Search Details

Word: namibia (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

SOUTH AFRICA acquired control of Namibia in 1919, under a mandate of the League of Nations, with the condition that the government promote the well-being and social progress of the inhabitants. But in 1964, the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, charged that South Africa failed to carry out this condition and deprived inhabitants of basic human rights and freedoms...

Author: By Jane B. Baird, | Title: Namibia: Corporate Investment in Oppression | 5/2/1973 | See Source »

...terminated South Africa's mandate in 1966, and in 1970 the Security Council requested all member nations to refrain from any relationship with South Africa which implied recognition of its control over Namibia...

Author: By Jane B. Baird, | Title: Namibia: Corporate Investment in Oppression | 5/2/1973 | See Source »

...Security Council also requested that the International Court of Justice rule on South Africa's mandate. The Court advised that U.N. members had the following duties: 1) to recognize the "illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia." 2) to recognize the "invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia," and 3) "to refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa a) implying recognition of the legality of, or b) lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration...

Author: By Jane B. Baird, | Title: Namibia: Corporate Investment in Oppression | 5/2/1973 | See Source »

...former U.N. ambassador Charles Yost announced that the U.S. would officially discourage investment by American business in Namibia, would cut off Export-Import Bank guarantees and would not protect investments made since 1966. But none of the measures the U.S. government has taken to prevent investment have been effective. Many corporations--including Phillips Petroleum, Continental Oil, U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel--have decided to invest despite official policy...

Author: By Jane B. Baird, | Title: Namibia: Corporate Investment in Oppression | 5/2/1973 | See Source »

...Namibia sticks out as a clear-cut case of how weak the U.N. is left when its more powerful members do not throw their weight behind U.N. decisions. France and England would not support Namibia and endanger important trade ties with South Africa. The USSR and the U.S. would not acquire any political or economic benefits from a Namibian confrontation. An effort for Namibia would amount to a "moral expedition," said an observer who was quoted in The Wall Street Journal...

Author: By Jane B. Baird, | Title: Namibia: Corporate Investment in Oppression | 5/2/1973 | See Source »

Previous | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | Next