sign in sign up
<<
Home , Racism in South Africa

The situation in

http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nuun1975_11

Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available at http://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read and will abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that the content in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka in connection with research, scholarship, and education.

The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmental works and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must be sought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distribution of these materials where required by applicable law.

Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials about and from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org The situation in South Africa

Alternative title Notes and Documents - United Nations Centre Against ApartheidNo. 11/75 Author/Creator United Nations Centre against ; Ogbu, Edwin Ogebe; United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid Publisher Department of Political and Security Council Affairs Date 1975-04-00 Resource type Reports Language English Subject Coverage (spatial) South Africa, Africa (region) Coverage (temporal) 1975 Source Northwestern University Libraries Description This paper reviews and analyzes the recent developments concerning the situation in South Africa with special reference to the diplomatic moves of the South African regime in the past few months in the light of the resolutions and activities of the United Nations organs. It takes as a starting point the dedication of OAU to the total emancipation of African countries; the principles of the Lusaka Manifesto, endorsed by OAU and the United Nations in 1969; and the commitment of OAU and the United Nations to co-operate in efforts to resolve the situation in South Africa in accordance with the principles of the United-Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Format extent 24 page(s) (length/size)

http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nuun1975_11

http://www.aluka.org No. 11/75 NOTES AND DOCUMENTS* April 1975

No. 11/75 NOTES AND DOCUMENTS* April 1975 THE SITUATION IN SOUTH AFRICA by I.E. Mr. Edwin Ogebe Ogbu (Nigeria) Chairman, nited Nations Siecial Committee against Apartheid Z-Note: This issue contains the text of a paper presented by the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid to the Extraordinary Session of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, held in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania, in April 1975. It reviews and analyzes the recent developments concerning the situation in South Africa with special reference to the diplomatic moves of the South African r~gime in the past few months in the light of the resolutions and activities of the United Nations organs. It takes as a starting point the dedication of OAU to the total emancipation of African countries; the principles of the Lusaka Manifesto, endorsed by OAU and the United Nations in 1969; and the commitment of OAU and the United Nations to co-operate in efforts to resolve the situation in South Africa in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This paper was prepared after consultation with H.E. Mr. Salim Abmad Salim, Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and H.E. Mr. Rupiah Bwezani Banda, President of the United Nations Council for Namibia.j 75-07268 *All material In these notes and documents may be freely reprinted. Acknowledgement, together with a copy of the publication containing the reprint, would be appreciated.

CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1- 2 GROWING ISOLATION OF SOUTH AFRICA 2 5 Developments at the United Nations Developments in the specialized agencies of the United Nations Actions by States and organizations THE NEW "OUTWARD POLICY" 5* 7 ADJUSTMENTS WITHIN APARTHEID 7 ° 14 , Coloured people and Indians Sports "Unnecessary discrimination" Workers "Consultations with Blacks" Assessment of the Special Committee against Apartheid REPRESSION AND RESISTANCE 14 - 16 Repression against the Black Consciousness Movement Repression against white students and churchmen Dual purpose of repression Resistance by the people BRIEF NOTE ON DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING ZIMBABWE 17 - 18 AND NAMIBIA CONCLUSIONS 18 - 22 Common position of the United Nations and the OAU Apartheid - a matter of universal concern "Detente" and "dialogue" Cooperation between United Nations and OAU on further action

INTRODUCTION During the past year, the South African regime was forced to recognize that the balance of forces has turned very much against it. The change of government in Portugal and the progress of the peoples of and Angola toward independence, under the leadership of their liberation movements, destroyed the "unholy alliance" of the Pretoria regime with the Ian Smith clique and Portuguese colonialists, and undermined its gepolitical calculations. Moreover, the Pretoria regime became increasingly isolated internationall . as evidenced by the success of African moves at the United Nations and its agencies, in pursuance of the decisions of the twenty-third ordinary session of O.A.U. Council of Ministers (Mogadishu, June 1974). Gravely concerned over the situation, the South African regime has launched a new diplomatic and propaganda offensive. It calls for a "detente" with independent African States and offers material inducements for co-operation. It tries to convince the world that it is undertaking reforms in South Africa, that it is leading Namibia to independence and that it is anxious for a settlement in Zimbabwe. A close examination of the facts shows, however, that the so-called reforms in South Africa are not intended to 6nd racial discrimination. They are designed to divert attention from the struggle of the Black people for total equality and freedom, and to gain time in order to declare the and other Bantustans independent, thereby presenting the world with what it hopes will be accepted as a fait accompli. It refuses to release the recognized leaders in prison or to talk to the authentic representatives of the people in prison or under restrictions or in exile. It has reaffirmed that there will be no deviation from the policy of "separate development" which means forced segregation and the setting up of Bantustans with 13 per cent of the land for 70 per cent of the people, so that the millions of Africans in the rest of South Africa could be treated as aliens. Any reforms or improvements in the economic and social conditions of the Afrikans would be within the context of the denial of equal rights in the whole country. As regards Namibia, it refuses to accept the United Nations responsibility for the territory, but only offers to speed up its own solution of Bantustanization. As regards Zimbabwe, it has recognized that the Ian Smith regime is becoming a serious liability and is trying to find a solution as favourable to it as possible. Meanwhile, it is carrying on active propaganda efforts to divide the ranks of those opposed to and colonialism. In this effort, it is aided by some Western States and by the Western press.

The United Nations General Assembly, in resolution 3324 (XXIX) of 16 December 1974, has again called on the South African regime to seek a peaceful solution in accordance with the principles of the United Nz-tions Charter and the Lusaka Manifesto, and clearly laid down the prerequisites for such a solution. At the same time, in the absence of any evidence of a meaningful change in the attitude of that regime, the Assembly has called for concerted action by Governments and organizations to intensify the struggle against apartheid. GROWING ISOLATION OF SOUTH AFRICA With the victory of the liberation movements in Mozambique and Angola, and the advance of the struggle for liberation in Zimbabwe, the South African regime was faced with the prospect of becoming isolated in southern Africa itself and losing the buffer zones it had counted on. Freedom has come to the borders of South Africa with Mozambique and of Namibia with Angola. Swaziland is no more surrounded by racist and colonial powers. These developments greatly encouraged the Black people of South Africa who saw that the day of their own liberation was drawing near, after decades of struggle against a brutal oppressive regime. At the same time, the South African regime has faced growing isolation in the United Nations and other international organizations. It was also becoming increasingly isolated even from States which had formerly given it comfort and confidence, as a result of their recognition of the new realities, the development of anti-racist public opinion in the world and the diplomatic efforts of O.A.U. and the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid. Developments at the United Nations For the first time, at the 29th session of the General Assembly in 1974, the Credentials Committee decided to reject the credentials of the South African delegation. On 30 September 1974, the General Assembly approved the report of the Credentials Committee by 98 votes to 23, with 14 abstentions. On the same day, an African Group proposal - calling upon the Security Council to review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa "in the light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" - was adopted by 125 votes to one (South Africa), with nine abstentions (France, Iran, Israel, Malawi, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States). Many of the States which found it difficult, because of procedural consideration to support the rejection of credentials, voted for this resolution which declared, in effect, that South Africa had no right to membership in the United Nations: these included the Nordic countries, most EEC countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The vote was a great victory for the African Group and its friends.

A proposal for expulsion was then brought up in the Security Council, as decided by the Council of Ministers in Mogadishu. There was an impressive debate with the participation of numerous African and non-African delegations. The proposal received more than the required majority and the three Western Powers were forced to exercise their veto. What was significant was not the failure of the proposal, which was expected, but the fact that it received wide support, including the positive votes of Australia and Peru. The Western Powers were put under great pressure and felt obliged to give assurances that they would exercise their influence toward meaningful change. Then came the President's ruling in the General Assembly on 12 November 1.974 that the South African delegation cannot participate in the work of the Assembly. The ruling was upheld by 91 votes to 22, with 19 abstentions. This action was unprecendented in the United Nations. Meanwhile, on 3 October, the General Assembly decided, without a vote, to invite the African National Congress of South Africa and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, to participate in the debate on apartheid as observers in the Special Political Committee. The Assembly was able to take a series of decisions on apartheid, Namibia and the colonial problems by consensus, since South Africa's only consistent clly, Portugal, ha.d deserted her. The 29th session of the General Assembly was thus able to record a great advance in the struggle against apartheid and colonialism in that important international forum. Equally significant was the fact that the Security Council adopted C resolution on Namibia on 17 December 1974 by a unanimous vote, thus depriving the South African regime of any comfort it may have derived from the vetoes of the Western Powers on the proposal for expulsion. Developments in the specialized agencies of the United Nations The specialized agencies especially the UNESCO, ILO, FAO and WHO - have taken further actions, as a result of the initiatives of the Special Committee against Apartheid or proposals of their members, not only to exclude South Africa but also to join in the campaign against apartheid and support the victims of apartheid and their liberation movements. The UNESCO has published a source book on South Africa for use in schools, based on material supplied by the British Anti Apartheid Movement. The ILO has encouraged action by trade unions against apartheid. The WHO has published a study on the effects of apartheid on health, which has received wide publicity. The FAO has agreed to prepare a study on the crucial problem of landownership in South Africa.

Several agencies have initiated educational and other programmes of assistance to the liberation movements, under UNDP grants. A noteworthy feature is the involvement of agencies which had not in the past shown much activity - because of the weighted votes of Western members or the technical nature of their mandates. In September 1974, for the first time, South Africa lost its seat on the Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank, after Australia and New Zealand decided to break their association with South Africa and no other members were willing to enter into similar arrangements. The defeat was described by the South African press as a "disaster" and a "humiliation". The Universal Postal Union has decided to exclude South Africa from all conferences. Several specialized agencies have invited the liberction movements to participate in their meetings. Actions by States and organizations At the same time, there has been a trend toward more concerted action against apartheid by an increasing number of States and public organizations. For instance, Australia and New Zealand, which had close relations with South Africa, became active opponents of apartheid since the end of 1972. The United Kingdom Government decided, at the end of 1974, to terminate the , the only military agreement to which South Africa is a party. The Federal Republic of Germany in 1973 and the United Kingdom in 1974 declared South Africa's administration in Namibia illegal. There have been notable advances in actions by Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Netherlands and many other countries. Since 1973, at the invitation of the Special Committee against Apartheid, some of the Western Powers began to co--sponsor and even take the lead in the General Assembly in moving proposals on apartheid, especially as regards release of political prisoners and United Nations efforts to counteract South African propaganda. Contributions to funds for assistance to victims of apartheid increased rapidly. The boycott by Western Powers of the United Nations committees on southern Africa has ended. The adoption of the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of Apartheid signalled a new stage in the uncompromising struggle against apartheid.

There was also a significant advance in public action against apartheid, especially in Western countries. The sports boycott against South Africa has scored new successes. Trade union action against apartheid, was encouraged by the International Conference of Trade Unions against Apartheid, held in Geneva in June 1973. Anti-.apartheid movements in Western Europe have launched joint campaigns against emigration to South Africa and collaboration with South Africa. With the liberation of Mozambique and Angola, many public organizations are increasingly focussing their activities on the support to the liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. These campaigns have been encouraged by the Special Committee against Apartheid, the Special Committee on Decolonization and the Council for Namibia. THE NEW "OUTWARD POLICY" The South African regime became concerned - especially after the agreement between Portugal and FRELIMO and the moves for expulsion from the United Nations that it might be deserted even by its friends among the Western Powers. It increased the military budget by 50 per cent and frantically looked for means to counteract the growing isolation. It revived, with some variations, the "outward policy" which had been launched by Mr. Vorster in 1967, and which had collapsed by 1971. As Dr. Piet Koornhof, the Minister of Sports, said on 11 November, it decided that: "The way for South Africa to come to terms with the world is via Africa." The priorities had changed. It hoped to persuade at least some of the independent African States to soften their hostility against apartheid, by: (a) Offering to persuade the Rhodesian regime to release prisoners and negotiate with the African leaders; (b) responding to the concern of African States for the security and development of Mozambique and Angola; (c) taking advantage of the economic difficulties of some African States and offering assistance; and (d) convincing them that it would undertake some improvement in the miserable conditions of the Black people, if given time to persuade its white supporters. Its main purpose was to persuade African States to abandon their commitment to support the liberation movements in underground activity and armed struggle. Its offers in return were, however, far short of meaningful progress towards independence and full equality.

The South African Foreign Minister, in a speech on 6 November, referred to the triple veto which saved South Africats membership in the United Nations and said that even the nations which vetoed the proposal had reservations about South Africa's racial policies. "I would be neglecting my duty," he said, "if I did not warn of how dangerous the situation is. How long can we still depend on the Western world to support us?" He appealed to the white supporters of the regime to understand that South Africa must urgently alter the image which African States had of its race policy by removing unnecessary and irritating measures of discrimination. The various statements of Prime Minister Vorster since October 1974 must be seen as part of this strategy, aimed at changing the image in Africa by removing "unnecessary pinpricks" against the Blacks at home. It is significant that a prominent role in the implementation of this strategy was played by the Secretary of the Depcrtment of Information, Dr. Eschel Ehoodie, who managed to visit some African States. The propaganda machinery tried to build up Mr. Vorster as a reasonable man interested in peace. It tried to persuade Governments and others concerned that it is untimely to exert any pressures on the South African regime as it needed goodwill to convince the white electorate to accept reforms. Mr. Vorster began his offensive with great hopes. He declared on 5 November that if political commentators did not create complications "they will be surprised at where the country will stand in 6 to 12 months time." But he encountered serious difficulties, except perhaps in the field of propaganda where he was aided by exaggerated press accounts. His successes in the first six months of the offensive have not been impressive. In Zimbabwe, the Ian Smith regime, in its desperation, engaged in provocative moves which have denied him the image of a peacemaker. In Namibia, the continued resistance of the people belied his pretensions. The offer of the Nationalist Party to have discussions with other "ethnic groups" found hardly ony response; the manoeuvres to disrupt the Unity of the Namibians misfired; and the rigging of the elections in Ovambo in January 1.975 became a scandal. In South Africa itself, the removal of "petty apartheid" measures created little impression. Mr. Vorster held several meetings since November with the "leaders" of the bantustans and other apartheid institutions, but even they were obliged to resist being merely used for his purposes. For, the South African regime had no intention of ending racial discrimination in the country, and soon admitted this in the face of demands that the protestations abroad be reflected in meaningful action in South Africa. Dr. Connie Mulder, the Minister of Interior and Information, announced on 12 November that the policy of contacts with other countries was "within the framework of separate development." "To ask from us that we must overthrow our whole policy of separate development and give majority rule and integration is totally out of context. That is not our intention and we refuse to do it."

Mr. Vorster himself said on 16 November; "I want to say ... to all the leaders of the Black people: if there are people who are arousing your hopes that there will one day be one-man-one-vote in the white Parliament for you, then they are misleading you, because that will never happen." It is significant that even some leaders have expressed little enthusiasm for Mr. Vorster's new outward policy. After the news of Mr. Vorster's visit to Liberia, Chief Lucas Mangope, leader of the bantustan of , said on 19 February: "Mr. Vorster and his men should first tackle more ur, ent issues concerning blacks in South Africa." Dr. Cedric Phataudi, leader of the bantustan of Lebowa, said: "It would be unfortunate if Mr. Vorster built up his foreign policy at the cost of his home policy with blacks of South Africa (The Times, London, 20 February 1975). ADJUSIYENTS WITHIN APARTHEID The South African regime has been trying to convince the world that it has embarked on efforts to improve the position of the Black majority. According to its propaganda, the first stage of apartheid (or "separate development") was segregation to remove friction among racial groups and was, therefore negative. The second stage which has now begun is development of bantustans and local government bodies for the Colcured people and Indians ... which is positive. Irritating measures which are unnecessary for maintaining white identity and white domination (in six--seventh of the country) can now be removed. This policy, at best, offers no equality. It means a partition of the country under which the white minority will appropriate six-sevenths of the rich resources of the country and ask the majority of the people to be satisfied with the rest and depend on the charity of the whites. All the Black leaders and organizations in the country, including even most of those who have agreed to work within the apartheid system, have rejected the regime's offers. A review of some of the recent "reforms", which have been highly publicized by the regime and its friends, shows that they are the result of pressure from within the country and internationally, and do not represent meaningful progress towards equality.

8. Bantustans The regime has granted some more local powers and financial resources to the bantustan authorities, and has offered to grant them independence. Its purpose was to force the Africans, with the connivance or acquiescence of the chiefs and other bantustan leaders, to give up their claim to equality in the country as a whole. Most of these bantustans, which cover less than one-seventh of the country, are split up into several scattered pieces. Even under recent consolidation proposals, which involve the forcible moving of a million Africans, only the tiny bantustan of Basotho-Qwaqwa would be in one piece. None of them can be viable States. The majority of their "citizens" are outside the bantustans. The following table shows the situation: omeland" Transkei Kwazulju Lebowa Gazan Kulu Bophuthatswana Basothoqwaqwa Swazi Ethnic Group Xhosa Xhosa Zulu North Sotho (or Sepedi) Venda Shanga~n (or Tsonga) Tswana South Sotho (or Seshoeshoe) Swazi Note: It Territory (in hectares 3,672,212 918,547 3,144,421 2,214,086 604,355 667,292 3,754,18 45,742 211,807 is intended Number of Blocks Population of the Bantustan, 1970 (in thousands) Population of the Per cent of ethnic group, popultation in 1970 bantustan (in thousands) 2 1,651) 3,930 ) 17 510) (to be consolidated into 4) 48 2,057 4,026 (reduction to 10 planned) 15 899 1,604 ktc be contsol;dated into 6) 3 239 358 (to be consolidated into 2) 5 234 737 (to be consolidated into 3) 19 600 1,719 (to be consolidated into 6) 1 24 1,452 2 82 499 to establish a "homeland" for Ndebele (not included in the table). 55.0 51.1 56.0 66.8 31.8 34.9 1.7 16.4 3)

Only the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, has asked for independence. Plans for independence, originally targetted for 1979, have been speeded up to be completed in 1976. On 17 November 1974, the heads of the eight other bantustans issued a joint statement that in view of the changed situation in South Africa, they had no intention to seek independence. They said the Africans were entitled to a joint future with the whites and a share in the country's riches. Coloured people and Indians For the 2.5 million Coloured people, the South African regime set up a "Coloured Persons Representative Council" (CPRC) with limited powers. The anti--apartheid Labour Party won the last elections, but the government nominated the defeated candidates to the Council and secured a pliable executive. Because of constant defections, this executive was defeated by a no--confidence motion in 1974. New elections are scheduled for 1975. At a meeting of the CPRC on 8 November, 1974 boycotted by the Labour Party, Mr. Vorster reiterated his rejection of the Labour Party's demands for full citizenship and representation in Parliament. Instead, he offerr,d to establish a "consultative cabinet council" with white ministers and CPRC representatives, under his chairmanship, to deal "with all matters of mutual interest," and to arrange for Coloured representation on some statutory bodies. These proposals had already been rejected by Coloured leaders who said that the government was merely playing With words like "cabinet". Mr. Lofty Adams, an independent member of the CPRC, described the proposals as "the same old stale half* loaf." Mr. David Curry, deputy leader of the Labour Party, said that the government intended to perpetuate racial discrimination and expected the Coloured people to help in the process. Mr. Vorster, he said, wanted the Coloured people to serve on the Race Classification Board and the Group Areas Board - two bodies which are "official instruments for discriminating against the Coloured people on the ground of their skin colour." He added: "This is u.rthink-ble to us and the proposals are an insult to the Coloured people." The South African Indian Council, which was set up for the 600,000 people of Indian origin, was made partly elective in 1974. Fifteen of the 30 members are elected, and the Council has even less powers than the CPRC. Mr. Vorster told the Indian Council in November 1974 that it would be developed along the lines of the CPRC and warned against confrontation with the government. Even the spokesmen of the Pretoria regime admit thact this Council is disowned by the Indian community. Both these councils will, at best, have functions of local government on racial lines.

Sports Faced with international isolation in sports, the South African regime has made some adjustments in its policy tc allow Blacks to participate in some competitions at the national and international level. But it cont,.nues to prevent mixed sports at the club level and the participation of mixed teams. Some financial assistance has now been given to African or other sports associations but only if they are organized on racial lines and are linked to, white bodies. Non--racial sports associations, which have a large membership, have condemned these moves and have called for continued sports boycott by the rest of the world. Several of their leaders have been placed under severe banning orders or denied passports. "Unnecessary" discrimination Great publicity has been given to some steps taken by the South African authorities in accordance with their decision to remove "unnecessary" discrimination. Some "whites only" signs have been removed though segregation continues. A few places have been thrown open to all races. The decision in January to allow Blacks to the Nico Malan theatre complex in Cape Town has received big headlines in the press. This complex was built in 1971 with taxpayerst money, including the taxes of the Blacks; Blacks were excluded and they had no similar facilities. Even some felt that this ws utterly unjust and against the tradition in Cape Town: they boycotted the theatre complex. Though this complex is now opened to all races, the theatres in other provinces are not. Workers In the past two or three years, there have been substantial increases in the wages of African workers and miners, but the gap between the wages of white workers and those of African workers has actually widened in absolute terms. The wage increases were not the result of liberalism by the regime but due to many other factors. First, the wave of strikes by Black workers has continued since 1972. According to official figures, there were 135 strikes by Black workers in the second half of 1974 - though strikes by African workers are illegal and they face imprisonment and deportation to reserves. There have been numerous strikes in the mines, despite police brutality. The regime could not deal with mass strikes by repression alone, as African labour is the Achilles heel of the apartheid economy. Second, the campaigns by various anti-apartheid groups against foreign investors in South Africa induced the latter to improve wages.

Third, South Africa has faced acsevere shortage of skilled white workers, and the gap could not be filled by immigration. Some Blacks were promoted to skilled and semi-skilled work, though at lower than white wages. Fourth, the mines, which had depended largely on migrant African workers from neighbouring countries, faced a shortage of labour because of actions by Lesotho and Malawi, and the prospect of action by Mozambique. They had to increase wages in order to recruit workers from within the country. The regime had also to amend oppressive legislation when anti-apartheid groups abroad launched legal action to prevent imports from South Africa on the grounds that they had been produced by slave labour. But it remains adamant in refusing recognition to African trade unions. "Consultations" with Blacks While refusing to release the genuine leaders of the people from prison, and persecuting all opponents of apartheid, Prime Minister Vorster has been meeting with leaders of apartheid institutions and claiming that he is consulting the Blacks. It may be recalled that this regime had repeatedly refused in the past even to receive petitions from the African National Congress. If it is now meeting some pliant Blacks, enticed by favours or intimidated by repression, that is mainly to implement its own policy of bantustans and deceive the world. But even the bantustan leaders have realized their predicament. They met in November 1973 and agreed on a federation policy to unite the bantustans, and began to act in concert, as much as possible, in order to get a hearing from the government. They felt obliged, partly because of the strong pressure of public opinion, to voice the grievances of the people. The meetings with the Prime Minister have not been consultations on the future of the country but more like occasions for the vassals to make their appeals and the master to give his decisions. For instance, all demands for additional land to the bantustans and for African rights in urban areas have been summarily rejected. The latest "consultation" between Mr. Vorster and the bantustan leaders on 22 January is illustrative. 1. They asked for the release of political prisoners, but he refused. 2. They asked for the restoration of limited property rights for Africans in cities (outside reserves), but he only agreed to consider leasehold. 3. They presented a series of grievances of urban Africans, but obtained nothing more than a promise to consider "a better system" of and an easing of restrictions on African traders in African locations.

The next day he met the "Coloured" leaders, but the main Coloured party the Labour Party - boycotted the talks as useless. It was this type of consultation which had obliged Chief Buthelezi to declare on 18 November that "we as Blacks cannot allow ourselves to be used as cosmetics for our own oppression." Assessment of the Special Committee against Apartheid The United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid has concluded from its review of all the developments that the white community and its leaders had begun to realize that their past course had become untenable, but are not yet ready to accept the minimum prerequisites for a peaceful and lasting solution. The Chairman of the Special Committee said on 8 November 1974: "They offer increases in the wages of African workers, who are now paid below starvation levels. Certainly the world would welcome an improvement in the wages of the black workers. "They are planning greater investment in the overcrowded African reserves, where the people have been forced to live under miserable conditions. Certainly the world woulq welcome any improvement in the living conditions in these reserves. "They are considering some concessions to the people of Indian origin and the Coloured people, who have also been subjected to racial discrimination. Certainly, we would not object to any alleviation of the conditions of these communities in South Africa. "But all these reforms are in the context of stabilizing and strengthening the system of apartheid. They seem also to be intended to divide the Black people. While talking about these reforms, the regime is increasing its repression against the leaders of the Black organizations, who are totally opposed to apartheid and refuse to be associated with any apartheid institutions. "What the regime is trying to do is to make some concessions to the so-called leaders of the Black people, whom it likes, in return for acceptance for apartheid. We have a name for such people. "We cannot but reject these manoeuvres and we have no doubt that they will not succeed ...

"After the of 1960, and in defiance of the Security Council, the South African regime chose the path of conflict and war by banning the African National Congress of South Africa and Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and resorting to repression against the leaders of the people. If the whites of South Africa now seek peace, they must retrace their path ... "So long as the white community and its leaders pursue their present course, the international community has no choice but to take collective action to eradicate apartheid. We must first of all redouble our efforts to implement the arms embargo in order to minimize the danger of violence. We must excrt economic and other pressures to make the white community realize that it cannot continue on its present collision course. We must give full support to the liberation movements in their struggle for freedom by all means of their choice, including armed struggle." REPRESSION AND RESISTANCE The South African regime has continued to defy the crucial demand of the United Nations and OAU since the Sharpeville massacre - namely, that it end repression, release those imprisoned or restricted for their opposition to apartheid and grant an amnesty to political exiles. The international community has recognized that it was the denial of legal and peaceful means for struggle which forced the liberation movements to undertake underground activity and prepare for an armed struggle. Instead of retracing its steps, the South African regime has resorted to increasing repression against opponents of apartheid to counter the continued and growing resistance in the country. Repression against the Black consciousness movement In the past two years, the heavy hand of repression hos fallen particularly on the "Black consciousness" groups such as the South African Students Organization (SASO) and the Black People's Convention (BPC). When these groups were formed a few years ago, the regime seemed to tolerate them in the hope that the activities of Black groups might split the opponents of apartheid and even help justify racial segregation. But it soon realized that these groups were effective in uniting not only Africans across ethnic lines but also the Coloured people and the people of Indian origin in opposition to all apartheid institutions. The Black students and youth utilized the limited legal opportunities to arouse all the Black people, especially in urban areas, and discredit the collaborators with apartheid institutions. The Government then began to victimize them by wholesale expulsions from colleges, severe banning orders, deportations to remote reserves, etc. But it failed to suppress the movement. The agreement between Portugal and FRELIMO on Mozambique, leading to the participation of FRELIMO in the transitional government, had a tremendous effect among all the Black people of South Africa. The SASO called for rallies to observe the tenth anniversary of FRELIMO and put to test the protestations of the regime regarding its attitude to the new Mozambique. These rallies were banned by the regime shortly before they were due to take place, but thousands of people turned up at the sites of the proposed rallies. The regime then detained over 40 leaders of the Black consciousness movement and held them for several months without access to families or lawyers. Many were reported to have been brutally assaulted to force them to turn State witnesses. Finally, after numerous protests, twelve of these detainees were charged in January under the notorious "Terrorism Act" which lays down a minimum sentence of five years in prison and maximum sentence of death. The trial was postponed and is due to begin on 21 April. Meanwhile it is reported that more people have been detained since February. Details are not available as the Government refuses to disclose any information on persons detained under the Terrorism Act who are held incommunicado. Repression against white students and churchmen While the brunt of repression has fallen on the Black consciousness movement, the regime has also taken severe action against whites opposed to apartheid - especially the students and churchmen. Many leaders of the National Union of South African Students have been placed under severe banning orders. The NUSAS was prohibited in 1974 from receiving any contributions from abroad for its welfare activities such as scholarships for Black medical students. Further legislation to suppress student action against apartheid is under consideration. Leaders of the Christian Institute have been persecuted for opposing apartheid, though they are committed to non-violence. The passport of its leader, the Reverend Beyers Naude, a leading Afrikaner theologian, was confiscated in December 1974. Dual purpose of repression The purpose of this repression is not only to intimidate, silence and suppress the opposition, but to enable the few Black collaborators with apartheid to try to obtain attention cs the spokesmen of the Blacks.

The regime has confiscated the passports of several persons who have opposed foreign investments in South Africa - such as Sonny Leon, the leader of the Labour Party of the Colouhed people, and the Reverend Beyers Naude - but it has given passports to people who, even if they criticize apartheid, oppose any sanctions against South Africa. It encourages visits abroad by those who advocate dialogue and collaboration with South Africa in order to counteract the antiapartheid movements. Many of these favoured Blacks have disputed anti- apartheid movements in the Western press and TV, and claimed that they speak for the Blacks rather than the friends of the liberation movement in the Western countries. The Special Committee against Apartheid and the liberation movements have had to counteract their activities, defend the anti-apartheid movements, and let the public opinion know the truth. Resistance by the people The other main feature of the situation in South Africa is the continued resistance by the people against apartheid, despite the ordeal of repression to which they have been subjected for long years. The constant trials of Black leaders and other opponents of apartheid show that the struggle has continued by new forms and under new leaders who have replaced those imprisoned. Indicative of the present Black sentiment are the resolutions of the Black Renaissance Convention, sponsored mainly by Black theologians, which was held at Hammanskraal from 15 to 17 December 1974, and attended by over 300 delegates from all over the country. They showed that all the delegates from the churches, academic and sports bodies and the bantustans were unanimous in their abhorrence of apartheid and the apartheid institutions. They called for the release of all political prisoners, detainees and banned people, and for a totally united and democratic South Africa, free from all forms of oppression and exploitation. They declared that legalised racism in South Africa is a threat to the world peace and therefore, called upon all the countries of the world "to withdraw all cultural, educational, economic, manpower and military support to the existing racist Government and all its racist institutions." These resolutions, at a conference sponsored by moderate elements in the community, seem most representative of the Black opinion which can be expressed under the present conditions in South Africa. In a circular after the Convention, its Steering Committee said that none of the ethnically-based organizations in the bantustans could fill the political leadership vacuum which had been created by the banning of the ANC and PAC. "Since the politics of separatism were so utterly and unconditionally rejected at the Convention, the implications of that rejection are self-evident ... Surely, when 'detente' does eventually come to Azania proper, the Black people cannot be expected to be represented by the 'protagonists of apartheid' because these men were disowned by the Black people in no uncertain terms."

BRIEF NOTE ON DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING NAMIBIA AND ZIMBABWE In resolution 366 (1974), adopted unanimously on 17 December 1974, the Security Council demanded that South Africa (a) make a solemn declaration that it would comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice; and (b) take the necessary steps to transfer power to the Namibian people with the assistance of the United Nationsi It demanded further that, pending the transfer of powers, South Africa: "(a) Comply fully in spirit and in practice with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (b) Release all Namibian political prisoners, including those imprisoned or detained in connexion with offences under so-called internal security laws, whether such Namibians have been charged or tried or are held without charge and whether held in Namibia or South Africa.; (c) Abolish the application in Namibia of all racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices, particularly bantustans and homelands; (d) Accord unconditionnally to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or imprisonment." A confrontation between the Security Council and South Africa may become inevitable in May, as the South African regime has shown no inclination to comply with this unanimous resolution. South Africa's tactics in recent years have been aimed at inducing the United Nations to ignore the advisory opinion of the International Court and the responsibility it had assumed for the territory and entrusted to its Council for Namibia. It has so far failed in its efforts, as the illegality of its occupation is now recognized by almost all States. At the same time, the South African regime has resorted to deportations, floggings, torture and detentions, as well as the rigging of the Ovambo elections, in order to try to impose its solution of bantustans. But these have only increased international awareness of the situation and led to greater support for the liberation movement. The recent withdrawal of several American companies from Namibia is indicative. In his statement before O.A.U. Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa on 8 January, the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia; H.E.Mr. Rupiah B. Banda, said:

"South Africa must now make its position clear and state unequivocally that it accepts the decisions of the United Nations, and respects the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and that it is ready to terminate its illegal occupation of Namibia forthwith. Anything short of this solemn declaration will not be acceptable and it should be made clear that South Africa can expect increased resistance and pressure of all types from all corners of the world ..." "We wish and hope, since the political climate in southern Africa has so drastically changed and, since the South African fortress is finally caving in, that the leaders of that racist Government will seize the time and opportunity to relinquish their illegal administration of Namibia; and to stop the preparations which are now under way for bogus elections in the Ovamboland "bantustan", since they are an extension of the apartheid policy that seeks to fragment the international Territory into socalled "bantu homelands". Suffice it to note that the South African regime has shown no inclination to follow this course. As regards Zimbabwe, it may be recalled that the South African regime is not merely a third party. It has committed an act of aggression by sending its security forces into the Territory and it has defied the mandatory decisions of the United Nations Security Council concerning sanctions against the Smith regime. So far, it has merely withdrawn its forces from the front line. CONCLUSIONS On apartheid in South Africa, as on Namibia and Zimbabwe, the positions of the United Nations and O.A.U. are almost identical. Both are similar. They have, moreover, pledged to co-operote actively in the efforts to. solve the grave situation in southern Africa.. Such cocperation is more than ever essential at this time. Common position of the United Nations and O.A.U. As regards South Africa, both the United Nations and OAU are dedicated to the principle of full equality for all the people of the country, irrespective of race or colour. They oppose the regime in South Africa, not because it is white, but because it denies and fights against the principles of human equality and national self-determination.

Both the United Nations and OAU have recognized that the future of South Africa is a matter for decision by the people of South Africa -- Black and white -- on the basis of equality. The main parties to the dispute are the racist r4gime and its supporters on the one hand, and the oppressed people and other opponents of racism, led by the liberation movements, on the other. The key to a peaceful solution is negotiation between the two parties to enable ,the people of South Africa as a whole to determine the destiny of the country. At the same time, the United Nations and '- OAU have a vital interest in the situation because the policy and practice of apartheid have created a threat to the peace. They have, indeed, a duty to eliminate this threat to the peace and to assist the oppressed people in their legitimate struggle against .the crime of racism so long as the regime refuses to accept the principle of human equality. Both the United Nations and OAU have repeatedly declared their desire and willingness to promote a peaceful solution of the situation in South Africa. As the Lusaka Manifesto stated: "We do not advocate violence; we advocate an end to the violence against human dignity which is now being perpetrated by the oppressors of Africa. If peaceful progress to emancipation were possible, or if changed circumstances were to make it possible in the future, we would urge our brothers in the resistance movements to use peaceful methods of struggle even at the cost of some compromise on the timing of change. But while peaceful progress is blocked by actions of those at present in power in the States of southern Africa, we have no choice but to give to the peoples of those Territories all the support of which we are capable in their struggle against the oppressors." It may be recalled that it was the South African regime which chose violence, by closing all avenues for peaceful change and resorting to ruthless repression against opponents of racism. It was only after decades of non--violent struggle, culminating in the Sharpeville massacre and the banning of liberation movements, that the liberation movements were forced to go underground and give up their adherence to non.-violence. It was only then, and after repeated appeals to the Pretoria regime, that African other States called for sanctions against that regime and for moral and material support to the liberation movements. Despite the intransigence of the South African regime, the United Nations and the OAU have continued constantly to call on it to choose the path of peaceful solution, and offered their assistance and good offices. Their only demands have been that it accept the principle of human equality, release the political prisoners and seek negotiations with the genuine leaders and representatives of the great majority of the people.

Apartheid -. a matter of universal conccrn The correctness of the position of the United Nations and the OAU is reflected in growing support in all regions of the world. Apartheid in South Africa has become a matter of universal concern. Many Governments have imposed sanctions against South Africa at some sacrifice, and are giving substantial assistance to the victims of apartheid and to their liberation movements. Many public organizations, especially in Western countries, have devoted commendable efforts in support of African aspirations. This world-wide support is of crucial importance for the Black people of South Africa in their struggle for liberation. In order to maintain and strengthen this unity against apartheid it is essential that the United Nations and O.A.U. should constantly reiterate and defend the fundamenta.l principles of their common policy. Any action which will create confusion and divide their ranks - especially any action which will confuse the many States and organizations which have made sacrifices in defence of these principles - must be resisted. "Detente" and "dialogue" In connexion with the recent South African moves, it may be relevant to recall the past experience as regards dialogue with South Africa. The dialogue between the late United Nations Secretary-General Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, and South Africa in 1960-1961 resulted in no progress at all: South Africa utilized it to gain time after the world-wide indignation generated by the Sharpeville massacre. The South African regime launched a campaign for a dialogue - this time with African States - after armed struggles developed in the neighbouring colonial territories. This campaign was stepped up in 1970 when it became concerned over the mission of the Chairman of OAU to Western countries to persuade them to end military and other collaboration with South Africa. In the declaration adopted at its seventeenth ordinary session in June 1971, OAU Council of Ministers concluded that the proposal for a dialogue between the independent African States and the racist minority regime of South Africa "is a manoeuvre by that regime and its allies to divide African States, confuse world public opinion, relieve South Africa from international ostracism and isolation and obtain an acceptance of the status-quo in southern Africa." It declared that there then existed "no basis for a meaningful dialogue". More importantly it laid down the conditions for a dialogue: 1. It rejected any dialogue which is not designed solely to obtain for the enslaved people of South Africa their legitimate and inherent rights and the elimination of apartheid in accordance with the Lusaka Manifesto. 2. It agreed that any dialogue should appropriately be commenced only between the minority racist regime of South Africa and the people they are oppressing, exploiting and suppressing. 3. It also agreed that any action to be taken by Member States must be undertaken within the framework of OAU and in full consultation with the liberation movements.

This declaration did not, by any means, deprive South Africa of an opportunity to inform the United Nations and the world of any meaningful change in policy in compliance with the resolutions of the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Security Council, in February 1972, entrusted the Secretary-General with a mandate to contact the South African regime, the liberation movement of Namibia and other interested parties, to explore the possibilities for a just and peaceful solution of the problem of Namibia. After more than a year of contacts, the Security Council agreed that they had proved fruitless because of the intransigence and the manoeuvres of the South African rggime. The latest move for "detente" and "dialogue" was initiated by the South African regime because of its gr6wing isolation. As shown in this paper, there has been no evidence however, of a meaningful change in its policy and actions. It has shown no willingness to abandon racial discrimination nor to release the political prisoners nor to negotiate with the genuine representatives of the people. The purposes of the current South African moves are clearly to divert attention from the problem of apartheid, to counteract its growing isolation, to disrupt the United Nations efforts for concerted international action against apartheid, and to gain time in order to build up its military arsenal, to repress the resurgent resistance against apartheid in South Africa and enforce its plans for bantus tans. As the United Nations and OAU have already made it clear the South African regime must be told in clear terms that any meaningful "detente" or "dialogue" with respect to apartheid in South Africa should begin with the oppressed people and their liberation movements. Negotiations on Namibia can only be undertaken with the United Nations which has assumed responsibility for the Territory and the liberation movement which has been recognized by the world as the authentic representative of the people. Co--operation between the United Nations and OAU on further action In the absence of meaningful change in the situation, the United Nations is committed to intensifying its efforts - with the cooperation of Governments, and intergovernmental organizations - for the eradication of apartheid. Close co- operation between the United Nations and O.A.U. is vital for the success of these efforts. The General Assembly has called on the Special Committee against Apartheid to promote concerted international action for: - arms embargo against South Africa and cessation of all military cooperation wtth South Africa; - diplomatic, economic and other sanctions against the South African regime; cessation of emigration to South Africa; release of political prisoners in South Africa; ending of cultural, sporting and other contacts with the South African regime and with organizations and institutions which practise apartheid; - condemnation of bantustans; assistance to victims of apartheid and their liberation movements; dissemination of information against apartheid.

In pursuance of its mandate, the Special Committee has been engaged in contacts with many Governments and public organizations in the world. It has maintained close cooperation with OAU and the South African liberation movements which participate in all its meetings as observers. It greatly appreciates the invitations to attend sessions of appropriate OAU organs for an exchange of information and views. The Special Committee would welcome any proposals for even closer cooperation with OAU in the present stage of the common struggle against apartheid. Attention may perhaps be given to means for consultation and co- ordination with respect to: (a) missions to governments, inter-governmental organizations and conferences to promote action against apartheid; (b) encouragement of public campaigns against apartheid in all regions of the world; and (c) dissemination information on the inhumanity of apartheid, the legitimate struggle of the oppressed people and their liberation movements for freedom and equality, and international action for the eradication of apartheid. The Special Committee would appreciate OAU action with respect to States which have continued and increased military, economic and diplomatic collaboration with the South African regime despite the appeals of the Special Committee. It would, moreover, welcome urgent OAU action to persuade all States to cooperate in securing a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, and to prohibit or discourage emigration to South Africa.