World

s South Africa con-
tinues to subvert the
process in Namibia
toward free elections
and independence, in
a effort to crush the
liberation forces of
SWAPO, diplomatic
manoeuvering contin-
ues to salvage the UN-supervised process.
The following radio interview (abridged)
was heard in the Toronto area April 15, on the
program “Third Wave,” hosted by Beverley
Bain, who spoke with SWAPO’s United
Nations representative Hinangewe Asheke.

Q: What and who, in your opinion, was
responsible for the fighting which broke out in
Namibia on April 1 between SWAPO and
South Africa’s police? :

A: The fighting that took place on April
1, as the Namibian people were preparing
for a period of relative peace and prospects
for peaceful transition to independence, was
solely provoked by the racist regime of
South Africa. It unleashed its troops and
paramilitary occupation forces against our
fighters who were preparing to be moni-
tored by UNTAG, and launched a terror
campaign against the local population.

Q: Why weren’t UN forces deployed in
Namibia before this? Why did it take so long
to put these forces inside the country?

A: We’ve also been asking the United
Nations this question. We require an expla-
nation as to why the UN was not in Nami-
bia; why they were not deployed at the very
crucial point that the agreement between
SWAPO and South Africa came into effect.

In fact, the UN definitely failed to keep
the two forces apart. In effect, there is
another dangerous development that places
the UN on side with the illegal occupation
regime, because, as you know, the special
representative of the UN secretary-general
has actually given a green light to the South
African forces to hand over our people.

That is a totally unacceptable action
because it turned a peaceful mission into a
warring mission, destroying the notion of
UN impartiality in dealing with both parties
to the conflict.

We have a situation where the skeleton
UN forces inside do not add up to the
required figure. The original military com-
ponent of 7,500 was scaled down to only
4,650 at the insistence of the permanent
members of the Security Council.

This remains unacceptable to us. We still
demand that the full 7,500 complement of
UN military forces be deployed to enable
them to carry out the duties entrusted to
them — creating conditions of peace and
security and to monitor the electoral pro-
cess.

Q: Why was the resolution passed to scale
down UN troops? I noticed the USSR also
supported this move?

A: The reasons given were unconvincing
and remain unconvincing. They raised the
issues of financial difficulties. They said the

Namibia: tortuous path to freedom

South African Defence Force troops sweep Namibian countryside in movement
against SWAPO.

plan is large and too expensive. They also
insisted that, given the agreement involving
Cuba, Angola and South Africa, with the
U.S. mediating, the conditions are now bet-
ter, that there is a peaceful environment.

We have objected, and object strongly to
that notion. The “we” includes SWAPO,
the frontline states, the African group of
nations at the UN and the Non-Aligned
countries. We insist and have been telling
those who pushed these cuts that the situa-
tion in Namibia is very explosive.

The South African regime, in the 10 years
it refused to implement UN Resolution 435,
has created local military units such as the
South West Africa Territorial Force and the
Koevoet murder squads which it has
deployed in recent days. These forces, we
argued, ought to have been taken into con-
sideration, in fact, ought to have led the
world community to demand an increase,
not a decrease, in UNTAG forces.

Q: South Africa and others, including Bri-
tain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
have blamed SWAPO for not keeping its end
of the bargain regarding that SWAPO mil-
itary forces were to stay north of the Nami-
bian border. What is the story here?

_ A: We did not sign the bilateral or tripar-
tite agreements signed by the parties con-
cerned. It is therefore completely absurd to
suggest that SWAPO has violated some-
thing that we have not signed.

The whole argument by the South Afri-
can regime, by Thatcher and by the U.S.
administration claiming a violation by
SWAPO, completely and conveniently
refuses to acknowledge that the original UN
plan for Namibian independence provides
for SWAPO fighters that are inside Nami-
bia at the time of the ceasefire to be confined
to bases inside Namibia. That was reaf-
firmed by various reports by former UN
secretary-general Kurt Waldheim.

South Africa has always wanted to world
to believe that SWAPO did not have armed

MAY DAY GREETINGS
AND SOLIDARITY

Chilean-Canadian Friendship Society

fighters inside the country. And here again

we see them push this same argument, one
which is also taken up by their friends and,
unfortunately, by unsuspecting parts of the
Western media who are blaming the victims
for this act of aggression by the racist South
African regime.

Since SWAPO launched the armed
struggle in 1966, 23 years ago, we have had
at all times, and continue to have armed
forces inside Namibia. And why not?
Namibia is our country. Our fighters have
no other home but Namibia, their own
motherland.

Q: Some say Namibia will end up like the
Congo since the UN has very little control in
events there. Do you see this happening?

A: Certainly the bad start of the imple-
mentation of Resolution 435 can be likened
to the Congo situation. The UN should
realize the danger ahead in terms of fulfil-
ling its obligations and responsibilities to
the Namibian people.

On our part, seeing a conflict that was not
subsiding, SWAPO has called on our figh-
ters to withdraw from the battlefield, to
regroup and to move to Angola. We did this
to avoid further bloodshed, and also to try
to prevent Pretoria from using the con-
tinued fighting to abrogate its commitment
to Resolution 435.

There was also another meeting with the
joint commission consisting of Angola,
Cuba, South Africa with the U.S. and
USSR taking part as observers in Namibia.
They came up with a declaration which
SWAPO said it had certain reservations
about and had asked for clarification.

This concerned points which were sup-
posed to be set up near Angola where our
fighters would hand themselves over to the
UNTAG personnel to be escorted to
Angola. According to their agreement, our
people are supposed to be disarmed.
SWAPO rejects that idea.

These assembly points turned out to be
South African military bases with some UN
troops hoisting the UN flag. Our people
refuse to turn up at these places which look
like traps in which South African troops will
continue to kill our people. Instead, we have
called on our people to go directly to
Angola and not turn up at these South
African traps.

Q: I want to ask about one of Namibia’s
strategic bases, Walvis Bay, which South
Africa has refused to give up. Could you
comment? :

A: South Africa has continued to make
colonial claims on Walvis Bay, Namibia’s
only deep water port. From an economic
standpoint, everything coming in and out of
the country by sea goes through Walvis
Bay. Strategically, South Africa has a huge
military base there, including naval facilities
that were used over the years to conduct its
campaign inside Namibia and its aggression
against Angola.

As far as SWAPO and the Namibian
people are concerned, Walvis Bay is an
integral part of Namibia. Our fight is to
liberate each and every inch of our country.
This includes Walvis Bay..

This issue was raised by SWAPO very
strongly during the process of negotiations
involving the so-called contact group.
South Africa refused to deal with the matter
and, as a compromise, in 1987 the Western
states came up with the idea of a specific
resolution (No. 432), dealing with Walvis
Bay. Unfortunately, this resolution fell
short of saying that Walvis Bay is an inte-
gral part of Namibia as we were demanding.

_The resolution only provides that Walvis
Bay will be reintegrated into Namibia and
that that process will be taken up by the
government of an independent Namibia
and South Africa.

Q: Will Namibian independence be
achieved this year?

A: As an optimist, yes. I see the process
continuing, although there are certain spe-
cific things that must be done.

There must be a show of goodwill by the
parties involved. South Africa must not be
allowed to go on as it is now, basically
violating the terms of Resolution 435.

As things now stand, South African mil-
itary forces that were supposed to be con-
fined to their bases, Southwest African
Territorial Force units and Koevoet murder
squads that were supposed to have been
disbanded, are all still at large and continue
to butcher our people. This situation must
stop.

We believe the United Nations must rise

‘to the challenge and deploy its forces to deal

with that situation. We believe Western
governments, particularly those that have
been party to the negotiations leading to the
adoption of Resolution 435, must play their
role. They should not allow Pretoria to
again wriggle out of the process.

A lot of pressure is required from all who
are seriously concerned about Namibian
independence. SWAPO has already indi-
cated its willingness to co-operate with the
UN secretary-general to ensure things are
back on track again.

Q: What can Canada do to help bring
pressure on the UN and South Africa as a
member of the Security Council to ensure the
process is sped up?

A: I was recently accompanying the
SWAPO general secretary on a Canadian
tour where we discussed with your govern-
ment and various MPs from various parties,
with the NGO community and with trade
unions and church groups to specifically
address this question.

It is very crucial that Canada, as a UN
member and having been part of the negoti-
ations leading to the adoption of Resolution
435, must play its role to make sure this
resolution is implemented in its original and
definitive form.

Canada must help ensure that South
Africa is not allowed to flout this agreement
once again. Certainly, the Canadian public
should be at all times vigilant and keep an
interest in what is taking place in Namibia.
The media should take up this issue, to keep
the pressure on the racist South African
regime.

We have also asked Canadian friends to
send observer missions to Namibia to help
monitor the electoral process. We believe
that as many people as possible being in
Namibia at the time of transition will help
deter Pretoria from doing the most obvious
things.

We explained during our visit what
South’ Africa is doing, including giving

Namibian identity to UNITA elements, ©

raising the voting age from 18 to 21 years to
exclude SWAPO supporters among the
youth, the use of its military forces to cam-
paign in support of Prétoria’s Namibian
puppets and unleashing a vicious anti-
SWAPO propaganda campaign and others
acts.

Pacific Tribune, May 1, 1989 « 25