Ambassador Peter Dyvig, Political Director, welcomed the chairman.

He said Danish interest in the problem was very deep. Denmark had taken an active and positive interest in the process of decolonisation and developed very good relations with independent countries.

Denmark was concerned with southern Africa, because of its concern, within its own society, for establishing a welfare state with equal opportunities. That is how Denmark approached the problem of apartheid - concern for justice, human rights and welfare state.

But there is need to be realistic. It took a long time to establish a welfare State in Denmark. One should have the objective clear and follow the course.

To achieve the objective, there was need for a peaceful environment. The development in Denmark was evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Denmark, therefore, sometimes reserved its position on references in resolutions to "all means of struggle" in South Africa.

The Ministry, he said, had been looking forward to the Chairman’s visit.

Amb. Maitama-Sule expressed gratitude and said he regarded Nordic countries as friends.

Change came gradually and gradual changes were more lasting.

He thanked Nordic countries for support. They were friends and he wished to speak frankly.

Africa was against discrimination because of colour. He believed Africans should not discriminate against others because of colour.

The colonial masters had democracy, but there must be democracy all over the world.

South Africa had adopted Nazism and institutionalised it. It was unique.

Apartheid was an all-embracing system. It could not be reformed or amended but must be eradicated.

His approach was the same as that of Denmark. He wished to avoid violence. The liberation movement had attacked installations but had avoided taking lives. But three freedom fighters were facing execution though there was no loss of life during the attack on the police station, of which they were accused.

What was the alternative?

He wished to see democracy and a multi-racial society in South Africa. He wanted whites to stay, as they had no other place to go.

The alternatives were: (a) violence, escalating conflict and involvement of world powers; and (b) sanctions.

During the International Year of Mobilisation for Sanctions against South Africa (1982), the Special Committee was trying to mobilise public opinion and hold dialogue with Governments.

The involvement of superpowers in southern Africa would be a great danger.

South Africa had been attacking frontline States and there was an undeclared war. Africa would hold West responsible. It did not have forces to fight South Africa.

The Special Committee called for an oil embargo, cultural and sports boycott etc.

He appealed for more assistance and more understanding. He intended to keep consulting with Nordic countries on any resolution.

He too believed less in rhetoric and more in realism.

Frontline States should be helped to become more independent.

Some countries had been arming South Africa when it was killing blacks and whites, and committing aggression against frontline States. The frontline States may have to ask their friends to assist.

The arms embargo must be strengthened. Transfer of technology must be stopped.

South Africa had become a nuclear Power. Against whom but the rest of Africa?

As regards oil embargo, he had discussions in the Middle East and was assured of support for a conference of oil producers and transporters to find means to apply the embargo.

A journalist had asked him a question at the press conference that morning about the great increase in trade between Denmark and South Africa. He had answered that confidence and goodwill were essential: then there could be a dialogue.

If South Africa’s trading partners were to impose sanctions, they would be compensated by trade with the rest of Africa.

He also referred to loans and investments, assistance to victims of apartheid, encouragement of NGOs concerned, his missions to France and London etc.

If the Western Powers felt that the Special Committee was not responsible, why should they not join the Committee and strike a balance?

Sanctions had been applied against other countries, but not South Africa, because the victims were black.

Ambassador Dyvig thanked the Chairman for his convincing presentation of the problem. In general, Denmark shared his approach and view.

The situation in South Africa was not acceptable to free men. That was how Denmark approached the problem since the 1950s. It would continue support within its possibilities.

Liberation movements had been regarded in some countries as too violent. But Denmark always supported liberation movements, though it did not provide military support.

Denmark did not approve the means when they went too far. It recognised, however, that the situation went beyond normality.

Mr. Cheysson had helped greatly in the European Communities in establishing contacts with Africa. The attitude of Denmark was being increasingly shared in the European Communities.

Denmark had for many years supported sanctions. But sanctions by Denmark alone would not change the situation in South Africa. It was necessary to get West European countries to think along the same lines. There was a development in the European Communities which would one day open up the possibility for effective sanctions.

He agreed that East-West conflict should not become part of the issue in southern Africa.

He greatly appreciated consultations by the Chairman with Nordic countries during the last session of the General Assembly. They would be even more important at the next session, since Denmark would be President of the European Communities during the second half of 1982.

On the drafting of resolutions, Denmark sometimes felt that the Special Committee went too far in radicalising texts. It was necessary to obtain as broad a support as possible.

One problem was the condemnation of the Federal Republic of Germany. They had come a long way. When they were condemned for nuclear collaboration with South Africa, they asked Denmark why it voted for the resolution. (Mr. Genscher raised the matter with the Danish Government on the previous day.) That had created problems for some of the Western countries. If some of the references were deleted, it would be possible to obtain much larger votes. There were only a few paragraphs on which Denmark might have reservations.

That would be a constructive approach. When there was a progressive France, Germany should be able to vote for the same resolutions as France.

Denmark welcomed the arms embargo against South Africa and had taken necessary steps. It had just amended regulations to close any loopholes.

As regards the oil embargo, he said Denmark was beginning to produce its own oil. The Government had written a formal letter to the company which was producing oil that it should not export oil to South Africa. The letter was read out in Parliament.

Trade with South Africa had increased. Denmark had a consul-general in South Africa but had called back the officer in

the consulate who had the functions of a commercial attaché.
The increase in trade was because of increased imports of coal when oil prices increased. The Government had advised the private company concerned against imports of coal from South Africa. The company was looking at the price and it is possible that the company will find alternative sources. The import of coal from South Africa is not government policy, but against its wishes.

Denmark would join any sanctions by the Security Council.

About a month or two ago, the government had decided to ban all sportsmen from South Africa and to stop all cultural contacts, through the use of visa procedures. That created some problems.

In some areas outside the economic field, Denmark had gone far. That would become part of the Nordic programme.

The government would increase assistance to victims of apartheid in the coming budgetary year.

Some of the EEC countries could now argue that sanctions would work - since sanctions had been imposed in other situations.

He asked the Chairman for his view on the time span for the elimination of apartheid.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he was an optimist. He hoped for success on Namibia within one year. Then it might be sooner than later in South Africa.

With development of opinion in Europe, the United States might find itself isolated if it did not voluntarily cooperate.

He wished to assure Ambassador Dyvig that he was aware that the Federal Republic of Germany had been helpful. He was prepared to go along with friends without compromising principles.

He would maintain even greater contact with Denmark when it became President of European Communities.

Ambassador Dyvig thanked the Chairman and said he had enjoyed the discussion.

Mr. Olesen welcomed the Chairman.

Amb. Maitama-Sule recalled that Mr. Olesen had been concerned with Southern Africa for a long time.

There was need for more concerted action because of the danger of a wider war against frontline States. The choice was between violence and sanctions of all kinds.

Sanctions were not to punish South Africa but to force the regime to accept realities without shedding blood and avoiding the danger of bringing cold war into southern Africa.

Mr. Olesen said that Mr. Oliver Tambo was an old friend of his and had spoken at a May Day rally in Copenhagen in the 1960s. From him, Mr. Olesen had received a good knowledge of the ANC.

Denmark was willing to support any idea in the United Nations to increase pressure on South Africa through sanctions.

Denmark had prosecuted Danish ships - on time charter - for transporting arms to South Africa. Two weeks ago, Denmark had tightened regulations on the arms embargo.

Denmark refused visas for South African tennis players recently, though some of them had been resident abroad. He had been criticised but the government stood firm.

All Nordic countries were willing to go as far as possible. The problem was to obtain support from other countries.

Amb. Maitama-Sule expressed the hope that through Nordic countries, it would be possible to get support from other Western countries.

He recalled that he had consulted with Nordic countries on General Assembly resolutions last year. He intended to consult even more, and even further in advance, in 1982. He noted that Denmark would be President of European Communities from 1 July.

During the International Year, the Special Committee had emphasised mobilisation of public opinion.

Mr. Olesen said he had heard many times that sanctions was not a good method. Recently, when fundamental rights were violated, European countries, inspired by the United Kingdom, decided on sanctions against Argentina. Sanctions, as such, had been recognised.

Why here and not there? That was a good argument for sanctions against South Africa.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said the main argument against sanctions was economic. But that argument was wrong. The rest of Africa was more important than South Africa in economic relations.

The West was, in fact, driving people to the left.

Mr. Olesen said he had used the same argument with the United States and others.

Denmark had good relations with Dr. Agostinho Neto, Oliver Tambo and others.

He agreed with the Chairman on the need not to push southern Africa into East-West conflict.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said there were United States investments in Angola. When Namibia becomes independent, Angola would ask Cubans to leave.

Nigeria had good relations with the West.

Africa would hold some Western Powers responsible if the undeclared war in southern Africa was escalated.

Mr. Olesen agreed; Denmark would play its part together with other Nordic countries and the Netherlands.

Amb.Maitama-Sule said he had useful and very encouraging discussions in France. He would try to develop closer understanding with the Federal Republic of Germany.

The United States was trying to "brand" the ANC and develop rival groups: that was unhealthy and unwise.

Mr. Olesen said that at the next session of the General Assembly, Denmark would, as usual, hold daily consultations with Nordic States and the Group of Ten. It would do its utmost to influence the Group of Ten.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he did not derive any satisfaction from condemnations of States by name. The Special Committee was forced to do that.

The main purpose of his mission to Nordic countries was to express gratitude and invite continued support.

Mr. Olesen said that Denmark would continue its support.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he did not expect miracles. But confidence had been established and other things would follow in due course.

Mr. Olesen thanked him and wished him a good trip.

Amb. Bent Haakonsen chaired the meeting and welcomed Amb. Maitama-Sule. He said he had read with great interest Maitama-Sule’s message to Nordic countries.

He would welcome Maitama-Sule’s evaluation of needs of victims of apartheid. He and his colleagues would be happy to inform him about their apartheid work, about the advisory committee and Parliamentary grants etc.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he was impressed with the attitude of the Danish government and its assistance, and had nothing to complain about.

He knew that all Nordic countries met the target of 0.7 percent and have set up aid agencies.

South Africa was attacking frontline States, encouraged by some Powers, and aid to the frontline States should continue to be increased. Liberation movements should be helped directly; he was not asking for assistance to armed struggle.

He would go further and ask for direct aid to ANC as Sweden was doing. Also contribute to the UN Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid. Publicity was very important during the International Year of Mobilisation for Sanctions against South Africa. The UN Educational and Training Programme was also very short of funds.

He made general remarks on the situation in Southern Africa and said he would hold some Western countries responsible for any war.

He asked Denmark to continue its fine example.

Amb. Haakonsen said Denmark had reached 0.7 percent target on aid. The Government said that it should increase to 0.75 by 1982 and increase of 0.03 percent each year despite tremendous economic problems of Denmark. Nearly 300,000 people were unemployed. (According to government policy, aid would increase to 1.0 percent in 1991.)

The apartheid fund is a small part of the total aid. It is 40 million kroner in 1982, as against 35 million kroner in 1981. (It may be increased by 5 million kroner each year; the Parliament will need to decide.)

Although the area of assistance is decreasing because of independence of African countries, the amount of assistance has increased. Out of 40 million, 23 million is for South Africa and 17 million for Namibia.

There is an advisory committee on apartheid which meets with DANIDA to distribute aid in the best possible way.

The recommendations of DANIDA are cleared with Foreign Ministry and then referred to the Finance Committee of Parliament.

The Advisory Committee has representatives of trade unions, churches, and students and some individual members.

The question of direct aid to liberation movements is an old problem in Denmark. It is not a real problem since Danish NGOs work directly with liberation movements. Denmark has strict conditions on aid.

When Bishop Tutu came to Denmark there was frank discussion and he said there was no problem.

There is a majority in Parliament for aid. There is need for care not to create problems - especially in the light of experience with IUEF.

He agreed that Denmark should try to use EEC to convince other countries to increase assistance. In fact, Denmark was doing that, together with the Dutch and Irish.

There was a special meeting of donors of scholarship funds (Nordic countries, Netherlands, Canada) in March 1981. Arrangements were made to continue IUEF scholarships in 1981-82 and there was a declaration of intent on the future. Denmark took over scholarships for students from countries outside southern Africa.

Scholarships will be discussed with the Advisory Committee on 19 May. Denmark would like to concentrate on more basic studies, not advanced studies.

Fares for liberation movements for conferences: This matter was discussed many times. Denmark did not want to pay for fares, but to concentrate on development, on the basic needs strategy. From time to time, however, solutions were found.

He would like to increase contributions to UN funds. But the private organisations in the Advisory Committee want a bigger share of funds. The quality of work of UN funds as against other funds needs to be considered.

Denmark was aware of special problem of women and development in developing countries. It would consider the special problem of women and apartheid.

Denmark was increasing assistance to frontline and neighbouring States - especially in the field of transportation.

Me. Kjelgaard explained the position as regards UN Trust Fund for Publicity. It was not within the guidelines set by Parliament for the 40 million kroner. A contribution can perhaps be made from another fund. There was no specific request from NGOs.

At the last meeting of the Advisory Committee there was criticism of the UN Educational and Training Programme.

Mr. Reddy referred to several specific needs for assistance - e.g. assistance to anti-apartheid movements, ANC building fund in London, research on history of South Africa and liberation struggle, contingency fund for emergencies and special needs. He also dealt with comparison of efficiency of UN and NGOs in administering funds, and said the situation varied.

(There was a full discussion followed by a lunch.)

Among those present were V. Sorensen, Secretary of LO, and Mr. Kjeld Aakjaer, of the International Department.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he was grateful for the actions against apartheid by Nordic governments and organisations, even before African States were free. He attached great importance to action by trade unions and was anxious to meet with them.

He referred to his meeting with Len Murray and the consultations on the proposed international trade union conference against apartheid. He asked for their help to ensure the organisation of the Conference.

He thanked them for their support to black trade unions in South Africa. Workers and artists, he said, were people of principle. When they are committed, there is no going back.

The struggle was for a multi-racial society in South Africa. When South Africa has a democratic society, it will be powerful and will be welcomed in the OAU.

He asked for information on their programme.

Mr. Aakjaer said that Mr. Sorensen had been on the Danish delegation to the UN General Assembly for 7 or 8 years.

The Nordic trade union federation has a working party on southern Africa. It put out a programme around 1977 on behalf of all Nordic trade unions. The trade unions have been following the programme and sometimes they have to press governments.

Only Denmark is in the EEC. The code of conduct was approved when Denmark was the chairman. It was not good enough and is not binding but a binding code was not possible. Maybe we can try again this year when Denmark is chairman.

As regards investments, in 1977 there were 10 Danish companies in South Africa. Now there are only two and even they have reduced investments. But other interests will take over and there would be no impact; the Security Council should therefore take action.

The unions have tried to press the government on the oil embargo as well. The conference of oil exporting countries is useful but transport continues. If there is a Security Council decision, the Danish workers can take action legally.

Some Danish ships have been transporting arms to South Africa. As a result there is new legislation which makes transport of arms to South Africa illegal and the captain is liable.

Nordic countries have no relations with South Africa in the nuclear field.

The trade unions pressed for economic support to frontline States. Some time ago they started shop steward training to immigrant workers going to South Africa. They have established an institute for shop steward training in Lesotho. They were also doing that in Botswana and Swaziland.

Zimbabwe stopped recruitment of migrant workers for South Africa, but Malawi increased export of workers.

The unions pressed Nordic governments for more assistance. This year the unions are getting 3.5 to 4 million kroner (around $500,000) which they direct to black trade unions in South Africa. Black trade union leaders visit Denmark.

The unions have been criticising the government for importing South African coal. Now the policy has changed and the government realises that they can import coal from USA, Australia, Canada etc.

The unions have been pressing the government on sports boycott also. They are close to the Labour Party which is following the policy advocated by the unions.

The trade union federation established an international fund two years ago and assistance from it is channelled through ICFTU. It includes grants from the government and the money unions raise themselves, totalling several million Danish kroner.

The unions have a special educational programme and an education committee to educate all shop stewards. There is cooperation with other Nordic countries. They will continue educational activities on apartheid.

They are in favour of an international trade union conference against apartheid. The ILO set up a special committee on apartheid and there may be some overlapping. A conference should perhaps be at the end of the year.

They agree on sanctions against South Africa. But the Security Council must decide and then it would be easy for unions to act.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said only the Security Council can decide on mandatory sanctions but it would not. He was therefore appealing to governments and organisations to take action.

He was encouraged by French trade unions. Their leaders said that since they will participate in the management of companies, they would use the opportunity to try to stop collaboration with South Africa.

If France, West Germany and Nordic countries would support the Special Committee’s position, the situation can be changed. He asked them to use their contacts in West Germany towards that end.

Mr. Aakjaer said that a few years ago they had a May Day special demonstration on South Africa. Oliver Tambo was the main speaker.

The unions had close cooperation with all Danish NGOs active against apartheid. They would jointly publish a newspaper or pamphlet on apartheid on 1 May and there would be an article on trade unions.

Most people on the street knew what was happening in South Africa.

The Danish trade union federation was in close contact with the trade union movements in France, West Germany, Britain etc. But Danish trade union representatives have never been allowed to visit South Africa.

There would be a meeting in Stockholm in May to decide on a Nordic trade union conference on southern Africa.

Amb. Maitama-Sule referred to his visit to the Middle East and to the efforts to organise an international conference of oil producing and oil transporting countries for an oil embargo against South Africa.

Mr. Aakjaer said they were happy. They had asked the Danish Foreign Minister to support a conference.

Transport is important. He suggested that Amb. Maitama-Sule contact the General Secretary of the International Transport Federation, Mr. Harold Lewis, in London. He is very experienced.

Amb. Maitama-Sule thanked him for the suggestion. (He met Mr. Lewis soon after his Nordic visit.)

Amb. Maitama-Sule delivered an opening speech. (See written text.)

The representative of the Danish Association for International Cooperation said its volunteers were working in frontline states.

It was trying to get all organisations in Denmark together for a common effort. They would produce a joint newspaper in May.

The Government gave money only for humanitarian purposes. It does not make grants for information. Nor for ANC representation in Denmark which is important.

The organisation was setting up a documentation centre.

Another representative said that in the Advisory Committee there was discussion of priorities and channels (UN, NGO) of assistance. It had become difficult to find channels for assistance inside South Africa and Namibia because of IUEF scandal and intimidation.

How can more channels be found? Who can advise? Various church channels can perhaps be used.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that some people who approach for aid are not genuine representatives of the people. Aid can be channelled through ANC and SWAPO. Churches are good channels.

He then replied to a question on activities for the International Year of Mobilisation for Sanctions against South Africa. And on oil embargo.

Representative of Amnesty International (Danish Section) said they had 18,000 members in about 200 groups. Four groups were involved in cases in South Africa.

About 400 members in medical groups follow all cases of torture of prisoners.

The organisation opposes death penalty and acts on every case of death penalty.

It has a programme of action on banning orders in South Africa and sends letters every month to the South African government.

The representative of the Danish Committee for International

Cooperation said they were planning a high-level hearing on

South Africa in the fall with the support of all organisations.

They also want to organise a boycott campaign.

(Mr. Reddy also spoke on several specific matters.)

Mr. Leifland welcomed Amb. Maitama-Sule.

Amb. Maitama-Sule referred to the long and close association with Sweden at the United Nations. With your continued cooperation, he said, we will be able to get other Western countries to team up with us.

During this International Year, the Special Committee was trying to step up publicity campaign for sanctions, since the alternative is violence. South Africa should be isolated so that it would be obliged to come to the negotiating table. The objective is a democratic system in South Africa.

Apartheid is not merely an African problem.

There is an undeclared war in southern Africa. South Africa may at any time strike at Mozambique. There was a grave danger of cold war in the area.

The Western Powers must make a choice. There is an urgent need for strengthening the arms embargo and for selective sanctions.

The Nordic countries should influence the United States. It is inhuman to arm South Africa.

He then explained his consultations on the oil embargo, and the proposal for an international conference of oil exporting countries.

The Security Council should take action to prevent nuclear collaboration with South Africa.

We will continue, he said, to talk to Western countries. There is tremendous goodwill in Africa toward the West. The task is to extend democracy in Africa.

Mr. Leifland agreed that there was a meeting of minds between Amb. Maitama-Sule and the Nordic countries, since both find apartheid regime repugnant. He can certainly count on cooperation, goodwill and financial contributions by Nordic countries.

Nordic countries have actually tried for years to persuade other Western countries and would take note of his views. Nordic countries have told other Western countries that it would be in their own interests to take action against apartheid. To what extent they would be successful, it is hard to say. But more and more, West European countries have come to recognise that they have to take a more active position. We should talk to Greece.

Mr. Jan Romare, director of the UN Division, welcomed the Chairman.

Amb. Maitama-Sule referred to several matters.

Arms embargo and nuclear collaboration: Can Sweden assist the Special Committee with expert advice on how to close the loopholes and effectively implement the embargo?

Loans to South Africa: what can be done?

He explained the developments concerning the oil embargo, proposed international trade union conference, International Conference on Women and Apartheid etc.

He stressed the need to avoid cold war in southern Africa.

He also dealt with reasons for sanctions against South Africa - not a punishment but a means for a solution.

Mr. Romare expressed agreement.

He agreed that apartheid cannot be reformed and sanctions were essential.

Sweden would make a voluntary contribution of $10,000 to the conference on women and apartheid (Brussels, May 1982).

Sweden was finalising policy on restricting visas to certain categories of South Africans. The government is asking government officials concerned with culture and sports to cut off contacts with South Africans.

Sweden was this year increasing its assistance to frontline and neighbouring States. That was top priority in development aid. Also to liberation movements. Sweden had made a contribution to the UN Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid only once in connection with the International Anti-Apartheid Year.

The Government had decided to appoint a Parliamentary Commission to consider the law on investments in South Africa, means to close loopholes and extend its scope (e.g. to transfer of technology) etc. The study had just started.

Mr. Ullsten welcomed the Chairman.

He said the situation in southern Africa was very serious. He was in Zimbabwe in January and saw that destabilisation was much more serious than was realised.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he wanted to thank Sweden for its support and also the Foreign Minister personally for his commitment and identification. Sweden had been in the struggle even before African countries had become independent.

The situation in southern Africa was so fraught with danger that unless something was done and soon, there is a danger of escalation of conflict and global confrontation.

There is an undeclared war in southern Africa.

Sanctions are the only peaceful means. They can be applied, as they have been applied in other situations.

There is every danger that South Africa will attack neighbouring States.

Apartheid is not only an African problem. It is a human problem. When a democratic society is established, the West will have better opportunities.

Zimbabwe is establishing a multi-racial society. South Africa will, after liberation.

It is annoying to us that the West is injecting ideological meaning into our struggle which is above ideology.

Mr. Ullsten said that the Big Powers, like all big things, are clumsy.

The USSR, in his view, is imperialist, but it is not too much involved in South Africa.

Even from a purely economic and security point of view, the West would benefit if apartheid is abolished. The West is short-sighted, for instance in delaying Namibia solution.

In the negotiations on the illegal occupation of Namibia, South Africa has been given a veto. If that continues, it will never be in the interest of South Africa to give up Namibia. It is in the interest of the West to ensure the independence of Namibia.

Amb. Maitama-Sule stressed that the West has tremendous goodwill in Africa and is dissipating it.

Mr. Ullsten said the Angolan ambassador had told him recently that reports on recent South African aggression on Angola were untrue. He asked if the Chairman had any information.

(Note: The Foreign Minister had a press conference in the Parliament soon after - as the campaign was beginning for the next elections in September. The Chairman understood, and cut short the meeting, which was very friendly.)

Mr. Palme welcomed the Chairman.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that the Pretoria regime was becoming desperate because of the advance of the struggle by ANC. (The ANC was attacking installations, but had tried to avoid loss of innocent lives.)

South Africa had increased atrocities in the country and is escalating the "undeclared war" in southern Africa.

The Western Powers, however, refuse to face realities.

Mr. Palme said that on the issue of apartheid, he was pessimistic that the United States and the United Kingdom would do anything. Maybe on Namibia. That is the immediate issue.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that he had observed with great pleasure that Socialist Parties were with Africa. He had been greatly encouraged by his visit to France.

Mr. Reddy referred to discussions by the Chairman with Mr. Bernt Carlsson, secretary-general of Socialist International.

Mr. Palme recalled that he had led a mission to southern Africa in 1977 for the Socialist International. The Socialist International had become more committed.

He had been pushing for a Conference of the Socialist International on southern Africa. But the Socialist International has a very small budget and ran out of money. It has become difficult to fix the dates. The Conference cannot be held this year unless they find funds, perhaps from a national party.

Amb. Maitama-Sule reported on the London Conference in March, and the address of Michael Foot. There can be a change for the better.

Mr. Palme said that there had been an evolution in the Social Democratic movement. It was, however, most important to achieve a breakthrough on Namibia.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that the talks were important. If they break down now, it would be many years before they can be revived.

Mr. Reddy said that rightly or wrongly, SWAPO seemed convinced that there would be no settlement. Meanwhile, he felt that South Africa may launch a bigger war and try to drown the whole issue in the cold war.

Mr. Palme said that was another reason for obtaining a Namibian settlement urgently.

Mr. Reddy also asked if Mr. Palme could help clear misunderstandings between West Germany and Africa.

(No notes were taken of the rest of the conversation.)

The meeting was attended by Ms. Kristina Persson, secretary of the joint committee of LO and TCO which administers assistance; Sven-Erik Sterner, SIF; Carl Lindberg, TCO, responsible for international information; Lars-Olof Lindgren, LO; Lars-Goran Pettersson, LO, in charge of information; and Torsten Wetterblad, Metal Workers Union.

Ms. Persson welcomed Amb. Maitama-Sule and expressed appreciation for the importance he attached to trade unions. Members of the Executive Board were in The Hague for the European trade union conference.

The unions, she said, work on various lines to help black trade unions in South Africa. They assist FOSATU, Media Workers Union etc. They also work through multinational companies which operate in South Africa. They also have information activity to support black workers in South Africa and to create a political climate in Sweden for sanctions.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that for him, Nordic countries were like any African countries in the struggle against apartheid. They have been in the struggle even longer.

The trade unions could play a very important role, and he was grateful to them for what they have done.

The Pretoria regime has been pouncing on trade unions. Thousands of black and white workers attended the funereal of Dr. Aggett who was killed in jail.

He explained the plans for the International Year and for the international trade union conferenceagainst apartheid.

He hoped that the Nordic trade union conference would emphasise the great danger of the regional war in southern Africa.

South Africa was desperate because liberation movements and trade unions were making gains. Trade unions were in the forefront of the struggle.

In the Namibia talks, South Africa was trying to divert attention and dictate terms. If Namibia becomes independent, South Africa may become even more stubborn. It may attack to divert attention.

He then spoke about his consultations with trade union leaders in Britain and France and about the case for sanctions.

He appealed to them to carry out the Nordic trade union programme which was impressive. Also to support, in ILO, the international trade union conference against apartheid.

Ms. Persson thanked Amb. Maitama-Sule and said the unions were doing their best in pressing the government. They were in favour of the conference of trade unions on sanctions. The timing, however, was important.

Sweden enacted a law on investments. No other country followed suit. Perhaps there should be an international conference to push for legislation against investment in South Africa.

LO pushed for the law in Sweden. Experience shows the need for laws in other countries also. Sometimes it is difficult to convince workers to continue to support the law.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said he had been commending Sweden for the legislation. He hoped they would not become pessimistic.

He would publicise the legislation and ask other countries to follow the example.

The trade unionists said they would never go back on the law. The difficulties should not be exaggerated.

SKF has monopoly on ball bearing and roller bearing production in South Africa. The management in Sweden claimed that if they withdraw, Japanese companies were prepared to go in.

That is why it was necessary for other countries to enact legislation.

The Swedish unions will push for stronger legislation in Sweden.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said whatever they did, others would take advantage. But countries must choose. Perhaps they would be compensated by Africa. The Vice President of Nigeria had said that Nigeria's relations with any country will be influenced by that country’s relations with South Africa.

Nigeria was now suffering from an oil glut because it was in the forefront of the struggle against apartheid.

Even in the past, Sweden was often alone in action.

He thanked the trade unionists.

A number of NGOs concerned with development were present.

Amb. Maitama-Sule delivered an address. (See text.)

He then answered questions. For instance, what more can Sweden do?

Mr. Nobel explained the study he was preparing on the legal aspects of African refugee problems.

The study follows the recommendations of the Arusha Conference on African refugee problems. He had been involved in the planning for the Conference.

It will include a comparative study of national legislation on refugees in Africa with reference to human rights and people’s rights.

Since the cornerstone of African policy is voluntary repatriation, it will consider the legal conditions or guarantees favourable to such repatriation.

It will also consider legal conditions favourable to resettlement.

Africa has found best solutions for refugee problems. The African models may have impact on Asia and other regions.

Mr. Nobel had in mind involving Arab countries in the study.

Ambassador Maitama-Sule suggested a study of problems of criminality of refugees, which was serious in Nigeria.

Mr. Reddy suggested some case studies of problems of southern African refugees, also in the United States, and a comparison of treatment of freedom fighters and registered refugees.

The Foreign Minister welcomed the Chairman.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that apartheid was like Nazism. Africa was not trying to punish South Africa. If things change in South Africa, that would help the whites and the West also. Otherwise, something disastrous would happen - regionally and internationally.

He was grateful to Norway for its long-standing support. He appreciated that the support came from all political parties in Norway.

One cannot be for peace and against sanctions.

On oil embargo, he sought the expert advice of Norway.

Also on arms embargo.

With the change in France, the Security Council may at last find it possible to take effective action on the nuclear aspect.

He hoped that Norway would use its contacts with other European Powers to secure their cooperation.

The economy of Zimbabwe was being sabotaged. There was an undeclared war in southern Africa.

He was worried about a global conflict starting in southern Africa.

Isolating South Africa was the only answer.

He, as a Nigerian, did not want people who did not believe in democracy to obtain an area of influence in a part of Africa.

Why should United Kingdom, the great trading partner of Nigeria, be against Africa?

In Norway, he was speaking to a friend.

The Foreign Minister asked his opinion on hints about the loosening of apartheid in South Africa.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that apartheid is all-embracing.

Hints of so-called changes are an attempt to obtain credibility in the world. They are a sugar-coating of apartheid, an attempt to divide Coloured people and Asians from the Africans.

The Foreign Minister asked whether the Coloured people are cooperating with Africans.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said the Coloured people were opposed to the proposed constitutional plans to divide them from Africans.

The Foreign Minister said that if there was a solution, perhaps old enemies will trade again.

If South Africa had begun change after the Second World War, the situation might have been better. It is now difficult, but perhaps it is not too late, though the black majority is now more hostile.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said Africa was against revenge. It would not support any liberation movement which would reverse racial discrimination.

The whites of South Africa had no other home. After liberation, while the government may be black, the whites would dominate economy for a long time.

The meeting began with brief reports by non-governmental organisations on their activities.

The student group referred to solidarity work and the despatch of volunteers to Africa and Latin America.

The Norwegian Council on Southern Africa circulated a written statement and referred to it.

The representative of Namibia Association in Elverum (150 kilometres from Oslo) referred to assistance to Namibians. They were producing English textbooks for Namibians and training Namibians in printing. They were helping to set up an educational centre for Namibians in Brazzaville.

The representative of the trade unions referred to information campaign among 700,000 trade union members on situation in southern Africa.

The representative of churches referred to information work and action through World Council of Churches. Also channelling of funds to South African Council of Churches, to Black Consciousness Movement until it was banned, and to Namibia through Bishop Kauluma (e.g. rebuilding printing press which was damaged).

Mr. Adbul Minty said the proposed conference on oil embargo should also consider concessions. Oppenheimer interests had obtained concessions in the British North Sea through Charter Consolidated and may try in Norway. South Africa was also obtaining its own tankers.

(No notes were taken of statement of Chairman and other questions and answers.)

Mr. Reddy commended the Norwegian Council on Southern Africa for its programme for International Year.

He also referred to action by Norway in NATO to prevent any involvement with South Africa (and earlier any assistance to Portugal in Africa).

He also recalled the Oslo Conference of 1973 and said that perhaps there should be an assessment on the tenth anniversary in April 1983.

* * *

Earlier at the press conference, in response to questions, the Chairman said that Norwegian shipping companies should not tarnish the very good reputation of Norway by transporting oil to South Africa. He thought the people and Government of Norway can persuade them to stop. "This great country which has done so much and occupies a special place in our hearts is capable of doing that and will do that".

He referred to the discussions in the Middle East, in the Netherlands and in Denmark about the proposal for a conference of oil producing and transporting countries for the effective implementation of the oil embargo. He would meet ambassadors in New York to prepare an enabling resolution for a conference, to be adopted by the next session of the General Assembly.

The oil producing countries and transporting countries should get together to plug loopholes. The tanker companies are perhaps most to blame.

The idea of a conference was a "baby" of Norway. The responses he had received were most encouraging.

Details on venue, dates, participants etc., would be discussed in New York.

He referred to the danger of war in southern Africa. The West was giving arms to South Africa "to kill us", and opposed sanctions "because we are black".

To the credit of Norway, it has applied selective sanctions and has gone beyond international obligations. He wanted Nordic countries to remain in the forefront and be pacesetters.

Mr. Per Ravne, Director-General, welcomed the Chairman and recalled that he had dealt with apartheid in the UN since late 1950s.

Amb. Maitama-Sule made initial remarks commending Norway and referring to the concerns of the Special Committee.

Mr. Ravne said that there was agreement on the situation.

Sanctions, however, are a difficult operation. Arms are going through to South Africa despite the arms embargo. There is a big clandestine market for arms beyond the control of governments.

As for the oil embargo, Norway had asked all oil companies not to send Norwegian oil to South Africa and asked tanker companies not to transport Norwegian oil to South Africa.

Oil is also tricky when it comes to sanctions. Oil from different origins is mixed in refineries. Origin is difficult to trace in spot markets. Shipowners do not know.

The problem boils down to the will of producers not to sell to South Africa even through third countries. Norway has done that unilaterally.

Norway has suggested a conference of oil producing countries to take similar steps. But Norway has not heard much from those countries in action (as distinct from words).

In Norway there is a law authorising the Ministry to take action on binding decisions by the United Nations. If there is no Security Council decision, there will need to be new legislation in Parliament.

Norway has a Consul-General in South Africa. His job is to act on purely humanitarian matters - not to do any trade promotion whatsoever.

Sanctions by Norway alone would not work. There would be problems even with Nordic countries. Sweden and Finland were neutral and Denmark is bound by regulations of EEC.

Sanctions must be not only from the West, but also from the Middle East, and from the East which has much trade with South Africa. There is a lack of will and action.

He did not wish to be pessimistic but realities had to be faced. Norway was open to discussions and would do its share.

Norway was aware that the situation in southern Africa may end up with a very difficult revolution. People often do not act until disaster.

Amb. Maitama-Sule thanked Mr. Ravne for his frank exposition and expert advice.

He did not agree, however, that sanctions would not work. They were applied in other situations - e.g. Poland, Argentina. But not against South Africa, because the people are black.

Norway has had partial sanctions against South Africa, but other did not. It was a matter of political will.

To quote a Hausa proverb: We are slapped but not even allowed to weep.

The oil producing countries are not as sophisticated as the buyers. He had been assured by Middle East countries that if he could find any proof on violation by any company in supplying their oil to South Africa, they would take action. There was need to involve both oil producing and oil transporting countries.

The Special Committee gets some information from SHIREBU. But he did not want to embarrass countries.

He was not unaware of the length of the journey. But if war started in South Africa, it would shake the whole world.

He wished to thank Norway for explaining the difficulties, as a friend who wished to act, but Africa was determined. It needs support of Norway - politically, through expert advice, through frank and honest discussions.

Mr. Ravne said he hoped to hear about discussions which will be held in New York. He hoped the Chairman would also consult Mexico, Peru etc.

He had referred to interests independent of governments which were dealing in arms, oil, etc.

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that was the reason for the Conference - to discuss all difficulties and find solutions.

(The discussion was continued at lunch.)

Mr. Nordli recalled his visit to Lagos. He said he had made friends in Nigeria and continues correspondence with them.

On southern Africa, "I wonder whether we have done enough."

Amb.Maitama-Sule said that Norway was a special friend. Mr. Nordli was a very special friend, in a special country, of the Special Committee and Africa.

He recalled Mr. Nordli’s visit to Lagos, at a critical time (election campaign) which showed his conviction, concern and commitment for the struggle against apartheid.

Norway and Nordic countries had contributed much and can contribute more as they had the will. They should retain their leadership role in the West. By their leadership, they had not only helped the struggle but gained goodwill of Africa.

The situation in southern Africa had deteriorated. Because of the increasing support obtained by the liberation movement, especially ANC, inside South Africa, the regime had become desperate. It was increasing atrocities in the country and aggression against neighbouring States in order to divert attention from apartheid.

Why is South Africa being armed by the West? No African country was a threat to South Africa. Why enable South Africa to obtain nuclear capability, not to speak of trade (even by Nordic countries)? Why is South Africa being encouraged to become a threat to southern Africa and to Africa as a whole?

The Special Committee was urging people to apply sanctions as the only non-violent means. Otherwise, there may be an escalation of conflict.

We cannot wait for the Security Council to take a mandatory decision, as it will never take a decision.

Mr. Nordli said he had to leave as the Parliament was meeting. But he would like to say one thing.

"I share your opinion that the future of the West is not to trade with a dying regime but to cooperate with liberation movements which represent democracy."

Mr. Kare Kristiansen, Chairman of the Committee, welcomed the Chairman and introduced his colleagues.

Amb. Maitama-Sule referred to the need for choice in southern Africa, for aid to frontline States so that they can become economically less dependent on South Africa. It was not possible to wait until total economic independence was achieved.

Without sanctions, there was a danger of war. South Africa was being armed to the teeth, against the rest of Africa. The communique of the Frontline States in March described the situation as an undeclared war: some Western States will be held responsible for the consequences.

Sanctions had been applied when it suited the purposes of the Western countries.

Africa did not seek revenge. That was one reason why Africans do not want cold war brought into the continent.

Nordic countries agreed in 1966 that they would apply sanctions if the Security Council took a decision.

The loopholes in the arms embargo must be closed and the transfer of technology to South Africa stopped. Norway should help on the oil embargo, especially because of the threat to frontline States.

He urged the members of the Committee, as friends, to use their influence so that Europe will understand and help Africa.

Mr. Kristiansen said his appeal had gone home and his exposition was very useful to the members of the Committee.

They accepted that South Africa was an exceptional case.

The apartheid system was an infectious disease which may spread if nothing was done.

Norway had tried to use sanctions, but had not been able to do much. It had tried to help neighbouring African countries to make them strong enough.

What Norway and other countries have done is not good enough.

They do not want to have any trade with South Africa, but the United Nations has not acted and there is a limit to what small countries can do.

Norway will cooperate if Special Committee is reviving action.

He asked: How do existing sanctions against South Africa work? What were the priorities for the next step?

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that the arms embargo was the only mandatory decision so far.

Some countries had imposed partial sanctions. They had an effect. They influence other countries.

One of the members said that about 20 percent of oil to South Africa was apparently transported by Norwegian ships. Would it not be useful to set up a fact-finding committee to find out how oil was going to South Africa?

Amb. Maitama-Sule said that was why he was proposing a conference of oil producing and oil transporting countries.

If only oil producing countries were involved, they might blame the transporting countries which cannot defend themselves.

Mr. Reddy recalled that two years ago, the General Assembly had asked the Secretary-General to set up a small expert committee to propose means for enforcing an oil embargo. Norway, Nigeria and Romania had agreed to nominate leading experts. But the committee had never been set up. Perhaps the proposal can be revived.

(No notes taken on further questions and answers.)

Mr. Kristiansen thanked the Chairman for an inspiring speech. He felt the UN had chosen the right person to deal with the problem.

The important task was to motivate the great nations of the world to take action. Norway had taken some action, but it is a small country.

The Chairman could reckon with an active attitude and understanding from the Norwegian side.

All parties in Norway agreed on opposition to apartheid.