Mr. Karjalainen welcomed the delegation. He said Finland had long been interested in the problem of apartheid.

Ambassador Ogbu: (See text of statement attached)

Mr. Karialainen thanked Ambassador Ogbu for the kind and friendly words for Finland and its activity on this matter, and also for the information he gave.

He agreed fully that the political situation had changed after the events in the former Portuguese colonies - and believed that something new may and must happen on the apartheid problems, especially in South Africa.

Finland was a small country and cannot do very much. It tried to do what it could politically and gave economic support to United Nations funds and to some liberation movements.

The policy of Finland was very clear. The problem was concretely what it can do more. Finland was now in the Council for Namibia and would try to do its best there. It would join in any new common efforts against apartheid.

Finland believed that it was mainly the United Nations which should take new measures against Apartheid - such as the arms embargo. Finland was for all such measures by the Security Council.

What a small country can do bilaterally is another problem.

He again thanked the delegation. Finland, he said, was always willing to cooperate with the United Nations and the Special Committee on measures against apartheid and racism.

Ambassador Ogbu thanked the Foreign Minister.

Excellency,

As your Excellency is no doubt aware, the Special Committee against Apartheid has been charged by the General Assembly with promoting concerted international action against apartheid.

For this purpose, the Committee has sent delegations to the capitals of a number of countries to hold consultations with Governments, and to meet with non-governmental organisations and information media. Ambassador Martynenko and I have been delegated to visit this friendly country - accompanied by Mr. Reddy of the Secretariat - and I would, first of all, like to express our gratitude for the excellent arrangements made for this mission.

I would also like to convey to your Excellency our great appreciation for the cooperation extended to the Special Committee by your Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Karhilo, and his staff. May I also add our appreciation to our friend, Mr. Kahiluoto, with whom we have had occasion frequently to consult at the sessions of the General Assembly?

We have been particularly anxious to consult our friends in the Nordic countries because of the valuable contribution they have made in support of the liberation movements in the territories under Portuguese colonialism in Africa and the contribution which they have made - and the even greater contribution they can make - towards the elimination of apartheid in South Africa.

After the collapse of Portuguese colonialism, the balance of forces has radically changed in Southern Africa so that we can foresee the end of racism in South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia if the international community can take more effective action.

In all our consultations with Governments in the past two years, we have stressed that we regard apartheid as a problem of concern to Governments and peoples all over the world. We have also emphasised the need to develop more concerted action on this issue - irrespective of any differences on other matters. We feel it is essential to keep this issue above the ideological conflicts or the cold war. We believe that the Nordic countries can make a crucial contribution towards promoting such concerted action.

I have been charged with leading this mission to Nordic countries - first of all, to express the great appreciation of the Special Committee for the contribution made by the Nordic countries, especially since the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, in the international efforts against apartheid. We value this contribution very highly. The involvement of the Nordic countries has underlined the universal concern over apartheid. They have been the main contributors for humanitarian and educational assistance to the victims of apartheid. They have always joined us in demanding an end to repression in South Africa, and have stressed the need for informing the public in all countries about apartheid.

In this connection, I would recall particularly that the Government of Finland is a major contributor to the United Nations funds for assistance to southern Africans. It has also made contributions to the special assistance fund of the Organisation of African Unity, to the Lutuli Memorial Foundation and directly to the liberation movements.

It was on the initiative of Finland that the United Nations Fund for Namibia was established in 1971 when I had the honour to serve as the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia. I am very glad that Finland has now joined the Council for Namibia, and will be on the Senate of the Institute for Namibia in Lusaka.

As your Excellency is no doubt aware, we recently set up a trust fund for the United Nations Unit on Apartheid to promote publicity against Apartheid and to educate public opinion about the dangers of Apartheid. I was most gratified that the Government of Finland was the first contributor to the Trust Fund.

Our mission has also been charged with informing your Excellency of the programme of work of the Special Committee and with seeking the views of your Excellency’s Government on further action against apartheid.

We have just had a very fruitful seminar at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 28 April to 2 May, with the participation of the specialised agencies, the OAU, the liberation movements, anti-apartheid movements, trade union confederations and others - on action at intergovernmental and non-governmental level against apartheid.

It adopted a declaration and a set of recommendations for action in the light of the current situation in southern Africa. We will communicate these documents to your Excellency’s Government for its consideration.

I would like, at this time, to refer only to a few aspects.

After the collapse of Portuguese colonialism and other developments, the South African regime found itself isolated. This was shown quite clearly at the last session of the General Assembly. Instead of seeking a peaceful solution, in accordance with the United Nations resolutions, it has resorted to various manoeuvres to confuse and divert world public opinion.

On the one hand, it has nearly doubled its military budget. On the other hand, it has made some minor reforms on racial discrimination and has resorted to propaganda that it is solving the problems in southern Africa. It talks of détente in Africa.

The Organisation of African Unity held an extraordinary session early last month to consider the situation in South Africa. I had the honour to represent the Special Committee at that session and to present a paper. After thorough discussion, the OAU came to the conclusion that the South African regime has shown no inclination to abandon apartheid.

It declared: "Whether we are dealing with the struggle against colonialism in Rhodesia or the illegal occupation of Namibia, or the racist domination in South Africa, the main opponent of Africa" - and I may add, the main opponent of the United Nations - "is the South African regime."

We believe that it is essential at this stage to reaffirm and clarify our objectives and our approach in order to counteract any confusion created by the South African regime and its friends.

We have always emphasised that South Africa belongs to all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The destiny of South African must be decided by the representatives of all the people of South Africa on the basis of equality.

The problem in South Africa is not merely a question of segregation in theatres or inequality in wages, or other manifestations of racism. The essential problem is the question of self-determination for the people of South Africa as a whole.

The South African regime hopes to reduce international opposition by making a few minor reforms, within the apartheid framework, in order to gain time. It hopes, during that time, to dismember the country by establishing bantustans and relegating the African people to these poverty-stricken areas, and then present the world with a fait accompli.

The United Nations and Africa have repeatedly made it clear that we favour peaceful solutions. We are not only concerned with the suffering that a violent conflict would involve but also with its wider repercussions, including the difficulty of salvaging a non-racial solution after a racial conflict.

If we have called for the recognition of the right of the people to struggle by all means of their choice for their freedom, it was because the South African regime, like the Portuguese colonial regime, began to meet peaceful protests with violence. We felt it necessary to emphasise that the black people of South Africa have as much right as any one else to fight for freedom - especially because some people condone violence by the minority regime which they recognise, and condemn the liberation movements when they are forced to resist.

At the same time, we believe that it is by effective international action against the South African regime that we can reduce, or avert violence. That is why we have called for military, political, economic and other isolation of the South African regime and support to the oppressed people.

In the light of the recent developments, we believe that we need to give utmost priority to the implementation of a total embargo on arms supplies to South Africa and military cooperation with South Africa. The South African regime has increased its military budget by almost 25 times since 1960, so that it is a menace not only to the liberation movements, but also to the independent African States. Unfortunately, some Governments and some economic interests have been violating the arms embargo, openly or secretly, enabling South Africa to obtain or to produce military equipment.

The General Assembly, at its last session, asked the Security Council to consider the matter and take mandatory decisions under Chapter VII of the Charter. We have no doubt that we can count on the cooperation of Finland and the other Nordic States in this respect.

We would also hope that the Government of Finland and other Nordic countries would soon join us in diplomatic and economic boycott of South Africa. We understand that Finland has continued diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa. We are aware that these relations are not vital. However, a break of these relations can be symbolic. Unless the trade is cut off, it would keep increasing and is likely to develop vested interests and lobbies in favour of apartheid.

Secondly, we share with you the conviction that the education of public opinion on apartheid is extremely important to promote international action.

We believe that when people are informed of the true nature of apartheid, they will certainly lend greater support to United Nations sanctions. We therefore appreciate the contribution of the Government of Finland to the Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund.

We are considering plans for the further development of information activity by the United Nations and specialised agencies. I have recently discussed the matter with the Director-General of the UNESCO and I believe that the UNESCO and other agencies can play an important role in this respect.

Thirdly, we feel that the international community must now greatly increase assistance to the people of South Africa. The Special Committee on Apartheid made a special report on this matter to the last session of the General Assembly.

As your Excellency is aware, the United Nations and its Member States have so far concentrated on humanitarian and educational assistance.

Whilst such assistance is eminently worthwhile, the needs in certain other areas have not found much response. I have in mind, for instance, support for the political and information activities of the liberation movements, for the activities of the anti-apartheid movements, and for the work of the Churches, workers and students inside South Africa against apartheid. We are aware of the difficulties and also of the fact that the Nordic countries have already provided some assistance in these areas. But I believe much more can be done.

We hope that we can have further consultations on this matter.

We have recently been giving consideration to the need to assist liberation movements in research, training and planning for the future of South Africa after liberation. As you know, the United Nations has decided to set up an Institute for Namibia with the active support of the Government of Finland. In the case of South Africa, we have in mind a more modest programme at this stage.

We have held initial consultations with the liberation movements and they have shown great interest. We understand that the Lutuli Memorial Foundation, established by the African National Congress of South Africa, is finalising plans for research and training. We also understand that the Pan Africanist Congress of South Africa has a modest research programme.

We believe that these efforts, looking into the future, deserve sympathy and support.

I will take the opportunity of this visit to consult with your officials on this matter.

Fourthly, as your Excellency is aware, the Group of Western and other States has not so far been represented in the Special Committee. We believe that the representation of this group is essential so that all groups can participate in the work of promoting concerted international action against apartheid.

The General Assembly decided at the last session on an expansion of the membership of the Special Committee. The President of the General Assembly is now awaiting nominations from the Group of Western and other States. We would hope that the Nordic countries will soon nominate a member to serve on the Special Committee.

Finally, as your Excellency is aware, the Security Council will begin consideration of Namibia at the end of this month. We hope to have a discussion of the arms embargo, immediately after the Namibia debate. I hope that Finland can participate in these debates in order to demonstrate that Namibia and the arms embargo are not merely the concerns of Africa but of all the world.

I do not wish to take any more of your Excellency’s time. I hope to discuss matters in detail with the officials of your Ministry.

I would like to conclude by expressing again the appreciation of the Special Committee and by thanking your Excellency for the excellent arrangements made for this mission.

Ambassador Ogbu asked if the Government of Finland could give consideration to the breaking off of diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa. Finland had a legation in South Africa, and South Africa had a Consulate-General in Helsinki. Finland’s trade with South Africa was small and the termination of that trade would not seriously affect the economy. Such a step, however, would be symbolic and South Africa would feel the impact.

He said he had in mind the possibility of the establishment of an institute for research and training for Southern Africans, to prepare them for administration and development after liberation. The consultations were in a very preliminary stage and the Special Committee had not finalised its thoughts. But he welcomed any views on the matter. He hoped for adequate support for the political and information activities of the liberation movements.

He suggested that Finland participate in the forthcoming debate in the Security Council on Namibia and the arms embargo.

Finally, he expressed the hope that the Nordic countries would nominate a member to serve on the Special Committee against Apartheid.

The Acting Director of the Political Department of the Foreign Ministry said that the diplomatic relations with South Africa were very old. They had been kept at the legation level.

It had been found useful to have this observation post or contact. There had been some exchanges with South Africa on questions before the United Nations.

Finland was not in any way increasing relations. It felt that nothing could be achieved by breaking off relations.

He could not say what would happen in future. The matter was constantly under review and was subject to public debate in which political parties were interested.

Finland had strictly carried out the arms embargo extending it to even hunting rifles. Other trade with South Africa was of a traditional nature - including paper products, etc. South Africa was an export market which the Finnish export industries were interested in retaining, especially since Finland now had a serious trade deficit.

Finnish authorities found it difficult to take a unilateral decision on trade. If there was a Security Council decision, Finland would faithfully carry out the decision.

As regards an institute for research and training, he was sure that the Finnish attitude would, in principle, be positive. This was a type of United Nations activity which Finland would support.

The question of participation in the Security Council debates would be considered.

As regards assistance for political and information activities of liberation movements, he said, Finland gave assistance to liberation movements - e.g. SWAPO. Assistance itself led to publicity.

Moreover, Finnish NGOs were interested and they also publicised the activities of the liberation movements.

There were also direct contacts. Officials of liberation movements visit Finland frequently. Finland also contacts them through the embassy in Dar es Salaam.

He disclosed that an announcement would be made later in the day that the Government of Finland was giving 400,000 Finnmarks (about $120,000) to SWAPO for education and training: this covers an arrangement between the Government and the Church of Finland for training about 20 Namibians for 3 years.

As regards the question of membership in the Special Committee, he had little information from New York on any discussions in the "Western Europe and other" group. Finland had a positive attitude.

Mr. Andersson welcomed the delegation.

Ambassador Ogbu made an initial statement similar to that in Finland.

Mr. Andersson said he wished to mention a few points of principle. He understood that detailed discussions would continue with the Under-secretary.

Sweden had actively contributed to action against apartheid in international forums, and would continue to do so. On this issue, all political parties were united in Sweden.

Apartheid was the subject of active consideration and activity among NGOs, youth, churches, etc. There was a lively debate as to the means of undermining and destroying apartheid.

Recently, the Swedish church had put forward a programme on this question.

What can the world community do to achieve its aim?

The actual situation was that a large number of States had relations with South Africa and were reluctant to give them up. Some sell weapons to South Africa.

Sweden wanted to stop all arms sales to South Africa and would actively work for that.

As to other sanctions, Sweden was prepared to discuss them. But, from past experience, the possibility and efficacy of such measures was doubtful. But Sweden was prepared to discuss them.

Swedes had themselves discussed, in an internal debate in the country, whether Sweden could itself stop economic relations with South Africa. They came to the conclusion that unilateral action would not be useful. Economic measures would have to be together with other States which have economic relations.

Sweden had, however, decided to dissuade Swedish companies from investment in South Africa. There was an agreement with companies which was more or less effective.

Swedish investment in South Africa was fairly small. There was no expansion of the investment. Public opinion was strong on this matter and the private companies had to take cognisance.

Sweden was ready to discuss international measures to effect a change in South Africa.

Sweden was against the exclusion of South Africa from international organisations. This was a position based on principle as regards international organisations.

Sweden recognised that South Africa obviously violates the United Nations Charter and General Assembly resolutions. Its position was dictated by fear of consequences of a precedent. Other countries may also be regarded as violators. "If we start excluding, it is difficult to draw a line."

Sweden had for a long time actively supported liberation movements in southern Africa. It also supported movements in South Africa. But it had never given support in the form of weapons - but only for health, education, etc. In this latter area, Sweden was prepared to increase aid. With its traditions as a nation, military assistance could run counter to Swedish policy.

He then turned to the Swedish view of the United Nations as an organisation for the maintenance of peace. Sweden, he said, found it difficult to support United Nations resolutions encouraging armed violence. It was aware that armed violence may be used, but it found it difficult to support resolutions of encouragement to such violence.

Sweden was prepared and eager to find ways and means of discussing, preferably before the next session of the General Assembly, what methods may be used for changing the situation in South Africa.

Apartheid would be a major topic at the Nordic Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Oslo in August.

Ambassador Ogbu said the Special Committee respected the Swedish position very much. He thanked the Foreign Minister for the encouragement and said that some areas could be discussed in more detail with the officials.

It was agreed that they might discuss the specific points which had been raised in the meeting with the Foreign Minister, namely:

1. Arms embargo
2. Diplomatic, economic and other sanctions
3. Publicity - Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund
4. Assistance to liberation movements
   • for political and information activity
   • for research and training and planning for future
5. Assistance to anti-apartheid movements - and inside South Africa
6. Membership of Special Committee against Apartheid

Ambassador Astrom said that, before going into the specific matters, it would be very valuable for him and his colleagues to hear the views of Ambassador Ogbu on the general situation after the changes in the Portuguese territories, and the new tactics of South Africa.

Ambassador Ogbu explained the background of Vorster’s visit to Liberia; the results of Extraordinary Session of the OAU Council of Ministers; and the OAU decisions concerning Security Council session, oil embargo, facilities to ships and aircraft going to and from South Africa, supply of labour from neighbouring independent States, etc.

Ambassador Astrom asked about the position of the ANC inside South Africa and whether it was representative.

Ambassador Ogbu said that while he could not give a firm estimate of the strength of ANC and PAC, there was no doubt that they had contacts and influence of some magnitude inside the country. The OAU had decided to increase support to the liberation movements.

Ambassador Astrom said Sweden agreed that a situation as defined under Article 39 of the Charter exists in South Africa. The first step was a mandatory arms embargo and Sweden was in favour. He agreed with Ambassador Ogbu that U.K. was the weakest link in this respect for various reasons.

Other measures require further discussion.

Ambassador Ogbu wondered if the Foreign Minister could attend the Security Council meetings. He then referred to possible sanctions other than an arms embargo.

Ambassador Astrom said he could not add much to what the Foreign Minister had said. There was the difference between unilateral action and multilateral sanctions.

The past attempts at sanctions had not been very effective. Sweden was willing to consider the possibility of sanctions in the Security Council. It agreed that necessary conditions under Article 39 existed. It would need to consult African States and the major trading partners of South Africa on the possibilities.

Ambassador Ogbu hoped that Sweden would consider a contribution to the Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund.

Ambassador Astrom said he had not been aware of the Trust Fund. The Ministry would certainly look into the matter. Sweden favoured publicity on apartheid. It was also rather hesitant about voluntary funds for activities which should be financed from the regular budget.

Ambassador Ogbu then referred to the suggestion regarding research and planning for the future of South Africa, stressing that the consultations were at a preliminary stage.

Ambassador Astrom said the idea corresponds to Swedish thinking. Sweden’s general attitude to the project was very positive, though he had no views at that time as to how it should be undertaken.

Ambassador Ogbu suggested that Nordic States should nominate a member for the Special Committee.

Ambassador Astrom assured him that the matter would be considered in Nordic consultations.

Mr. Palme welcomed the delegation and asked about the work of the Special Committee.

Ambassador Ogbu explained the efforts of the Special Committee to promote concerted international action, and referred to missions sent to various governments - both the friendly governments and the major trading partners of South Africa.

He explained the decisions of the recent Extraordinary Session of the OAU Council of Ministers and the recommendations of the Special Committee’s Seminar in Paris.

He said that the Security Council would be meeting soon to consider Namibia and then, he hoped, apartheid. Several African Foreign Ministers would attend. He expressed the hope that Sweden and other friendly countries would help in efforts to obtain mandatory sanctions on supply of arms to South Africa and possibly on other relations with South Africa.

The OAU had also decided on an oil embargo against South Africa. The Foreign Ministers of Arab countries had endorsed the embargo and decided to send a delegation to Iran to seek its cooperation.

Mr. Palme enquired about France’s position on the arms embargo.

Ambassador Ogbu said France claimed it supplied only arms for defence, not arms against guerillas. It claimed that there was no mandatory decision by the Security Council.

Mr. Palme said he had recently met Mr. Oliver Tambo who had expressed fear that the South African problem may be forgotten if attention was diverted by other issues.

He felt that if Mozambique came out well, that would have an impact on South Africa.

Ambassador Ogbu said that the OAU felt that decolonisation in Rhodesia and Namibia would give a greater impetus to action against South Africa.

Mr. Palme asked about South Africa’s position on Namibia. Were they still playing with dividing Namibia?

Ambassador Ogbu said that they may be trying for time. According to the press reports, the Big Three Western Powers suggested a referendum under UN supervision. The South African reply would be interesting.

Ambassador Ogbu said the delegation had useful discussions with the Foreign Minister and Swedish officials. The Special Committee valued the position of Sweden.

He hoped that assistance to the victims of apartheid would be continued and increased. He also hoped that one of the Nordic countries would join the Special Committee.

Mr. Palme said the position of Sweden on the basic principles was clear. Sweden had voted for most resolutions on apartheid.

There was only one difficulty: Sweden hoped for peaceful solutions and had difficulty on some formulations.

Sweden had benefited from contacts with liberation movements.

What it could do was some humble activity in support of liberation.

He was very glad that the delegation could visit Sweden. He wished the Special Committee best of luck.

The Foreign Minister welcomed the delegation and paid tribute to the work done by the Special Committee to help the oppressed people of South Africa, especially in the past few years under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Ogbu. The Special Committee had contributed to increased international pressure against South Africa.

In spite of all efforts, South Africa held on to its policy and the grave situation continued. The changes in the former Portuguese territories would make themselves felt on South Africa. The international pressure against South Africa should be increased.

He asked for Ambassador Ogbu’s views on the effect of the changes in the former Portuguese territories and the situation in South Africa.

Ambassador Ogbu read a prepared statement (similar to that in Helsinki). He then elaborated on the discussions at the extraordinary session of the OAU Council of Ministers meeting. He said that the trend of thought at the OAU was to give priority to decolonisation in Zimbabwe and Namibia. Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts against South Africa and assistance to the people inside the country should continue.

The Foreign Minister thanked Ambassador Ogbu and referred to the specific points raised by him in his statement.

He was glad that the position of NATO had been clarified in the discussions of Ambassador Ogbu with Secretary-General Luns. Norway would have protested any involvement by NATO in South Africa.

As regards the Crotale missile, he said that the Government had decided not to buy that missile. It was purchasing another system. He had heard, however, that some other countries were purchasing the Crotale.

As regards membership in the Special Committee, he said that Norway would discuss the matter with the other Nordic countries.

Ambassador Ogbu stressed that apartheid was not a question for Africa alone. If the Nordic countries joined the Committee, that would have an impact on South Africa.

He added that if Norway joined the Special Committee, he would like to hand over the Chairmanship to Norway.

The Foreign Minister said he would certainly consider the matter.

Mr. Arnesen welcomed Ambassador Ogbu, both personally and on behalf of the Foreign Ministry.

He said that Norway appreciated the valuable work of the Special Committee in making the world aware of the evils of apartheid. Norway would vigorously support the work of the Special Committee and the resolutions of the UN, so that maximum pressure could be exerted on South Africa.

Ambassador Ogbu reviewed the results of the recent extraordinary session of the OAU Council of Ministers and the Special Committee’s Seminar. He then elaborated on the following points:

1. Arms embargo: (a) Security Council discussions; and (b) consultations with NATO.
2. Diplomatic, economic and other sanctions.
3. Publicity: Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund.
4. Assistance: (a) for political and information activity of liberation movements; (b) for activity inside South Africa; (c) for anti- Apartheid movements; and (d) for research, training and planning for future.
5. Membership of Special Committee.
6. Exchange of views on: (a) recognition of right of liberation movements to use all necessary means; and (b) credentials of South African delegation and membership of South Africa in the United Nations.

Mr. Arnesen thanked Ambassador Ogbu. He said that he would like to hear more about Ambassador Ogbu’s views concerning: (a) the manoeuvres by Vorster; (b) the forces in South Africa, the liberation movements and the sentiment of the white community; (c) the developments which may be expected in the next few years; and (d) the developments concerning Namibia and Rhodesia.

Norway had for a long time felt that the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the arms embargo should be considered by the Member States as more or less mandatory.

The Crotale missile was an issue of the past. The Defence Department experts had felt that it suited Norway's needs very well. But Norway was also well aware of the political aspects. It was acquiring the Roland system developed by France and West Germany.

Norway agreed that the NATO had no business with regard to the situation in southern Africa. He wished to refer to one point which had not been raised by Ambassador Ogbu, namely, emigration to South Africa.

Norway had protested repeatedly against any assistance or services by the Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration for emigration to South Africa and had threatened to withdraw from the ICEM. It had been informed that ICEM was closing its offices in Pretoria and would have no part in emigration to South Africa.

As regards economic and other measures, Norway felt that mandatory decisions should be taken by the Security Council in order to be effective. Norway had not taken unilateral steps on the basis of General Assembly resolutions. He was curious to know whether the Permanent Members were now ready to support decisions by the Security Council.

Norway had only a consulate-general in Cape Town. It had no intention of closing it for the time being. Closing of consulates should be done as part of more general sanctions. The South Africans could not consider the existence of a Norwegian consulate as support for the apartheid policies.

As regards social and humanitarian assistance to the victims of apartheid through national programmes and UN funds, he said that Norway intended to continue and increase the assistance.

Norway would have no difficulty in supporting a programme for preparing South Africans for the future after liberation. He wondered if the programme would be similar to the Namibia Institute.

As regards membership in the Special Committee he said that Denmark intended to leave the Special Committee of 24 at the end of the year and it had tentatively been agreed that Norway would replace Denmark.

He agreed that the liberation movements had tried peaceful means and saw armed struggle as a last resort. While appreciating this position, Norway felt that if a UN body sanctioned the use of force, that would be contrary to the UN Charter.

Norway had tried other ways to assist the liberation movements and had established close political contact with them. In the past it had concentrated on the liberation movements in the Portuguese territories, and it was happy that they were becoming governmental powers. Norway now had direct contact with the SWAPO and was supporting it.

Ambassador Ogbu agreed that sanctions must be mandatory in order to be effective. However, if Norway could announce that it had been approached to close its consulate and was giving consideration to the matter, that would have an impact.

He suggested that it would be useful if the question of membership in the Special Committee could be considered soon.

As regards the credentials of the South African delegation and South African s membership in the UN, he said that the African States would expect no lees than the action taken last year.

He suggested that the Nordic countries might prepare a formulation which they can accept, on the use of force by the liberation movements.

Mr. Arnesen said that they would consider all the suggestions seriously.

As regards South Africa’s membership in the UN, he could not add much to the policy as stated previously. Norway was concerned about developments which could be set in motion by action as regards South Africa’s membership. It felt very strongly on this matter.

He had heard that at the recent conference on humanitarian law, Nigeria had suggested the participation of South Africa. South Africa’s membership in the international organisations may have some advantages.

As regards the Crotale missile, he said that the matter had never been brought up by the Government for decision. It had been studied by many experts who had said that the system was very suitable. The Government had also considered other systems and had now made a decision which would be submitted to the Parliament.

He said that the Government would consider a contribution to the Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund.

He was aware of statements by individuals linking NATO with South Africa. But Norway had been assured by NATO that such statements had been made in individual capacity and did not represent the official views.

As regards the use by the liberation movements of "all necessary means" they would look into a possible formulation, as suggested by Ambassador Ogbu. They agreed that changes had to take place from time to time by the use of force. Their position was that the UN was devoted to peaceful settlement and could not advocate the use of force.

As regards the situation in South Africa, he felt that the Vorster Government, being flanked in by the force of events, was obviously playing for time. However, could they not begin to institute certain changes in South Africa which would set other things in motion? Or would their position become more hardened?

Ambassador Ogbu said that his impression was that Vorster was caught in a trap. He could introduce some changes at the governmental level but only at the risk of losing influence in the party, where the die-hards were strong. It was more likely that he would introduce tougher measures.

As regards Namibia, the situation would depend on pressures by the three Western Powers.

Mr. Arnesen thanked Ambassador Ogbu and said that the information was enlightening.

Ambassador Ogbu said that he was satisfied with the very useful exchange of views. He added that he respected the views of Norway.

(The following Parliament members were present:

• Mr. Otto Lyng, Conservative, Secretary of the Committee, who chaired the meeting;
• Mr. Asbjorn Haugsnedt, Christian Peoples Party; and
• Mr. Arne Kielland, Socialist Left.)

Ambassador Ogbu read a prepared statement.

Mr. Lyng thanked Ambassador Ogbu for his kind words for Norway. He was glad to hear that the delegation had useful talks with the Norwegian officials.

The Norwegian people were occupied with the problem of apartheid and appreciated the work of the Special Committee. They hoped that efforts against apartheid would at last succeed. He asked if there were any problems with regard to Norway.

Ambassador Ogbu said that there were only differences in approach on one or two points.

Norway maintained a Consulate-General in Cape Town. The officials had explained that they could not take unilateral action. Another difference in approach related to hesitation of the Norwegian delegation in recognising the right of liberation movements to use all means at their disposal.

There was also some increase in the trade between Norway and South Africa. The trade was not crucial to Norway, but its termination would have a great impact.

These were a few areas on which he would seek to end the differences of approach.

Mr. Arne Kielland said that while they differed on many issues in Parliament, they were agreed on fighting apartheid, though there were differences on how intensely they should fight the politics of apartheid. The Government had broad support in Parliament.

Pressure from the Special Committee and others had led the Government to abandon the purchase of the Crotale missile system though it gave various reasons for its decisions.

Some of the members of Parliament, including himself, had been working to limit trade and were considering the question of the Consulate-General in Cape Town.

He was not satisfied with the level of aid to liberation movements but recognised that Norway had moved in the right direction. The Government had announced that the support given to FRELIMO in the past would now be shifted to independent Mozambique. His own contact with Africa had been in 1963 when he went to the Congo as a sergeant in the United Nations Peace-keeping Force. He had then come in contact with the liberation movements.

Mr. Lyng said that generally all parties were working in the same direction. The existence of the Consulate-General did, in no way, mean that Norway approved the way in which the white minority was ruling the country.

He explained that only three members were present because of various reasons, but he promised to convey the views of Ambassador Ogbu to all the members of the Foreign Relations Committee.

As regards violence, he said that in principle Norway was against violence. But it was fully aware that from time to time liberation movements had to use means other than purely peaceful means.

Norway had accepted the principle of assistance to liberation movements. When wars were going on, it gave assistance for humanitarian purposes only. But that did not mean that Norway disapproves of the struggle of liberation movements.

Mr. Kielland said that this had been a point of disagreement in Parliament. His own view was that Norway should give more, in money, as an act of faith. It was up to the liberation movements to decide on their needs.

In view of the public opinion in Norway, it would be difficult for the Norwegian Government to give arms. This was not a question of morality. The debate had been as to whether assistance should be given in money, or earmarked for specific humanitarian projects.

In answer to further questions, Ambassador Ogbu explained the attitudes of the OAU and the Special Committee with regard to the present situation in South Africa, and the plans for further action. He also informed the members of Parliament about the matters discussed with the Foreign Minister.

Mr. Lyng thanked Ambassador Ogbu and gave his best wishes for the success of the Committee. He was happy that Ambassador Ogbu spent so much time on missions to various countries: the consultations were very useful for the politicians.

Ambassador Ogbu read a written text.

Mr. Bratteli said he was glad that the delegation had an opportunity to visit his office.

He assured the delegation that in Norway, the developments in Africa had been followed for many, many years. The people of Norway - and all serious and responsible parties at least - react very favourably to liberation in Africa. There has been broad public interest in the country in the latest developments in the former Portuguese territories - and certainly in the last big problems of South Africa and Rhodesia.

He had personally had an interesting visit to Tanzania and Zambia earlier this year and had acquainted himself with the present problems and the outlook for the future. He would never forget that visit.

"If I should have a dream about Africa, it is that it might be possible some time for people of different colours to live peacefully together. I would be very unhappy if future developments were to lead to having various parts of the world for one colour."

Peaceful co-existence in this context was the responsibility of all the people.

"For many historical and political reasons, the most obvious responsibility lies with the white population of South Africa and Rhodesia.

"It has been my conviction, for most of my adult life, that if the white people want to stay in Africa they should accept the removal of all kinds of discrimination. They should, in the near future, accept original Africans as equal human beings. The white population has no choice except to accept equality, irrespective of colour or creed, or leave.

"I am realistic. Even independent African States have problems. But it is clear from what happened in Africa after the Second World War that, sooner or later, white minority domination must end."

Mr. Bratteli said that this was the common attitude in Norway.

"It has been said that it is easy for Norway which does not have too close an economic interest, to take this attitude. But it is fortunate that some countries can take such an attitude."

"This country - except for some very small right-wing groups - was happy with the success of the liberation struggle. It will not be too long before you get change in South Africa, Rhodesia and Namibia.

"I hope that the white population will have wisdom to prepare themselves for change and that it may be possible in future for the people to live together.

"I give you my best wishes for your work."

Ambassador Ogbu expressed great appreciation to the Prime Minister and said that the points of view of Norway and of the Special Committee were similar.

He again expressed appreciation for the cooperation of the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations and hoped that the support of Norway for the liberation movements and the United Nations would be continued and increased.

Ambassador Thorning-Peterson welcomed the delegation and thanked them for visiting Denmark. Denmark, he said, was following the work of the Special Committee with great interest.

Ambassador Ogbu said the delegation was encouraged by the warm reception.

He reviewed the present situation in South Africa, the results of the session of the OAU Council of Ministers, the Seminar of the Special Committee, and plans for further action at the United Nations.

He expressed sincere appreciation to Denmark and the Nordic countries for their assistance to the victims of apartheid and their liberation movements, and for support to the struggle against apartheid in the United Nations and other international forums.

He hoped that Denmark would consider terminating consular relations and economic relations with South Africa. He also suggested contributions to the Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund, and membership of a Nordic country in the Special Committee.

He said that the Special Committee was anxious for a peaceful solution. The membership of a Nordic country would be a boost to peaceful action and would make it clear that apartheid is a world problem.

He requested Ambassador Thorning-Petersen to convey the delegation’s best wishes to Ambassador Borch who recently had an operation.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen said he brought greetings from Ambassador Borch who would have been at the meeting if he did not have to attend the promotion board.

Mr. Valderrama made a strong appeal for Nordic membership in the Special Committee.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen thanked Ambassador Ogbu for his brilliant expose and the valuable information.

He said that there seemed to be a link between the two matters raised - Vorster's manoeuvres and the question of force. He asked if African States had given up any hopes of progress through political contacts with the South African Government.

He agreed that the motives of Vorster might be doubtful and very different from ours. But can we consider a step by step approach? If Vorster wants to make concessions on behalf of other people - e.g. Ian Smith - why not let him do that?

Ambassador Ogbu said that whatever results may be expected from contacts, they would not be a substitute for action. The liberation movements feel that the actions of African States in the diplomatic field should not hamper the movements in their struggle. They were concerned that Vorster would try to use contacts to gain time and create a fait accompli by rushing the establishment of Bantustan states. They denounce Bantustan leaders and oppose any recognition of them.

The OAU decided, therefore, to avoid contacts on an individual basis. The independent African States had nothing to discuss with Vorster. He should unconditionally release the political prisoners and establish détente with them.

If Vorster wanted contacts, he should go through the OAU, instead of trying to split African States.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen said that with the dismantling of the Portuguese colonial empire, Southern Rhodesia had become a burden rather than an asset to Vorster. Would Ambassador Ogbu see possibilities for pressing in on South Africa, "this fortress of discrimination," by taking away the support of Vorster to Ian Smith and changing Rhodesia to a civilised society, and also by exerting pressure as regards Namibia?

Ambassador Ogbu agreed with the approach. He added, however, that Africa would not trade gains on Rhodesia and Namibia for compromise on apartheid.

He said there was a small school of thought that Vorster may even arrange for the migration of whites from Southern Rhodesia to South Africa.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen said they were looking for ways and means, short of armed conflict, to persuade South Africa that time is against them, although they were not over-optimistic.

Mr. Carl Lose of DANIDA said that Denmark had an annual appropriation for educational and humanitarian assistance to Southern Africa. The appropriation was now about 12.6 million kroner. Requests for grants are considered by an Advisory Board which includes private humanitarian organisations. In the light of their advice, the Foreign Minister makes proposals to the Finance Committee of the Parliament.

Although the allocations for the current year had been decided, there was some possibility for additional allocations. The request for the Unit on Apartheid Trust Fund had been received and would be submitted to the Advisory Board.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen said he would like to deal with the specific matters within our common commitment against apartheid.

As regards consulates and trade, he said that Denmark was a small country which tried to adhere to certain principles regarding recognition, diplomatic and other relations etc. Its policy was that diplomatic relations were neutral and did not imply any liking or dislike for a country. There had been pressure to break diplomatic relations with Chile. However, Denmark was able to make some contribution to alleviate suffering by retaining the diplomatic mission, while leaving the Government in no doubt regarding the views of Denmark.

The only exception to this general policy was South Africa. Denmark had no diplomatic relations with South Africa. The Danish ambassador in Pretoria was withdrawn many years ago and the post was never replaced. Denmark now maintains only consulates in South Africa.

Many South Africans in Denmark would agree that these consular relations could be useful. He doubted if very much would be gained by breaking off those relations. He stressed that what remained was decidedly non-diplomatic representation.

As regards commerce, under Danish law, the Government cannot restrict trade by private companies. It had never granted export credit guarantees for trade with South Africa. There was no commerce with the South African authorities, but only with individual private firms.

Denmark had always said that if the Security Council adopted economic sanctions against South Africa, that would meet with whole-hearted support by Denmark and that Denmark would apply the sanctions.

Denmark implemented a very strict arms embargo, acting as if there was a mandatory decision. If some of Denmark’s allies were not following the same policy, this had nothing to do with the NATO. Denmark had maintained a similar position regarding Portugal and gave concrete assistance to the liberation movements in the Portuguese colonies.

As regards membership in the Special Committee, he said that it may be difficult for Denmark. The Foreign Service was somewhat over-worked and the membership in the Special Committee of 24 had been a strain. He could not, however, speak for the other Nordic countries.

Denmark would, however, welcome any widening of the representativeness of the UN committees on southern Africa, as that would increase the possibilities for active cooperation on its part.

He said it would be a great advantage if consultations between the African Group and Denmark could take place at early stages of the formulation of draft resolutions. Denmark felt sorry, from time to time, that it could not fully support resolutions, since there had been a lack of advance consultation.

Ambassador Ogbu said he agreed that there should be adequate consultation on draft resolutions.

He said that there had been differences with the Nordic countries concerning the formulation of the clause on the right of the oppressed people to conduct their struggle by all necessary means. He had suggested in Oslo, that the Nordic countries might perhaps suggest a formulation acceptable to them, since there was no basic difference on the substance.

Mr. Reddy asked if Denmark could increase assistance to the liberation movements in South Africa, in view of the progress in the former Portuguese colonies.

Mr. Lose said that the Foreign Minister was conscious of the need to increase assistance to the remaining territories in southern Africa.

Ambassador Ogbu referred to the need to assist South Africans in research and training for the future, after liberation.

Mr. Lose said that Denmark had contributed to the Namibia Institute and would consider further contributions after seeing how the Institute functions. It would consider contributions for similar projects for the other territories as well.

Mr. Valderrama said that the Nordic countries may perhaps use their influence on the major Western Powers.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen said that, to be realistic, the Nordic States did not have as much influence as the Afro-Asian States.

Ambassador Ogbu suggested that Denmark should look into the prospects for increased trade with the independent African States. They do not wish to give any ultimatum, but would invite countries to look for alternatives until apartheid was abolished.

Ambassador Thorning-Petersen said that trade with independent African States was one of the main interests of Denmark.

The Prime Minister welcomed the delegation.

Ambassador Ogbu thanked the Prime Minister.

He said that the Special Committee was sending missions to friendly countries for consultations with Governments and non-governmental organisations on concerted action. It appreciated that Denmark and other Nordic countries were committed to the struggle against apartheid.

The delegation had come first of all to thank the Danish Government for its contributions to various funds for assistance to the victims of apartheid and to encourage continued and increased assistance. It had very useful discussions with the Foreign Ministry officials about areas where further action could be taken.

He referred to the results of the recent meetings of the OAU Council of Ministers and the Seminar of the Special Committee, and said that the Security Council was likely to meet soon to consider Namibia and apartheid.

He hoped that friendly countries, like Denmark, could participate in the debates in the Security Council and support the imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa.

The Prime Minister said that Denmark appreciated very much the work of the Special Committee, which was dealing with a major problem. It would continue to be active on this matter and hoped that solutions could be found.

Ambassador Ogbu dealt with the attitudes of the three major Western Powers, which condemned apartheid but did not want to take any action. If the three could agree on pressure there would be a change.

Ambassador Ogbu thanked the Foreign Minister for the arrangements made for the delegation and said that it had very useful discussions with the officials.

The Foreign Minister said that Denmark was really concerned about the problem of apartheid. The only question was about ways and means.

He regarded the work of the Special Committee as very important.

Ambassador Ogbu explained the plans for the discussion of the matter in the Security Council.

He said the African Group had instructions to ask for the expulsion of South Africa at the next session of the General Assembly. The Permanent Representatives of African States were aware of the difficulties of expulsion, but would try to obtain at least the same ruling as last year on the credentials.

The Foreign Minister referred to the principled standpoint of Denmark on universality.

He felt that if ever any country ought to be expelled from the UN, it was South Africa, both because of apartheid and because of its illegal occupation of Namibia. In spite of that, Denmark had opposed expulsion because of its hesitations regarding the precedent.

Denmark had, however, tried to show its opposition in other ways, for instance by political and economic support to liberation movements, as it had done in the case of Portugal.

Ambassador Ogbu felt that the fear of a precedent was unfounded. South Africa was the only country which had been unanimously condemned for practising apartheid. He felt that expulsion would instil discipline among other members as well. The exclusion would only be so long as apartheid existed.

The Foreign Minister appreciated this, but said he could not at this time change the Danish policy. If Mr. Vorster did not make a clear statement on Namibia and apartheid, that would make a great impression on Denmark.

The Chairman welcomed the delegation.

Ambassador Ogbu thanked the members of Parliament and read a prepared statement.

Ambassador Ogbu then reviewed the situation in South Africa with special reference to the recent manoeuvres of the South African regime and the decisions of the Extraordinary Session of the OAU Council of Ministers. He said that external pressures against South Africa must continue and increase.

Mr. Vorster, he said, was trying to give the impression that he would like to help in Southern Rhodesia, but it was not clear at what price. It could only be guessed that he was trying to gain time to consolidate apartheid. He was increasing repression in South Africa, instead of releasing the political prisoners and talking to them. He was harassing even innocent students.

He added that the Security Council would meet at the end of the month to consider Namibia and South Africa. The African States would seek mandatory decisions on the arms embargo and other sanctions.

The Chairman asked what could be expected from Mr. Vorster and whether the Western Powers would agree to sanctions.

Ambassador Ogbu said he expected resistance from the Western Powers to sanctions but failed to see any justification.

On sanctions, there was a vicious circle: France, for instance, claims that the arms embargo is not mandatory but opposes a mandatory decision while Denmark has implemented the embargo as if it was mandatory.

The Chairman asked what new sanctions were being considered.

Ambassador Ogbu said that he had economic sanctions in mind.

Denmark, he understood, could not prohibit trade in the absence of mandatory sanctions.

One member of Parliament asked about the attitude of the other African countries, especially Ivory Coast.

Ambassador Ogbu thought that they would go along. He said that the Foreign Minister of the Ivory Coast had been unequivocal at the OAU ministerial meeting. No African country raised objections to the proposal to withhold labour from South Africa.

The Chairman wondered if the Western economy was not too dependent on uranium, metals and other products of South Africa.

Ambassador Ogbu thought that the dependence was exaggerated. There were other sources for uranium.

One member of Parliament asked how sanctions could work in relation to South Africa when they were not effective in Southern Rhodesia.

Ambassador Ogbu said that effectiveness depended on the willingness of countries to make sanctions work.

Sanctions were the alternative to force.

Mr. Arne Stinus asked what the situation would be if Mr. Vorster was more positive than expected.

Ambassador Ogbu said that that would be a pleasant surprise. If South Africa agreed to a referendum on Namibia under the United Nations auspices, some Member States may favour further talks. But that would not solve the problem in South Africa itself.

The Chairman said that his Committee had discussed the wages paid by Danish companies in South Africa. If economic sanctions were applied, the factories would need to close and workers would get unemployed. If sanctions were not efficient, other countries would take over the Danish factories: the conditions of the Africans would get worse, but the system would continue.

Ambassador Ogbu said that there were bigger issues than wages. The OAU was in favour of total isolation of South Africa. He agreed that in order to be effective, the sanctions must be mandatory.

One member of Parliament suggested that the international community might concentrate action on Namibia and leave South Africa alone for the present.

Ambassador Ogbu said that the OAU agreed on priority for decolonisation in Rhodesia and Namibia. But in the meantime, South Africa should be harassed.