Guten Morgen,
für den interessierten Leser hab ich hier eine kurze Zusammenfassung der gerade disskutierten Situation gefunden - nur falls jemand nicht so drin steckt wie Swakop und Leser. Zumindest ist das eine Interpretation, die einen Überblick über die doch komplexe Situation gibt.
Gruss
Christian

"
The control of South West Africa/Namibia and the UNO

South Africa first took over control of Namibia, then called South West Africa, during World War I when it was still a German colony. After the war South Africa received the country as a mandate under the League of Nations. In April 1945, at the first meeting of the UNO, Smuts hoped to get the go ahead for the incorporation of Namibia into South Africa. This would allow him to do by lawful means what many felt he should have done during the war. The General Assembly not only rejected Smuts application, but also insisted that the mandate be brought under the UN Trusteeship Committee like all other mandates and Smuts had to agree to submit reports to this committee.

Confrontation over Namibia increased in the 1950s, and in 1951 the UN appointed an ad hoc committee to negotiate with South Africa over Namibia. The negotiations failed in 1952 and South Africa withdrew from the Trusteeship Committee and protested against continued UN intervention. South Africa was convinced to return in 1957 after a new committee was set up, but its proposals regarding the partition of Namibia were unacceptable to both the Trusteeship Committee and the General Assembly. The National Party, during the apartheid period, wanted to include Namibia as a fifth province in the Republic of South Africa. The National Party hoped to gain more votes in this way and increase its majority.

In 1959 the UN found that South Africas administration went against the principles of the UN Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights and the advisory opinion of the International Court. South Africas violent actions in Windhoek after some black people protested against being moved to a new area led to the UN appointing a one-man commission and African states starting actions through the International Court.

The UN called on South Africa to lift all apartheid laws from Namibia and told the Trusteeship Committee to visit Namibia with or without the permission of South Africa. This proved difficult, and the UN eventually agreed on the formation of a seven-nation committee that would visit Namibia before 1 May 1962, prepare the country for the removal of South Africa and free and democratic elections so that Namibia could become independent. The UN would provide technical assistance and would ensure freedom for political prisoners and an end to discriminatory laws. South Africa assisted the committee in their visit to Namibia, and they found that South Africas administration of the area was not against the mandate system or a threat to peace. However, after leaving South Africa the same committee changed its findings, but action at this stage was difficult as the case was before the International Court.

In 1962 the court decided that it did have jurisdiction to try the case and it started to look at the record of South Africas action in Namibia, heard reports on the treatment of the people there and looked into the restrictions placed on black people in the country. During the hearings, which took six years, the one judge died and was replaced with a judge with more pro-South African ideas. It was eventually found, by a majority of 8 against 7, that the countries that brought the case before the court had no standing. This bought South Africa more time as otherwise the UN would have found itself in a position where it needed to start sanctions or other actions against South Africa. The decision brought caused an outcry in the General Assembly, which called on the Security Council to put pressure on South Africa.

The Security Councils first action on the issue was in January 1968 when it demanded that 37 political prisoners be released. In 1969 it recognised the General Assembly resolution of 1966 ending South Africas mandate over Namibia and calling for South Africa to leave the area. It saw South Africas refusal to do so as an aggressive action against the authority of the UN. The Security Council asked the International Court for the opinion on South Africas continued occupation in 1970. In 1971 the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion finding South Africas occupation of Namibia illegal and after this South Africa was defying the United Nations in her continued occupation of Namibia. The UN declared that South Africas mandate over Namibia was terminated. South African armed forces continued to occupy Namibia. The UN did not accept the proposal by South Africa to hold an all-races referendum in Namibia to test the popularity of the continued mandate.

In 1971 the Security Council called on the Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim, to make contact with all people of Namibia and to prepare for self-determination. Waldheim went to South Africa where he met with and had talks with Vorster. He also visited Namibia and held talks with different groups in that country. In Namibia a Convention was held between all the groups that wanted the immediate withdrawal of South Africa, and Waldheims representative met this Convention at the end of the year. Discussions were underway, until a deadlock was reached in 1973 when the Security Council called for an end to Waldheims mediation. The Convention called for the immediate withdrawal of South Africa, and the Security Council echoed this call in 1974. On 16 December 1974 the General assembly recommended that South Africa be excluded from participation in international organisations as long as it continued to practice apartheid and ignore the UN regarding Namibia and Zimbabwe. A deadline for withdrawal was set for 30 May 1975, and the Council met again on this date, but France, the USA and the UK vetoed the idea of sanctions.

In 1975 the Portuguese left Angola and Mozambique, changing the situation in southern Africa as the western powers began to fear socialist take over in the independent countries. The South African government negotiated with an Advisory Council in Namibia, which excluded SWAPO, and the Turnhalle Assembly reached a decision regarding a three-tier system of government and independence in 1978. This agreement however failed after it was seen that some apartheid laws would still be in place and there was political change inside Namibia, with parties re-forming. In September 1978 the Security Council passed a resolution finding that UN supervised elections were the only possibility for change. The five western powers on the Security Council visited Vorster in 1977 to discuss change. It was felt that South Africa should loosen constitutional bonds over Namibia and stop Namibian representation in the South African government, but it was agreed that South Africa could appoint an Administrator-General to the area. SWAPO accepted that the Administrator-General and a UN Commissioner would together supervise elections once political prisoners had been freed and discriminatory laws removed.

The Security Council accepted this plan in July 1978, but after the South African government carried out an attack on a SWAPO base problems opened up again. The South African government then held internal elections in Namibia in December 1978, which went again the UN elections planned for April 1979.

From 1978-1983 SWAPO became increasingly successful with guerrilla attacks in Namibia. The South African Defence Force (SADF) however kept up raids and attacks as well, and SWAPO suffered many political murders while South African rule continued. The elections of 1978 also caused more political problems in the area. In 1981 negotiations between SWAPO and the South African government opened up in Geneva, and were joined by other political groups from Namibia. These talks soon broke down, and conditions inside Namibia worsened with a negative economic growth rate and much violence.

Pik Botha proposed called for a regional conference in 1984, but by this time the problems had mounted. The situation in southern Africa had also undergone change after South Africa held talks with the USSR, a ceasefire was agreed on, and the Nkomati Accord was signed. After discussions with SWAPO in Lusaka in 1984 a transitional government was brought into being that was meant to replace the work of the Administrator General. The transitional government came into power in June 1985, which was proof of a deadlock at international level.

In 1988 Botha decided to restore the Administrator General to power to try and stabilise the situation. In May 1988 a conference was held in Zimbabwe to establish a plan of action to end apartheid and bring independence to Namibia. It was also at this time that the USA and USSR were discussing changes that would decrease the pressure of the Cold War. The USSR, under Gorbachev, offered to withdraw Soviet involvement from southern Africa and put pressure on Cuba to do the same if the USA brought about free elections in Namibia. The South African government was forced to adhere to the free elections. Negotiations took place in London, concerning the situation in Angola, but these excluded SWAPO. This led to clashes taking place between SWAPO and South African forces, and the Administrator General decided to suspend elections that had been planned. The UN Commissioner worked together with the Administrator General to try and solve the problem, although the UN peace keeping forces had not yet arrived.

On 14 September 1989 Sam Nujoma returned to Namibia after 29 years in exile, and elections were planned for 1 November. SWAPO took the majority in the election, with 41 of the 72 seats and 52% of the vote. A committee immediately began work on a constitution, which was finalised by the time of independence of celebrations in March 1990 in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978."
Quelle: www.sahistory.org.za...ed-nations-1946-1990

Hallo allerseits,

aktuell dazu: www.az.com.na/nachri...rckzieher-von-neeef/
"Geingob macht im „Daily Maverick“ Rückzieher von NEEEF"
"Staatspräsident hält Quotenkonzept für „schlechte Idee“ – Nicht das falsche Signal an Investoren senden"

Viele Grüße
Christian

Hallo,

es ist ja ein bisschen ruhiger geworden um NEEEF, aber im Mai soll es nun einen neuen Gesetzesentwurf zu NEEEF geben. Die namibische Regierung hat die namibischen Medien nun aufgefordert, positiv über NEEEF zu berichten. Eine positive Berichterstattung drängt sich ja auch förmlich auf:
- wenn man die Blaupause Zimbabwe vor Augen hat
- wenn relevante Ratingagenturen sagen, dass NEEEF Investoren von Namibia fernhalten wird
- wenn auch internationale Medien das immer wieder negativ bewerten, zuletzt der Economist (Der richtige, nicht der namibische)
www.economist.com/ne...s-president-flirting

Beste Grüße

Guido

Moin zusammen,

hier das relativ nichtssagende Schreiben zum Thema vom OP.

Besten Gruß aus dem kalten Windhoek
Christian

Zum Thema aktuell.

Viele Grüße
Christian

"Staatspräsident Hage Geingob hat sich zum Auftakt eines Kabinetts-Workshops zum Thema „National Equitable Economic Empowerment Framework“ NEEEF deutlich für die Einführung dieses ausgesprochen. Es müssten strukturelle Probleme im Land durch staatliche Eingriffe ausgemerzt werden. Auch wenn Namibia im Kampf gegen die Armut seit der Unabhängigkeit deutliche Fortschritte gemacht hat, bleibe die Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich weiterhin riesig. NEEEF sei kein Gesetz gegen eine bestimmte Volksgruppe im Land, unterstrich Geingob. Es werde im Rahmen der Verfassung erarbeitet. - Die Finanzierung und Überwachung der korrekten Umsetzung eines solchen Gesetzes obliege allen Namibiern und staatlichen Organisationen. " (Hitradio Namibia, 27.2.2018)

Govt to remove 25 percent NEEEF clause
www.observer.com.na/...percent-neeef-clause

Viele Grüße
Christian