De Klerk and Mandela Discuss Future

President F. W. de Klerk discussed South Africa's future with Nelson R. Mandela today, raising the expectation that the imprisoned anti-apartheid leader may be released early next year. Mr. de Klerk received Mr. Mandela, South Africa's most prominent political prisoner, at Tuynhuys, the President's office in Cape Town. Mr. Mandela, who has been in jail since 1963, is being held at a prison farm near Paarl, outside Cape Town.

Justice Minister Hendrick J. Coetsee, who attended the meeting, said that it was requested by Mr. Mandela and welcomed by Mr. de Klerk, who says he wants to create a climate for negotiations that would give the country's disenfranchised black majority a limited degree of political power. Taking Measure of Each Other In a cautiously worded statement, Mr. Coetsee said the meeting with Mr. Mandela ''fitted in with Mr. de Klerk's program to consult with the full spectrum of political opinion concerning the mutual future of all South Africans.'' The discussions between Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela, he said, included ''ways and means to address current obstacles in the way of meaningful dialogue.'' Mr. Coetsee declined to give more details, saying further statements ''would serve no positive purpose.'' But Mr. Mandela's release has been a consistent precondition of black leaders across the political spectrum for talks with the white minority Government.

The state-run South African Broadcasting Corporation, in reporting news of the meeting on the television evening news, showed an old photograph of Mr. Mandela, indicating a departure from the official position that his photograph not be shown or published because South African law treats him as a banned person. Today's meeting created the opportunity for the most prominent white and black South Africans to take personal measure of each other. Mr. Coetsee did not say how long the meeting lasted. The Justice Minister said follow-up talks between Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela were envisioned in the new year, a statement that indicated Mr. Mandela would not be freed this month. Criticism From the Right

During a visit to the Ivory Coast on Dec. 2, President de Klerk told reporters that the question was not whether Mr. Mandela would be released but when and under what circumstances. Today's meeting was criticized by Andries Treurnicht, the leader of the right-wing Conservative Party, who said that it amounted to an unbanning of the outlawed African National Congress, to which Mr. Mandela has belonged for 45 years. But the liberal Democratic Party welcomed the meeting. In a statement, its co-leader, Denis Worrall, said Mr. Mandela's request to see President de Klerk ''suggests Mr. Mandela understands what an important role he has to play and how deeply his initial approach will influence in particular white South African attitudes.''

There have been reports that Mr. Mandela was remaining in prison by his own choice in order to get more jailed comrades released and to work out details for negotiations with the Government. But Dullah Omar, a Cape Town attorney, discounted such suggestions after lunching yesterday with Walter and Albertina Sisulu. Mr. Sisulu, a comrade of Mr. Mandela in both the outlawed African National Congress and in prison, visited Mr. Mandela for three hours yesterday.

Mr. de Klerk freed Mr. Sisulu and seven other long-term political prisoners, six of whom belonged to the Congress, on Oct. 15 in a gesture seen as a rehearsal for Mr. Mandela's release. Mr. Omar said Mr. Sisulu told him that of the issues he and Mr. Mandela discussed, ''the most relevant one was Mr. Mandela's continued imprisonment. Mr. Mandela emphatically denies that he has chosen not to be released now.'' ''He says he does not know why he has not been released with the others,'' Mr. Omar continued, according to a report by the South African Press Association. ''He has the right to be released but is not prepared to beg for his release.''

New York Times

A SOUTH AFRICAN TALKS OF HIT TEAM

A former South African security police captain says he commanded an assassination team created to track down and eliminate opponents of the Government. The former officer, Capt. Dirk Johannes Coetzee, who quit the police in 1986 and left South Africa last week, made the statement in an interview in Mauritius with a reporter for Vrye Weekblad, an Afrikaans-language weekly newspaper. The paper published the story in its current issue.

On Friday, Maj. Gen. Herman Stadler of the South African police said Mr. Coetzee's ''unfounded, untested and wild'' allegations would be investigated by T. P. McNally, the Attorney General of the Orange Free State, and Lieut. Gen. Alwyn Conradie, head of the police criminal investigation division.The police said Mr. Coetzee had made his accusations in a foreign country where they could not be verified. It also said he had been dishonorably discharged in 1986 for criminal misconduct. Vrye Weekblad said Mr. Coetzee, who is 44 years old, had left the force ''for health reasons after a departmental inquiry.'' Corroboration by Doomed Killer

A few weeks ago, Butana Nofomela, a convicted murderer awaiting hanging in Pretoria, asserted that he served as a member of the hit squad and named Captain Coetzee as his operational commander. His execution was stayed so his assertions could be investigated. Mr. Coetzee confirmed that Mr. Nofomela had served under him. ''I was the commander of the assassination squad of South African police,'' the newspaper quoted Mr. Coetzee as saying. ''My men and I killed and eliminated opponents of the Government.'' He said he was guilty of, or an accomplice to several murders.

Mr. Coetzee said the security police operation had five squads, including his, and had carried out attacks in Swaziland, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Britain, as well as inside South Africa. ''We operated in civilian dress and were armed with the strangest weaponry and explosive devices,'' the newspaper quoted him as saying. ''We operated underground and were not recognizable as policemen.''

Some opponents of apartheid have insisted that the police were behind the killing of a number of Pretoria's adversaries, among them members of the outlawed African National Congress living in exile. The police have consistently denied the existence of any such ''hit squads,'' and General Stadler reiterated this denial on Friday.

Mr. Coetzee asserted that the operation was run from Vlakplaas, a restricted police training base near Pretoria, using former guerrillas from the African National Congress, nicknamed ''askaris,'' who had been recruited to fight their old comrades. Not for That Purpose The police confirmed on Friday that Mr. Coetzee had been stationed at Vlakplaas, but said that he had ''irresponsibly'' misidentified the base's purpose. ''The base was not open to the public because it houses former A.N.C. members, who are now proud South African policemen and citizens,'' the police statement said. ''They provide the force with valuable intelligence and also play a cardinal role in the identification of A.N.C. terrorists infiltrating South Africa,'' ''Their lives are constantly in jeopardy, and the base provided a safe haven for them,'' the statement said.

The former South African Police Commissioner, Gen. Johan Coetzee, told the South African Broadcasting Corporation today that the askaris were used to identify guerrillas trying to infiltrate through border posts with forged documents and were not involved in assassinations. General Coetzee, who is not related to Mr. Coetzee, said there were no ''hit squads.'' ''The police are there to maintain law and order,'' he added, ''and just the thought of such a squad would defeat all that the police stand for.''

The victims of his team, Mr. Coetzee said, included Griffiths Mxenge, a Durban lawyer stabbed to death in 1981. ''Yes, we killed Mxenge,'' the former officer was quoted as saying. He said the four killers each were paid 1,000 rand, now about $380. ''They assured me it looked like a robbery,'' he said. Guerrilla Targeted

On another assignment, Mr. Coetzee said, he was issued a Scorpion machine pistol concealed in a briefcase and ordered to kill Marius Schoon, an A.N.C. member living in Botswana. The mission was called off when other plans were made, he said. A letter bomb killed Mr. Schoon's wife, Jeanette, and young daughter in Angola in 1984.

Vrye Weekblad quoted Mr. Coetzee as relating other cases, in which he said captured guerrillas were drugged and shot with pistols fitted with silencers. Mr. Coetzee said his unit broke into the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Mbabane, Swaziland, and stole ''whatever we could find.'' One of the official envelopes they took, he said, was later used to mail the letter bomb that killed Ruth First in Maputo, Mozambique, in August 1982. She was the wife of Joe Slovo, who heads the South African Communist Party in exile.

Mr. Coetzee, who said he headed an assassination squad until 1982, told Vrye Weekblad: ''I decided to confess to cleanse my conscience. I think with contempt of the things that I did.''

Source: New York Times

Berliners celebrate the fall of the Wall

The Berlin Wall has been breached after nearly three decades keeping East and West Berliners apart.

At midnight East Germany's Communist rulers gave permission for gates along the Wall to be opened after hundreds of people converged on crossing points. They surged through cheering and shouting and were be met by jubilant West Berliners on the other side. Ecstatic crowds immediately began to clamber on top of the Wall and hack large chunks out of the 28-mile (45-kilometre) barrier.

It had been erected in 1961 on the orders of East Germany's former leader Walter Ulbricht to stop people leaving for West Germany.

Source: BBC

NAMIBIAN VOTERS DENY TOTAL POWER TO SWAPO

Along this city's well-traveled Talstrasse last week, almost every corner had a large red and blue billboard. `Vote Without Fear,' the signs instructed passing Namibians. Signs on neighborhing streets informed passersby, `Your Vote Is Your Secret.'

Erected by the South African administrator general, who with the United Nations is responsible for the maintenance of Namibia through independence, the signs were designed to calm the fears of Namibian voters as they elected a constituent assembly. In the balloting, the first major step toward independence, the Marxist South West African People's Organization won most of the votes, about 75%, according to unofficial figures. But SWAPO fell short of the two-thirds majority it was predicting and thus was denied total power to write a new constitution.

This is despite the fact that to Namibians, who have been ruled by South Africa since 1915, democracy is a foreign concept. The administrator general and the U.N. Transitional Assistance Group, or UNTAG, had been busy correcting widespread misconceptions about election rules. The unfamiliarity with the voting process, combined with Namibia's 60% illiteracy rate, opened the door for intimidation and deception tactics by many of Namibia's political parties.

For instance, some Namibians were led to believe that political parties would be informed about how their votes were cast and that there would be retribution if they voted for a rival party. Several SWAPO leaders went so far as to threaten that if SWAPO failed to gain 50% of the vote, they might renew the guerrilla war SWAPO has waged for 23 years. This tactic may have been perhaps the most intimidating of all, because it turned the election into a referendum on the war.

Stories abound of political parties spreading deliberate disinformation about the voting. During the campaign, SWAPO reportedly told many Namibians to `put a big `X' on the SWAPO ballot if you support SWAPO, but if you are against us, put a small `x' on the SWAPO ballot.'

Like other African independence elections, Namibia's constituent-assembly elections may have been its last. Though SWAPO now contends that it is prepared, if necessary, to work with other parties to develop a coalition government, it has strong totalitarian inclinations, and fear is widespread that a SWAPO-dominated government would lead Namibia into one-party rule.

There is concern that SWAPO will not respect rival opinions in the prospective coalition, and may use the constituent assembly as a stepping stone to total control in Namibia, similar to the approach used by the Marxist-Leninist factor of the Sandinistas following the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua. Werner Neef, an adviser to the Christian Democratic Action Party, says that the CDA will not join a coalition with SWAPO.

The SWAPO victory could lead to ethnic-based violence. SWAPO's power base is rooted in Namibia's largest tribe, the northern-based Ovambos. Indeed, SWAPO lost Namibia outside of Ovambo territory to the free-market Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, winning overall only because it defeated the Alliance by 197,000 votes to 9,200 in the northern region of Ovambo.

There are fears that an Ovambo-based SWAPO government might persecute other tribes such as the Hereros, Namas and Bushmen. SWAPO has admitted keeping many non-Ovambos in underground pits in its camps in Angola and Zambia and torturing them as `spies.'

SWAPO's win also raises security concerns. Since 1964, SWAPO has received financial and military support from the Soviet Union, and SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma has boasted of his strong alliance with Cuba's Fidel Castro, SWAPO also enjoys close relations with the African National Congress, which sent SWAPO 300 minibuses to assist in getting SWAPO supporters to the polls.

There is deep concern that the SWAPO-dominated government may attempt to model Namibia after its northern neighbor, Angola, by bringing in Cuban troops and Soviet military advisers. There is even deeper concern that SWAPO may cooperate with the Angolan regime in launching military attacks against Jonas Savimbi's National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, which is based in southern Angola. However, South Africa's proximity and may force SWAPO military restraint.

SWAPO's ecomomic vision is no more promising, but its traditional Marxist-Leninist rhetoric moderated considerably during the campaign. SWAPO told foreign investors recently that is does not support wholesale nationalization, and Mr. Nujoma has said that he does not wish the country's 70,000 whites to flee since their technical and management skills are needed. But according to Mishake Muyongo of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, which got 29% of the votes. `SWAPO will say in public `We want whites here,' but then in private they will turn around and say `Get rid of these people.' '

For southern Africa, the outcome of Namibia's independence process will be critical for the strategic and economic composition of the region. With Namibia's mineral wealth and abundant land (the country is twice the size of France), a moderate, free-market approach by the country's new government could lead to strong economic growth, perhaps making Namibia a regional success story among the underdeveloped front-line states. Conversely, a statist, authoritarian approach by Namibia will likely sway the regional political and economic balance in the other direction.

The outcome is equally important for the U.N., which, as the monitor of Namibia's independence process, has embarked on one of its most ambitious missions to date. More than 6,200 members of UNTAG are in the country to oversee the process, and the U.N. brought in more than 1,000 additional personnel to serve as official election observers.

Having funded SWAPO, given it observer status in New York, and recognized it as `the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian people' in General Assembly resolutions, the U.N.'s capability for objectivity is in justifiable doubt. Indeed, several Namibian political parties contend that the U.N.'s longstanding finanical and diplomatic support for SWAPO tipped the scale in SWAPO that is now taking issue with the U.N.'s formal declaration after the polls closed that the five-days elections were `free and fair.'

But perhaps the greatest irony of the Namibian independence process is the composition of the member nations represented in UNTAG. Nondemocratic nations such as Cuba, Libya, Romania, East Germany and the U.S.S.R. have been sent to Namibia to oversee democratic procedures that they forbid in their own countries.

For Namibians, the concern is not merely that many of these countries have their own dubious agenda in southern Africa, but also that the political system of an independent Namibia may soon be shaped in their image.

Source: US Library of Congress

"The Purple Shall Govern"

On September 2 1989 anti-apartheid protesters marching on Parliament were stopped by police near this spot. They mounted an impromptu sit-in and police retaliated with tear gas, batons and a new weapon: a water cannon laced with purple dye to stain demonstrators and make them easier to identify and detain. As protesters scattered, one climbed onto the armoured vehicle with the cannon and turned the purple jet on police. Purple dye stained most of the surrounding buildings, including the National Party headquarters and the white-washed walls of the historic Old Townhouse. The next day graffiti all over the city proclaimed "The Purple Shall Govern". This was one of the last protest marches outlawed by the apartheid government. Eleven days later, 30 000 people marched through the city without police intervention.

De Klerk Becomes Pretoria President

F. W. de Klerk was sworn in today as Acting President of South Africa and said that the country was about to enter an era of change. Mr. de Klerk reaffirmed his promises to phase out white rule and involve blacks in talks about South Africa's future, but without submitting whites to what he has called majority domination. ''There is no doubt that we stand on the threshold of a new era in South and southern Africa,'' Mr. de Klerk, the National Party leader, said in a prepared statement. ''History, I believe, offers us a unique opportunity for peaceful solutions.'' Expected to Be President

Mr. de Klerk is widely expected to become President if the National Party wins the parliamentary elections on Sept. 6, as seems probable. The low-key inauguration, in the presidential wing of the Union Buildings, was attended only by his wife, Marike, other Cabinet ministers and a few dozen journalists. At a news conference afterward, Mr. de Klerk paid tribute to his predecessor, P. W. Botha, who resigned on Monday after losing a confrontation with Mr. de Klerk and other members of his Cabinet. Mr. Botha refused to appoint a successor, so Mr. de Klerk was unanimously chosen by his colleagues to fill the vacancy.

Mr. de Klerk said Mr. Botha's ''greatest gift to South Africa'' was that ''he has put our country on the road to fundamental reform, that he successfully started pulling South Africa out of its dead-end streets and that he guided us in the direction of a totally new dispensation.'' A Contrast in Tone Mr. de Klerk's magnanimity contrasted conspicuously with the tone of Mr. Botha's address on Monday night, when he complained that his Cabinet ministers were ignoring him and that Mr. de Klerk was to travel to Zambia to meet President Kenneth D. Kaunda without his permission. Mr. Botha met with Mr. Kaunda in April 1982. Mr. de Klerk told reporters today that his new responsibilities might preclude the visit to Zambia. But tonight, it was disclosed that he had written President Kaunda, saying that he and Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha would meet the Zambian leader as scheduled in Livingston on Aug. 28. The Foreign Minister's office released the text of a letter that Mr. Kaunda had written earlier assuring President Botha that he did not mean to undercut him but wanted to meet Mr. de Klerk as a person who would occupy a leadership position in the region.

In response to another question, Mr. de Klerk also said that Nelson R. Mandela, South Africa's best-known political prisoner, would not be released before a President was chosen by the electoral college on Sept. 14, a day after the new Parliament is to be convened. Mr. de Klerk said he should not ''in any way whatsoever try to arrange the future'' in his temporary capacity. Frosty Relations Since February Political analysts here said that President Botha, in taking his leave of politics, had tried to hurt Mr. de Klerk and the National Party by sowing doubts about their motives among the white electorate. Mr. de Klerk replaced Mr. Botha as party leader in February after Mr. Botha suffered a stroke, and their relations have been frosty since.

The reaction today of the South African press and public to Mr. Botha's resignation appeared to be one of relief. Business Day, the country's leading financial newspaper, said that ''seldom, if ever, has this country had a leader more widely detested,'' and added, ''It is well that he is gone.'' But one political analyst noted that Mr. Botha still commanded respect among some traditional National Party constituencies and that some whites might vote for the opposition, the right-wing Conservative Party, if they felt the retiring President had been ill used by his party. When a reporter asked Mr. de Klerk about his plans, he replied, ''We want to build a new South Africa in which all people will participate in decisions affecting their lives at all levels of government, but in such a way that no one group amongst the diversity which we have in South Africa will be in a position to dominate others.''

Source: New York Times

Botha, Rebuffed by His Party, Quits South Africa Presidency

P. W. Botha quit under pressure tonight as South Africa's President, complaining that his Cabinet ministers were ignoring him. His announcement, delivered in a disjointed and rambling address in Afrikaans on national television, followed a Cabinet meeting this morning in which the 73-year-old Mr. Botha lost a confrontation he had forced with F. W. de Klerk, his successor as leader of the governing National Party.

At issue was Mr. de Klerk's right to travel to Zambia later this month to meet President Kenneth D. Kaunda without getting Mr. Botha's approval first. But this was overshadowed by a wide perception among politicians, journalists and ordinary South Africans that the President had been trying to undercut Mr. de Klerk since the latter succeeded him as National Party leader about six months ago. President Botha said he would not approve Mr. de Klerk's trip to Zambia because President Kaunda has given refuge to the outlawed African National Congress, which is seeking to overthrow the white Government in Pretoria, and has encouraged foreign pressure on South Africa. ''I am of the opinion that it is inopportune to meet with President Kaunda at this stage,'' Mr. Botha said.

The President announced his resignation 23 days before the next parliamentary elections, which are the toughest the National Party has faced since it came to power in 1948. Mr. de Klerk has been trying to rally the party against its opponents, the right-wing Conservative Party and the liberal Democratic Party, in what has so far been a lackluster campaign for control of the white house of Parliament, and thus the Government. Had Mr. de Klerk not stood up to Mr. Botha today, his credibility as the leader of a party under fire would have been compromised and the likelihood of becoming the next President diminished. In his remarks, Mr. Botha disclosed that Mr. de Klerk and his allies proposed at today's Cabinet meeting that the President, who suffered a stroke in January, retire on grounds of ill health. Mr. Botha said he replied that could not leave ''with such a lie. It is evident to me that after all these years of my best efforts for the National Party and for the Government of this country as well as the security of this country, I am being ignored by ministers in my Cabinet,'' the South African President said. ''I consequently have no choice other than to announce my resignation.''

Mr. Botha, who submitted his resignation to Chief Justice Michael Corbett, did not name a successor. Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha, who is not related to the President, indicated in a television interview tonight that Mr. de Klerk would be sworn in on Tuesday. The South African Constitution says that a Cabinet minister chosen by his colleagues may be acting President. It is expected that Mr. de Klerk will be elected President after the elections on Sept. 6. In a television interview after President Botha's announcement, Mr. de Klerk and Foreign Minister Botha took polite exception to the President's remarks. ''We are sad that a man who has done so much for his country has to retire under these unhappy circumstances,'' Mr. de Klerk said. Effects on Nation's Politics

He confirmed that the Cabinet ministers had suggested that Mr. Botha resign on grounds of poor health. ''We felt that his state of health justified this,'' Mr. de Klerk said, reinforcing a public perception that the stroke had affected the President more than he admitted. It appears likely that the National Party will win the election, but with a smaller majority in Parliament. The resignation was expected to help the party by reinforcing the image it is cultivating as a force for evolutionary change in South Africa.

The change in leadership is unlikely to immediately affect the situation of the black majority, which is excluded from the parliamentary elections. Though Mr. de Klerk is perceived as more enlightened than President Botha, he still supports the basic concept of racially separate groups and has promised that an end to white control will not lead to domination by the black majority. It was an ignominious finish to the career of a politician who began as a National Party organizer 54 years ago. Mr. Botha was elected to Parliament in 1948. He became Defense Minister in 1966, Prime Minister in 1978 and President in 1984 under a new constitution that combined the duties of heads of state and government. For a decade, he was simultaneously the National Party leader.

Under his rule, the South African Army became the most powerful military force in Africa. But Mr. Botha also promised political change and expanded the whites-only Parliament to include smaller chambers representing South Africans of mixed race and of Asian descent. After the President suffered his stroke on Jan. 18, his aides described it as a mild one. But Mr. Botha sent a letter to National Party members of Parliament on Feb. 2, announcing that he was stepping down as National Party leader, though not as President, and asking them to choose a successor. The legislators elected Mr. de Klerk.

Mr. Botha, who was understood to have preferred Finance Minister Barend du Plessis, never publicly congratulated Mr. de Klerk. And he remained as President, in a position to block any decisions by Mr. de Klerk. Old Scores Settled But Mr. de Klerk quickly won the loyalty of the party's members of Parliament, who had chafed under Mr. Botha's sometimes autocratic leadership. After Mr. Kaunda announced last Thursday that he would meet Mr. de Klerk, President Botha called a special Cabinet meeting for today to discuss the offer. Mr. de Klerk outflanked him by getting the backing of the other Cabinet ministers.

The President, in objecting to Mr. de Klerk's plans to meet President Kaunda, made no mention of his own meeting with the Zambian leader on South Africa's frontier with Botswana on April 30, 1982, when Mr. Kaunda was, if anything, even less sympathetic toward Pretoria. But his portrayal of Mr. de Klerk's pending trip to Zambia as unpatriotic did not seem likely to scuttle it, unless President Kaunda chooses to take umbrage at Mr. Botha's criticism or Mr. de Klerk decides it would hurt the party in the coming elections. Foreign Minister Botha observed that ''in every other African state except Lesotho and Swaziland, there is an A.N.C. presence.''

Source: New York Times

South Africa's Tide Shifts

Nelson Mandela holds the keys. He is South Africa's true jailer, and the country's white leaders his prisoners. That is the pronounced significance of Mr. Mandela's visit from prison to President Pieter W. Botha and the trek of Frederik W. de Klerk, Mr. Botha's heir-in-waiting, to the capitals of Europe. Soon Mr. de Klerk will visit Washington. A major U.S. initiative is possible.

Mr. Mandela's tea with President Botha need not mean his imminent release from detention after 26 years. Nor does his recent family birthday party in prison, his comparatively comfortable accommodations there and the attention being paid to him and his movements by all South Africans. Nevertheless, the gradual shift of Mr. Mandela, 71, from antihero to hero, is intended by the white-minority Government to confer a new legitimacy on him and, according to a recent speech by Mr. de Klerk, also on the African National Congress, Mr. Mandela's exiled and banned guerrilla movememt.

Mr. Botha, Mr. de Klerk and most other white political leaders now know that Mr. Mandela and the A.N.C. are essential to any solution of South Africa's color crisis. Mr. Botha wanted, in the last three months of his tenure as President, to measure the mettle of his foremost adversary. He and Mr. de Klerk at last well appreciate that he must be released. But when? And how? To free Mr. Mandela before the national election on Sept. 6 (from which black voters are excluded), would adversely affect the fortunes of Mr. de Klerk's ruling National Party. Mr. Botha might release him during those few weeks after the election when he is still in power, before turning the presidency over to Mr. de Klerk. But a new government would be ill-equipped to deal with the tumultuous result. Moreover, the National Party is also intensely interested in the results of the Constituent Assembly election in neighboring Namibia. The election there will be held Nov. 1, and the National Party hopes to obtain as many votes as possible for the white-led Democratic Turnhalle Alliance in its competition with the South West Africa People's Organization. Although there is a conference of Commonwealth heads in late October, and Mr. Mandela's release would prevent any renewed threat of sanctions and gain South Africa the backing of Britain, the impact of such a release on the Namibian election would prove more decisive for South Africa. For these reasons, and because Mr. de Klerk will, understandably, want carefully to prepare South Africa for Mr. Mandela's release, the beginning of the end of apartheid is not yet at hand.

The fact that white South Africa courts Mr. Mandela, may even be negotiating at a low level with the A.N.C. and hardly tries to prevent large delegations from making the trek to Lusaka, Zambia, to meet and be impressed by the A.N.C. leaders, adds excitement and new hope to those who seek peace in South Africa. Certainly the African National Congress, having largely shed its rampant Marxism in the post-Gorbachev era, is ready to help plan South Africa's future with whites. Both sides are studying constitutional options anew. Once Mr. Mandela is free, other political prisoners are released and the A.N.C. unbanned, then the guerilla movement, internal African opponents of apartheid and the Government will be able to negotiate.

That scenario, once a fantasy, is now - according to the representatives of the Government and A.N.C. -very much closer at hand than at any time since 1948. No one believes the National Party wants to give up all its power, but a weariness of combat and miserable economic forecasts impel change. South Africa has severe balance of payments problems, high inflation, a falling index of business confidence and little room for maneuver. Only a political settlement can permit a return to positive rates of growth. Mr. de Klerk will come to power knowing that Mr. Mandela's freedom and negotiations with the A.N.C. are the costs of prosperity.

When Mr. de Klerk visits Washington this month to see Secretary of State James Baker, many Congressmen and perhaps President Bush, he can be reminded how much the U.S. wants to see a negotiated settlement. More than that, Mr. Baker or Mr. Bush can offer to convene and preside over a Camp David session for South Africa. It might even make sense for President Bush to offer to preside with Mikhael Gorbachev, who also wants a negotiated peace in South Africa. The African National Congress is ready to talk, and so might whites be also willing to talk, realistically in a prestigious setting about their future in a united South Africa.

Source: New York Times

The Role of the Socialist

The Socialist International was founded a hundred years ago in order to coordinate the worldwide struggle of democratic socialist movements for social justice, human dignity and democracy.

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.

The idea of democracy is based on the principles of freedom and equality. Therefore, equal rights for men and women - not only in theory, but also in practice, at work, in the family and in all areas of social life - are part of the socialist concept of society.

Individual rights are fundamental to the values of socialism. Democracy and human rights are also the substance of popular power, and the indispensable mechanism whereby people can control the economic structures which have so long dominated them. Without democracy, social policies cannot disguise the dictatorial character of a government

Freedom from arbitrary and dictatorial government is essential. It constitutes the precondition whereby peoples and societies can create a new and better world of peace and international cooperation - a world in which political, economic and social destinies will be democratically determined.

In addition to the principles which guide all democratic socialists, there is a clear consensus among socialists on fundamental values. Despite all diversity, it is common ground that democracy and human rights are not simply political means to socialist ends but the very substance of those ends - a democratic economy and society.

Individual freedom and basic rights in society are the preconditions of human dignity for all. These rights cannot replace one another, nor can they be played off against each other. Socialists protect the inalienable right to life and to physical safety, to freedom of belief and free expression of opinion, to freedom of association and to protection from torture and degradation. Socialists are committed to achieve freedom from hunger and want, genuine social security, and the right to work.

Inequality between men and women is the most pervasive form of oppression in human history. It may be traced almost to the origin of the species itself and has persisted in almost every socio-economic order to the present time.

In order to generate employment and prosperity all across the world, there is a need for ecologically balanced development. Growth which is not designed to meet ecological and social imperatives runs counter to progress, since it will cause environmental damage and destroy jobs. The market system alone can never ensure the attainment of the social goals of economic growth. It is the legitimate function of democratic economic policy to promote development which opens up future opportunities while improving the quality of life.

To achieve these objectives on a global basis, it is imperative to establish a genuinely new international economic order. This must reconcile the interests of both industrialised and developing countries. A fundamental reform of financial relations must create the conditions for international economic cooperation. A more equitable international economic order is necessary not only for reasons of solidarity, but also in order to create a more efficient, productive and balanced world economy.

It is unrealistic to assume that justice and peace can be legislated in a world of fundamental inequality where many millions barely cling to life while a favoured few enjoy a standard beyond the dreams of most of their fellow human beings. Socialist struggles in the original capitalist nations made gains in welfare and solidarity, which in turn made the extension of democracy possible in individual countries. Likewise the work of abolishing international inequality will be a crucial step forward on the road to a democratic world society.

Source: http://www.socialistinternational.org

Global Change and Future Prospects

The idea of Socialism has caught the imagination of people across the world, promoted successful political movements, decisively improved the lives of working men and women, and contributed to shaping the 20th century. However, justified satisfaction about the realisation of many of our goals should not prevent us from clearly recognising present dangers and problems. We are aware that essential tasks still lie ahead which we can master only through common action, since human survival increasingly depends upon the joint efforts of people around the world.

Current economic, technological, political and social changes reflect a profound transformation of our world. The fundamental issue we now face is not whether there will be change in future years, but rather who is going to control it and how. The socialist answer is unequivocal. It is the people of the world who should exercise control by means of a more advanced democracy in all aspects of life: political, social, and economic. Political democracy, for socialists, is the necessary framework and precondition for other rights and liberties.

All the peoples of the world should be involved in the process of transforming our societies and promoting new hope for humankind. The Socialist International calls on all men and women committed to peace and progress to work together in order to translate this hope into reality.

The challenge of global change opens up enormous possibilities:

• The internationalisation of the economy and wide-spread access to information and new technologies can, if brought under democratic control, provide a basis for a world society better suited to cooperation. It is obvious that a world family is no longer a utopian dream, but, increasingly, a practical necessity.

• The technological revolution can and should be used to preserve the environment, create new employment and provide the means to liberate people from routine work rather than ruthlessly impose unwanted idleness.

• On the basis of suitable and humane democratic structures, freedom, equality, security and prosperity can be achieved within the framework of a democratic world society.

However, many current trends also give rise to unprecedented threats:

• Proliferation of the technologies of destruction promote a precarious balance of terror where there are inadequate guarantees for the security of humankind.

• The physical conditions for life on the planet are threatened by an uncontrolled urban and industrial expansion, the degradation of the biosphere, and the irrational exploitation of vital resources.

• Hunger, famine and death threaten whole regions and communities in the South, even though the world has enough natural and technical resources to feed itself.

This transformation of social and economic structures is at least as dramatic and far-reaching as the transition from laissez-faire to the corporate capitalism and colonialism of pre-World War I days. The social cost of these transformations - unemployment, regional decline, destruction of communities - has affected not only the very poor but also working people in general.

The rapid process of internationalisation and interdependence in the world economy has given rise to contradictions within existing political, social and national institutions. This growing gap between an international economy and inadequate international political structures has been a contributory factor to the poverty and underdevelopment of the South, as well as to mass unemployment and new forms of poverty in many areas of the North.

Real progress has been made since World War II in vital areas such as decolonisation, the growth of the Welfare State and, more recently, disarmament, where the first hopeful steps have been taken. However, age-old injustices remain. Human rights are still violated, racial and sex discrimination are rife, and individual opportunities in life are still determined by the region and class in which people are born.

Faced with such crucial issues, the Socialist International reaffirms its fundamental beliefs. It is committed, as ever, to the democratisation on a global scale of economic, social and political power structures. The same principles and political commitments which socialism has always held have to be attained in a world that has changed radically since the Frankfurt Declaration of 1951.

The Socialist International was founded a hundred years ago in order to coordinate the worldwide struggle of democratic socialist movements for social justice, human dignity and democracy. It brought together parties and organisations from different traditions which shared a common goal: democratic socialism. Throughout their history, socialist, social democratic and labour parties have stood for the same values and principles.

Today the Socialist International combines its traditional struggle for freedom, justice and solidarity with a deep commitment to peace, the protection of the environment, and the development of the South. All these issues require common answers. To this end, the Socialist International seeks the support of all those who share its values and commitment.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 11-11

Political and Economic Democracy

Recent events have made the achievement of political, economic and social democracy on a world scale more feasible than ever before. Democracy represents the prime means for popular control and humanisation of the otherwise uncontrolled forces which are re-shaping our planet without regard for its survival.

Human rights include economic and social rights; the right to form trade unions and to strike; the right to social security and welfare for all, including the protection of mothers and children; the right to education, training and leisure; the right to decent housing in a liveable environment, and the right to economic security. Crucially, there is the right to both full and useful employment in an adequately rewarded job. Unemployment undermines human dignity, threatens social stability and wastes the world's most valuable resource.

Economic rights must not be considered as benefits paid to passive individuals lacking in initiative, but as a necessary base from which to secure the active participation of all citizens in a project for society. This is not a matter of subsidising those on the fringe of society, but of creating the conditions for an integrated society with social welfare for all people.

Democratic socialism today is based on the same values on which it was founded. But they must be formulated critically, both assimilating past experience and looking ahead to the future. For instance, experience has shown that while nationalisation in some circumstances may be necessary, it is not by itself a sovereign remedy for social ills. Likewise, economic growth can often be destructive and divisive, especially where private interests evade their social and ecological responsibility. Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice.

The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy. It is clear that the internationalisation of the economy and the global technological revolution make democratic control more important than ever. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means according to time and place, including:

• democratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; protection of the public and social interest; and socialisation of the costs and benefits of economic change;

• worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy;

• self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers;

• public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making where this is necessary to enable governments to realise social and economic priorities;

• democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system to allow full participation by all countries;

• international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations, including cross-frontier trade union rights within such corporations.

There is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation in different countries. But the underlying principle is clear - not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally.

In societies structured in this fashion, and committed to genuine economic and social equality, markets can and must function as a dynamic way of promoting innovation and signalling the desires of consumers through the economy as a whole. Markets should not be dominated by big business power, and manipulated by misinformation.

The concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled - as citizen, consumer or wage-earner - to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life. This will come about by involvement of the citizen in economic policies, by guaranteeing wage earners an influence in their workplace, by fostering open and accountable competition both domestically and internationally and by strengthening the position of consumers relative to producers.

A democratic society must compensate for the defects of even the most responsible market systems. Government must not function simply as the repair shop for the damage brought about by market inadequacies or the uncontrolled application of new technologies. Rather the State must regulate the market in the interests of the people and obtain for all workers the benefits of technology, both in work experience and through the growth of leisure time and meaningful possibilities for individual development.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 56-64

Freedom, Justice and Solidarity

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.

Freedom is the product of both individual and cooperative efforts - the two aspects are parts of a single process. Each person has the right to be free of political coercion and also to the greatest chance to act in pursuit of individual goals and to fulfil personal potential. But that is only possible if humanity as a whole succeeds in its long-standing struggle to master its history and to ensure that no person, class, sex, religion or race becomes the servant of another.

Justice and Equality. Justice means the end of all discrimination against individuals, and the equality of rights and opportunities. It demands compensation for physical, mental and social inequalities, and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of political power.

Equality is the expression of the equal value of all human beings and the precondition for the free development of the human personality. Basic economic, social and cultural equality is essential for individual diversity and social progress.

Freedom and equality are not contradictory. Equality is the condition for the development of individual personality. Equality and personal freedom are indivisible.

Solidarity is all-encompassing and global. It is the practical expression of common humanity and of the sense of compassion with the victims of injustice. Solidarity is rightly stressed and celebrated by all major humanist traditions. In the present era of unprecedented interdependence between individuals and nations, solidarity gains an enhanced significance since it is imperative for human survival.

Democratic socialists attach equal importance to these fundamental principles. They are interdependent. Each is a prerequisite of the other. As opposed to this position, Liberals and Conservatives have placed the main emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of justice and solidarity while Communists have claimed to achieve equality and solidarity, but at the expense of freedom.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 12-16

Disarmament and Development

Disarmament agreements between the Superpowers will do more than remove the threat of annihilation from the planet. With such agreements in place, many of the resources now wasted on thermonuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons could be released for investment in economic and social development programmes in the South. Disarmament between the East and West should be linked with programmes for justice between the North and South.

A proportion of the substantial funds which the highly industrialised countries of the West and the East would save as a result of negotiated disarmament should be utilised to create a multinational fund to promote a secure and sustainable development in the countries of the South.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 54-55

XVIII Congress of the Socialist International, Stockholm

The XVIII Congress of the Socialist International was a historical landmark. Hosted by the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) – itself celebrating a century of political activity – it came 200 years after the French revolution and almost 100 years after the founding of the Second International in Paris in July 1889.

In addition to the main Congress resolution on the current world situation, the meeting also adopted a new Declaration of Principles of the Socialist International, which provides the SI with a guiding platform for action in the decades to come. After several years of rigorous discussion and preparation – launched at the Madrid Congress in 1980 and further developed at Lima, Peru, in 1986 – the new charter supersedes the 1951 Frankfurt Declaration (which reestablished the SI in the wake of the Second World War). Presenting the new declaration to Congress, Heinz Fischer of the Austrian Socialist Party (SPÖ) and a member of the committee which drafted the document, said that democratic socialists had an ideal opportunity to get their message across. Communism was in crisis and conservatives faced growing difficulties throughout the world. Democratic socialism was clearly the force of the future.

Anita Gradin, the President of the Socialist International Women (SIW), declared that there should be no contradiction between the protection of individual civil and political rights and the social rights of individuals. The causes of violence, poverty and inequality, however, were structural and it would require political action to bring about a solution. She also drew attention to the subordinate position of women, both North and South, saying that wherever human rights were violated, it was often women who were most exposed. A comprehensive programme of action was needed to defend human rights in all countries, and to protect those who were working in this field.

What was needed was a pattern of economic growth that was sustainable in both social and ecological terms. The life style of the industrialised countries placed the earth’s life-support system at risk. The environment was a question of the quality of everyday life, she said, and environmental considerations would have to form an integral part of policies on food, housing, energy, transport, industry and urban development.

Source: Socialist International

Massacre in Tiananmen Square

Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic protest in Peking's (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.

Tanks rumbled through the capital's streets late on 3 June as the army moved into the square from several directions, randomly firing on unarmed protesters.

The injured were rushed to hospital on bicycle rickshaws by frantic residents shocked by the army's sudden and extreme response to the peaceful mass protest.

US President George Bush said he deeply deplored the use of force, and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she was "shocked and appalled by the shootings".

Source: BBC

Khomeini, Imam of Iran And Foe of U.S., Is Dead

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's spiritual and political leader, died today, 12 days after he underwent surgery for bleeding in his digestive system, the official Iranian news agency reported. He was believed to be 89 years old. ''The leader of the Islamic revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, passed away at a Teheran Hospital,'' the Islamic Republic News Agency reported in an urgent dispatch.

Yesterday, Iran had said Ayatollah Khomeini's health was deteriorating and urged the nation to pray for the leader, who underwent surgery last month for bleeding in his digestive system. Iran's state-run radio and television, monitored in Nicosia, had said the Ayatollah's condition was declining but it gave no details.

Both carried a brief statement from Ayatollah Khomeini's office that said: ''At 3:00 P.M. on Saturday a complication arose in the imam's condition, which the doctors are trying to control. We urge the nation to pray for the imam's health, and hope that their prayers will be answered.'' Earlier in the week, the television said a ''slight cardiac complication'' had arisen May 27, but that it was relieved the next day.

Iran's main opposition group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People's Holy Warriors, said last week that Ayatollah Khomeini suffered a heart attack on May 27. The statement by the Iraq-based group said the heart attack came five days after he underwent surgery on the duodenum, a part of the small intestine close to the stomach. The Mujahedeen's claim could not be independently confirmed.

Ayatollah Khomeini had been reported ailing since he suffered a heart attack in 1986. Since then he was rarely seen outside his home in the north Teheran suburb of Jamaran. But his hospitalization heightened already intense speculation about who will succeed Ayatollah Khomeini as leader of the theocratic state. Political turmoil has gripped the country since Ayatollah Khomeini launched a radical resurgence in February with his death decree against British author Salman Rushdie for allegedly blaspheming against Islam in his novel, ''The Satanic Verses.'' A purge of so-called moderates who apparently favored rebuilding ties with the West followed as the 10-year-old Islamic regime withdrew into its traditional isolationist stance.

Ayatollah Khomeini in March ousted his designated successor, Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, 64, who had openly criticized the regime's shortcomings, and then appointed a 20-member committee to review the succession. But in the absence of a single personality who could match the patriarch's political and revolutionary authority, there was widespread speculation that Iran may be ruled by a collective leadership in the post-Khomeini era.

Source: New York Times

TRUST PROPERTY CONTROL ACT 57 OF 1988

The purpose of the Trust Properties Control Act is to regulate further the control of trust property; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Source: SABINET