Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2008
Namibia gained independence on 21 March 1990 after 106 years of colonial rule, first under Germany and then for 76 years under South Africa. As a consequence, throughout the greater part of the twentieth century the South West Africa/Namibia issue has been a constant item on the political and legal agendas of the international community, primary because of its ‘double-victim’ status as unwilling host to both imperial conquest and apartheid. Not unnaturally the independence process when it finally came, was widely hailed as a triumph for the United Nations and the ‘new political thinking’ that signalled the end of the cold war and the tentative (no more than that) beginnings of a ‘new world order’. Thus, sub-Sahara's last colony was also the first to proceed to self-determination unsullied by the need to define its existence in terms of superpower bipolarity. At the systemic level at least, the new state began with a virtual blank sheet, as well as a great deal of international goodwill and bonhomie.
1 The framers of The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia (1990) appear not to have recognised this. Article 96 asserts that ‘The State shall endeavour to ensure that in its international relations it … adopts and maintains a policy of non-alignment’. This has been robbed of much of its rationale as a general orientation by the demise of the cold war, and without radical redefinition and restructuring the ‘movement’ is likely to become an anachronism, or at most a quaint label or taxonomy for a large but divisive group of states. In the Namibian context, non-alignment presumably means broad identification with the interests and aspirations of the ‘South’.Google Scholar
2 See Mayall, James, Nationalism and International Society (London, 1990), p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia, Article I (4), p. 2.Google Scholar
4 See Evans, Graham, ‘Walvis Bay: South Africa, Namibia and the question of sovereignty’, in International Affairs (London), 66, 3, 07 1990, pp. 559–68.Google Scholar By far the most comprehensive account of this dispute is to be found in Berat, Lynn, Walvis Bay: decolonization and international law (New Haven and London, 1990).Google Scholar
5 United Nations Security Council Resolution 432 of 1978.
6 ‘Second Joint Statement on Walvis Bay and the Off-Shore Islands’, Embassy of Namibia, Brussels, 20 September 1991.
7 ‘Southern Africa: the new diplomacy’, Embassy of South Africa, Washington, DC, 1990, p. 17.
8 Walvis Bay is an enclave of Namibia but an exclave of South Africa. See Barnard, W. S., ‘The Political Geography of an Exclave: Walvis Bay’, in South African Geographer/Suid-Afrikaanse Geograaf (Dennesig, South Africa), 15, 1–2, 09 1987 – 04 1988, p. 85.Google Scholar
9 For an explanation of the doctrine of ‘international servitude’, see Esgain, A. J., ‘Military Servitudes and the New Nations’, in O'Brien, W. V. (ed.), The New Nations in International Law and Diplomacy (London, 1965), pp. 42–98.Google Scholar
10 See especially, Simon, David, Independent Namibia One Year On (London, 03 1991), Conflict Studies No. 239.Google Scholar
11 Catholic Institute of International Affairs, Report 20 (London, 06 1991), by Steve Kibble, who has provided much of the material in this section.Google ScholarPubMed
12 See Halpern, Jack, South Africa's Hostages: Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland (Harmondsworth, 1965), which shows that the ‘settlement’ was by dint of force majeur and not regarded as permanent by the Basotho.Google Scholar
13 See especially, Mahao, Nqosa Leuta, ‘Some Legal and Political Issues in Respect of Lesotho's Options in the Context of a Future Democratic South Africa’, in Santho, Sehoai and Sejanamane, Mafa (eds.), Southern Africa After Apartheid (Harare, 1990), p. 198.Google Scholar
14 For a balanced discussion of the general validity of Lesotho's claims, see ibid. pp. 193–208.
15 See Simon, op. cit. p. 15.
16 Heerden, Neil van, ‘Developments in Southern Africa’, South African Institute of International Affairs, Pretoria, 12 1990Google Scholar, and Mbeki, Thabo, ‘Domestic and Foreign Policies of a New South Africa’, in Review of African Political Economy (London), 11, 01–04 1978, pp. 6–16.Google Scholar
17 For an elaboration of what might be called the ‘AK47 factor’, see Greg Mills, ‘Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose: Southern Africa's security after apartheid’, Conference of the Political Studies Association of South Africa, Hunter's Rest, Rustenburg, 10–11 October 1991, pp. 3–5.
18 See Slabbert, Frederick van Zyl, ‘Political Implications of Post-Apartheid South Africa with Emphasis on Southern Africa’, Africa Leadership Forum, Windhoek, 09 1991.Google Scholar
19 For an account of the problems associated with the P.T.A. for Eastern and Southern Africa, see Green, Reginald H., ‘How to Add 10 to One’, pp. 26–32, Windhoek, 09 1991.Google Scholar
20 Van Zyl Slabbert, op. cit. p. 9.
21 Namibia has a smaller population (estimated to be 1·5 million in 1989) than Wales, but is larger than Italy in size, with an area of 823,629 sq. kms., excluding Walvis Bay.Google Scholar
22 Quoted by André du Pisani, ‘The Role of New States in the Region: the Namibian example’, Conference on ‘South Africa's Choices for the 1990s: change and the pain of change’, Leicester University, 20–22 March 1991, p. 6.Google Scholar
23 Because of the wide disparity of income between blacks and whites, Namibia's G.D.P. per capita ($1,011 in 1989) does not fall within E.C. criteria for least-developed country Status. Accession to the Lomé Convention was accordingly by a memorandum of understanding. Since the only part of the territory to have been colonised by Britain was Walvis Bay, Namibia was admitted to the Commonwealth in 1990 through its association with South Africa, which had been a member until 1960.Google Scholar
24 See Deutsch, Karl, Political Community in the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, 1957).Google Scholar
25 See Buzan, Barry, ‘Third World Regional Security in Structural and Historical Perspective’, in Job, Brian L. (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma: national security of Third World states (Boulder and London, 1992).Google Scholar
26 For an elaboration of this theme, see Booth, Ken (ed.), New Thinking About Strategy and International Security (London, 1991)Google Scholar. National security has traditionally been seen primarily in terms of military strength and unilateral action. Increasingly new security issues— AIDS, migration, environmental degradation, narcotics, refugees, etcetera — which are not amenable to the state-centric approach are appearing on the agenda of all states, ‘great’, ‘middle’, and ‘small’. This suggests that one of the key distinguishing characteristics of ‘smallness’ in world politics, i.e. the inability to ‘obtain security by its own capabilities’ — Rothstein, R. L., Alliances and Small Powers (Columbia, 1968), p. 29 —is defunct. There is now undeniably a sense in which all states are ‘small’, since none of these new security issues can be resolved or even sensibly addressed unilaterally.Google Scholar
27 Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore, 1962), p. 111.Google Scholar See also, A., Scholl and Brundtland, A. O. (eds.), Small States in International Relations (Stockholm, 1971), pp. 30 and 46.Google Scholar
