who have made great sacrifices in their struggle against injustice and oppression. We appeal to them not to lose hope but rather to summon new reserves of strength in the face of adversity. It would be comforting to believe that a good cause can triumph by dint of its inherent justice. That however would be illusory: History has shown that only sustained human effort can guarantee victory. If we redouble our determination, it cannot be long before the Namibian people finally win the freedom and independence for which they have struggled for over a century. Mr. President, I should, at this stage, like to mention some of the elements we consider essential to an effective programme of action to be undertaken by the international community and the United Nations. These are: I. A categorical reaffirmation of the responsibility of the U.N. for achieving the independence of Namibia. 2. An urgent meeting of the Security Council to define with precision the time table for the implementation of its resolution 435. 3. Firm rejection of linkage of the Namibian question with any extraneous issue. 4. Collective recognition by member States of the United Nations of the necessity of sanctions against the South African regime. 5. Concerted, determination by member States not to recognise or lend credence to institutions created by that regime in Namibia and outside which profess to represent the Namibian people. 6. Reiteration of Solidarity with SWAPO and increased and more concrete support to it in its struggle. 7. A thorough and coordinated programme of public information to enhance awareness of the

106 Namibian situation the world over and mobilisation of international efforts at all levels, involving among others, individual, institutions and Non-governmental organisations. 8. An approach to the International Court of Justice to seek relief against all foreign exploitative activities in Namibia and for the protection of her natural resources. 9. A demand for full compensation to the Namibian people for the losses they have incurred as a result of South Africa's illegal occupation and control over the territory. 10. Unified endeavour to assist the Security Council and the Secretary General of the United Nations in the quest for security the immediate independence of Namibia.

22. INDIA WELCOMES BRAZZAVILLE ACCORD Press release issued in New Delhi on 16 December 1988 on the conclusion of the Brazzaville protocol. The Government of India warmly welcome the conclusion of the Brazzaville Protocol which has established a definite time frame for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435 which will enable Namibia after long years of struggle and protracted negotiations to accede to independence. The Governments of Angola and Cuba have displayed great statesmanship in bringing about the attainment of this objective and those of the United States and the Soviet Union have also made very valuable contributions. It is essential that the arrangements for Namibia's transition to independence including elections to a Constituent Assembly are made on an impartial basis and that the South African Administration is not permitted to sabotage these arrangements in such a way as to prevent free and fair elections.

23.SWAPO VICTORYHAILED Press release issued in New Delhi on 15 November 1989 on the Namibian Elections. According to the reports received, the elections held in Namibia have been certified by the United Nations as having been free and fair. The parties in the fray are reported to have won seats in the Constituent Assembly as follows: South West African Peoples' Organisation (SWAPO) 41 Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) 21 United Democratic Front (UDF) 04 Action Christian National (ACN) 03 Federal Convention of Namibia (FCN) 01 Namibian National Front (NNF) 01 National Patriotic Front (NPF) 01 Total 72 2. In spite of the odds faced by SWAPO has won a majority of the seats, confirming its position as the representative of the largest number of Namibians. SWAPO falls short of a 2/3rd majority, that is required to adopt a Constitution of its choice. We are confident that it would be able to build a consensus on the future constitutional frame-work of free Namibia, carrying with it others elected to the Constituent Assembly, under the wise leadership of Sam Nujoma. 3. The long struggle waged by SWAPO, ever since its formation in 1960, for independence, is bearing fruit, for national independence is now on the horizon. The last colony in black Africa is today shaking off its shakles. We share the joy of the Namibian people, and pledge ourselves to their full independence.

24. PRESIDENT SAM NUJOMA CONGRATULATED (i) Message of Felicitations from the President of the Republic of India. Mr. R. Venkataraman. 16 February 1990. Excellency, I am gratified to learn that you have been chosen by your people to be free Namibia's first President. It is but fitting that you, who have led the Namibian people during the long years of freedom struggle, should be called upon to lead the nation once that freedom is achieved. Allow me to convey to you, Excellency, the congratulations and good wishes of the Government and people of India and my own. I am sure that under your leadership, the close ties of friendship and cooperation that bind our two countries together will be further strengthened. I assure you, Excellency, of my highest consideration. R. Venkataraman His Excellency Mr. Sam Nujoma, President-elect of Namibia, Windhoek.

110 (ii) Message of Felicitations from the Prime Minister of India, Mr. V P. Singh. 16 February 1990. Excellency, We are deeply gratified to hear of your election as President of Namibia. It is only fitting that the symbol of Namibian resistance, who has held aloft the torch of freedom for so long and against such heavy odds, should be given the responsibility of steering the young democracy during the first difficult years of its existence. India has had close and fraternal ties with the South West People's Organisation of Namibia. We are happy to have been of some assistance in the Namibian struggle for independence. The cooperation between our two countries will, I am sure, expand after the independence of Namibia. It shall be the endeavour of my government to strengthen the ties of friendship and cooperation which bind our two countries. I assure you, Excellency, of my most distinguished and fraternal consideration. Vishwanath Pratap Singh His Excellency Mr. Sam Nujoma, President-elect of Namibia, Windhoek. (iii) Message of Felicitations from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr. Rabi Ray. On this historic momentous occasion of independence of Namibia from colonial and repressive racist rule, the House of the People of India (Lok Sabha) unanimously decided to send

IIl their heartfelt greetings and very best wishes to the Great People of Namibia. Indian people, Parliament and Government having all through supported freedom struggle of Namibian people wish to assure of their continued support, friendship and cooperation to the Namibian people in their nation-building task ahead. 21 March 1990. Rabi Ray Speaker, Lok Sabha House of the People of India, New Delhi, India.

25. INDIA PROMISES COOPERATION IN NATION-BUILDING Prime Minister Mr. V P. Singh's statement in the Rajya Sabha on 30 March 1990 on his visit to Namibia. I had the privilege of visiting Windhoek from the 20th to the 21st March, to participate in the celebrations of Namibia's independence. There could not have been a more befitting occasion for my first visit abroad as Prime Minister than to witness Namibia's proud and joyous emergence as a sovereign, independent State. It was a memorable experience for all of us to be part of a historic occasion which marked the end of colonialism in Africa and the retreat of apartheid to its final crumbling bastion in South Africa. The presence of our multi-Party delegation in Namibia demonstrated that India's principled and unwavering commitment to the anti-apartheid, anti-colonial struggle transcends party affiliations and ideologies. This is not just our national policy. It has been a part of our national psyche since the days of our own freedom struggle. Immediately after the mid-night hour, India established diplomatic relations with Namibia, withdrew all sanctions and established a resident High Commission. We shared in the moment of great elation of the people of Namibia, who had struggled valiantly for 23 long years for their independence, under the banner of SWAPO and the leadership of President Sam Nujoma. India is proud to have been in the forefront of the international effort to assist the Namibian people in their quest for freedom. We extended moral, material and political support to SWAPO during its days of exile. In the transition phase to independence, India made available to the United Nations Transition Assistance Group the services of a military peace keeping contingent, police monitors and election supervisors. I am happy to inform the House that our men in Namibia earned special praise for their diligence, discipline and dedication. I am sure that this House will join me in applauding our citizens who assisted Namibia in its transition to independence. At Namibia's request; we have agreed to the continuance for three months of 50 Indian police monitors, at our cost. During my call on President Sam Nujoma, I promised India's cooperation in their nation building efforts. We offered to assist in their human resource development, with training facilities in fields such as civil administration and teacher training. We offered the services of advisors in the areas of planning, finance, water resources, development and for the preparation of feasibility studies for the development of smallscale industries. We will extend concessional credit for the supply of goods and services. We have earmarked a sum of approximately Rs. 20 crores (200 millions) as our total assistance package.

26. FIRST EVER INDIAN COMMERCIAL DELEGATION TO NAMIBIA Press release issued in New Delhi on 19 September 1990 on the meeting of Minister of State for Commerce Mr. A. Sreedharan with the President of Namibia. There was an urgent need for countries in Asia and Africa to get together to face the coming economic challenges and South-South Cooperation was crucial to ensure a better quality of life for the nations of the third world. This was stated by Shri A. Sreedharan, Minister of State for Commerce, in Namibia when he called on the President of Namibia, His Excellency Mr. Sam Nujoma on Monday. India had faced problems similar to Namibia after its independence and had achieved remarkable progress in many areas including agriculture and industry, the Minister said. Much of this was the result of application of science and technology. It was not easy to transform societies which had been exploited for long but it could be done and in this task, all the expertise that India had gathered over the years was at Namibia's disposal. The Minister outlined various initiatives taken by India to improve the quality of life of her people, especially in the area of job creation through small scale industries and a variety of self-employment schemes. The President of Namibia His Excellency Mr. Sam Nujoma said that now that Namibia was independent, it needed help in economic development and nation- building from countries like India which were not only very friendly and supportive, but also had a vast fund of experience. Mr. Nujoma mentioned that he had seen some of India 's.projects in African countries and wanted

115 similar projects in Namibia. He stressed agriculture and rural development as priority areas, especially the question of water supply for drinking and small irrigation. He urged speedy action in the areas of small scale industries and agriculture, especially production of agricultural implements to help farmers grow more food. It was essential that the quality of life in the rural areas of Namibia where the bulk of the people live be improved so that the problems of urbanisation were prevented. The Minister of State for Commerce was accompanied at the meeting by Shri G. Sundaram, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and the Indian High Commissioner Shri Shiv Mukherjee. The meeting with the President was the highlight of a packed programme in which the Minister of State met the Prime Minister of Namibia Mr. Hage Geingob, and Ministers of Trade and Industry, Defence, Works Transport and Communications, and Agriculture Fisheries, Water Affairs and Rural Development. Discussions focussed on India's offer of assistance in these areas, possibility of the strengthening of technical and economic cooperation, as well as trade promotion measures. Shri Sreedharan is on a 3-day official visit to Namibia at the Head of a 19- Member Commercial and Industrial Delegation. Italics added.

27. CULTURAL AGREEMENT SIGNED Statement issued by the spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi on 25 January 1991. The Governments of India and Namibia signed a Cultural Agreement today (25.1.91), in Windhoek. It was signed on the Namibian side by Mr. James Wentworth, Deputy Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport and on the Indian side by the High Commissioner, Shri S. S. Mukherjee. Under this agreement, the two sides envisage cooperation in a variety of fields, including art, culture, health, mass-media and sport. Text not printed as the Agreement has not been ratified yet.

28. FIRST EVER INDIAN TRADE EXHIBITION IN WINDHOEK Press release issued in New Delhi on 18 October 1991. The Indian Trade Exhibition, which opened at Windhoek in Namibia on September 15 1991 provides a window on India's industry and economy and will stimulate vigorous interaction between commercial operators of the two countries for the mutual benefit of both. Dr. Sam Nujoma, President of Namibia, while inaugurating the Exhibition organised by the Trade Fair Authority of India (TFAI) paid rich tributes to the Indian leaders and expressed gratitude to India for its consistent political support and material assistance in Namibia's freedom struggle. He particularly recalled his meeting with late Smt. Indira Gandhi in New Delhi and meetings with late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. Referring to the need of economic cooperation among the third world countries, he expressed the hope that this exhibition will serve as a forerunner for cooperation in many fields. The Indian Deputy Minister for Commerce Shri Salman Khurshid in his speech expressed similar sentiments and the need for economic cooperation between the two countries. The Deputy Minister also paid tributes to President Nujoma's leadership of the independence struggle for Namibia and it was in recognition of this that India had conferred on him the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize for 1990, he recalled. The Chairman on the TFAI, Shri Moosa Raza also spoke on the occasion and gave a brief account of the role of TFAI in India and an overview of the Exhibition and the comprehensive range of products on display. Shri Raza said that the aim of this exhibition is not to make a quick buck to establish long term

118 trade and commercial relationship between both the countries. President Nujoma visited every stall and showed keen interest in the display of the Indian goods. The Indian High Commissioner, Shri Shiv Mukherjee referred to the old friendship and ties between the two countries and India's consistent role in the freedom of Namibia. Over 300 distinguished guests comprising of Cabinet Ministers, Chief Justice, Senior Officials of the Namibian Government, Heads of Diplomatic corps, and the Indian community attended the function. Press Reports add: In his speech President Nujoma said the relations between India and Namibia dated back to the struggle for his country's liberation and India had always been an inspiration. He said India had provided moral and material support during the liberation struggle and many of Namibia's young men and women had been trained in India prior to independence and were now also being offered scholarships. "The new chapter, opened with Namibia's independence, has increased the opportunities and strengthened the bonds of friendship that had been created during the struggle through bilateral agreements and reciprocal visits at various levels." "Once independence was achieved, we had to embark on national reconstruction and nation-building. It is here that the technological advances made in India will serve a very useful purpose. We need technical know-how and expertise in order to enhance small-scale industries, an area your country has mastered very well. This will effectively help in our fight against the high rate of unemployment in our country. I am sure that we have much to learn from countries like India in this regard." The inequalities between the North and South could not continue indefinitely, he said and hoped that the Indian trade exhibition was one area in which trade among the poor nations of the Third World could be promoted successfully. Mr. Salman Khurshid said India had a hand in the birth pains of Namibia's independence and was now destined to play a role in the growth of that country. He said he looked forward

119 to economic and trade ties that would benefit both the countries. He disclosed that India would soon promote a joint venture with Namibia when the Tata industrial group entered into an agreement for its transport group to operate in Namibia. He also said he was looking for a joint venture in the field of diamonds. 29. PRESIDENT SAM NUJOMA HONOURED I wish to assure you, Mr. President, that we are as firmly committed now in our support for the task of nation-building in independent Namibia as we were during the days of the struggle. You have a formidable task ahead of you. (i) Prime Minister, Mr. P V Narasimha Rao's address on the occasion of presentation of Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development to His Excellency Sam Nujoma, President of the Republic of Namibia in New Delhi on 25 February 1992. History beckons only to a few of its favoured sons whose destiny it is to rise against the forces of oppression and to successfully lead their people to freedom and new life. We are honoured to have one such in our midst today, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia. We have had the privilege of welcoming you, Mr. President, to India on many earlier occasions. We count on you as an old and trusted friend but what an added pleasure it is to have you with us as the leader of a sovereign nation, a symbol of free Namibia. The road to freedom is never easy, much more so if the oppressor is intransigent and commands vastly superior forces and resources. Mahatma Gandhi taught us that eventually the moral force of the freedom fighter must inevitably overcome the brute strength of the oppressor. We have been through a similar struggle and know what boundless sacrifice, pain, indomitable courage and force of conviction are called for on the part of the countless comrades involved in the struggle. We are aware also of the tremendous leadership qualities which persons who spearhead struggle must possess, the qualities that count no sacrifice too great, no pain too severe, no setback too disheartening in their march towards liberty. It is these qualities that mark the men of destiny and it is these qualities that set you apart, Mr. President, as the leader of the Namibian people's long and difficult struggle. In you they found renewed hope and renewed courage and under your inspiration and SWAPO's guidance they first shook off the shackles of despair and finally the shackles of colonial domination. Thirty years in exile can be an unbearably long time. Thirty years of ceaseless endeavour against overwhelming odds, barred from setting foot in one's motherland, cut off from the wellsprings of one's existence, that has been your lot. But you, your comrades in exile and the whole people of Namibia were not cowed down or browbeaten. The independence of Namibia is your crowning glory and now you have been summoned to even a greater task to lead your nation on the path of reconciliation and reconstruction. All through the decades of struggle, India was proud to have been in the forefront of those supporting SWAPO and through it the people of Namibia. Indeed, the legacy of our freedom movement would expect us to do no less. The leaders of our national movement inspired by the vision of Jawaharlal Nehru would always regard our own freedom as incomplete if other countries remained in subjugation. Support for the liberation movements was, therefore, an article of faith for us but the movement for the independence of Namibia and against apartheid in South Africa had an added emotional underpinning to the national consensus on these matters. This was the affront to human dignity imposed by the racial discrimination practised in South Africa and Namibia. Your presence here today brings back poignant memories of Indira Gandhi in whose name this Award is instituted. Indira Gandhi was first and foremost a champion of the oppressed. She was also a leader who saw clearly that liberty is the prerequisite for peace in the world. She provided moral, political and material support to the liberation movements in Namibia

122 and South Africa to the limits of India's ability. She consistently raised her voice on these issues throughout the world community. With Rajiv Gandhi, India's support and solidarity with the struggle continued unabated. In addition to whatever India could do nationally he sought to galvanise practical support from the Non-Aligned Movement and the wider international community through the launching of the Africa Fund, one of the most successful examples of functioning solidarity among the NonAligned and developing countries. I know how pr6ud and happy Rajivji would have been to see you receive this Award today as a token of our affection and esteem. Today Namibia has been free for almost two years. We have watched with admiration the wisdom that has characterised the Namibian Government's approach under your guidance. Namibia today is firmly embarked on the path of national reconstruction. You are working to remove the deep divisions, suspicions and bitterness that had been generated through decades of apartheid and colonialism. The magnanimity and farsightedness you have shown augur a great future for the people of Namibia. I wish to assure you, Mr. President, that we are as firmly committed now in our support for the task of nation-building in independent Namibia as we were during the days of the struggle. You have a formidable task ahead of you. Since our independence India too has learnt a good deal and gathered a degree of experience and knowledge particularly relevant for developing countries. We are still learning but what we have learnt is available for Namibia to draw upon now and forever in the future.

123 (ii) Message from President Sam Nujoma of Namibia to President Venkataraman of India, 27 March 1992. REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA 27 March 1992. His Excellency Mr. Ramaswamy Venkataraman President of the Republic of India NEW DELHI Your Excellency I write to place on record my utmost gratitude and appreciation for the warm and generous hospitality accorded to me and my delegation during my recent State Visit to your great country. The warmth of the reception and hospitality extended to us stand as clear testimony of the depth of the bonds of friendship and co-operation that happily exist between our two countries and peoples. The people of Namibia would forever value and appreciate the brotherly and sisterly support that you rendered to us during our bitter struggle for the independence of our country. I would also like to mention that your country was one of the few that accorded SWAPO with full diplomatic status at an Ambassadorial level. This is still fresh in our memories and would remain there for generations to come. I was personally deeply moved by the decision by which Your Excellency and the people of India in imaginative thought conferred on me the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize and I also wish to acknowledge with thanks, the receipt of Award accompanying Ninety-Six Thousand American Dollars (US $ 96,000). This Award will stand as vivid remembrance of an ever-growing friendship between future generations of our two countries. It is against this background that I wish to officially re-affirm my invitation to Your Excellency to pay a State Visit to Namibia, a country which you assisted to be liberated. In doing this, I am solely expressing the sincere desire and yearn- ing of the Namibian people who look forward to welcome you on the Namibian soil and bear witness that your assistances were not in vain. Please, accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest considerations and esteem. Sam Nujoma PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC (iii) Statement issued by the Official Spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi on 25 February 1992. The spokesman informed that the Prime Minister had a meeting with President Sam Nujoma and welcomed him to India as an old friend and now in the capacity of President of Namibia. This is the first visit of Sam Nujoma as President. The Prime Minister referred to the extraordinary, warm and abiding relationship that India has enjoyed with Namibia and referred to the enormous admiration the people of India felt, for courage and the fortitude of the people of Namibia in their struggle for independence. Dr. Nujoma reciprocating Prime Minister's sentiment said that it was Namibia's great good fortune that India achieved its independence first. No other country had adopted Namibia's struggle and made it its own struggle, in the manner in which the great people of India had done. The two leaders had detailed discussions on the situation in South Africa. They agreed that rapidly moving events in this great region made the situation somewhat fluid. Dr. Nujoma informed the Prime Minister that it was paramount for developing countries to strengthen South-South Cooperation. In this context he referred to the over-arching position of the NonAligned Movement which provided developing countries with the necessary resilience and gave them a position of advantage from which to negotiate critical questions with the rest of the world. The Prime Minister expressed satisfaction at the manner in which India had been able to render modest assistance to 125 the liberation movement of Namibia and subsequently to the task of construction and development. He assured Dr. Nujoma that India's support and all possible assistance would always be available in the Namibian task of nation-building.

30. DROUGHT RELIEF ASSISTANCE TO NAMIBIA Statement issued by Official Spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi on 13 August 1992 on the drought relief assistance by India to Namibia. At a ceremony organised on 12 August 1992 in the Ministry of Health. and Social Services of Namibia, the High Commissioner of India Mr. Shiv Mukherjee gave two and a half tons of drought relief goods to Dr. Nicky lyambo, Minister for Health and Social Services. The Minister said that India was a tried and tested friend of long-standing, and that India's commitment to the struggle for Namibia's independence had, perhaps been ahead of all others in the world, and this donation demonstrated India's continuing commitment towards helping its brothers and sisters in Namibia. The Minister thanked the High Commissioner for India's prompt and timely response. The goods donated included milk powder, baby food, medicines, oral rehidration tablets biscuits and water purification tablets. Italics added.

31. GIFT OF TRUCKS AND BUSES TO NAMIBIA Statement of Official Spokesman of the Ministry of External affairs issued in New Delhi on 15 October 1992. India has gifted 45 trucks and buses to Namibia as part of its assistance to Namibia under the Africa Fund. The Indian High Commissioner to Namibia, Shri Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, while handing over the gift on behalf of the Government of India recalled India's long-standing support for the liberation struggle of Namibia. This gift represents the continuing commitment of India towards independent Namibian Government's task on nation-building.

32. SUPPLY OF PLATFORM TRUCKS TO NAMIBIA Press release issued in New Delhi on 3 December 1992. Tata Namibia Ltd. has been awarded a tender to supply 30 4x2 platform trucks to the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications of Namibia. The award is worth Rands 23,93,610 which is roughly equal to Rupees 2.40 crores (24 millions) and was won in the face of stiff competition from major South African Assemblers of Nissan, Isuzu, Toyota, Mercedes Benz and other vehicles. This is the second tender won by an Indian company to supply vehicles to Namibia in the last two months. Previous award was worth Rands 240,000 or Rupees 0.24 crores (2.4 millions). The vehicles to be supplied under these awards are to be partially manufactured in Namibia, thereby becoming the first vehicles to be produced locally in this country. Tata vehicles are already quite well known in Namibia since 69 vehicles earlier gifted.through the Africa Fund have proved reliable in the rugged terrain of this country.

33. ASSISTANCE FOR WATER PROJECT Press release issued in New Delhi on 16 April 1993. India and Namibia signed today a Memorandum of Intent for a Turn-Key project which would cover a detailed investigation into the potable ground water sources in NorthEastern Ohangwena region by carrying out Hydrogeological and Geophysical studies to identify location of fresh water aquifers and, drilling and construction of about thirty borehole water points including installation of handpumps. The project also includes on-the-job training to Namibian staff in the operation and maintenance of the installations. In addition to the complete technical support, India is contributing over rupees 1.6 crores (16 millions) to the project as part of its commitment to the Africa Fund, earmarked for Namibia. High Commissioner K. S. Jasrotia signed the Memorandum on behalf of Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited (WAPCOS), the executing agency for the project. Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. John Mutorwa, signed the Memorandum on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Namibia. Managing Director of WAPCOS, Shri R. Rajappa, was also present during the signing ceremony. Deputy Minister Mutorwa stated that the independence of Namibia was achieved as a result of the combined effort of the international community in which India played a very significant role. After independence, India's generous technical and economic assistance to Namibia has greatly strengthened its development efforts towards nation-building and providing better socio-economic conditions to its people. Namibia is a

130 known drought prone country and any assistance to tap ground water is of immense importance to the people arid the government of Namibia. Namibia is, therefore, most grateful to the Government of India for providing Technical and Financial assistance for the OWAMBO LAND water project. In response, High Commissioner Jasrotia stated that over the years, India has had the privilege to provide developmental assistance to Namibia through the Africa Fund, the Commonwealth and bilaterally, under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation programme. Signing of the Memorandum of Intent, he added, was yet another significant milestone in the Technical and Economic Cooperation. He expressed confidence that the project will further strengthen mutually beneficial ties between the two countries. Italics added.,

34. VISIT OF NAMIBIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION Press Note of Lok Sabha Secretariat Visit of Namibian Parliamentary Delegation to India in August, 1994 List of Delegates 1. Hon. Kandy Nehova, MP -Leader of the Delegation Chairman, National Council 2. Hon. Fidelis Antonius Sheyapo, MP 3. Hon. Sitore Huiseb, MP 4. Hon. Vilho Kamanja, MP 5. Hon. Ms. Josephine Hamutwe, MP 6. Hon. Nehemia Kaatura, MP 7. Mr. Lazrus S. Uaandja Speaker Assistant to the Chairman of the National Council

INDEX (Numbers refer to Documents) Administering authority 5, 16, 19 Afghanistan 8 Africa Fund 31 African National Congress ANC (of South Africa) Int. Afro-Asian Group/world 7, 11, 18 Algeria 9 Allied and Associated Powers 4, 6 Angola 20 Annexation 1, 2, 5 Apartheid 5, 12, 15, 20, 24 Australia 2, 5 Austro- Hungarian Empire 6 Banda, A. Rupiah 12 Bandung 18 Bantustans 13 Belgium 5 Belgrade 20 Botswana 20 Bouttoura, Ambassador 9 Brazil 5, 9 Brazzaville Protocol 22 British Crown 6 British Empire 6 Burke (Edmund) 5 Cameroon 16 Canada 14 Clarke, Sir Charles N A 5 Cold War Int. Colonialism 12 Colonial Secretary 6 Columbia 12 Committee on South West Africa 4, 5, 7 Common law 5 Contact Group 13, 14, 20 Cuba Int., 22 Cultural Agreement 27 Cunha, Senor da 5 Curirab, Theo-Ben 12 Democratic Turnhail Alliance 15 Denmark Int. District Security Act 20 Drought Relief 30 Dzakhayev, S. A. 16 East Africa 6 England 6 Ethiopia 7 Evatt, Dr. 2 F.R.G. (West Germany) 20 France 5 Front-line States 20 Geneva 20 Ghana 6 Good Offices Committee 6, 7 Guinea 6 Hage Geingob 26 Harare 20 Herero, petition of Int.

High Commission Territories 8 Hiveluah, Tuli 16 Hosea Kuteko, Chief Int. Human Rights, Declaration of 5 Indian High Commission, London Int. , South Africa Int. Indian Technical and Economic (ITEC) Programme 33 Indira Gandhi Int., 16, 20, 21, 24, 28 Indira Gandhi Prize Int., 24, 29 Indonesia 12 Institute (Lusaka) 12 Interim Government (India) Int., I Interim government (SWA) 19 Internal Settlement 14 International character 5 International Conference on Namibia 21 International Court see World Court International status 5 Italy 5 lyambo, Dr. Nicky 30 Jasrotia, K.S. 33 Jesup, Judge 8 Justice, International Court of see World Court Kassinga camp 20 Khan, Khurshed Alam 19 Koevoat 20 League of Nations 1, 3, 8 , Covenant of 4 Liberia 7 Lok Sabha 34 Lusaka 12 Lusaka Declaration 14 MacNair, Sir Arnold 4 Maharaj Singh, Sir 1, 2 Mandate 8, 11, 14 Mandate System 4 Mandated Territory Int., I Mandatory Power 2, 4, 5 Mandatory Commission 5 Maputo Conference 14 Declaration 14 Menon, V.K. Krishna 4, 5, 6 Moosa Raza 28 Mukherjee, Shiv Shankar 26, 28, 30, 31 Mutorwa, John 33 Mahatma Gandhi 14, 18, 20 Namibia Int., 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 ff. Commissioner for 21 Council for 10, 11, 12, 15, 21 Day 12 Narasimha Rao, P.V. Int., 17 National Party (NP) Int. Natural Resources, Protection of 16 Nehru, Jawaharlal Int., 1, 11, 17, 20, 21, 24 Nervo, Judge Padilla 8 New York 20 Non-aligned Africa 20 Coordinating Bureau 18, 19 Conference 18 Movement 16, 18, 19, 20 Summit 13 Norway Int. Nujoma Sam, also President Int., 13, 14, 17 ff, 22, 25, 26 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) 7, 12, 16 Fund 12 Owamboland Project 33 Pandit, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Int., 1, 2, 3 Pakistan 9 Parthasarathi G. 9, 10 Partition 5, 6

Peru 19 Portugal I 1 Pretoria 9, 11, 14, 19, 21 Puerto Rico 6 Rabi Ray 24 Racialism 12 Rajiv Gandhi 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 Rajya Sabha 25 Rand Daily Mail, the Int. Rhodesia, Southern II Robson, John F 16 Roman Empire 6 Rumania 12 Salman Kurshid 28 Sanctions 10 Scott, Rev. Michael Int. Sen, Ambassador 11 Singh, V.P. 24, 25 Shahi, Ambassador 9 Shiv Shankar, P 21 Sheriffs, Michael E 16 Silos, Ambassador 9 Smuts, General/Field Marshal Int., 1,2,4,5,6,20 Special Committee of 24 7 Special Session (UNGA) 14, 16, 21 Sreedharan A 26 Sreenivasan T.P. 16 South African Defence Act 20 South-South Cooperation 26 South West Africa Peoples Organisation (SWAPO) Int., 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25 Sundaram 26 Suppression of Communism Act 5 Swaran Singh, Sardar 7, 8 Tata 28 Tata Namibia Ltd. 32 Teja, J.S. 11 Terrorism Act 9, 20 Togoland 5 Trade Exhibition, Indian 28 Trucks, gift of 31 Trusteeship Int., 2, 3. 4. 7 Agreement 1, 2, 5 - Committee Int., 1, 6 - Council I, 21 - System 1, 4 Turkey 12 United Kingdom/U.K. Int., 5, 19 United Nations Charter 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 21 - Commission 3 - Fund 12, 16 - Secretariat 2 Secretary General 1, 20, 21 Security Council Int., 9, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 - Plan 16, 19 United Party Int. United States of America/USA Int., 5, 20 U.S.S.R. Int., 16 Uruguay Int. Vajpayee A.B. 13, 14, 15 Venkataraman R Int., 24 Vienna 14 Xuma, Dr. A.B. Int. Walmsley 5 Walvis bay 14 WAPCOS (India) 33 Warren Hastings 5 Water Project 33 Wilson, President 4, 5 Windhoek Int., 19, 25, 27, 28 World Court 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 21 Zambia 12, 20 Zimbabwe 14, 20

DR. T.G. RAMAMURTHI, currently Editor of the Africa Quarterly, is a former diplomat who retired from the Research Cadre of the Ministry of External Affairs. He has travelled widely in Africa and has written extensively on African affairs in a number of learned journals. He is author of Fight Against Apartheid (1984), Non-violence and Nationalism (1993) and Apartheid and Indian South Africans (1995). He has also edited the Special Issues of the Africa Quarterly focussing on Post-Apartheid South Africa and the Horn of Africa. INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS was established in April 1950. Its objectives, as defined in the Memorandum of Associations, are: * to participate in the formulation and implementation of policies and programmes relating to India's external cultural relations; * to foster and strengthen cultural relations and mutual understanding between India and other countries; " to promote cultural exchange with other countries and peoples; * to establish and develop relations with national and international organizations in the field of culture; " to take such measures as may be required to further these objectives. The publication activity in the Council is as old as the ICCR itself. The Council has published over 200 titles in English, Hindi and many foreign languages. Among the recent publications are: India's Maulana; Contemporary Relevance of Sufism; The Divine Peacock; Understanding Contemporary India; Gandhi: 125 'Years; Mightier than Machete; Indian Music; Handicrafts of India and Tierras Lejanas Voces Cercanas (Spanish).

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS NEW DELHI & NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, PUBLISHERS WILEY EASTERN LIMITED NEW DELHI . BANGALORE o BOMBAY 9 CALCUTTA * GUWAHATI HYDERABAD a LUCKNOW 9 MADRAS & PUNE . LONDON