According to the report of the Department of Bantu Education for 1969, 87,678 African children were then receiving education. Of these, 77% were in lower primary schools, 20.8% in higher primary and only 2% were receiving post-primary or teacher training. A small amount of technical education is now available, but there is still no university education.

The Bantustan "homelands" policy

Although the United Nations General Assembly in October 1966 terminated South Africa's mandate over Namibia and later, in May 1967, created the Council for Namibia to govern the Territory, South Africa refused to recognize the mandate's termination and continues to this day its illegal government of the Territory. With the termination of the mandate the Republic pursued openly the course which it had hitherto attempted to veil, namely the complete control of the Territory and its resources, both natural and human.

Towards this end, South Africa in 1968-69 adopted two significant pieces of legislation affecting the international status and territorial integrity of Namibia. The first, the South West Africa Affairs Act, which came into effect in 1969, reduced Namibia, in effect, to the status of a fifth province of the Republic. Until then, the South West Africa Constitution Act of 1968 (replacing the South West Africa Constitution Act, 1925) had empowered the South West African Legislative Assembly (itself elected by and composed only of whites) to legislate on those subjects not already reserved to the South African Parliament.

The subjects as to which South Africa exercised exclusive control included such vital matters as African affairs, customs and excise, railways and harbours, police, external affairs, immigration, civil service, health, agriculture, mining, commerce and industry. To this already extensive list, the South West Africa Affairs Act added still others: the administration of justice, water affairs, control of publications, matters relating to riotous assemblies and engendering of feelings of hostility between the races, the registration of births, marriages and deaths. Especially important, the South West Africa Affairs Act provided for the direct payment of the major revenues of the Territory, including the taxes and mining duties, previously controlled by the South West African Legislative Assembly, to the South African Government. The South West African Legislative Assembly was left with the functions of provincial legislative councils in South Africa, such as roads, licensing, various local authority functions and white education.

Thus, as the preliminary stage of its over-all plan, the South West Africa Affairs Act serves to consolidate South Africa's power over the Territory. The critical part of its plan, however, is the "homeland (i.e. Bantustan) policy", as promulgated by the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act No. 54 of 1968. The "homelands policy" was the outcome of a report submitted by a government commission (referred to generally as the Odendaal Commission) appointed in 1962 to examine geographic, economic and political conditions in South West Africa. Although the preamble to the Act states that it was introduced for the purpose of enabling native

nations in South West Africa to develop in an orderly manner towards self-government and independence, the provisions of the Act reveal its true intent. The Act defines "homelands" for six of the African peoples-Kaokoland, Okavangoland, Ovamboland, Eastern Caprivi, Damaraland and Hereroland-but the "homelands" or Bantustans constitute only 39.6% of the poorest and least desirable land of the Territory. The bulk of the habitable land is reserved, together with all the diamond and most of the other mines, for the white settlers, who-Afrikaner, German and English-will remain together as before. The borders of the African "homelands” are carefully drawn to exclude mineral deposits, sea ports, transportation and communication facilities and urban areas.

The Odendaal Commission's report itself admits to the unviability of a number of the proposed Bantustans. About Okavangoland, it stated:

"The extensive grassy plains in the south can be grazed only as long as stored rainwater is available in the pans, while portions adjacent cannot be utilized at all because of the lack of water" (para. 1219).

"Soils in the central area are already being intensively cultivated so that it is doubtful whether any increase in grain yields can be expected in these parts" (para. 1221).

"Irrigation would be uneconomic and therefore cannot be recommended" (para. 1221).

About Kaokoland to be formed of the Kaokoveld, it reported:

"owing to the unfavourable rainfall and the absence of large-scale irrigation possibilities the Kaokoveld will always have to import its food requirements" (para. 1228).

In addition, 80% of the "homeland" allocated to the Herero people is without water except for scant periods. And the Damara "homeland" is similarly of little economic value and provides no local employment except in two tin mines.

Furthermore, the Government's claim that the Bantustan "homelands" conform to the Territory's ethnic culture, tradition and history is belied by the extensive relocation of peoples that implementation of the plan, already begun, will require. It is estimated that 28.6% of the nonwhite (African and Coloured) population will be required to relocate. Of 65,000 Damaras, 95% lived outside their Damara "homeland" at the implementation of the plan. Pastor Gowaseb of the Lutheran Evangelical Church told the South African Prime Minister in a published statement that all the aged who were moved to their Damara "homeland" in 1967 died in destitution and misery. The resettlement of the Herero, 74% of whom live outside the semidesert designated for them, has been resisted, but part of the Government's tactics to force removal has been to threaten to remove water pumps from the existing Herero reserves and to refuse access to additional boreholes.

Thus while the "homelands policy" speaks of "selfdetermining homelands", it ignores that fact that these so-called "independent" Bantustans are intended forever to

be economically dependent on the adjacent territory reserved for the whites on whose farms and in whose mines Africans will have to continue to work in order to sustain themselves and their families. It is not difficult to foresee that the ultimate effect of this balkanization of Namibia may be the partition and disintegration of the Territory and its political absorption into South Africa. Morever, as has been pointed out already, the whole economy has become integrated with that of South Africa. Far from providing the road towards genuine independence, the Bantustan policy is really a way of maintaining the status quo according to which the natural wealth of Namibia will continue under the control of whites, and Africans will have to continue their way of life as migrant labourers under the contract labour system in order to survive.

Recent events in Namibia

The Ovambos, who constitute Namibia's largest ethnic group and supply almost all the contract labour, have already begun to protest against white exploitation of their labour. The general strike in 1971-1972 has already been recounted. As might have been expected, the South African Government countered the strike with stiff opposition involving the arrest of more than 70 political leaders and leading to clashes with police that resulted in the death of at least eight Ovambos. Since the end of the strike in February 1972, Ovamboland has been subject to emergency regulations amounting to a modified form of martial law. These emergency regulations (as gazetted in Proclamation 17 of 4 February and as amended by Proclamation 26 of 14 February) prohibited all meetings and gatherings other than church services, sporting events and sessions of government bodies, except by permit. And even with respect to legally held gatherings, provision was made for barring certain individuals if the Government deemed it desirable. In addition, the vaguely defined crime was created of "subversive or intimidating statements or actions" which included taking part in a boycott, refusing to obey a chief or headman or treating a chief or headman with disrespect. The arrest and indefinite detention was authorized of anyone who was believed to have committed or intended to commit an offence under the Proclamations or under any other law, as well as anyone who was believed to have any information about such persons. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice was empowered to restrict the travel of any person within, going to or leaving Ovamboland. The regulations also prevent anyone under arrest from consulting a lawyer unless given specific permission to do so by the Minister of Bantu Administration or one of his officials.

Although the strike had begun over the appalling working and living conditions of the contract labourers, the strikers began to realize that these conditions were the result of the exploitation and occupation of their country by South Africa and began to demand their complete liberation from South African rule. The strike proved to be one of the most successful efforts by Africans in Namibia to organize themselves. In February 1972, a national convention of non-white political parties, movements and organizations was held in Rehoboth for the purpose of coordinating action for a unified and independent Namibia.

Chiefs and head men working within the framework of government policy were significantly not invited. Among the parties represented were the Rehoboth Volkspartei, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the National Unity Democratic Organization (NUDO), the South West African National Union (SWANU), the South West Africa United National Independence Party and the Voice of the People. The convention was successful in carrying a stage further the unity of these groups and overcoming the traditional tribal rivalries which are perpetuated by the South African Government in its goal to keep Namibia fragmented.

Later that year, on May 26-28, the SWAPO leaders abroad convened a Namibia international conference in Brussels to examine the responsibilities of United Nations Member States in relation to Namibia, following the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1971. The conference adopted an 11-point programme stating that "all activity which isolates South Africa in the economic, political, diplomatic, sporting and cultural areas would assist the Namibian people in their struggle". After the international conference in Brussels, the Ovambo and Kavango Legislative Councils officially requested the South African Government to ban SWAPO in Namibia, stating that SWAPO was largely responsible for the unrest during the strike of the previous year. SWAPO, together with the Democratic Co-operative Development Party, whose leader, Mr. Johannes Nangutuuala, was prominent in the strike, countered with a 97% effective boycott of Ovamboland's first Bantustan election on 1-2 August 1973. The election was condemned as a sham inasmuch as the emergency regulations in force in Ovamboland, prohibiting political meetings held without permission, destroyed all chance for opposition groups to win any of the elected seats.

The successful boycott of the election strongly suggests that the majority of support, in Ovamboland at least, rests with the nationalist movements which advocate independence for Namibia as a unified state and not with the local African chiefs acting with the support of the South African Government. Indeed, it is questionable how much support there exists for any of the local legislative councils in Namibia inasmuch as they exist only through the approval of the South African Government and are, in fact, the means through which South Africa locally rules the Tribal Reserves of the northern zone. It can be readily seen that local rule through chiefs and headmen whose appointment is subject to approval by the Government has the advantage that responsibility for policies is deflected from the white Government to local Africans, and popular resentment is turned inwards. In fact, the local legislatve councils serve little other purpose since their powers are seriously circumscribed, real power being retained in the South African Government acting through the State President and the Ministers of Bantu Administration and Bantu Education. Even in the new self-governing" Bantustans of Ovamboland and Kavangolahd, ultimate legislative and executive power remains vested in the State President of South Africa. Writing to the London Times, the exiled Anglican Bishop of Damaraland, the Reverend Colin Winter, referring to local Council membership, stated:

"Many of the members of the newly created legislative councils in Ovambo and Kavango cannot read or write, are paid by the white South African Government, and seem to have lost the confidence of their people".

In view of this it is not surprising that the Chief Councillor of the Ovambo Executive Council told the United Nations Secretary-General, Kurt Waldheim, during his visit to Namibia in 1972 that the people did not want a unified state of Namibia and supported South Africa's policies. On the other hand, the leaders among the Damaras, the second largest ethnic group, formally opposed South Africa's offer for Bantustan status in a statement saying:

"South West Africa is one land and cannot be divided. The Damara people cannot be given 'territorial authority' as a separate little piece of chicken run. Any attempt to go ahead will be seen by us as a purposeful attempt to force it on us against our will."

Headman Osker Khuruxab, spokesman for the Damara Executive Committee of chiefs and head men claiming the support of 90% of the nation, said in a statement:

"On behalf of the majority of the Damara, I want to put it clearly that we do not want the South African Government to govern South West Africa any longer. The time has now come for the South African Government to withdraw from South West Africa and make way for an international government."

During his visit to Namibia in November 1972, Dr. Alfred Escher, Mr. Waldheim's specially appointed representative, met 74 delegations in private, the majority of whom supported the establishment of a unified, independent Namibia. His first meeting was with a 25-member delegation from the National Convention of Non-Whites, which included the National Chairman in Namibia of SWAPO, the president of the South West Africa National Union (SWANU) and Mr. Clemens Kapuuo, leader of the Herero Council of Chiefs. They stressed the illegality of South Africa's continued presence, demanded the abolition of all discriminatory measures and said that the homelands policy was no substitute for a unified sovereign state. The same views were expressed separately by the Damara Tribal Executive, the Rehoboth Baster Council and the spokesmen for the Namas, the Kaokovelders and the Caprivians.

Following the meetings between Dr. Escher and South/ African Prime Minister Vorster, an Advisory Council to be drawn from representatives of the various regions and ethnic groups was proposed. But the National Convention announced that it was totally opposed to the formation of such a council and that its objective was to get South Africa out of Namibia and establish an independent state. The idea for an Advisory Council as outlined by Mr. Vorster was unacceptable, though they were prepared to accept a consultative body on an interim basis, provided that it was supervised by the United Nations and was truly repre sentative of the people.

The Territory of Namibia has been under the observation of the international community for some 25 years. Up until the termination of the mandate in 1966, the South African Government had been repeatedly urged to fulfill its obligations assumed under the mandate to provide for the social, moral and material well-being of the inhabitants placed under its care in the name of "the sacred trust of civilization". Having failed to perform its obligations in good faith by the practice of apartheid and acts compromising the territorial integrity of Namibia, the world body of nations had no choice but to remove the "sacred trust" which it had once bestowed.

Since that time, the South African Government has been repeatedly called upon to end its illegal occupation of Namibia. Instead of complying, the South African Government has tightened its strangle-hold on the Territory, depriving its people of their wealth and their right and ability to develop into a free and self-supporting nation. It has built up its own military strength within the country and has implemented measures which have led to all but official annexation of the Territory.

The degree of technical refinement to which the application of apartheid has been brought in Namibia has earned South Africa the highest place in the scale of regimes which practise racial discrimination in the modern world. An abundance of evidence has made it all too clear that the existence and lives of native Africans within the system of apartheid serves no other purpose than to further the economic and social progress of the white minority. Thus the African has come to be regarded merely as a means and never as an end in himself, in defiance of that very basic right "to life, liberty and security" which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seeks to safeguard. If a tragedy is to be avoided in Namibia, it will only be as a result of an effort-by deeds more than by words of the community of nations-together and in the individual capacity of each-to free the Namibian people from the yoke of South African rule.

To fail in Namibia now, and ultimately in South Africa itself, is to be accessory to the crimes committed there and to share in what has already become a blot on civilization.