For example, last year, during Easter holidays, we launched a very successful ambush in that region of Easkn Capriuir where we managed to capture NATO made weapons, South African and other Western Countries have been denying at the U.N. and other international forums that South Africa is using NATO weapons against us in Namibia. We have disproved this because we displayed what we captured during that ambush at the OAU summit in Addis Ababa last May where international journalists were able to witness the feat for themselves. We-as I have indicated during my testimony, are concentrating at all fronts at the United Nations through the U.N. Consul for Namibia, and through various committees that deal with the question of decolonization. We organized in the 1972 International Conference in Brussels, Belgium where we tried to internationalize the Namibian question, particularly within the Western World. We are also at the same time through political mobilization and political education, teaching our people ínside the country to take up the matter of liberation of Namibia upon themselves because we believe that what is needed in the kind of struggle we are engaged in is the support from the people, for all the people to be engaged in the liberation movement and this has been the general attitude in our struggle, and in the last few years, starting from 1971, we have been witnessing an increasing coming together of our people inside the country and, of course, this is our objective. This has been our intention that we will mobilize our people and they will support the liberation movement headed by SWAPO.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Was there any indication of the source of the weapons?

Mr. GURIRAB. The weapons we captured were of Belgian and British make.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Was there any protest lodged?

Mr. GURIRAB. Yes, we lodged a protest in our publication as I said, we mentioned this in the statements that we made in the U.N. as well as the OAU where we displayed the weapons. We of course, initially issued a press statement from Africa.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Could you supply for the record the recommendations of the Brussels conference?

Mr. GURIRAB. Yes.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Mrs. Landis, could you comment on two things.
One, the reconstituted Council for Namibia and, second, the new
Commissioner-what are the prospects?

Mrs. LANDIS. Thank you, the reconstituted Council is really the same Council with seven new members. Originally, there were 11 members, as Mr. Gurirab testified; seven new members were added. At the time when the Council was first established the United States and all the Western powers refused to sit on the Council; and for reasons of their own, the Russians also refused to take a seat on the Council. And as a result, the Council consisted largely of Third World countries with. relatively small populations; generally they were not the wealthier or stronger powers in the United Nations.

When the People's Republic of China was admitted to the United Nations, it asked for a seat on the Council in line with its general policy of advocating liberation for all people. When the People's Republic made that request, the Russians immediately thereafter also

requested a seat on the Council, and the result was that seven new members were seated, including Africans, several countries from Eastern Europe, and China.

There was some question, I believe, as to whether at least one of the Scandinavian countries would join the United Nations Council for Namibia at that time, but there still is no representative of Western Europe, except by courtesy, Turkey, which is frequently referred to as the Western power on the Council for Namibia.

The United States has still shown no interest in joining the Council, and neither has France or Great Britain.

The new Commissioner for Namibia is Sean MacBride, who was at one time Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic and has since been associated with both Amnesty International and with the International Commission of Jurists.

For the first time since the Council was created, there now is a fulltime Commissioner who has a full-time interest in the work of the Council. Up to this time, the Commissioner has been an Acting Commissioner whose first interest was in his other position, whatever it might have been, in the United Nations.

Now, Mr. MacBride has already met with the Council and has gone over to Africa to consult with those countries adjoining Namibia, which have a particular interest in the problems of Namibia. He plans to meet with ÕAU officials in Ethiopia and will be back in a couple of weeks to start what he hopes to be an active program. I feel that the nomination of a full-time Commissioner-and particularly of a person of the caliber of Mr. MacBride-will make it possible for the Council to undertake effective action. Certainly, the Council has desperately needed an executive officer who could give the time and kind of administrative direction to the Council's activities which up to now has been impossible.

Mrs. BUTCHER. The chairman announced in his opening statement that we hoped to have the Securities and Exchange Commission come before the committee at our next hearing.

Did any of your suggestions in the pamphlet which you have submitted for the record, include the question of registration of companies?

Mrs. LANDIS. There was a very brief reference on page 23.

I hope that one of the projects which the Council will consider will be the drafting and enactment of laws for Namibia, and I understand that Mr. MacBride is interested in such a project. Among the legislation which has been talked about from time to time are laws relating to taxations, land registration, and registration of companies and corporations.

I might add there is another aspect which probably should be of concern to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that is the whole problem of prospectuses of corporations which do business in Namibia. Obviously, at least as to those that have gained their concessions since 1966 when the mandate was revoked, there is a serious question whether they have valid title, valid concessions.

If they are engaged in exploiting minerals, as most of them are, then the question is whether they have good title to the minerals which they ship out as well as to the land that they claim to own. This leads to the further question whether in any prospectus they should be en

titled to list these as assets without the usual qualifications which the Securities and Exchange Commission insists upon when title is in question.

Mrs. BUTCHER. In that same connection, with respect to the corporations that were there before 1966, what would be your view regarding concessions which are acquired by these same companies, or extended after 1966?

Mrs. LANDIS. I think that there would be no question that any concession that was extended or acquired after 1966 would be invalid. Furthermore, there is a very interesting legal question which I really can't do more than speculate about, arising from the fact that in 1969, under the South African Companies Act, all Southwest African corporations were reregistered as South African corporations. Whether this would be sufficient to jeopardize their interests acquired even earlier, I don't know. But there certainly is a legal question which could be raised about this.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Has the International Commission of Jurists reviewed the situation in Namibia?

Mrs. LANDIS. From time to time, the Commission has reviewed the situation, and there have been a number of articles touching on the lack of rule of law in Namibia. Mr. Wachholz may know more about that. I don't know whether there has been any major publication on Namibia. I just am not sure.

Mrs. BUTCHER. One question concerns the application of chapter VII. Last year we vetoed a resolution on Rhodesia which would have applied pro tanto sanctions to South Africa. Has there been any similar type of suggestion for Namibia? Do you understand I am referring to sanctions which would be only in part and in proportion to South Africa's trade as a result of doing business with Namibia or as a result of Namibia's input?

Mrs. LANDIS. I don't know about pro tanto sanctions. I do know that as early as Security Council Resolution 269, there was talk of the Africans introducing a draft calling for sanctions, but it was blocked. by the veto power of the United States, Britain, and France. Their word to the African countries that they will veto any such resolution has as far as I know been effective to prevent any resolution of that sort from actually coming to a vote. The matter of sanctions has been brought up repeatedly. It has always been deflected by the sure threat of a veto.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Finally, Mr. Wachholz, you referred to a number of protests by the U.S. Government.

Mr. WACHHOLZ. Yes.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Do you have any more definitive statement on that? Mr. WACHHOLZ. Yes, I do. I have a copy here of the address that was given by Ambassador Goldberg on May 20, 1968, before the U.N. General Assembly in which he mentions the protest that the U.S. Government had made with regard to Namibia up to that time. Mrs. BUTCHER. And that lists the protests?

Mr. WACHHOLZ. In that he mentions the ones that have been made. If you like, I can read a portion of this. There are a couple of paragraphs where he speaks about the U.S. protest over the application of the Terrorism Act to Southwest Africa which might be very relevant to the present situation in Namibia because of the reports

and these are only reports-that the SWAPO leaders and SWAPO Youth League leaders are being held under the Terrorism Act.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Mr. Gurirab, Mr. Wachholz or Mrs. Landis are any of you aware of any assessment of the effect of such protests either by the United States or by the international community in other trials, such as the trial of the 37?

Mrs. LANDIS. Well, I think it is perfectly clear that, wherever there is public attention, and particularly where there are observers of various governments attending a trial, the result is that nobody is condemned to death. I don't think there are acquittals because of that, or a failure to try persons, but certainly lives are saved. It was very impressive in the trial of the 37 Namibians. The U.S. Government had an observer the entire time, the Swedish Government sent in an observer part of the time, the British Government sent in an observer part of the time. There were observers on behalf of the World Lutheran Conference, the National Council of Churches, the Lawyers' Committee. All of those people sat in court observing, and I have no doubt that it saved lives.

Mr. GURIRAB. I agree.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention certain things which should be included in the record.

Mr. Wachholz, could you provide for us those sections of the United Nations Charter which you think are applicable?

[The following statement was submitted by Mr. Wachholz:]

Articles of the United Nations Charter which are relevant to the current situation in Namibia are: Articles 1, 2, 55, 56.

Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, Article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples;

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Mrs. Landis, would you include any statements of the International Commission of Jurists on the rule of law in Namibia Mr. Wachholz, the applicable sections of the ICJ opinion of 1971, as well as those norms which you mentioned under the Geneva Conventions, would be helpful.

Mrs. BUTCHER. Mr. Gurirab, you referred to the trial of the 37 with the statement which he made upon sentencing. If you could provide that for the record, it would be helpful. I think also, Mr. Chairman, we should have copies of all of the Security Council Resolutions mentioned, including Security Council Resolution 269 which you did not mention, the August 1969 ruling.

8

Mrs. Landis, Congressman Biester referred to the question of guarantees under the South African constitution. I know, for example, there is a guarantee under the constitution with reference to the Afrikaans language and English language. If you would include that and a brief comment, it would be helpful.

[The following statement was submitted by Mrs. Landis:]

Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, No. 32 of 1961:

§ 108. Equality of official languages.-(1) English and Afrikaans shall be the official languages of the Republic, and shall be treated on a footing of equality, and possess and enjoy equal freedom, rights and privileges.

(2) All records, journals and proceedings of Parliament shall be kept in both the official languages, and all Bills, Acts and notices of general public importance or interest issued by the Government of the Republic shall be in both the official languages.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) an Act of Parliament or a proclamation of the State President, issued under an Act of Parliament, whereby a Bantu area is declared to be a self-governing territory in the Republic, or a later Act of Parliament or a later proclamation of the State President (which in the absence of any other empowering provision may be issued under this subsection) may provide for the recognition of one or more Bantu languages for any or all of the following purposes, namely—

(a) as an additional official language or as additional official languages of that territory; or

(b) for use in that territory for official purposes prescribed by or under that Act or later Act or by any such proclamation,

and may contain provisions authorizing the use of any such Bantu language outside the said territory for such purposes connected with the affairs of that territory and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under that Act or later Act or by any such proclamation.

[Sub-s. (3) added by s. 1 of Act No. 9 of 1963 and substituted by s. 1 of Act No. 1 of 1971.]

Mrs. BUTCHER. There was also a question which should be clarified, if you would, on the application of the Terrorism Act to South Africa. Mrs. LANDIS. To Namibia.

[The statement submitted by Mrs. Landis follows:]

APPLICATION OF THE TERRORISM ACT TO SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA

The Terrorism Act applies to South Africa and purports to apply to Namibia. All South African legislation applies to the Repubic unless it specifically states to the contrary. On the other hand, South African legislation has never applied to Namibia unless made specifically applicable thereto.

Mrs. Landis suggested several articles from ICJ Review which appeared in the appendix at p. 174; a report by Richard A. Falk, which appears in the appendix at p. 177; and a summary of the ICJ opinion of 1971 appears on p. 211.

The Security Council Resolutions appear in the appendix at p. 195.

Act No. 83 of 1967.