The United States voted for that resolution. That would be other than the $50,000 contribution that was just announced on March 21, I think it was, to the Fund.

Mr. DIGGS. What is our position on the application of bilateral treaties with South Africa to Namibia? What about GATT and the most-favored-nation treatment?

Mr. KAISER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there has been written correspondence with the committee on this subject, and we would be prepared to answer any further written questions on this and address ourselves in written form to this question.

Mr. DIGGS. All right. Would you do that?

[The information requested follows:]

The position of the United States concerning bilateral treaties with South Africa affecting Namibia reflects the conclusions of the International Court of Justice in its 1971 Advisory Opinion, which the United States accepted, and Security Council Resolution 301 which the U.S. supported. Resolution 301 (1971), which restates the World Court's conclusions, calls upon all states (subject to certain exceptions set forth in the Advisory Opinion) among other things, to abstain from entering into treaty relations with South Africa in all cases in which the Government of South Africa purports to act on behalf of or concerning Namibia; to abstain from invoking or applying those treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia involving active intergovernmental co-operation and to review their bilateral treaties for consistency with the Court's conclusions.

Since 1971 the United States has not entered into bilateral treaty relations with South Africa in cases where it purports to act on behalf of or concerning Namibia. We have reviewed existing bilateral treaties and identified five which might raise questions regarding application in Namibia:

Visa Agreements, as amended, March 31, 1958 (TIAS 4076 and 3544); Agreement Relating to Air Transport Services of May 23, 1947, as amended (TIAS 1639 and 6512); Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of December 13, 1946, as amended (TIAS 2510); Extradition Treaty of December 18, 1947 (TIAS 2243); and Parcel Post Convention signed April 17 and June 20, 1919 (41 Stat. 1956).

None of these have been applied with regard to Namibia since 1971. The issuance of visas by the U.S. Government is governed by U.S. legislation and accordingly, the Visa Agreements need not be applied concerning Namibia. The Air Transport Services Agreement is not applied in Namibia. The granting of tax credits is governed by U.S. statute and we do not regard the Double Taxation Convention as applicable to Namibia. It is unlikely that the Extradition Convention would ever be applied with regard to Namibia. We do not, however, exclude the remote theoretical possibility that it might be applied in a case where all relevant facts indicated that refusal to extradite a person for prosecution would be clearly detrimental to the inhabitants of the territory and thus within the exception provided by paragraph 125 of the Advisory Opinion cited in Resolution 301. The Parcel Post Convention is unnecessary for the exchange of parcels with Namibia and consequently need not be invoked or applied with respect to the territory.

While there are other bilateral treaties and agreements in force with South Africa, many are specifically inapplicable to Namibia and others have been and are expected to remain inapplicable.

The position of the United States regarding the relationship of GATT and MFN treatment to Namibia remains that reflected in former Assistant Secretary Abshire's letter to you dated December 13, 1972, a copy of which is attached.

Hon. CHARLES C. DIGGS, Jr.,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DECEMBER 13, 1972.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am responding to the statement in your letter of August 14 that South Africa has no legal right to obtain Most Favored Nation treatment for exports originating in Namibia and your question as to what action

the United States is taking to end South Africa's illegal representation of Namibia in GATT.

As you state, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) and the opinion of the International Court of Justice have declared that South Africa has no legal right to represent Namibia, in the GATT or elsewhere. This accords with the position of the United States Government; in voting for Security Council Resolution 301 and on other occasions, the United States affirmed its support of Resolution 2145 and its acceptance of the conclusions stated in the Advisory Opinion. We will continue to follow this policy.

With respect to your statement that South Africa has no right to obtain Most Favored Nation treatment for exports originating in Namibia, our law provides that products of all non-communist countries are entitled to this treatment (with certain exceptions not relevant to this case), without regard to the status of the exporting state as a GATT Contracting Party. Accordingly, despite the illegitimacy of South Africa's presence and administration in Namibia, there would appear to be no basis under United States law to deny MFN treatment to products originating in the Territory. With respect to products imported into Namibia, most enter the Territory either through South Africa or the South African enclave at Walvis Bay, and are thus subjected to South African import duties within the Territory of South Africa; as a practical matter, therefore, few, if any, items are actually subjected to South African customs treatment within the Territory of Namibia.

Most Favored Nation treatment for products entering and leaving Namibia would presumably benefit the people of Namibia economically by stimulating exports and reducing the cost of living. There is, accordingly, substantial question whether the International Court of Justice intended that South Africa, so long as it is in effective control of the Territory of Namibia, should be free of its obligations under GATT with respect to that Territory. These considerations suggest the applicability of the exceptions contained in paragraphs 122 and 125 of the Court's Advisory Opinion relative to the preservation of general conventions "the non-performance of which may adversely affect the people of Namibia.” If I can be of further assistance to you please inform me.

Sincerely yours,

DAVID M. ABSHIRE,

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Mr. DIGGS. What steps does our Government take to insure that the law prohibiting the importation of forced-labor goods, that is, 19 U.S.C. 1307, is complied with?

Do we have a monitoring system or some kind of mechanism to make such a judgment? Have there been any formal complaints lodged for which you have had to investigate or make a determination. as to the applicability of this statute to any goods that are brought in from Namibia?

Mr. KAISER. I am not aware that this question has come with regard to Namibia in recent times, say in the last year that I have been in the office. I would have to check further.

Mr. DIGGS. Would you do that and provide a statement for the record.

Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir.

[The statement requested follows:]

As explained in the testimony before your Subcommittee on December 7, 1971, by Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, John R. Petty, the Treasury Department is responsible for enforcing 19 U.S.Č. 1307. (“U.S. Business Involvement in Southern Africa" Hearings before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Part 2, pp. 184,193195.) The procedures by which this law is administered are set forth in regulations promulgated by Treasury. (19 C.F.R. § 12.42-12.45.) The Bureau of Customs has advised the Department of State that to date no complaints have been filed with regard to imports from Namibia.

Mr. DIGGS. From 1966 to date, we would like to get as much information as possible about the extent of the operations and activities of U.S. companies in Namibia.

There is one other aspect of this whole matter that we have not discussed. We have talked about new businesses coming in and leaving, but we really have not talked about expansions.

Well, the Government is on record as discouraging new entrepreneurs, but what is our position regarding the expansion of the investment of those businesses that are already in Namibia?

Mr. KAISER. I am not familiar with any expansion plans nor of any projects which have taken place that have been brought to our attention. Perhaps this is the appropriate moment to at least mention that when representatives from American Metal Climax, for example, come to the Department, a regular topic of conversation or discussion turns on labor practices, employment practices, at Tsumeb.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, I guess you would have to check this out, because we are interested in knowing about any expansion of investments of any of these companies. I just cannot imagine a company being static.

I would like a review of this matter so that we could get a report as to which companies have expanded or increased their investment, and also whether or not there was any dialog between those companies and our Government with respect to this matter. My concern is the extent to which such dialog is consistent with our other about discouraging new businesses.

pronouncement

In our last hearing, the question of South African refugees came up, and you will recall that it was my position that the Department ought to consider assigning an officer in the AF Bureau to act as a point of facilitation of refugee problems. What were the results?

Mr. KAISER. I suppose in connection with your question, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate to point out that we are very much aware of the problems being experienced by the Namibian refugees in this country. They are problems that stem from adjusting their alien resident status in the United States, which is important to them in getting employment in this country.

We recognize that many Namibians cannot return to their country under present circumstances. Therefore, since 1968, the U.S. Government has waived the requirement that Namibians holding exchange visitor visas would have to return to their country for a period of 2 years before applying for a change in their status.

However, since 1968, Namibians holding exchange visitor visas have been permitted to work here. The Immigration and Naturalization Service agreed last year to grant Namibian students refugee status, if asked for, on a case-by-case basis. Those granted refugee status are entitled to receive refugee travel documents issued by the INS.

Now, although they are allowed to work, Namibian refugees have had difficulty in obtaining adequate employment. Many employers require job applicants to possess a green card which is issued to permanent resident aliens. Namibians and other southern Africans find it difficult to obtain permanent resident status since under the present legislation, they must qualify by obtaining labor certification for preference under visa regulations.

They are unlike refugees from Eastern Europe and other Communist countries who can adjust their status to permanent resident alien much more easily.

The Department of State has attempted to remedy the situation by providing Namibians with letters which explain their refugee status to prospective employers, and we suggest they be hired or at least be considered for employment.

Employers, however, are apparently loathe to accept this letter and tend to require applicants to have the green card.

Now, at this time, there are three bills in Congress, including one that the administration has sponsored, which would permit all refugees in the United States to adjust more easily their status to permanent resident aliens.

Within the Department itself it is the Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs that has primary responsibility for such matters, and there are men and women in that office who address themselves to problems that affect Namibian refugees here in the United States.

Mr. DIGGS. What about the other southern African refugees? You mentioned Namibia. We were talking about the question of South African refugees, or I should say southern African refugees, not just Namibians. I think the question is whether or not the division or the bureau to which you refer really has communication with the refugees. Many refugees come to us, and we do the best we can. Because of our identification with African matters, people who are under the diplomatic immunity here in Washington and in New York make contact with us. The African student associations and various universities around the country have made contact with us about particular problems and other individuals merely because of our identification. They don't know anything about the agency that you talk about. The forbidding size of the Department over there just in the very nature of their experience with Government, certainly would not encourage them to pick up a telephone and call the State Department. They might contact someone within the AF Bureau provided this information was properly disseminated because obviously there is some kind of identification with that Bureau. This is the point that I am making.

Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir. I can say that certainly in our Office of Southern African Affairs, we try to overcome this ominous kind of picture to the outsider. In fact, southern African refugees frequently do come to our office. They approach the appropriate country officer who, in turn, takes a very deep personal interest in pursuing the matter to see that the particular person's problem is addressed and hopefully resolved.

As a matter of fact, it is curious indeed, just this morning there was such a refugee in our office asking for information which one of the country officers provided him with.

So we do try to fulfill this function, too.

Mr. DIGGS. I have three or four questions here about the interrelationship between the Namibian economy and U.S. investment. I wanted to put my last two questions to the Securities and Exchange Commission since they are here.

It is reported that U.S. mutual funds are selling with increased activity shares in South African gold mines. We know that the rise in the price of gold has been phenomenal and that it has had a tremendous effect on the economy, and we are aware of our Government's position against gold in the monetary system. So we would like to

know what the Commission is doing under its mandate in section 78(s) of the Securities Act.

That is the section, as the gentleman knows, that empowers the Commission to study and investigate the purchase of securities by institutional investors, including mutual funds, to determine the effect on the stability of the market and on the public interest.

What is the Commission doing, (1), to get the facts on these mutual funds buying of shares in South African gold mines; (2) to determine the effect of this development on the public interest, and (3) to make recommendations to Congress, where appropriate, so that the public interest can be protected?

Mr. HOCKER. Mr. Chairman, I am not personally familiar with that matter. I will collect the information and send it to you.

Mr. Diggs. All right. We will leave the record open at this point for a

response.

Mr. HOCKER. Thank you.

[The information requested follows:]

Section 78(s) of the United States Code, to which reference was made, relates to a statutory directive to accomplish a study and report, entitled "Institutional Investor Study," which was transmitted to Congress in 1971. The Commission has a continuing general responsibility pursuant to Section 46 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 as amended to submit an annual report to Congress covering the work of the Commission for the preceding year and including such information, data, and recommendations, for further legislation in connection with matters covered by the statute as it may find advisable. Information with regard to investments in securities of South African companies, registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, appears in the annual and semi-annual reports of such companies to security holders and the Commission. No compilation of such investments is maintained by the Commission. The staff, at this point, has not become aware of problems arising from such investments which would cause the staff to recommend any action to the Commission.

Mr. DIGGS. Now, Mr. Kaiser, has the Department been able to analyze the impact on the Namibian economy of U.S. investment? Mr. KAISER. Í am not aware of any study that has been made on it. Mr. DIGGS. We obviously could not expect you to have those kinds of details at your fingertips, but we would like to leave the record open at this point so that we can get in dollar figures how much that economy does get, either through taxes or other avenues, because of the presence of U.S. business. A detailed breakdown for these businesses in Namibia for each year, since 1966, would bring that out.

Would you anticipate any problem in getting such information, or is it subject to certain kinds of restrictions on business disclosures? Mr. KAISER. I don't know, but we will certainly try to get them. We will look into it.

[The information referred to follows:]

LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON PROVIDING INVESTMENT DATA ON AMERICAN FIRMS OPERATING IN SOUTH AFRICA

Investment information by individual U.S. firms in South Africa is collected by the Department of Commerce. The information, which is collected pursuant to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, Executive Order 11033, as amended, and implementing regulations, is used in the preparation of aggregate statistics so that the United States Government may comply with official requests from the International Monetary Fund for balance-of-payments information. Section 8(c) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act makes it unlawful to disclose information under the Act, and provides for a criminal penalty, upon conviction, of a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. The only exception to this blanket prohibition against disclosure of information so