Report finds Namibians in revolt against ‘colonialism, apartheid and State violence’

Press, 16 September 1982, Page 17

Report finds Namibians in revolt against ‘colonialism, apartheid and State violence’

By

DES CASEY

■ Eleven years have passed since the International Court of Justice ruled that South Africa’s occupation of Namibia is illegal. Its annexation by South Africa in the late 1940 s was also illegal, but Namibia’s problems go deeper than law. It suffers greatly “under a vicious colonial economy, is ravaged by an apartheid system and state violence, and has a population in revolt supporting a war of liberation."

This is a summing up last year of the "Namibian problem” in a joint report from the London-based Catholic Institute for International Relations and the British Council of Churches. Namibia, the report says, is "a responsibility that should be heavily on the conscience of the international community.” The report acknowledges though that nothing has been achieved in 10 years of fruitless . negotiations, during which South Africa > has “openly defied the consensus of the international community in augmenting the number of her troops, in - Namibia to massive proportions.” The Catholic Church in southern Africa has become increasingly, vocal in its condemnation of South Africa s presence in Namibia. After a breakdown of yet another Geneva Conference in January, 1981, an official of the Southern -African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (5.A.C.8.C.) toured Namibia and reported back to the I

conference. It was so shaken i bv what it learnt that it I immediately pledged itself to i expose the realities of JMami- i bia. The outcome was a fact-. i finding mission of six bishops who. on their return, published “Report on Namibia (May 1982).’’ The document considers in detail the position of the Namibian people, the churches and the South African Government, and discusses claims that S.W.A.P.O. (South West Africa People’s Organisation) is communist. It calls for “a withdrawal of South Africa from a situation of violence that appears totally unacceptable to US'.” There is, the report says, a . "universal consensus” that South Africa has no right to be in Namibia. It affirms the violence of South African Security Forces: "Detention and interrogation in any part of the country are accompanied by beating, torture, spare diet, and solitary confinement is accepted as com- ' mon knowledge.” ' The report begins with a history’ of the .Namibian situation. The first whites that went, to Namibia were nineteenth century traders and missionaries. Germany . was their guarantee of protection. annexing’ the territory. . under the name Deiitsch-Sudwestafrika. Colonial exploitation was severe, native people being driven from their land as farming and mining were • established. There was detemined resistance but after rebellions early this century,

the Kaiser ordered his forces to conduct what has been called the first genocide of the twentieth century. Tens of thousands died in extermination camps, the Hefero population dropping from 70.000 to 16.000 and the Namas from 50.000 ,to 20.000. When the Second World War began South Africa invaded the territory. After the war the League of Nations gave South Africa the “Mandate for South West Africa” by which it was "obliged inter alia to promote to the utmost the material and moral wellbeing and social progress of the inhabitants of the territory, to protect freedom of conscience and religion, not to establish military bases in the territory, and to report regularly to the League of Nations.” From that point on. the S.A.C.B.C. report points out, South Africa has gone its own way regardless of mounting’ waves of international protest. It refused to ■ place Namibia under the new trusteeship system set .up with the formation of the United Nations, and has ignored dll calls for justice and independence since. During the 1960 s i S.W.A.P.O. was formed with the aims of raising people's awareness of their rights, resisting forced removals, and campaigning against the evils of migratory labour, all the time urging the United Nations to take more direct • action. It quickly became representative of the aspirations of the Namibian people, says the report.

Because of a lack of concrete change and because diplomatic moves were being totally ignored by South Africa, S.W.A.P.O. set up, in the mid-19605, a military wing, the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (P.L.A.N.). It first sought military aid

from Western. powers but was refused. This fact is ignored today by the West in its attempts to discredit S.W.A.P.O. as being communist. The S.A.C.B.C. does not hold much hope for Namibian independence . unless

South Africa changes its poli- I cies fundamentally. These i policies are still based on 1 extending apartheid to Nami- i bia, that is, the report says, i “to divide the Namibian i population, less than a million people, into 11 ethnic groups of which .10, excluding i the whites, would be allocated homelands destined for ,: ‘independence'.” Blacks would be excluded from the most productive ; areas of Namibia (the best land, the towns, and the lucrative mines) and "would be: allowed into white areas only to sell their labour." This policy was instrumental ■ } in the United Nations recognising S.W.A.P.O. in 1973 as “the authentic representative of the Namibian people." Since 1978. Namibia has been governed by. a 50-seat Constituent Assembly which most black' Namibians consider a device ensuring South African control. According to the bishops it is “blatantly geared to apartheid.” > ,> They continue: “It was the almost unanimous opinion of those to whom we spoke that the great majority of - the • people do not want the South’ African imposed constitution. They do' not.'want the.ethnic divisions enshrined "In this constitution .They want free and fair elections, under United Nations supervision arid are prepared to accept whatever government emerges.” South African Security Forces, the report claims, are seen as “an army of occupation." Stringent security, and detention measures

hold the civilian population in intimidation; for example, the AG9 proclamation that allows for repeated detention on 30-day orders without recourse to legal counsel. According to the bishops, "in searching out S.W.A:P.O. guerrillas the Security Forces stop at nothing to force . information. . They ! break into homes, beat up residents, shoot people, steal and kill cattle ~.. people are taken out and left beaten up and even dead by the roadside. Women are often raped." No redress is possible be--cause reporting such incidents is a dangerous and futile exercise. • The bishops related several cases of brutality, the following being a “typical” example: ; He had been blindfolded with a bag and taken to a place where he : was'suspended by the . neck with just , his toes touching the ground. After .being beaten Up and subjected to 'electric shock he was taken with some: others, including girls, to a dam. The girls were indecently handled. All were thrown into the dam, still with- bags .over their heads. The narrator managed to swim to safety and help the others out." S.W.A.P.O. has. constantly been under a cloud in the Western press- for, being under the communist umbrella. But when the bishops put this to the people they' were told “time and time again that S.W.A.P.O. is essentially’ a national liberation .movement" and that

when it (first opted for the armed struggle it “turned to Western nations for arms and ■ only because supplies were refused did it go to the Warsaw Pact countries." The impression gained by the bishops was that "support for S.W.A.P.O. is. massive and that it would be easily victorious in any free and fair election.” Clearly the mode! S.W.A.P.O. has in rnind for Namibia is not a Western-type capitalism. Nor is it Eastern European communism. It is more a searching again for African communalism'. So .S.W.A.P.O. talks about ensuring that “all major means of production and exchange are in the ownership of the people'" and the establishment of, farmers’ cooperatives or collectives. But most blacks are clear that they do not wish to throw off one ideology only to become slaves of another; •; The S.A.C.B.C. report presents a clear picture that the great majority of Namibians see South Africa as the blameworthy party. The bishops themselves conclude: "It is clear enough to us that there is . a universal consensus, with South Africa virtually the only dissenting voice.:’ that South ■ Africa. has no right to be, in Namibia. “It is also clear to us that the great majority:,of Namibians have one overriding desire and that is the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435. resulting in a cease-fire, and withdrawal of South African Security Forces."