13. The Council for Namibia should give priority to seeking representation of Namibia in intemational conferences, and in all activities concerning Namibia.

14. The United Nations should prepare a paper on the world-wide interests of AMEX, RTZ, Pechiney and Falconbridge, for the use of countries where these firms have interests.

ACTION COMMISSION

Conclusions

1.

That there should be an active commitment by governments, international organizations and national bodies to SWAPO and the liberation struggle in Namibia and that financial and material aid should be provided as a matter of urgency.

2. That there should be national campaigns for the recognition of SWAPO as the authentic organ of the people of Namibia and unequivocal support for the armed struggle. 3. That there should be a clear recognition that the liberation of Namibia will be undertaken by the people of Namibia and that all other agencies and organizations must consider themselves as servants of the people of Namibia and their liberation movement.

4. That greater emphasis must be paid to the illegality of all forms of collaboration with the racist apartheid state in Namibia. In particular: investments; economic, trading, shipping, monetary and fiscal links with South Africa which relate to Namibia must not only be discouraged but considered as illegal so that priority should be given to the withdrawal of such forms of assistance. Disengagement is the urgent task facing the solidarity struggle.

Action Proposals

1. Greater emphasis should be paid to August 26th as the day of Solidarity with the people of Namibia. In some states it may be possible to organize a Week of Solidarity with SWAPO either around the 26th August or if this is not possible, at some other time of the year to focus public attention on Namibia.

2.

That publicity, information and propoganda must be porduced in a form palatable to the general public.

3.

That, recognizing that different conditions apply in different countries, there should be coordination of effort and, especially, publicity at the international level. This is especially important for following up the decisions of the International Conference. An international bulletin on Namibia was proposed as one form of coordination.

4.

That the conference decisions should be brought to the attention of important international and regional organizations so that there would be greater understanding of the issues relating to Namibia and the necessity for action. In particular, it was suggested that delegations to the Organization of African Unity and the EEC might be

sent.

5.

That the international trade union movements should coordinate their work to combat South Africa and to provide assistance to the people of Namibia. Greater emphasis should be laid on work in different states especially in Western Europe to the work of the education of the labour movement.

6. That activity against individual firms with strong links in Namibia: e.g. Rio Tinto Zinc, should be undertaken. Subsidiaries of such firms operating in Africa and Asia should be pressurized to demand the withdrawal of their parent companies from Namibia.

7.

That humanitarian assistance should be provided in different forms to SWAPO and the Namibian people. Campaigns on political prisoners held by South Africa would help to focus attention on South Africa's treatment of the Namibian people. Campaigns to force South Africa to treat SWAPO guerrillas as prisoners of war, assistance of the families of political prisoners, aid for the legal defence of all victims of apartheid would assist in the solidarity work.

8. That urgent priority should be given to the strict observance of the arms embargo ordered by the Security Council against South Africa. In particular, the NATO countries must be discouraged by popular campaigns to stop supply ing South Africa with the weapons which are being used to suppress the people of Namibia and to combat SWAPO.

9. That all activity which isolates South Africa in the economic, political, diplomatic, sporting and cultural areas, would assist the Namibia people in their struggle. In particular, it was proposed that there should be no trade or association agreement between the EEC and South Africa, and if the EEC accepts South Africa's right to act for Namibia that it should be recognized that the EEC were acting illegally.

10. That campaigns should be launched, especially in the trade union movement in Europe, to discourage emigration to South Africa, because such white emigration directly assists South Africa to maintain its power structure in Namibia.

11. That national organizations should demand that their own churches should

support the World Council of Churches in their stand on Southern Africa and especially the WCC programme of aid and assistance to the liberation movements.

AN URGENT APPEAL OF THE NAMIBIA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

TO THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

1. Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 1966 and subsequent decisions of the United Nations, together with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, 1971, have declared that South Africa's presence in Namibia constitutes a flagrant violation of international law.

2. Legal authority over Namibia lies not with the South African Government but with the UN Council for Namibia; arrangements negotiated with South Africa are therefore subject not only to challenge in courts of law, but to repudiation by the authentic representatives of the people of the territory.

3.

Moreover, economic supportive links provided for the South African regime by member states of the EEC and by negotiations between the EEC and the South African Republic, serve and would serve to reinforce the illegal South African occupation of Namibia to obstruct the assertion of international authority and to impede the just struggle for independence of the Namibian people.

4.

This Namibia International Conference therefore makes an urgent appeal to the EEC and its members to reject all negotiations and dealings with the South African Government and to make a principled commitment refusing to recognize South Africa as the authority over Namibia.

APPENDIX 19

REPORT OF VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS (JANUARY 13 TO JANUARY 19, 1974) INCLUDING REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF The State vs. Theo Kotze, JAN. 14-15, 1974

I was in South Africa from Sunday, 13 January to Saturday, 19 January.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR. BEYERS NAUDÉ

The primary object of the visit was to attend as an observer on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists the trial of Dr. Beyers Naudé, Peter Randall and Danie van Zyl, who are being prosecuted in their capacity as Directors of the Ravan Press (the press of the Christian Institute). The trial was due to start on Tuesday January 15, but as one of the defendants, Peter Randall, was summoned to appear in court that day at Pretoria under another charge, it had been decided (as I learned on arrival) to adjourn the Johannesburg case. This is now due to be heard on February 28. The charge in this case is preferred under the Suppression of Communism Act and arises out of the sale of one copy of a broadsheet which contained two quotations from Paul Pretorius, one of the recently banned NUSAS students. It is consequently an offence to publish any statement by him. Arrangements had been made to obliterate these passages before the broadsheet was sold, but this copy was sold inadvertently during a lunch hour by a girl who was not one of the normal sales staff and who thought it was in order to sell it. In spite of the fact that the offence was committed purely inadvertently, the authorities have thought fit to prosecute. It is believed that a second charge may be preferred under the Publications and Entertainments Act in relation to four posters produced by the press. The charge would be that the posters were "likely to cause feelings of hostility between the races". Reproductions of the posters will be found in Peter Randall's SPROCAS report "A Taste of Power".

TRIAL OF REV. THEO KOTZE

In view of the adjournment of the Ravan Press case, I decided to attend the trials which were due to be held during the week at Pretoria against Dorothy Clemenshaw, Theo Kotze, Peter Randall, Brian Brown, Roelf Meyer and Danie van Zyl, all members of the staff of the Christian Institute, for having refused to testify before the Schlebusch Commission. The trial of Dorothy Clemenshaw had started the previous week. On Monday morning judgment was given against her, in which she was held guilty and fined 20 Rand (or 10 days imprisonment in default) and in addition given a sentence of 2 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years on condition that she did not during that period refuse again to give evidence before a Commission if called upon to do so.

The trial then began against the Rev. Theo Kotze. A report of this trial is at Appendix A. Owing to objections by the Schlebusch Commission to evidence which the magistrate had permitted to be given, this incompleted trial is adjourned until February 20. Dates of the other trials have been fixed as follows: Peter Randall, 4 February; Roelf Meyer, 20 March; Brian Brown, 22 March; Danie van Zyl, 26 March.

INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONS CONFERENCE

As there were no further trials of interest to be held during my week in South Africa, I went to Cape Town on Tuesday evening to attend the Institute of Race Relations Conference on the Future of the Homelands. The Conference was attended by most of the leading homeland chiefs. The principal event at the Conference was a lecture given by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi before an audience of

1,300 people. The audience was almost entirely white, and included members of the diplomatic corps. Apart from the fact that this was the first time Chief Buthelezi had addressed a large white audience, interest in the occasion was enhanced by the recent joint declaration by Chief Buthelezi and one of the United Party's leaders, Mr. Schwarz, which was receiving a great deal of publicity in the press.

In his lecture Chief Buthelezi outlined in much greater detail than ever before his ideas for a federal solution to the racial question with enlarged and consolidated "homelands" with an African majority, but in which whites and, in particular, white farmers would remain with guarantees for their property rights. Africans who went to work in the white areas would require travel documents and work permits on the pattern of migrant workers in the European Economic Community. The pass laws would be swept away. The speech attracted a great deal of publicity and received favourable comment in the English speaking press. No reaction from the government had been published by the time I left. The Rand Daily Mail of January 16 gave a full report of the proposals.

Chief Buthelezi's proposals received the support of other homeland chiefs the following day. There is no doubt that he is now the outstanding African leader in South Africa, and indeed is the only one who has a truly national appeal. He is a popular speaker and has obvious qualities of statesmanship. I saw him alone for about 20 minutes. He expressed appreciation of the work of the International Commission of Jurists in sending observers to trials. I asked him to arrange for us to be informed when trials were about to take place of Africans which he considered to be of more than usual importance. I told him of our study on South Africa and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the current number of "Objective Justice". I also told him of the proposed NGO Conference on Southern Africa under the UN programme for the Decade on the Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination. I told him that the liberation movements would be attending and asked what his reaction would be to an invitation to attend, if one were forthcoming. He said he did not know if the authorities would allow him to come, but for his part he would be glad to do so. He had recently attended a meeting of the OAU in Addis Ababa. He agreed that it was important that the viewpoint of Africans who thought that a federal solution was possible should be made better known abroad, and in particular in UN circles.

MEETING WITH MINISTER OF JUSTICE

On Wednesday afternoon I was received by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Pelser. I had offered to make a courtesy call. It is apparently rare for him to receive foreign lawyers, and the fact that he did so occasioned some surprise. He asked what view the International Commission of Jurists had formed over the years of the judicial system (as opposed to the laws) in South Africa. I said we thought highly of the quality and independence of the profession and of the superior judges, and of the way in which the courts conducted their trials. I added that our only regret was that more use was not made of them. The Minister similed at this. I then raised the question of banning orders and asked whether it was not possible to introduce some safeguards, such as the giving of reasons for the order, with a right of appeal to the courts or to a Review Tribunal. He rejected the idea of an appeal to the courts but did not rule out a Review Tribunal. We discussed in some detail how such a tribunal might function. I got the impression that this proposal might be worth pursuing (though the present Minister will shortly be retiring as he is not standing at the next election; his deputy, a more formidable character, is likely to succeed him). The discussion, which lasted for 25 minutes, was conducted throughout in a courteous and friendly manner.

MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE JOHANNESBURG Bar

I returned to Johannesburg on Thursday morning in order to lunch with six senior counsel who have acted as defense counsel in political trials (Maisels Q.C., Welch Q.C., Kentridge S.C., Schreiner S.C., Coaker S.C., and Kriegler S.C.). I also met separately Arthur Susman Q.C. When in Cape Town I was urged by Professor Matthews of Durban and Professor John Dugard of Witwatersrand to try to persuade the leaders of the Johannesburg Bar to form a group who would work out and put forward constructive proposals for reform in the field of civil rights, in particular proposals for introducing procedural safeguards. I did so, and said that if they did form such a group and wished to be linked with the ICJ either as a national section or an affiliated organization, we would welcome it, though we would well understand if they preferred not to. The usual difficulties