APPENDIX 20

SWAPO STATEMENT BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL FOR NAMIBIA, COMMEMORATING AUGUST 26, READ BY THEO-BEN GURIRAB, AUGUST 24, 1973

AUGUST 26, 1973

On this day-August 26- -we the people of Namibia, under the revolutionary leadership of SWAPO, joined by our comrades-in-arms and friends the world over, commemorate two things.

On the one hand, we proudly recall our gallant anti-colonialist history marked by resistance against the Germans and the Portuguese, who ruthlessly and systematically exterminated and decimated large sections of the indigenous population of Namibia and criminally seized our land.

On the other hand, as a generation conceived, born and nurtured against this background, we have patriotically rededicated ourselves for now and for the future to the sacred cause for which our forefathers fought and died, but not in vain! Thus we also marked SWAPO's renewed struggle since August 26, 1966. Mr. President, Distinguished Members of the Council, Secretary General, Your Excellencies, Honourable Guests, Comrades, Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen, It was on this day seven years ago that SWAPO FREEDOM FIGHTERS fired the shots which have heralded a new and decisive phase in our long struggle for freedom and independence for Namibia. Thus the struggle turned from nonviolence to violence. The month of August is very significant in our political history!

It was in the month of August in 1884 that the Germans raised their flag in Namibia. Some of our people are commemorating the death of our national heroes and martyrs during the month of August. Once again, it is in this month that our people decisively and overwhelmingly rejected the farcical elections in Ovamboland aimed at further fragmentation of our country by the racists.

The enemy press reported in 1966: "State says SWAPO declared War on Whites *** on August 26". Thereafter they boasted in an official communication to the former Secretary General of the United Nations, U. Thant, that "South Africa will continue to combat terrorist activities by appropriate measures, including the 'Terrorism Act' at least until current political and social turmoil in Africa has abated and made way for greater stability." In the same note, the racist regime of Pretoria further made a ridiculous claim when it said, ". the Republic of South Africa cannot allow a group of trained terrorists to create a Vietcong-like reign of violence."

A founder-leader of SWAPO, Toivo Ja Toivo, now serving a 20-year sentence on Robben Island, South Africa, stated our position in 1968 during the trial of 37 Namibians in Pretoria. Ja Toivo declared: "We are Namibians and not South Africans. We do not now, and will not in the future recognise your right to govern us; to make laws for us in which we had no say; to treat our country as if it were your property and us as if you were our masters." Then he asked: "Is it surprising that in such times (we) have taken up arms? Violence is truly fearsome, but who would not defend his property and himself against a robber? And we believe that South Africa has robbed us of our land." He concluded by rededicating himself to the struggle:

"I am a loyal Namibian and I could not betray my people to their enemies. I admit that I decided to assist those who had taken up arms. I know that the struggle will be long and bitter. I also know that my people will wage that struggle, whatever the cost.'

"Only when we are granted our independence will the struggle stop. Only when our human dignity is restored to us, as equals of whites, will there be peace between us ***. Only when white South Africans realize this and act on it, will it be possible for us to stop our struggle for freedom and justice in the land of our birth."

No amount of false claims, pretenses, aggression or terrorism by the fascist regime of Pretoria will compel us to accept her illegal presence in Namibia. Needless to say here that the United Nations has revoked South Africa's Mandate over Namibia, and created this very Council as the interim administering authority. The advisory opinion of the World Court confirmed the revocation and urged the Pretoria regime to evacuate.

The situation in Namibia has never been the same since August 26 for the enemy; the armed struggle has gone on in the face of a heavy build-up of the racist-colonialist troops and police. The Chief of the South African Security Police, one Major-General H. J. van den Berg, complained about the activities of our Freedom Fighters in northern Namibia in October 1966. He said: "We have big problems in Ovamboland. The terrain and people are not known to our police. At places the border is only an imaginary one and it is difficult to apprehend these terrorists because they are moving continuously." The fact of the matter is the situation here as elsewhere in Namibia is turning in favour of the people's struggle and against the enemy.

With the taking up of arms, SWAPO of Namibia has resolved that ARMED STRUGGLE IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY TO BRING ABOUT THE LIBERATION OF NAMIBIA AND ALSO THAT THE SACRED RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY THAT THE MAIN BURDEN FOR THE LIBERATION OF OUR COUNTRY REST PRIMARILY ON THE NAMIBIANS TO CARRY THEM OUT AND THAT FINALLY THE PEOPLE OF NAMIBIA HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE ARMED REVOLUTION AS AN INEVITABILITY IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION AND NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.

For seven years now, we have been engaged in a bloody war aggressively forced upon us by the colonialist, illegal occupiers of our country. Of course, we have known all along the decolonization is always a violent process. Because it is the inevitable meeting of two forces, which are opposed to each other by their very nature, namely the oppressed against the oppressor; the exploited against the exploiter; the colonized against the colonizer; the people against the enemy and so forth. Colonialism denies human dignity to human beings whom it has subdued and is exploiting by violence and keeps them thus by force of arms. This lost humanity can only be redeemed by force. We see our struggle precisely in these terms.

What are the problems and prospects of our struggle? The prospects are becoming increasingly brighter! We believe firmly in the victory of our sacred cause. For it is the only result possible. But first the problems.

For decades the Namibian problem has been looked upon primarily as an international responsibility and numerous United Nations resolutions and proposals for international actions to evict South Africa from Namibia have been adopted, but to no avail. In this long process of undue preoccupation with legal technicalities and what the international community can or cannot do concerning Namibia, the people of Namibia were forgotten. Partly for this reason and partly due to regretable ignorance on the part of some quarters in the international community regarding the real situation in Namibia, it was wrongly argued that the Namibian problem is essentially an apartheid one. The eradication of apartheid in South Africa itself, this argument went, will ip so facto solve the problem in Namibia. It's a tantalising thought and a plausible case could be made for it in general terms. The idea is, however, untenable when we carefully analize the objective conditions and the practical problems in the two countries, notwithstanding the fact that our oppressor is the same.

In Namibia we are fighting a total war against South African colonialism, not for reforms or amelioration of the condition of the African majority. We are fighting to overhaul the entire colonial edifice.

Through our own initiatives and efforts at all fronts political, social, diplomatic and military, we have demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that we exist, oppressed and exploited but equally committed and determined to be heard and taken notice of. We now witness a change of attitude, in view of this, by so many individuals and groups, who thought and acted otherwise in the past.

Another problem has to do with the racist South Africa's notorious scheme of bantustanization of Namibia against the expressed opposition of the majority of the indigenous population of Namibia. The physical division of the various ethnic groups through this scheme coupled with numerous apartheid laws had created at times in the past some problems for effective organization, politicization and mobilization of the masses into the Liberation Movement. This divide-and-rule

device usually employed by the colonialists is being buttressed in Namibia by the hated South African troops and police who indiscriminately intimidate, brutalize, arrest and imprison our leaders, Party functionaries and members of the Liberation Movement.

But the fact of the matter is, they can isolate and exile the leaders of the Movement but they cannot forever suppress the persistent desire of our people to be free. The people of Namibia have persevered in unity in the face of all attempts by the illegal forces of South Africa in Namibia to divide and oppress them. They are telling Vorster and his cohorts: we are ONE PEOPLE FOR ONE NAMIBIA. Still on the problems of struggle, we must mention Omgulumbasha. For more than a year before the actual armed struggle started, SWAPO was building a political and military infrastructure inside Namibia from a clandestine base at Omgulumbasha, northern Namibia. The enemy helicopters later spotted this base and raided it. In the ensuing battle, many of our men were captured and flown to Pretoria for trial under the notorious "SWAPO ACT", otherwise known as the "Terrorism Act". Other SWAPOs lost their lives there and in custody. The act was passed in 1967 for us and made retroactive to 1962. 37 SWAPO members were tried and sentenced for terms ranging from 5 to 20 years. Explaining the retroactive provisions of this act, the racist Foreign Minister said in 1967 that the so-called terrorists had left Namibia in 1962 to receive military training. He further contended, "Their involvement has been uninterrupted. *** If the terrorists began an offensive in 1962 which only came into full effect in 1967, why should the counter-offensive not also be valid from the first day?"

On our side, this was indeed a heavy setback. We had to change our tactics and strategies since the enemy looted some confidential documents in the process, We have not only successfully rectified the situation since but we have also intensified and carried the struggle beyond the point where our comrades left it.

Finally, on the problems, we must mention the basic needs of which every liberation movement is in short supply, namely funds and materiels essential for the effective organisation and execution of the struggle.

Equally, or perhaps more significant has been the unprecedented nationwide strike by the labouring masses of Namibia. The aftermath of this strike is still being felt in the industrial and commercial life of the country and by the foreign capitalists who are exploiting our country and its people hand in hand with the South African regime.

Finally, Mr. President, we would like to thank all the distinguished ambassadors, dignitaries and honourable guests who have taken time out from their busy schedules to be with us today and to express their support and solidarity with us.

Today, as we commemorate our own seven years of armed struggle and sacrifices, we pay homage to our fallen comrades. They will forever remain in our hearts as national heroes and martyrs. But we must also pay homage to all those who laid their lives down in order to liberate Mankind from the shackles of colonialism, imperialism, neo-colonialism and rascist reaction.

In conclusion, Mr. President, our revolutionary promise to them is that we shall leave no stone unturned, give up no ground gained and shall spare no life when called for, to make Namibia free and independent within the shortest possible time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

APPENDIX 21

STATEMENT DELIVERED BY MR. NUJOMA, PRESIDENT OF SWAPO, BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 5, 1971

Mr. President, distinguished members of the Security Council, there are privileges in life that should be accompanied by particular solemnity. The privilege that your august body has bestowed upon me as the first Freedom Fighter to be accorded this opportunity, indeed is one of such privileges. Aware of this stupendous task that rests upon my shoulders today, Mr. President, allow me to express my most sincere debt of gratitude to you and through you to the distinguished Members of the Security Council.

Mr. President, this session of the Security Council has been convened to discuss ways and means of enforcing previous decisions of the United Nations General Assembly as well as those of the Security Council in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21st June, 1971. The International Court gave an unequivocal ruling when it stated: "The continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under the obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the territory". Discussing this opinion, The_New York Times stated that, "With this historic thirteen-to-two verdict, the Court has cleared away the legal and political fog that for years obscured the status of the former German colony." Thus, the Namibian people and the peace-loving people of the world have won the legal contest. Now it is up to the Security Council to live up to its responsibility.

Mr. President, the United Nation's is confronted with the most determined and most serious onslaught on its principles since the organization was set up. Therefore, the Security Council, as an organ on which its members conferred primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, should and must not fail, to take authoritative and decisive action. This time, Mr. President, we are not asking for declaratory statements which have no effect on the illegal occupation forces. On the contrary, we are imploring your august body to take concrete and immediate action under Chapter VII. In that Chapter, Article 39 of the Charter enjoins upon the Security Council the duty to determine the existence of any threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression, and that it shall take appropriate action. Who can doubt that these conditions are now prevalent. Who can doubt that a case has arisen for the Security Council to take action as provided in Articles 40 and 41? The only people who doubt this are the Western major powers. They do so, not because the situation in Namibia does not threaten international peace and security, but because they want their agents in South Africa, to continue providing them with cheap labour which results in enormous profits for their investors. How long will these people who profess to be the champions of equality, democracy, and free speech pursue their insatiated greed for material things and ignore the value of human life? How can the situation in Namibia be described as peaceful when South Africa is arming herself to teeth with the most advanced weapons of destruction? How does one explain the fact that the South African army is today fighting in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe? How does one explain the constant threats made against independent African states. For instance, Vorster threatened President Kaunda of Zambia in the following terms: "We will hit you so hard so that you will not forget". And lastly, what is to become of international law, if the countries represented here can ignore with impunity any interpretation of law that is not in their favour? Where are the advocates of "law and order"?

We welcome the stand taken by the government of the United States in accepting the advisory opinion of ICJ as stated by Secretary of State William Rogers in the General Assembly; we hope the United States will follow up this responsibility with appropriate measures to end South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia.

Mr. President, the South African Foreign Minister gave "facts and figures" on the economic development of Namibia which, if one does not read between the lines, imply that South African presence in Namibia has rewarding economic and other benefits to both the black majority and the white minority alike.

Least the members of this Council and the world at large be bamboozzled, we would like to point out two very important factors which must be borne in mind with respect to the situation in Namibia.

First: We wish to make it perfectly clear to the world that the African majority do not manifestly benefit either financially or materially from the economic development of Namibia. If there is indeed any benefit at all, it is only marginal or latent and certainly not to the extent in which the whites benefit. Hence, all those impressive "facts and figures" so dramatically revealed by the Minister, have no bearing on economic conditions of the African population.

Secondly: Everything in Namibia—as well as in South Africa—is geared towards benefiting the white section of the population. Hence, any economic planning is carried out for the interest of the white minority at the expense of Africans. We want this fact to be appreciated for what it is.

Thirdly: The South African Foreign Minister again gave figures meant to prove to the world how much the South African Government is doing for the Africans: number of hospitals, number of schools, radio stations, tarred roads, nurses, clerks, bookkeepers and truck drivers, etc. These are meant to show how much Pretoria has done for us. Mr. President, we want it to be perfectly clear to the world that we want Independence. We want South Africa to relinquish her illegal occupation of Namibia. We will never be wooed by roads, hospitals, schools, etc. as long as South Africa remains on Namibian soil. Again, we want the world to appreciate this fact for what it is. Mr. President, the South African Foreign Minister stated that his Government is making "determined efforts to bring the peoples of South West Africa toward self-government". Sir, this is a gross abuse of the noble concept of self-determination and a euphemism for apartheid or Bantustan or Homeland. Sir, I think it is appropriate for me to quote what our people at home had to say about Bantustans. Bishop L. Auala and Pastor P. Gowaseb in both the open letter to Vorster himself and to their respective members made the following points:

***"The Government, by the application of the Homeland's policy constitutes to the creation and continuation forever of the divisions between the races. It is stated that this policy is intended to lead the races to selfgovernment and independence. But our small race groups cannot really be aided by separation. They will be isolated and denied the chance to take a proper part in the development of the country."

In another incident, a group of students at Ondangua stated that:" *** Ovambos would rather suggest to Vorster and his company to create WHITESTANS for Germans, Afrikaners and English elsewhere, but not in Namibia."

Mr. President, there are factors militating against and, indeed, precluding the successful implementation of Bantustans. The economic realities of our time require large expanses of land and massive populations to provide the base for markets. Thus, a five-year development plan for Ovamboland, in isolation, is an illusion of hope. It is economically unfeasible, and therefore politically unrewarding. The social and economic expectations of the people of this region will most certainly over-ride the fantasies of apartheid.

The spokesman for the White people of South Africa further stated that, "Per capita income is amongst the highest in Africa." Economists have long admitted that this jumbling of figures in order to arrive at a so-called per capita income, is the most inaccurate way of measuring the real income of a person. It may only approximate reality in a country where there is an equal distribution of national wealth. It is completely inapplicable in the case of Namibia where there is such a disparity in incomes. Namibians are among the poorest Africans I have seen. I wish to inform Dr. Mueller that he does not know Africa, and therefore he should refrain from making unrealistic and highly misleading comparisons with other African states. When economists talk about poverty of a given people, they talk in terms of relative deprivation. Dr. Mueller should therefore compare Namibian African disposable income with that of the White Namibians or White South Africans. He will realize immediately that the African income is at the subsistence level.