- As public service, the Old Dominion University model, United Nations Society in conjunction with the United Nations Department of Public Television and our public information, WHRO tv, the United Nations tv, and the Old Dominion University Teleconference Center.

We present the second in a series of live model United Nations teleconferences.

Hello everyone, I'm Mike Russell and I'll serve as your moderator for today's program.

Each of the teleconferences that you will see during the series corresponds with a specific topic of debate currently before the United Nations.

These broadcasts will originate simultaneously from here at the Old Dominion University teleconference Center, located in Norfolk, Virginia on the Eastern seaboard and the United Nations headquarters to the north of US in New York.

Now we have a number that you can utilize for today's program with your questions and your comments for both our speaker, our featured speaker, and our panel members.

That number is 8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9, and we ask that you keep in mind that this phone number is only in effect for the live broadcast and not during any taped replay of the show.

At this time, let's meet the panel members, the young people with me to my left, who have researched today's subject for discussion.

Immediately.

To my left is Lisa Kansky, a 1982 graduate of KE of Kempville High School here in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

She is a French major with a secondary concentration in international relations.

Lisa is a secretariat member of the ODU Model, United Nations Society.

Next is Jorge Rios, a 1984 graduate of Lee High School in Northern Virginia.

He is the model United Nations Director of Collegiate Conferences, as well as the assistant to the Secretary General, or he is a junior here at Old Dominion University studying political science and management information systems.

Next on the panel is Anne Steam Anne, a 1985 graduate of Mount Vernon High School in Alexandria, Virginia, a sophomore studying speech communications and human resources management.

She is the Model UN President of Special Political Committee and a special assistant to the Secretary General.

Next on our panel Sunday Hoison, a 1983 graduate of Holy Cross Academy in Lynchburg, Virginia.

He is a two year veteran of the International Court of Justice and is currently a junior pursuing a political science degree at Old Dominion University.

That is our panel today.

It is a pleasure to meet you all these young people have been researching our topic for for discussion today, and we'll be prepared a little bit later on to ask our featured speaker their questions.

Today's issue is Southern Africa, one that poses a direct challenge to the fundamental principle enunciated in the preamble to the United Nations Charter, which states, quoting now the dignity and worth of the human person, the equal rights of men and women and nations large and small should be valued.

An important line to think about with our discussion because as we speak, Southern Africa represents an area in turmoil.

Most of the problems in this region are due to the racial and socioeconomic differences between the white ruled South Africa and its neighbors now compounding.

The fact is that South Africa is the only state in the region that is both economically and militarily self-sufficient.

Currently, many other states in the region have close economic ties to South Africa despite their opposition to apartheid.

Because of this major difference in philosophy, these states have currently joined together to form the Southern Africa Development Coordinating Conference, and that is ordered to decrease their economic dependencies on South Africa.

Due to this situation, questions of apartheid, the independence, independence of Namibia, and the role of these so-called frontline states, they, these questions all continue as important issues in the United Nations.

Recently, the UN General Assembly has called for the widest possible dissemination of information concerning South Africa's apartheid policy in order to secure increasing awareness and support of World Public Opinion for United Nations actions to eliminate apartheid.

To gain a little bit more insight into the topic of apartheid, we have prepared the following tape segment and we remind you to use the numbers to call in to ask our panel or our featured speaker some questions.

That number again is area code 8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9 8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9, and now our tape segment.

- The crisis which enveloped Southern Africa may eventually involve the entire world.

It is a crisis rooted in the continuation of white minority rule in South Africa and Namibia.

South Africa's neighbors known as the frontline states have already been dragged into the conflict.

The mineral wealth and strategic location of the white ruled Republic of South Africa have already brought the superpowers indirectly into the fray.

One of the cores of the problem, some would say the core is the policy of apartheid enacted into law by South Africa's parliament in 1948 Apartheid the Africana word meaning Apartness is a system designed to separate South Africa's racial groups in every way, separate housing, separate schools, separate public telephones, separate railroad cars, separate universities, and separate public facilities.

Although not enacted into law until 1948, the practices of apartheid began as early as the arrival of the first Dutch settlers in 1652.

The British took control of these Dutch settlements beginning in 1795 and English settlers began to arrive in the 1820s.

The Dutch settlers who were known as Boars, had been living in South Africa for more than 150 years.

By this time, trek North to found boar states free from British control, although they were defeated by the British in the boar war at the turn of the century.

By 1910, the Boars had gained virtual control of what was now the union of South Africa, an independent member of the British Commonwealth.

After World War ii, the Union Party suffered its first defeat at the polls and the conservative African or dominated national Party came to power.

Once in control of parliament, the African majority enacted a series of laws making apartheid the law in South Africa, the purpose of apartheid is to keep South Africa's races apart.

The cornerstones of the system are the Race Classification Act Ban two stands or homelands pass laws, the Group Areas Act and security legislation.

According to the Race Classification Act, all South Africans are classified by race as white colored Asian or Bantu.

The whites comprise 14% of the total population.

Two thirds of them are africaners.

The colored people of mixed racial stock comprise 8% of the population, the Asians descendants of Indians brought to work building.

The railroads in the 19th century are 3% of the total population, and the blacks today represent 75% of South Africa's people.

This race classification determines every aspect of a South African's life.

Thousands of laws regulate who may do what, who may live where, and who may work for whom.

Asians and Colored have limited political rights and now have separate houses in Parliament.

Though this in no way undermines white domination, but no black is a citizen of South Africa and no black can vote for the South.

A African government each is considered a citizen of his or her Bantu nation or homeland.

The 10 homelands are supposedly built around the areas where the different black ethnic groups in South Africa lived.

Historically.

Together they have been allocated 13% of South Africa's land area, most of it poor, eroded, and far from the country's resources and industrial centers.

70% of the people are expected to live in these homelands.

Four of the homelands Trans sky, Siska, NDA and BSA have received supposed independence.

They continue to depend totally on South Africa and no other country has recognized their independence to live outside their homelands.

Blacks must have jobs and must carry passes, including their work permits.

The group areas act restricts the residences of blacks working in white areas as well as the colored and Asians who have no homelands.

It forces families apart because non-working wives and children are not permitted to live outside the homelands with their working husbands.

The entire web of apartheid legislation is maintained through strict enforcement of rigid security measures throughout the country.

Security forces may detain people without filing charges and can obtain banning orders for them, restricting an individual's movement and their contact with people, especially in groups.

On June 12th this year, a state of emergency was imposed, given the government greater ability to detain people without trial, restricting freedom of the press and permitting the closure of schools, that state of emergency is still in force.

As one might expect blacks have resisted the system of apartheid.

During the 1950s, the protests were nonviolent, but in 1960, police fired into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators in sharpville killing more than 60 people.

In response, the government banned the African National Congress or a NC, which had been founded in 1912.

The A NC went underground and began to advocate violence.

Its leader Nelson Mandela was imprisoned in 1964 after being convicted of treason for his opposition to the government's apartheid system.

Following the rise of the Black Consciousness movement in the 1970s, black resistance to apartheid became more active.

In June, 1976, blacks and Soweto, the black area outside Johannesburg rioted over the imposition of African Connor language instruction in black schools.

The next year, black consciousness leader Steven Biko, died while in detention by the security forces.

In the mid 1980s, violent protests against apartheid and attacks by black nationalists against whites and blacks cooperating in the system of white rule have increased.

In the past two years, more than 2000 people have died in these protests.

In addition to protests from South African blacks, the international community has loudly condemned apartheid for many years.

Following the Sharpville massacre in 1960, the question gained new prominence at the United Nations.

Over the years, numerous resolutions have been passed by the General Assembly and Security Council condemning apartheid as a violation of human rights and of several articles of the United Nations charter.

The South African government has objected that this is an internal matter.

Yet, in 1962, a special committee on the policies of the government of South Africa was created to look into apartheid.

That special committee has evolved over the years into today's UN center against apartheid.

A voluntary arms embargo was imposed in 1963 and made mandatory in 1977.

In 1974, South Africa was suspended from the UN General Assembly and all other conferences held under UN auspices.

These measures, plus the increasing international outcry against South Africa, including the limited sanctions imposed by the European community and the US Congress have had an effect.

In recent years, some of the petty aspects of apartheid have been eliminated, and in April of this year, south African president PW Boha announced the repeal of 34 of the restrictive laws, yet the basic structure of the apartheid system remains in place.

- At this time, I'd like you to introduce to you our featured speaker for today's program, ambassador and permanent representative of Botswana to the United Nations Laela.

Joseph Laela, ambassador Laela was born in Botswana in 1937.

He attended the Sowe Teacher Training College in Mount Royal in Botswana, the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, where he earned his BA in political science and history.

Ambassador Laela was awarded his master's degree in political science at the University of Alberta.

In 1974, he became senior private secretary to the president of the Republic of Botswana, a position he held until 1980.

At that time, he was appointed appointed ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations.

Ambassador Laela has many other duties.

He serves as high commissioner to Guyana and Jamaica, as well as the Ambassador to Cuba.

Ambassador Lala, welcome to our program.

I've heard much about you from our panel members and we look forward to your comments today.

I will start off the questioning by asking you this question.

South Africa has instituted some changes in apartheid in recent years.

My question is, can peaceful change continue or have we reached a situation where civil war is eminent?

- Well, I think Civil War is eminent in the sense that's coming out coming.

The South African government has been doing what they call reforms and in our view reforms I relevant at this late hour in the day because South Africa has reached a stage where what we need is a drastic transformation of the society in that country from one of racialism to one of non racialism.

And we believe, as we have always believed in Southern Africa and in the OU through the Lusaka Manifesto of 1969, that the people of South Africa, when we say the people of South Africa, we mean black people in South Africa and the white people in South Africa who have been there for more than 300 years.

And we believe that they all belong to that country.

And unless they can learn how to live together in peace, in freedom and freedom, there is no way they can avoid a civil war.

The kind of civil war which took place in in, in Rhodesia, which is today in Zimbabwe, and where today whites and blacks are living together in one independent free country.

And we believe that in South Africa, unless they get rid of apartheid and all that it represents in that country, there is going to be a bloody conflagration, which is not only going to affect South Africa as a country, but the whole subregion of of, of our continent - Ambassador.

Thank you.

We would like to now take some questions from our panel members.

To my immediate left, Lisa Kansky.

Lisa, your first question.

- Thank you, Mr.

Russell.

Mr.

Ambassador, we frequently hear that friction among South Africa's black ethnic groups could lead to severe conflict after the attainment of majority rule.

Could you please comment on this?

- Well, I don't, I don't, I don't share that fear.

I believe that the reason why there is conflict among the ethnic groups in South Africa is because that is decided by, by the, the government in power, because the more they are divided, the easier it'll be for the government in power in South Africa, the minority government in South Africa to rule them, to dominate them.

And that's the reason why you have all this conflict.

You had, you had, you know, conflicts in all the countries in Africa, which were ruled by foreigners, and today they're peaceful.

And I believe that once you give the south the people of South Africa, the freedom to choose their own government to live in their own country in freedom, there is, there is no likelihood that they are going to continue to fight each other under a, a free government living in a free country.

So I don't share the idea that the SSA will fight the Zulus, the Zulus will fight the police under an independent country where there will be, everything will be done taking into account the fact that South Africa is not inhabited by the Zulus alone or by Sal alone or the runners alone, that there are many ethnic groups there, which must live together in peace as they must, because if they don't, then their country will be torn apart.

- Interesting comments.

Mr.

Ambassador?

Thank you.

A reminder, the phone in number that you can utilize this afternoon for our broadcast, 8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9 8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9, and you can ask Ambassador Lulo your own question.

Let's move down the panel for our next question from Jorge Rios.

- Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador.

We have just heard how segregation of the races is carried out through the implementation of bounty stands or homelands.

Could you please describe the living conditions in these homelands and bounty stands?

- Why the living conditions?

I don't know how I can describe them for an American to understand, because maybe what the black people here in the United States experienced in the South before the laws that make sure that the people of the United States are equal, were elected in South Africa.

What we mean by the Bantu Stan are godforsaken areas of South Africa where there is no development, where there is squ, where people have no hope, that is places even where there is no rain, where they cannot plow and where there is no life at all.

And that is where they are, they are, they are, they're sent to, to live out their lives there in Sala.

So it is very difficult to describe, you know, SIC for an American to understand.

All I can say is that they are probably, you are used to, you may, you may have a picture in your mind of the reservations before they were brought into the modern world when the Indians living in the, in the past.

So today, towards the end of the 20th century, that is how the black people are being forced to leave those who have been driven into this, as I say, godforsaken places on the periphery of modern South Africa.

- Mr.

Ambassador, we are now getting some telephone traffic from the number that we have posted earlier.

And again, the reminder, the telephone number that you can call, 8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9 and you can ask a question that you may be concerned some issue of the South African situation and ask, ask ambassador Laela your question.

We do have one from Flint, Michigan, Mr.

Ambassador, and it is this, South Africa has ignored many UN resolutions in past years.

What can be done about states that refuse general assembly or security council resolutions?

- Well, you know, it's difficult to, to, to, to, to say exactly what can be done because as you know, these, the, the, the, the United Nations has no police force of its own, which it can send ar send around to arrest culprits people who are violating its injunctions.

So the, the only thing that the international community can do is to, is to make sure that they can p put pressure on these countries which violate resolutions of the general assembly to make sure that even, even though they can violate them, they should not do so with impunity.

South Africa in particular, which is the, the question, a issue has violated every resolution that we have ever passed here in the United Nations.

But the problem with South Africa is that the, the western world has been too cozy and too friendly with South Africa.

In fact, the western world, as we have always argued here and elsewhere, has been too permissive of South Africa's violation of its own injunctions.

And therefore, because there has not been any pressure, South Africa doesn't feel the need to comply with the, the security council resolutions on Namibia, for instance, or the general assembly resolutions on apartheid.

So it is because the South Africa knows that the western world is not going to do anything to harm it.

- Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador.

Let's now turn to our panel for a moment and talk a little bit about the model.

Un Lisa Kansky is here with me to do that.

Now Lisa, it is well known that that Dominion University has one of the largest and more extensive model UN programs.

What is the South African delegation to the model un react?

How is their reaction to this situation?

What effect, if any, has it had on the model UN members?

- Well, in addressing that question, I like to say that prior to last year's conference, we used to allow high school, a high school to represent South Africa in our annual assimilation.

However, experience has shown that in doing so, the delegation representing South Africa was frustrated and the General assembly, it was counterproductive for the general assembly.

We, upon commencement of the opening session, the credentials of South Africa were challenged throwing the student delegation representing South Africa into limbo.

We felt that this was unfair to the students and the schools who have traveled from afar and prepared in great detail.

We felt also that while we saw it also as counterproductive to the delegates, debating the credentials of South Africa, forcing the other agenda topics, the other issues to be discussed, they would be untreated.

They were their front treated.

So we have not assigned South Africa to a high school in the past two years at our conferences, - So there has been quite a bit of effect.

Thank you Lisa, for your comments.

Alright, let's, Mr.

Ambassador and our audience, again, the reminder, the number just we're, we're pushing the phone number so you can have your input into our broadcast today as well.

8 0 4 4 4 0 4 7 2 9.

Let's turn our attention now, Mr.

Ambassador to the issues surrounding Namibia or Southwestern Africa.

First, a very brief bit of background for our viewers.

After World War I, Southwest Africa or Namibia became a League of Nations mandate under the South African administration.

Now after the creation of the United Nations, the General Assembly recommended trusteeship status for the territory.

South Africa refused to comply and in 1949 and formed the United Nations, it would no longer transmit information on the territory.

Although the International Court of Justice intervene and ruled that Southwest Africa was still a territory under international mandate.

Southwest Africa continues and continues to oppose any form of United Nations supervision over the territorial affairs.

Now keeping this background that I just gave you in mind, we would like you to view this taped segment on Namibia.

Let's look at it now.

- Eight years before Columbus reached the Americas a Portuguese semen first stepped onto the forbidding shores of southwest Africa, pausing just long enough to put up a stone cross.

The cross was undisturbed and probably unseen for four centuries.

Laborers who today collect diamonds over the shoreline know it as the coast of hell.

The land may be poor to look at, but it is rich to dig diamonds, copper, lead, zinc, uranium.

Almost all the mining and prospecting ventures in the country are controlled by foreign investors who use the cheap labor to work the soil and then reap the handsome profits.

The first foreigners were the Germans and they provided the namibians with a common fall.

This included the Nama tribe, the Herrero, the Damara, and the Bushman.

It was then a time of despair and their songs still recount what happened.

My hunting grounds have become even like unto a waterless land since he who has settled here treats me in such an arrogant manner.

And now where may we live?

We shall go forth and search.

They all searched for new lands, but found instead labor contracts, economic inferiority, identity passes and poverty.

The Germans who came to southwest Africa in the 1880s brought the usual colonial pattern.

First the missionaries, then the traitors, finally the chartered companies and concessions.

When the tribes objected and the companies lost money, Bismarck sent an Imperial commissioner.

His first job was to persuade the African chiefs to accept the so-called protection of Germany.

The technique of persuasion was simple.

When two tribes were hostile to each other, both would be offered military support as the governor put it.

The German policy was to influence the natives to kill each other for us, the settlers soon cast envious eyes on the tribal lands.

The tribes had no concept of private land ownership and they watched with dismay as their pastures were confiscated.

By 1904, more than half of the tribal cattle had passed into German hands.

Things had come to such a state that the herrero with only 7,000 fighting men and only one third of them with firearms declared war against all the might of the German empire.

Chief Ma Herrero gave orders to kill only German men.

No women, no children, no missionaries.

Reinforcements were summoned from Berlin and the guns of Maxim and croup quickly shattered the insurrection.

The whole Herrero nation took flight.

The chief fled across the desert to Botswana by custom.

As long as the chief is not captured or killed, the tribe remains uncured.

And because the chief survived, they never regarded themselves as a defeated people.

An extermination order was issued.

All herrero, men, women, and children must be killed.

But that proved to be too much even for the ancient enemies of the herrero.

The NAMA people, their chief Whit boy was 80 years old, but he had had enough.

He repudiated his treaty with the Germans and led his men to war.

By 1907, the chief was dead, killed in battle, and so were more than half his people.

The Namas had been reduced from 20,000 to less than 10,000.

Their leaders executed a quarter of the survivors deported to other parts of the country.

With the herrero's, it was worse Before the extermination order, there had been 80,000 herreras.

Now only 15,000 remained forbidden to own cattle or land allowed to stay on as wage laborers.

Two-thirds of those left from this tribe of warriors went into exile.

This is what the United Nations in a later age termed genocide.

Following World War I, Germany's former colonies passed to the League of Nations to be administered as a sacred trust by the union of South Africa.

In 1946, the United Nations trusteeship system was set up to replace the mandate.

Togoland, Tanika, Cameroons and six other territories passed into the UN's care, but not Namibia, where South African rule remained in force.

In 1966, the General Assembly brought the mandate to an end and declared Namibia to be under the direct responsibility of the United Nations.

South Africa rejected the resolution.

The repressive apartheid policy continued to divide the population and led to the growth of Swapo, a liberation group.

The assembly recommended that the Security Council take effective measures to ensure the immediate removal of South African presence and to secure the territories independence.

The future of the territory and its people now rests in the hands of untag, the United Nations Transition Assistance Group.

Its mandate to ensure the cessation of hostilities and to conduct free and fair elections that will eventually lead to freedom for all.

Namibians - Noting that 1985 marked the 25th anniversary of the founding of swapo, the General Assembly reaffirmed its support for the party's armed struggle and condemned South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of the territory for which the United Nations has assumed direct responsibility prior to its independence, specifically condemning the so-called interim government imposed by the Pretoria government and all other fraudulent constitutional and political schemes by which the racist regime of South Africa attempts to perpetuate its colonial domination of Namibia.

The General Assembly further rejected the linkage of Namibian independence to Cuban troop withdrawal from Namibia, and it endorsed what it recognized as the worldwide and justified condemnation of the policy of constructive engagement, which it considered a failure and supportive of South African resistance to Namibian independence.

- We are back from the campus of Old Dominion University, the teleconference center.

Mr.

Ambassador, now a question on the Namibia issue.

What happened at the recent special general assembly session and during the recently concluded 41st general assembly regarding Namibia?

- Well, well what what happened at the special session, which took place at the beginning of the 41st session was that we agitated for the implementation of resolution 4, 3, 5 of the security council, 1978 of the security council.

You know, we have reached a stage where we don't even know what else we can do since we have a blueprint for the liberation of Namibia, that is for the peaceful liberation of Namibia, which is resolution 4, 3, 5.

So all we did was to agitate that it should be implemented without delay.

And that is the same thing that we did in in Vienna in in in in July when we held a meeting there, specific alone Namibia, which was the meeting which was supposed to speed up the implementation or to begin the implementation of, of resolution 4, 3, 5, which as you know, is the, is being impeded by the linking of the Namibian question to the presence of irrelevant issues, the principle of which is the presence of the Cubans in Angola.

So even during the felt 41st session, we adopted a lot of resolutions.

We, which we, we appealed to those who are party to the linkage to please allow the implementation of resolution 4, 3, 5 because any lack of implementation for that resolution invites even more problems, more bloody problems in Southern Africa because Namibia, it's a problem now and added to that of South Africa.

I think it's more than we need in Southern Africa.

If we were faced only with the problem of South Africa, while Namibia has been allowed to be independent would be who would have been almost through with the, the, the, the conflict in southern Africa.

But we are facing a problem with Namibia, which as I say has a blueprint for its liberation.

The, the only problem remaining being that it is being linked to problems which have nothing to do with it.

- Very good, thank you Mr.

Ambassador.

Now let's bring our panel back into the discussion with another question from our young people to my left who have researched this topic as well and have put a lot of their time and work into this.

And we'll take our next question from Ann Steam.

Ann, - Thank you Ambassador Laela.

Could you please give us some background information on Swapo and its role in Namibia?

- Well, SWAPO, as you know, was founded 20 years ago and has been fighting for the liberation of Namibia all these 20 years.

And swap is, is in exile.

I mean part of it is in exile.

That is the fighting is in exile, but they, there is also inside the country that is, you may hear that there is another pu called Pudi.

What we are talking about here is not Pudi is the real swapo.

Pudi is a splinter group from Swapo and that is the group which is participating in the internal settlement internal, internal government to what they call the interim government in Namibia.

But the swap we are talking about is the swap which has been recognized by the OU and the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia.

Why?

Because Shapu is fighting for true liberation in Namibia and it's an observer, a member of the United Nations, which means that it participates in the debates in the general assembly and it can be invited to participate in the debate in the security council.

So all Swapo is saying is that they want their country to be free.

They don't want to kill anybody in in, in Namibia.

All they want is the implementation of resolution 4, 3, 5, which means even they like the frontline states and the United Nations and the rest of the international community want the peaceful liberation of Namibia.

They don't want any more war than anybody else.

They don't want the conflict in Namibia to continue.

They want Namibia to be implemented, to be, to be liberated peacefully, as I say, under the provisions of resolution 4, 3, 5, they are party to this resolution.

They are accepted the resolution in 1978, just like South Africa did.

But unfortunately South Africa has been amending the, the resolution.

They have been attaching all sorts of conditions to the, and that's the reason why the resolution has not been implemented.

So I think in brief that is the story of Swapo.

It is the story of a group of Namibians who because of the love of their territory, have decided to take up arms because there was no alternative for them.

They could not participate in the election of their own government in Namibia because Namibia is virtually being run as if it is part of South Africa.

And therefore they had to retreat into the bush in order to fight because otherwise the choice would've been to to just wait until divine providence intervene and force their country to be liberated.

- Very good.

Thank you Mr.

Ambassador.

Lots of information this this day.

If you have tuned in in the middle of our broadcast or have been distracted in some way, let me review for you what's going on.

We are bouncing from two different locations here today from the Old Dominion University teleconference center here in Norfolk, Virginia.

And our Ambassador Laela is in the United Nations in New York City.

Our questions are coming from the panel members and we are cutting back and forth from New York and Virginia.

A reminder, use the phone number to call in your questions.

Four four oh four seven two nine four four oh four seven two nine.

The area code is 8 0 4 and you can ask the ambassador a question yourself on South Africa.

Let's move down our panel now for another question.

The next one from Sando Dyson.

- Thank you Ambassador Laela.

You mentioned the need for liberation in Namibia.

I have two related questions, sir.

The first has South Africa imposed the apartheid legislation in Namibia and secondly, to what extent does South Africa seek to extend the apartheid system beyond its borders?

- Well, South Africa, South Africa, since they were allowed to run the territory by the League of Nations in 1918 have transported all the terrible laws which are in existence in South Africa.

South Africa is run in the show in Namibia, the administrator general, it's South African and the soldiers, although the South Africans will tell you that they have a territorial force there.

It's a territorial force at the behest of the South African government.

And then therefore the country is run in the same manner that South Africa is running.

The government of South Africa is running South Africa.

They have the apartheid laws there, some of them of course the internal regime there, which is recognized only by South Africa, has tried to to, to tinker with them just like South Africa is tinkering with apartheid in South South Africa itself.

So in so far as Namibia's concerned, south Namibia is not only being exploited and its resources ppl by the South Africans and their friends in the western world and Namibia is suffering the same agony that the people of South Africa are suffering.

And then of course South Africa would only be happy if apartheid can be the order of the day in the whole subcontinent of Africa.

The only problem of course they have is that some of us are independent and therefore will not allow apartheid to be transplanted in our own societies.

But otherwise, Namibia unfortunately remains a victim to all the atrocious laws which we call apartheid.

And therefore it is true apartheid has been transported to to, to Namibia.

I don't know what more I can say.

I hope I have answered your question.

- Yes, ambassador, you have.

Thank you.

We appreciate your comments on this.

We will go off the panel now.

I understand we have a question from one of the members of our studio audience here in the teleconference center in Norfolk.

Is that ready?

- Yes.

Has South Africa in effect annex Namibia?

And if so, does the un have the will and the power to reverse this?

- No, South Africa actually hasn't annexed Namibia.

It is simply ruling Namibia as though it were part of South Africa.

It hasn't legally annex Namibia because we have always opposed that United Nations has opposed it.

Although the South Africa has refused to allow Namibia to be transferred to the United Nations trusteeship system, Namibia is still the responsibility of the United Nations and South Africa has accepted that Namibia is the responsibility of the United Nations.

That's the reason why in 1978 the South Africa accepted resolution 4, 3, 5 of the security council.

And therefore all I'm saying is that although Namibia is not legally part an integral part of South Africa, it is been run as though it were as though it is just like Cape Province or Natal or the other places.

Except that of course you have an administrator, an administrator general there who as I say is South African and therefore the United Nations will never allow Namibia to be an integral part of Namibia of of South Africa.

Although, you know, because there is, we have to be realistic.

We have to accept the fact that although the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly have have, have said South Africa has no legal right to be in that territory.

South Africa is still ensconced there by force of arms, it occupies Namibia and therefore that is one real reality that we have to accept.

And then until, until that kind of situation is corrected, of course South Africa will still be called to, to answer to everything that goes on in that territory.

- Mr.

Ambassador, thank you for those comments.

Now we have talked about apartheid in the first segment of our program and then Namibia.

To complete our discussion of Southern Africa, we'd like to turn to the examination of the frontline states and their role.

Before we get into that conversation, we would like you to look at one more tape segment, just a very brief note, and let's take a look at that.

Now, - As a region, Southern Africa has been the continent's slowest to attain majority rule.

The black rule states bordering on South Africa and Namibia gradually attained independence from British Portuguese and white minority rule between 1961 and 1980.

Together they're called the frontline states, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique, Angola, and Zimbabwe.

They are in the front line of the struggle for majority rule because their economies and road and rail lines were so closely linked to South Africa before their independence.

Most of them remain dependent upon South Africa in one way or another.

They condemn apartheid, provide what support they can for black resistance to apartheid within South Africa, and they play the lead role in the international struggle against apartheid.

The South African government has devoted a great deal of effort to influence events within these countries, particularly through strong support for anti-government groups in Marxist and Angola and Mozambique.

They have also engaged in cross-border military operations in Angola, Botswana, the Soto, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

In 1984, south African pressure and Mozambique became so strong that its late President Sam and Michelle felt compelled to conclude the matic accords with South African President Boha.

The non-aggression pact between the two governments, yet pressure on the frontline states continues.

- Ambassador Lala, based on what you have just heard, we'll take another question from panel member Jorge Rios, he has one for you.

- Thank you Mr.

Ambassador, could you please describe South Africa's activities in undermining frontline states?

- Well, first of all, let me correct the, the, the, the presentation, the segment, which preceded your question, the frontline, there are six frontline states.

That is Botswana, Angola, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Mozambique.

And then nine sad countries.

So the segment mentioned sad countries, not frontline states, sad countries include of course, Malawi, Swaziland and Otto.

That is in addition to the six frontline states.

Anyway, what South Africa is doing in the frontline states is well known, has been published in the newspapers.

They have invaded my own country twice.

They have invaded the, they, they, they, they're supporting the dissident movements.

That is the South Africans supporting the dissident movements in Mozambique, in Angola.

And they are also supported the dissident movements in mate and in Zimbabwe.

And they've invaded Zimbabwe, they've invaded Mozambique.

Of course, south African troops virtually live in the southern part of Angola.

So, and they don't just go there and sit there, they go there and destroy economic infrastructure.

The whole southern part of Angola is, has been turned into a wasteland.

And in my own country in June last year, they destroyed 12 houses, killed 12 people, and you can still find ruins in that capital.

They came back in May and destroyed a housing complex and killed one Tswana citizen.

They went to Zimbabwe and destroyed the office of the A NC in the center of Harare and they went to Zimbabwe and destroyed a refugee camp.

So, and in Mozambique of course most parts of Mozambique are, are teaming with dissident movements, which are armed financed, transported by the South Africans.

So they have cost havoc and so far we have estimated that the havoc they have cost is to the tune of more than $20 billion.

That is $5 billion a year of the devastation.

They are leaking in so far as the economic infrastructure in southern Africa.

It's concerned railway lines, that means railway lines are destroyed, roads are destroyed, buildings are destroyed.

So it all cost us a lot of money.

And these are the lifelines.

The lifelines, which can lessen our dependences on South Africa.

That is the lines which go, don't go through South Africa to the ports, but the lines which can at long last lessen our dependence on a country with policies we're at logger is with.

- Thank you Mr.

Ambassador.

And for that correction too, obviously you are the expert on this issue and we appreciate your input as well.

Let's take another question.

We will move down the panel now to Einstein and - Thank you ambassador.

How do the frontline states work together at the UN and in other organizations to push for majority rule in South Africa?

- Oh, well, I I didn't get the question.

- How do the frontline states work together at the UN and in other organizations to push for majority rule in South Africa?

- Well, we are doing that, you see, we are, you know, we are lobbying, we, we keep going to the security council to ask the security council to impose sanctions.

We keep pushing resolutions in the general assembly.

We keep agitating for conferences, seminars to discuss the situation in Southern Africa.

But so far we have only succeeded in increasing pressure, but we have not succeeded in getting that which we all want.

And that is freedom in the whole continent of Africa.

Not only freedom in the north of the, the Zabe River, but freedom in the tape of the south, the southern tape of the, the African continent.

So we are doing all we can with our friends from all corners of the world to make sure that we can put enough pressure, particularly on those who are supporting South Africa, because we believe that just putting pressure on South Africa alone is not, will not be effective.

We must make sure that the apologies of the South African regime, that is those who are making sure that South Africa survives because South Africa is the powerhouse of strategic minerals, minerals which are set to be vital for, for western industries and particularly for the security of the western world that they must, they must know that they are, these strategic minerals will be protected under a free government in South Africa, not under the type of government that will cause the, the destruction of the mines, the destruction of the economy of South Africa, which is so important not only to the West, but it is also important.

Let us not forget the economy of South Africa is also important to the African continent.

Imagine if South Africa were free, if we were all dealing with South Africa without the, the, the, the, the, the trauma that we feel for dealing with a country which practices apartheid South Africa would be the south southern Africa will be stronger than it is today.

If South Africa were free because we'll be South Africa would be a member of Sade, South Africa would be a member of the frontline states or if we would still have the frontline states in the absence of apartheid.

So we are doing everything to make sure that the day will come when South Africa will not be the kind of country it is today, but that it should be a free country where everybody's happy because only then can the whole subcontinent be a happy place to live here.

- Very true.

Mr.

Ambassador, thank you.

We are getting phone in traffic again.

Let's give the number, we have a few minutes left in our program today, but please call in with your questions.

I'm sure you will agree.

Our ambassador and speaker today is very eloquent and is also very knowledgeable on this issue.

The phone number is area code (804) 440-4729 on the screen right below me.

Call it in (804) 440-4729.

And you can ask Ambassador Laela your question.

I have one now, ambassador, you mentioned this earlier coming out of our tape segment, president Botta and others claim that the, oh, excuse me, I was reading the wrong question.

Let me, let me get this one because you mentioned this earlier.

Why did South Africa invade your country recently and what was the effect in Botswana?

This is an emotional issue for you, I'm sure.

- Well, you know, they normally say that they are invading their neighbors because we harbor the, the the so-called terrorists of the A NC.

You know, they, they, they, what what the world know what the high commissioner for refugees know, what the Secretary General of the United Nations know, what the Americans, the Russians and everybody know is that we host refugees from South Africa.

In any case, we have no choice because we are contiguous to South Africa and Namibia.

And there is no way with the kind of morality that we believe in that we can close our borders against victims of racial tyranny.

So we allow these people to come to our countries, but all the countries around South Africa have, have laws, have laws, they have promulgated, which they have made known to everybody.

They're not secret laws to the effect that the refugees will not be allowed to use our territories to fight South Africa because we are vulnerable.

And South Africa know this and South Africa know that in Botswana, if we catch people running around with guns, with weapons of war, we take them to our courts and try them publicly and sentence them to, to to to to, to to prison if, if they're found guilty.

And therefore when they come into Botswana, they don't kill gorillas, they kill refugees.

The people they killed on June 14 last year, and the person they killed on the, on the 19th of May this year, they were not South African the gorillas.

And on, on May 19th this year, they killed a tswana.

There was not even one South African gorilla, let alone a refugee.

And last year they killed 12 people, nine of whom were refugees, and the refugees who had been allowed there, who had been monitored by the government of Botswana.

So they don't come there to kill gorillas, they come there to kill refugees, which means that in so far as South African refugees are concerned, there is no freedom for them in their own country and there can be no freedom for them in exile.

- Mr.

Ambassador, I'd like to follow up on this.

This must be particularly frustrating for you to try to get the American people to realize what exactly is going on.

Has this been a difficult job and do you feel like you're communicating your message effectively and in trying to bring about some form of remedy?

- You see, the problem is that you see the only, the only power in the United States in particular, which can, you know, help us remedy the situation is the government of the United States.

You know, the, i i I believe, you know, I I may be wrong, but I believe that the people of the United States get the message that we have been trying to convey to them and they get the message that we have been trying to convey to their own government.

And I think that is the reason why the Senate this year overruled the president's veto on sanctions against South Africa.

But we think that the United States as a power, the most powerful country in the world, has not done much to put pressure on South Africa to make sure that South Africa does not go around lashing at, at, at its neighbors forgetting that the problem is not within the territories of its neighbors, but within South Africa itself, of course I must, I I I must express the gratitude of my government to the government of the United States for protesting the invasion of my capital twice by the South Africans.

But we are saying that while we thank them for having done that, we still think that they have more influence than they have been able to use to persuade South Africa to behave towards its neighbors because we have no warlike intentions towards South Africa.

We would be full hudy, we would be suicidal to even want dream about fighting South Africa no matter how, how, how we hate apartheid.

So we are not the problem to South Africa.

The problem in south, far South Africa is concerned it's apartheid.

And until the South Africans and their friends can accept this reality, there is no way South Africa can stop lashing out at its neighbors - A formidable task.

Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador.

Let's bring our panel back into this discussion as well.

San Dyson is next with his question.

- Thank you Ambassador ela.

As we saw in the film, and as I'm sure you know, recently the Congress of United States and the European community have imposed limited sanctions on South Africa.

Do you feel that these sanctions will be effective and what, what changes could these sanctions bring about?

Sir, - You know what, what what we have always said is that, you know, people sometimes argue as though sanctions by themselves are supposed to overthrow the government of South Africa.

No sanctions are an instrument of pressure and they're an instruments which compliments what the people of South Africa themselves are doing inside and outside.

That is the, the, the struggle by the A NC and the struggle by the people inside the people inside peacefully, the A NC unfortunately violently.

And we are saying that those who are, who have been imposing sanctions, that is the European communities, the people of the United States, they are doing so in order to complement what is already going on, the struggle that is already going on against apartheid.

So there should be no confusion here.

There should be no confusion because we, we, in Rhodesia, for instance, the British came here in 1966 and asked the security council to impose sanctions against Rhodesia.

And no one can tell me that those sanctions didn't work.

They did because they complimented the struggle by zap and Zanu.

And eventually in 1980, of course after a long time and after more than 30,000 people killed needlessly, Smith gave up.

And Smith will probably still be fighting if the liberation struggle was not complemented by, by, by, by, by sanctions.

So no one is saying that we'll impose sanctions and then tomorrow there will be no apartheid.

That is not the, that is not the question.

- Alright, Mr.

Ambassador, we have time, we are winding up our program here so we have time to get one other question in Lisa.

- Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador.

The South African government has offered to free Nelson Mandela.

If he renounces violence, is he likely to do so?

- Well, you know, if the South Africans themselves, south African government itself can renounce violence, maybe Mandela will find every reason to, to renounce violence himself.

But how can you shoot somebody and then you ask him to renounce violence?

You who, who started the violence?

Why can't you renounce violence?

And certain example, since you set an example by, by, by, by, by, by imposing violence policy on the people of South Africa, why can't the government of South Africa renounce violence?

They must tell, they must tell Manela and Mandela that they no longer believe in violence.

And Mandela, as he said, he will, he will say, well, you know, if you don't believe in violence, then I don't have to use violence in reaction to your violence.

- Mr.

Ambassador, we are running short now.

Our program is almost ended for the day.

Do you have any closing thoughts that you would like to make?

Bear in mind, we have lots of young people watching the broadcast.

What sort of a message would you like them to go home with?

Well, - The, the message I, I want to leave with the, the, the students of the United States, particularly those of all Dominion University, who have given me the opportunity to speak here this, this afternoon, is that apartheid is a violent policy which enrages the conscience not only of blacks in South Africa and South Africa and Africa, but of all mankind.

And that they also must join the struggle to oppose that violent policy.

Thank you.

- Thank you for your comments, Mr.

Ambassador.

They've been most appreciated this day.

On behalf of the Old Dominion University model, United Nations Society, we thank you for sharing your knowledge in this issue.

It's an emotional one.

The issue of apartheid in South Africa touches us all our hearts and our souls.

And we would like to thank the teleconference Center here at Old Dominion University, the United Nations, the Model un A lot of folks, W-H-R-O-T-V, a lot of people were involved in putting this broadcast together.

We would also like to remind you to tune in again next Wednesday, December 17th, 12 noon Eastern Standard Time, as the Model United Nations teleconference series continues.

On behalf of all of us from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, I'm Mike Russell wishing you a good day.