For his part Mr. Vorster felt quite strongly that any such structure should be based on the work of the Turnhalle conference. We agreed to propose that the five-nation contact group meet with the South African Government before the end of the month in Capetown, at a time to be determined if the other members of the group agree to hear South Africa's views and the details of the proposed interim administrative authority, to see if an impartial broadly based and internationally acceptable structure can be found. We hope that it can be.

It is my view that the South African position on Namibia is involved in a positive direction in certain important respects. But unless this last issue can be satisfactorily resolved by the South African Government, fair free elections will be difficult if not impossible. I hope that the most serious effort will be made to find a solution that provides an impartial broadly representative and internationally acceptable interim authority in Namibia.

I also raised the question of political prisoners with regard to Namibia. I said that the United States believes that all political prisoners should be released. Mr. Vorster said he believes that what he called political detainees, some of which are held in other African countries, should be released. He said he would favorably consider our suggestion that all Namibian political prisoners be turned over to Namibia and that, in the event of a difference in view of whether a particular prisoner was political or criminal, a body of international jurors review the case and make a determination. This suggestion will be pursued as well when the contact group meets in Capetown.

South African prospects are much less bright for progress toward the change of course which we believe is essential to provide justice, stability, and peace in that country. We hope that South Africa will carefully review the implications of our policy and the changed circumstances which it creates. We hope that South Africans will not rely on any illusions that the United States will, in the end, intervene to save South Africa from the policies it is pursuing, for we will not do so.

I think the message is now clear to the South African Government. They know that we believe that perpetuating an unjust system is the surest incentive to increase Soviet influence and even racial war but quite apart from that [it] is unjustified on its own grounds. They know that we will not defend such a system and in all honesty, however, I do not know what conclusions the South African Government will draw. It is my hope that it will lead to a reassessment, to a change of course which enables us to be helpful and supportive in the difficult times that change inevitably entails. But I cannot rule out the possibility that the South African Government will not change, that our paths will diverge and our policies come into conflict should the South African Government so decide. In that event we would take steps true to our beliefs and values. We hope to be able to see progress in Rhodesia, Namibia, and South Africa. But the alternative is

real, much as we dislike it. For a failure to make progress will lead to a tragedy of human history.

76 Dept. of State Bulletin 651 (1977). For a description of the Turnhalle conference, see 22 Keesing's Contemporary Archives 27582-27583 (Feb. 20, 1976) and The London Times, Sept. 1, 1975, p. 4. For Vice President Mondale's answers to questions concerning apartheid, in South Africa, see post, Ch. 3, § 6, under heading of Racial Discrimination. The text of operative sections of U.N.S.C. Res. 385, which was adopted on Jan. 30, 1976, follows:

The Security Council,

1. Condemns the continued illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia by South Africa ;

2. Condemns the illegal and arbitrary application by South Africa of racially discriminatory and repressive laws and practices in Namibia ;

3. Condemns the South African military build-up in Namibia and any utilization of the Territory as a base for attacks on neighboring countries;

4. Demands that South Africa put an end forthwith to its policy of bantustans and the so-called homelands aimed at violating the national unity and the territorial integrity of Namibia ;

5. Further condemns South Africa's failure to comply with the terms of Security Council Resolution 366 (1974) of December 17, 1974;

6. Further condemns all attempts by South Africa calculated to evade the clear demand of the United Nations for the holding of free elections under United Nations supervision and control in Namibia ;

7. Declares that in order that the people of Namibia be enabled to freely determine their own future, it is imperative that free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations be held for the whole of Namibia as one political entity;

8. Further declares that in determining the date, time-table and modalities for the elections in accordance with paragraph 7 above, there shall be adequate time to be decided upon by the Security Council for the purposes of enabling the United Nations to establish the necessary machinery within Namibia to supervise and control such elections, as well as to enable the people of Namibia to organize politically for the purpose of such elections;

9. Demands that South Africa urgently make a solemn declaration accepting the foregoing provisions for the holding of free elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control, undertaking to comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of June 21, 1971, in regard to Namibia, and recognizing the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation;

10. Reiterates its demand that South Africa take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal, in accordance with Resolutions 264 (1969), 269 (1969) and 366 (1974), of its illegal administration maintained in Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Namibia with the assistance of the United Nations;

11. Demands again that South Africa, pending the transfer of powers provided for in the preceding paragraph:

(a) Comply fully in spirit and in practice with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(b) Release all Namibian political prisoners, including all those imprisoned or detained in connection with offenses under so-called internal security laws, whether such Namibians have been charged or tried or are held without charge and whether held in Namibia or South Africa ;

(c) Abolish the application in Namibia of all racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices, particularly bantustans and homelands;

(d) Accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or imprisonment;

12. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to meet on or before August 31, 1976, for the purpose of reviewing South Africa's compliance with the terms of this resolution and, in the event of noncompliance by South Africa, for the purpose of considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter.

In his May 17, 1977, televised question-and-answer session with Los Angeles area residents, President Carter outlined the U.S. position concerning the presence of the South African Republic in Namibia:

We're trying as best we can to make changes in South Africa. We have just formed, under the leadership of Andrew Young, who's our Ambassador to the U.N., a five-nation proposal to Prime Minister Vorster from South Africa, to try to get them to withdraw the white domination of Namibia, which was formerly a German colony of southwest africa.

We've gone to Vorster now and given him a request a little bit stronger than a request, saying that if you don't do something about Namibia, then we're going to take strong action against you in the United Nations.

13 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 744–745 (May 23, 1977). For President Carter's remarks concerning efforts to end racial discrimination in South Africa, see post, Ch. 3, § 6, p. 213.

On May 19, 1977, Ambassador Andrew Young, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, addressed the U.N. sponsored International Conference in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia in Maputo, Mozambique. In his statement Ambassador Young emphasized the importance of the goals of freedom and liberation in the Carter Administration's approach to the issues of southern Africa and described the U.S. preference for an early negotiated settlement instead of military conflict in Namibia and Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia).

Portions of the text of Ambassador Young's prepared statement follow:

We are in a race against time regarding Namibia and Zimbabwe. The future of those two countries and the fate of their people is certain-liberation. We are here to discuss measures that can hasten the inevitable day of freedom. We all know that among these measures will be continuing military efforts by the liberation forces. They will insist on continuing their struggle as long as fundamental political rights are denied the majority in Zimbabwe and Namibia. The armed struggle, however, though its final outcome is inevitable, exacts a cruel price from the people of Zimbabwe and Namibia. Africa needs the leadership that will be lost in a prolonged strug le;

it needs the infrastructure that will be destroyed in extended military conflict. This is why all here-whatever their views-must support efforts to press ahead with any promising approach to an carly negotiated settlement. This is why one objective of this conference should be to make it clear that U.N. members, as always, prefer a negotiated settlement where it can be found.

The policies of the U.S. Government toward southern Africa reflect the Carter Administration's commitment to human rights. President Carter made it clear from the beginning that a renewed commitment to our responsibilities in the field of human rights required justice in southern Africa. But our policy in southern Africa also grows out of our policy toward Africa as a whole, a policy based on support for freedom, independence, territorial integrity, and economic development and dignity for all African nations. We believe it is in our national interest to work cooperatively with African nations on mutual economic and political concerns.

*

*

76 Dept. of State Bulletin 55, 56, 58 (1977).

*

*

At the close of the Maputo Conference on May 21, 1977, Charles W. Maynes, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, gave a statement on behalf of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, explaining why these Western members of the U.N. Security Council attended the Conference, recognizing the need for progress in Namibia and Zimbabwe, and commending the authors of the Final Declaration and Program for Action while expressing some reservations with some of its provisions.

The text of Assistant Secretary Maynes' statement appears below:

The Western members of the Security Council-Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States-came to this conference for three reasons:

-We wanted to show solidarity with African states on these two key issues of Namibia and Zimbabwe.

-We wanted to seize this unique opportunity to explain our African policies. Since any African policy must begin with southern Africa, we wanted the opportunity to explain to the countries and movements most directly concerned the initiatives we have taken and the strategy we have followed.

-Finally, we wanted to listen to and understand African views on these critical subjects. We recognize that our assistance will not be effective unless the parties most directly involved understand our purpose and feel free to convey their reactions.

From all three points of view we assess the conference as remarkably successful. The conference marks a new stage in the liberation of Namibia and Zimbabwe. More than 90 countries came to declare their solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe and Namibia. This collective expression of international determination is a sign that the process of liberation is moving to a new and culminating phase.

We have found others willing to listen to our point of view, and we have benefited from theirs. We see ourselves working for the same goals, even when we choose different means from those preferred by others.

As you all know, over the past several weeks the five Western members of the Security Council have together advanced an initiative to resolve the Namibian problem. Western members of the Security Council informed the South African Government that any settlement in Namibia must be consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution 385. We left no doubt that an absence of progress toward an internationally acceptable solution would have serious consequences for South Africa.

In the case of the United States, President Carter recently confirmed U.S. policy in more detail. In a statement made in Los Angeles on May 17, 1977, he stated that unless there was progress on Namibia, the United States would be compelled to take strong action in the United Nations.

The position of the Western members of the Security Council is clear. In the light of the initiatives we have taken, we find ourselves unable to associate ourselves with a number of the provisions of the declaration and the program of action. To associate ourselves would prejudice the results of negotiations which have brought about the most promising start to resolve the Namibian problem. We take a similar position regarding the negotiation effort of the British in Zimbabwe. The bulk of the documents, however, represent our views. They also represent a remarkable effort to convey to those who have blocked progress in the past that there is a degree of commitment and a depth of solidarity on these issues which are unprecedented.

We recognize that progress must be made urgently on these problems. We understand that the issues of Namibia and Zimbabwe are entering a new and final stage where one path leads to increased violence and the other to peaceful settlement.

So while we cannot associate ourselves with a number of the provisions of the declaration, we regard it as an important mark in history, one which helps us understand our own responsibilities as members of the Security Council and nations interested in peaceful change and racial progress in southern Africa. We commend the authors, and we praise the organizers of this conference. Both have helped bring the day of freedom closer than it has ever been.

76 Dept. of State Bulletin 58-59 (July 11, 1977).

The text of the Maputo Declaration in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia and Program of Action for the Liberation of Zimbabwe and Namibia appears in 76 Dept. of State Bulletin 59–65 (July 11, 1977). The Maputo Conference adopted a "Declaration" and "Program of Action" which, with respect to Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), called for (1) an independent Zimbabwe under nondiscriminatory arrangements for majority rule; (2) assistance by all U.N. members to the "National Liberation Movement" of Zimbabwe in its "struggle for independence"; and (3) strict enforcement of current sanctions and the expansion of such sanctions in the areas of aircraft transit, mercenary recruitment, emigration, and the maintenance of Rhodesian offices abroad. With respect to Namibia. the documents called for (1) frce elections under U.N. supervision and control in

257-179 - 79-3