"Progress Has Been Made"

South Africa's Foreign Minister foresees a settlement

For the first time since negotiations on independence for Namibia broke down at Geneva in January 1981, the South African government has agreed to preliminary Western proposals that would eventually allow majority black rule in the territory. Still, for South Africa, the stakes are high. South African Foreign Minister Roelof ("Pik") Botha was interviewed by TIME Chief of Correspondents Richard L. Duncan, Johannesburg Bureau Chief Marsh Clark and Reporter Peter Hawthorne in Cape Town about the prospects of a lasting settlement. Excerpts from their conversation:

Q. From your perspective, has significant progress been made toward Namibian independence?

A. Solid progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go.

Q. How long will the process take?

A. Unless something unforeseen happens, let me say 18 months to three years.

Q. Does your acceptance of the first, constitutional phase of the settlement represent any concessions on South Africa's part?

A. We agreed in 1978 to the removal of discrimination, and the constitutional proposals again contain that, so we could not really object to it now. I don't think you have any concept of the jump that had to be taken here. It was a giant leap with the crocodile's jaws waiting for us. The current proposals do not go as far as we would have wished with regard to minority [white] protection. But the present constitution contains a provision that opens the possibility for minorities to win seats that they might otherwise have lost. It also contains certain fundamental principles such as freedom of expression and religion, movement, an independent judicial system, continued elections, that sort of thing. A worrying element to us is how we can make sure that those lofty principles will be preserved.

Q. Do some white inhabitants of Namibia feel they are being sold down the river by your government?

A. This is the crux of the problem, the trauma, the pain. What do you think will be our position if there is a white exodus from Zimbabwe, which is not out of the question, and those people tell the public in South Africa and in Namibia what happened to them? That's why I have said that events in Zimbabwe constitute perhaps the single most important obstacle [to a settlement].

Q. What about the second phase in the agreements, which will provide for a U.N. peace-keeping force and U.N. monitoring of elections?

A. Phase two deals with the security of the region. It will be difficult, make no mistake. The issues are more visible, more emotional from the point of view of all the parties involved. This government is not prepared to go for an internationally acceptable solution if it holds no prospect for peace. Anti-SWAPO parties in the territory argue that U.N. supervisors are SWAPO people, so SWAPO cannot lose an election. Either they win and it's finished, or they lose and the U.N. refuses to issue a certificate that it was a free and fair election. So both ways they win, no matter what. While I'm expected to convince the people in the territory that the U.N. will be impartial, the Secretary-General opts publicly to take sides with SWAPO.

Q. Do you feel that the U.S. understands your distinction between an internationally acceptable solution and a peaceful solution?

A. The Reagan Administration is more realistic as far as the threat of the Soviet Union is concerned. The South African government is absolutely committed to a peaceful solution in Namibia and is conscious of the benefits that would flow from an internationally acceptable solution. To achieve the latter and yet not to bring peace and stability would be a disaster. We are making that distinction quite clear to the U.S. Government. The Soviet Union is not interested in a peaceful solution. We are not prepared, for the rest of history, to be blamed for destroying a country. My government is not prepared to be a party to Soviet expansion in this area or anywhere else in the world and have a finger pointed at us by our own children. It is better to be destroyed in a different way than that. We cannot swallow that.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.