The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1972. Dr Waldheim’s mission in Pretoria

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32861, 9 March 1972, Page 14

The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1972. Dr Waldheim’s mission in Pretoria

Dr Kurt Waldheim’s visit to South Africa will be the first major venture of the new Secretary-General of the United Nations into international negotiation. His visit is being undertaken in terms of a Security Council resolution requiring him to examine at first hand the status of Namibia—a resolution reported to have been welcomed by the South African Prime Minister, Mr Vorster. Mr Vorster’s reaction to the Security Council resolution suggests a change of thinking in Pretoria, which has previously resisted any attempt by the United Nations to intervene in South Africa’s administration of South-West Africa.

Three months ago Mr Vorster said that “ separate development ” in Namibia was in the best interests of the African peoples; that it was necessary to prevent, or at least. to control, tribal disputes; and that without control from Pretoria the territory would have no opportunity for social or economic development Perhaps Mr Vorster hopes to find Dr Waldheim a more accommodating negotiator than his predecessor, U Thant, who had refused to go to Pretoria after Mr Vorster’s rejection of the World Court’s finding that the South African Government had no mandate to exercise political control over the disputed territory.

Mr Vorster may be hoping that Dr Waldheim, after a personal investigation of conditions in Namibia, will report to the Security Council that a continuing South African supervision is necessary. That is probably a forlorn hope; the African members of the United Nations would reject the idea out of hand. But it may be in Mr Vorster’s mind also that the time has come for some modification of the rigours of apartheid in the south-west: that a degree of self-determination might be possible, and politically expedient. TJie courageous stand of the Ovambos, who make up about half of the territory’s million Africans, may be turning his judgment towards compromise rather than the rigid denial of rights. The strike organised by the South-West Africa People’s Organisation, which says that Africans are being treated like serfs in their own homeland, is in its third month; and the Ovambos are showing no sign of succumbing to pressure. They want better pay, better living conditions than are available in the barracks where the virtually Impressed mineworkers are herded, and an end to a system which involves separation from their families for periods of up to 18 months at a time. By offering to establish a new system of employment —in other industries as well as in mining—the Government has tacitly conceded that present conditions are intolerable. Mr Vorster may want to discuss a “new deal” with Dr Waldheim; but he will certainly stop short of offering the territory separate government, or even consenting to a form of United Nations trusteeship. What he has in Namibia, in natural resources and in strategic advantages, he will hold, knowing that the United Nations would not use force to compel compliance with the World Court’s ruling, and that constant military and police surveillance rule out the possibility of African revolt But obviously the Government’s approach to the problem of Namibia has changed. Not long ago a spokesman was permitted to tell a British newspaperman that the labour system behind the strike was “indefensible, rotten, "and cruel” and that employers would have to recognise that the Ovambo workers were “human “beings with human rights themselves”. Dr Waldheim may be expected to determine the worth of that admission. But he can hardly expect to find any fundamental change in the Pretoria line. There will be no departure from the offer of Bantustan independence on the “ fully selfgoverning” Transkei pattern, which permits the detention without trial of strike leaders and other “ trouble-makers ”. The Prime Minister has said that Dr Waldheim would be courteously received if his purpose was to discuss self-determination for nonwhite groups in South Africa; but if he hoped to act as “a mouthpiece for extremists” he would be wasting his time. This phrase, in Mr Vorster’s diplomacy, gives ample scope for convenient interpretation.