De Beers Diamond Cartel

[Magda Hassan]

Namibia: Exposing The Corrupt Practices Of The De Beers Diamond Cartel

---

By Laurie Flynn

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Change Text Size a- | A+
Laurie Flynn's ZSpace Page

Join ZSpace


Gordon Brown is a Scots born whistleblower who exposed the De Beers diamond cartel's overmining at the worlds richest mine and has consequently paid a heavy price for telling the truth about the largest international mining company.

In 1993, Gordon Brown was arrested on an Illicit Diamond Buying charge in Naimibia. Facing trial on very serious charges in 1994, he was given an unprecedented five year jail sentence on a first offence by a single judge sitting on his own without a jury. Gordon had no serious legal representation at the trial; his lawyer of choice withdrew at the very last moment leaving him in the hands of a lawyer who was wholly unfamiliar with the details of his defence. Freed from jail after seven weeks pending appeal, he was advised that it was unlikely that he would get justice in a land where De Beers was so powerful. Later, fearing for his life after the death squad murder of a friend (Anton Lubowski), Gordon fled the country as a fugitive from injustice.

Namibia was illegally occupied by apartheid South Africa throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The UN passed a special decree forbidding mining companies from extracting minerals unless they had specific permission. De Beers and its sister company, Anglo-American, defied this decree and made secret arrangements to overmine the diamonds ahead of Namibian independence. As the technical assistant to the mine manager, Gordon Brown felt it was his simple duty to blow the whistle and came forward to give hard evidence of this illegal behaviour to a judicial enquiry. Since then he has been targeted by members of De Beers' security and their colleagues in the Police Diamond Branch.

Since his arrest and trial Gordon Brown has always maintained his complete innocence. He recently came into possession of conclusive evidence to prove he was telling the truth: the sole prosecution witness, Joseph Eben Dawid, admitted on oath and in writing that he had given perjured testimony to secure Gordon's false conviction. His reward for lying had been a well paid job in De Beers' diamond security division which he had taken up just before the trial.

As soon as Gordon discovered that the UN had modernised its procedures and was admitting human rights complaints from individuals, he began to prepare his complaint. Travelling to Geneva in the summer of 2006 he lodged his complaint at the correct office and obtained a receipt. He heard nothing for a whole year despite emails and phone calls from his home in Cape Town, South Africa. Then, in 2007, Gordon discovered that his complaint had mysteriously disappeared.

Only after repeated complaints was he able to get back on track in autumn 2007. The Namibian government has now cobbled together a response to Gordon's complaint and is hoping to have it ruled out as inadmissible. But the nature and extent of the human rights abuses against Gordon Brown are so considerable and his case is so well particularised that this is unlikely.

In addition to the UN initiative, action is being taken to bring the De Beers diamond cartel to account for its human rights abuses, illegal diamond mining operations in Namibia and a raft of other human rights abuses including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, malicious prosecution, suborning and interfering with witnesses. Brown wants the directors and officials who conspired to destroy his reputation and his business activities in Southern Africa brought to book and punished for their crimes.

For decades De Beers worked hand in glove with the apartheid government and the Namibian and South African diamond police to protect its monopoly and hobble its critics and business rivals.

Thanks to Gordon Brown's courage in telling the truth about the way De Beers and its sister company Anglo American worked in gem mining, our knowledge of the realities behind these corporate veils has increased dramatically.

10 things we know about De Beers diamond cartel because of Gordon Brown

1. The Anglo-American corporation obtained control of the Namibian diamond deposit in highly dubious circumstances during and after World War I and ran it as a monopoly business even though the League of Nations/United Nations mandate expressly outlawed all monopolies.

2. De Beers took control of a diamond deposit the size of Wales in return for an annual ground remit of £130 per annum. This rent never changed between 1920 and 1970.

3. The Namibian Police Diamond and Gold branch was a De Beers front - with offices provided and furnished by the cartel.

4. The South West Africa Diamond Board was a joke watchdog with its offices situated in and paid for by De Beers.

5. The Diamond Board secretary, Stanley Jackson, was seconded to the post by his employers, De Beers and all controls over the movement of diamonds in and out of Namibia were in the hands of cartel officials.

6. The De Beers group opposed all cutting of diamonds in Namibia and structured itself to avoid tax and move minerals though a worldwide web of companies each of which added costs and subtracted profits in order to maximise De Beers returns abroad. This scam is known as transfer pricing.

7. The company had so effectively colonised the government mining department supposedly responsible for regulating it, that the top government mining officials didn't even know the name, never mind the detailed terms of the law they were supposed to enforce.

8. This put De Beers in prime position to abuse the mine, overexploit the diamonds by grade and stone size for many years while the cartel's friends in politics in Britain, America and South Africa delayed independence forAfrica's last colony.

9. In this way De Beers shortened the life of the mine and took away an extra billion pounds worth of diamonds ahead of Namibian independence. With working costs at 25% of revenue this means that the company plundered £750 million in excess profit and unjust enrichment from a poor country heading for independence.

10. De Beers diamonds will be remembered as tokens of some people's wealth and other people's poverty because conditions at the world's richest mine were ferociously exploitative with black miners condemned to inhuman conditions, the shocking details of which Gordon Brown, among others, exposed.

A criminal enterprise

In 2004, De Beers was given a formal criminal conviction in the United States for conspiracy to violate competition law and fined the maximum amount of $10 million. In November 2005, the group agreed to pay $295 million to settle price fixing and restraint of trade lawsuits brought by individuals who had bought over-priced diamonds from cartel customers and jewellers in the United States. De Beers sister company, Anglo American, has recently been fiercely criticised for human rights violations in the Congo. Other companies in the Anglo group are the subject of criticism in South Africa for its treatment of miners and local people living near the mines.

With Gordon Brown's UN case, De Beers and its friends in the Namibian state hierarchy are hoping to have the complaint dismissed on the basis that Gordon should return to the Namibian capital, Windhoek, for justice. But sadly, the state party's poor overall human rights track record, its persistent human rights violations and abuses, its disregard for the fundamental human rights and freedoms entrenched in the Namibian constitution and its disrespect for the workings of the Human Rights Committee mitigate against this.

The annual reports of Amnesty International, other human rights organisations, and even of the US Department of State, contain numerous references to evidence of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, detention without charge or trial, extra judicial executions, disappearances after arrest, denial of freedom of expression and association, police brutality, hate speech, prison abuses and denial of fair trial rights in Namibia. A further aggravating issue is the lack of separation of government powers; proper separation of powers is essential to create or maintain a democratic state based on the rule of law. The accumulation of all power, executive, legislative and judicial in the same hands may by contrast be regarded as the very definition of tyranny. Yet Namibia massively centralises power.

One of Namibia's leading government ministers, Pendukeni Iivula-Itlana holds no less than five key appointments and serves as Minister of Justice, Attorney General, person legally responsible for the Office of the Prosecutor General, secretary general of the ruling SWAPO party and SWAPO member of parliament. She also serves on the Judicial Services Commission which appoints judges in Namibia.

This concentration of executive, legislative and administrative power in the hands of one individual in the Namibian government makes a mockery of its claim to be functioning on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and justice for all. Furthermore, the Namibian justice system is in severe crisis. According to the 2007 US State Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices, there are around 50,000 unresolved cases on court dockets and people have to wait years and years for justice.

Justice for Gordon Brown campaign

De Beers Security and the Police Diamond Branch came to court against Gordon Brown with extremely dirty hands, employing perjury and suborned witness to obtain a conviction. This extremely serious perversion of the course of justice has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Namibian police, the Ministry of Justice, and individual judges and still nothing has been done to annul the conviction of an innocent man and punish those who perverted the course of justice.

Gordon has another reason for declining to put his fate once again in the hands of a corrupted process in Namibia. As he left the court in 1994 to begin his five year jail sentence following his false conviction for Illicit Diamond Buying, he was arrested yet again and charged with still another concocted crime: extortion from his former employer De Beers.

The arresting officer had come to the court at the bidding of De Beers which has enormous power in Windhoek, the nation's capital, and throughout the land. The officer concerned, Chief Inspector Terblanche, had earlier been exposed as an accomplice to the murder of Anton Lubowski, a prominent Windhoek lawyer and one of the first white people to join SWAPO, by the apartheid death squads, the so-called Civil Co-operation Bureau.

Prior to his murder, Mr Lubowski had shown great interest in reforming the corrupt world of diamonds in Namibia. He and Gordon Brown had travelled to Lusaka, Zambia on two occasions to present their proposals for change to the SWAPO leadership in exile. Gordon had also advised both Sean MacBride and Bernt Carlsson, the United Nations High Commissioners for Namibia, on just how much better the industry could be run.

De Beers felt threatened by this and fabricated the phoney extortion charge which still hangs over Gordon. Time and time again Gordon has demanded details of this charge but De Beers and the Namibian prosecuting authorities decline to provide any such information.

Gordon recently returned to his native city, Glasgow, Scotland to inform his supporters about the latest moves in his campaign to clear his name. As well as pursuing the Namibian state parties implicated in the frame up and destruction of his reputation and business interests, Gordon is preparing to pursue De Beers and Anglo-American through the law courts in Britain for their part in the campaign against him. He also plans to take his campaign to the United States, De Beers' biggest market and the scene of the recent criminal conviction for illegal business practices.
http://www.zcommunications.org/namibia-e...urie-flynn

[Magda Hassan]

De Beers,Crime and the Kimberley Process

uploaded by stanhope57 April 22, 2008 at 05:48 am
1571 views | 0 comments | 0 recommendations



UN in the greatest diamond "price-fixing" cartel ever.The failure of mainstream media, particularly in Namibia, to report the truth about Oppenheimer/De Beers diamond activities requires a response.The establishment of the "Kimberley Process" is the result of Oppenheimer/De Beers years of refined manipulative and intimidating stratagem, employed after the UN investigation into blood diamonds to get the United Nations and particularly those African diamond producing countries mentioned to sing along in a "Kimberley Process", for clean diamonds.The process also serves so beautifully to elevate and perpetuate Oppenheimer's control of diamonds internationally, whilst evading criminal charges related to illegal diamond trading, theft and fraud and the "blood diamond stigma" - a main contributor to the diamond wars, during 1992.
The "Kimberly Process" organization has been conceived out of sin and is cemented in "blood diamonds". It is not an organization that the United Nations and civil society should find itself associated with if it knew the facts. Why should Oppenheimer be allowed to perpetuate his diamond monopoly, and be immune against prosecution under European legislation governing international corporate practice?
At present the following cases appear to place them above the law and just ridicule formal establishments.
In 1992 in London the NBC (Namibian Broadcasting Corporation), at the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of Namibia to Oppenheimer's offices in London, recorded on video a weekly consignment of illegally mined Angolan diamonds valued at US$14 million. These buying agents (Steinmetz, Arslanian freres, lazare kaplan-Tempelsman) of De Beers fled Angola, robbing that country in taxes and now operate in Namibia.
American authorities had already become aware of De Beers (representatives) corporate strategies to fix prices on industrial diamonds in 1991/2. Subjected to arrest if they set foot in the United States, it took until 2004 for De Beers to acknowledge US jurisdiction and plead quilty to the charges in federal court in Ohio Columbus. (Jim Leckorne reported).At the same time, another illegal african diamond operation (the Pearson operation), executed from Johannesburg by Brigadier Knoessen, Chief Security Consultant for Anglo American and De Beers, and run in conjunction with the diamond police in Cape Town and Namibia, was operating in Windhoek buying illegal diamonds from Angola. In July 1993 a complaint concerning these illegal activities, which included rhino horn and elephant tusks, was made at the Chief of Police in Namibia (gold and diamond branch) in the company of a lawyer. The complaint was not investigated, but instead on the 17th August 1993, a false counter charge and conviction was prepared against the complainant, and engineered by De Beers Executives Robert Abel Gower, Trevor Stacey and Roger Burchell, the Prosecutor General Hans Heyman the police and members of the judiciary, Danie Small and K. Miller to cover-up De Beers illegal diamond buying and/or theft of diamonds.

Another fraudulent diamond trapping case, engineered to eliminate De Beers critic Gordon Brown came before the same Judge (Nic Hannah), where jail terms were given, when he relied on a single State witness, who subsequently in a sworn statement (obtained by a private investigator from England) confessed (before a Windhoek magistrate) that the evidence on which the conviction was made, was false. The Scottish Sunday times understands how it suffered by exposing the truth.

This window into the illegal operations being conducted in 1992 by Oppenheimers companies came at a time when in 1993, the Security Council adopted resolution 864 of 1993, concerning the devastating situation in Angola. What exactly the facts are before the Security Council is not known, but the effect illegal diamond revenues was having on creating "this devastating situation in Angola" was a hot public issue. It took 5 years for a team to assemble before an investigation could begin and during this time De Beers and those mentioned above continued in the illicit trade and "only" bought US$80m in 1995. When the UN investigating team reached Namibia it was lame, local police operatives working with Oppenheimer's companies were included in the team. This reflects very poorly on the Security Council and the United Nations sincere efforts in the first place.
The evidence from the Namibian police dockets, exposes the longstanding, illegal influence, and close cooperation between the police, judiciary, the prosecution and Oppenheimer's employees, who have, conspired to prosecuted and convicted people on false evidence and in this way are never prosecuted and thus are able to continue operating "above" the law..
In 2003, De Beers manipulative strategies and actions were revealed when the Namibian Government attempted to compare the international diamond price with the price of US$150/carat it was receiving from De Beers at the time, by executing its right to do so in terms of section 58/9 of the Diamond Act. The Government pursued an 18-month struggle and eventually got a Presidential Cabinet resolution past and subsequent action letter issued to the Minister to sell the diamonds, but persistent threats, Bribery and/or blackmail by Oppenheimer's New York associate Maurice Tempelsman undermined the State and the sale came to nothing. Mail + Guardian. 2nd-7th August 2002. Front page. Namibia now looses hundreds of dollars per carat, on which duty would be calculated and accrue to the State. This action excluded international diamond companies from bidding on Namibian diamonds.
Many victims of Oppenheimers illegal activities survive carrying false convictions and very few can put up a defense against this secretive family cartel, while they have the police and other government members in their pockets. Assistance to bring them before accountable Courts of Law in Namibia, Europe, America and England is needed. Because the Namibian government is compromised and not in a situation, to dispense justice on these crimes, the British High Commission(BHC) in Windhoek, Namibia, was requested to indicate why Consolidated Diamond Mines (CDM) and/or De Beers Financial Services and/or any director or employee of the said companies, in particular Mr. Oppenheimer (Headquartered in London), should not be prosecuted for these crimes. The High Commissioner confirmed in writing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London had received the request. In 2005 another letter from the BHC shed no light on the request and simply raises the question to what extent is the British Government influenced on these diamond matters ? From whence cometh the birth of De Beers, so cometh the name of the "Kimberly Process".
A De Beers stratagem entirely, of self-interest and protection against prosecution now policing itself on an international level. A corporate achievement after 100 years of world dominance in the exploitation of Namibian and South African diamonds and precious minerals now incorporates the UN (United Nations) in the greatest price-fixing cartel ever.
The Oppenheimer laws on diamonds should be dismantled and brought in line with other goods on the open market so that all buyers have the opprtunity to bid and thus obtain a realistic market price. It is in the public interest and long overdue that independent news media investigate these allegations and shed international light on these crimes (and other linked crimes ; for example, the bombing of the United Nations office in Outjo, Namibia, and the murder of Advocate Anton Lubowski, in 1989). The United Nations/Security Council's first obligation to Namibia is an investigation into the bombing of its office in Outjo, Namibia where one person was killed, and during the escape of the perpetrators a policeman was killed. Charles Courtney-Clarke Swakopmund. Namibia."RE E MERITO"




Continue reading at NowPublic.com: De Beers,Crime and the Kimberley Process | NowPublic Photo Archives http://www.nowpublic.com/world/de-beers-...z2FDu1I9Ns

[Magda Hassan]

The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds is a World in Action documentary film which reported on how billions of pounds-worth ofgem diamonds were stripped from South West Africa (Namibia) over a 20-year period by the world's largest diamond mining company. It was broadcast by Thames Television on 28 September 1987[SUP][1][/SUP] After the First World War, Ernest Oppenheimer held the monopoly over the mining and sale of South West African diamonds, and formed Consolidated Diamond Mines (CDM) which was owned by De Beers.
The voice-over narration begins:Narrative

Tonight we report on the dark side of the diamond industry. We show how one of the world's richest companies has been stripping one of the world's poorest nations of its main asset - diamonds from this mine. Namibia - a forgotten country long denied its independence. Here for 20 years, South Africa has ignored international law, occupied the land by force and refused to allow the formation of a democratic government. Behind the cover of a military occupation, Namibia has been robbed of its mineral wealth. Here a mining company has leased the world's largest diamond workings, taken £5 billion-worth of gems and paid a rent of £130 per year. At the mouth of the Orange River, an accident of geology and the sands of time has laid down one of nature's rarest gifts to mankind - lonely beaches encrusted with the finest gem diamonds in the world. Released by volcanic activity inland, the diamonds were originally thrown into the Orange River, then over the centuries they were washed downstream and taken to the sea. Incoming tides put the finishing touches bringing the diamonds ashore.

Interviewees

In sequence, the following were interviewed in "The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds":
Martyn Marriott

Described as a Diamond Consultant, Mr Martyn Marriott, stated:

"It's well known they're the finest diamonds in the world - the highest quality, best colour, lovely diamonds. They are water-worn, thrown up into the beach and a very nice shape. They just happen to be good quality and good colour as well. The diamonds from Namibia are worth an average $200 per carat whereas the diamonds from Zaïre would be worth $8 per carat."

Eric Lang

Businessman Eric Lang said:

"Successive Administrator-Generals allowed the mining companies to get away with exporting 20-25% of production without any control whatsoever."

Lang threatened to release Namibia's mineral statistics, to which countries they were being sold and at what prices. Lang said he believes that the plunder of his country's resources could lead to another famine in Africa, and that the people of Namibia had lost their equivalent of North Sea Oil - what would have given them a secure future.

"Namibia's economy is extremely sick - the government consumes 75% of GDP to run the country which, today, is the second most indebted country on the African continent - from a debt-free nation seven years ago. The situation in Namibia could become far more serious than Angola and Mozambique. Without international aid, Namibia could turn into theEthiopia of Southern Africa."

Gordon Brown

Former CDM manager, Gordon Brown, claimed that for 20 years De Beers had been stripping Namibia of its most precious asset - diamonds at Oranjemund.[SUP][2][/SUP]

"Overmining took place on the upper terraces and the 'N' blocks [in the upper terraces, blocks K, L, and M were rich in diamonds and the richest of all were the 'N' blocks] which were the series of beaches situated furthest from the sea. That's where the richest blocks were in terms of grade and stone size. There was a central block between the two major beaches that was of lower grade. That was left behind - the company concentrated on taking out the ore reserves furthest from the sea. That's not good mining practice. Proper mining practice calls for the average ore reserve grade and average stone size. I would liken this to a nice big cream cake, with a sponge cake below. Normally you would take out a slice at a time, but in the case of overmining the cream is completely scraped off the top."

John Shaedonhodi

A Namibian and a CDM worker, John Shaedonhodi, said he was concerned that a future independent Namibia would be impoverished.
Bernt Carlsson

The man responsible for Namibia under international law, Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was asked about Namibia's diamonds[SUP][3][/SUP]:

"The corporation has been trying to skim the cream which means they have gone for the large diamonds at the expense of the steady pace. In this way they have really shortened the lifespan of the mines. One would expect from a worldwide corporation like De Beers and Anglo American that they would behave with an element of social and political responsibility. But their behaviour in the specific case of Namibia has been one of profit maximation regardless of its social, economic, political and even legal responsibility."

The United Nations Council for Namibia enacted in 1974 a Decree for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, under which no person or entity could search for, take or distribute any natural resources found in Namibia without the Council's permission. Any person or entity contravening the Decree could be held liable for damages by the future government of an independent Namibia.[SUP][4][/SUP]Companies like De Beers have ignored the law but now attitudes at the UN are beginning to harden:

"The United Nations this year [1987] in July started legal action against one such company - the Dutch companyURENCO which imports uranium."[SUP][5][/SUP]

Will you be taking action against other companies such as De Beers?

"All the companies which are carrying out activities in Namibia which have not been authorised by the United Nations are being studied at present."

Thirion Report

The documentary referred to a wide-ranging investigation carried out by South African Judge Pieter Willem Thirion in 1982 into political corruption and the divisive tribal structures imposed on Namibia by the apartheid government. Judge Thirion extended his investigation into the behaviour of multinational mining companies in the former German colony and found: at one mine 420,000 tonnes of ore were sent out of the country as "geological samples"; at another, the state leased the mining rights to a businessman at £1,500 per year, who then reassigned them for an income of £650,000 per year; at the British owned Tsumeb mine, lead and copper were exported with undisclosed amounts of gold and silver; and the British South West Africa Company exported £7 million-worth of minerals without paying tax.
Judge Thirion focused upon the stewardship of the nation's principal economic resource - gem diamonds of the Atlantic beaches north of the Orange River. The Thirion Report's main findings were:

1. There were no meaningful controls over Namibia's most important industry;
   
2. The premises of the supposedly independent Diamond Board for South West Africa were provided by De Beers;
   
3. All of the Board's agents were De Beers' employees;
   
4. The entire costs of running the Board were met by De Beers as a tax deductible expense;
   
5. Stanley Jackson, the Diamond Board Secretary, was also Secretary to Consolidated Diamond Mines.[SUP][6][/SUP]
   

The 350-page report found that De Beers had overmined the diamond reserves ahead of Namibia's independence:

The excessive depletion of the deposit was a preferential depletion of the more valuable deposits to the detriment of the low grade deposits, and therefore a breach of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Halbscheid Agreement. The probabilities are that the effect of the excessive depletion of the deposit will be to shorten the life of the mine and to detrimentally affect its profitability towards the end of its life.

Credits

Camera: Howard Somers;
Sound: David Woods;
Film Editors: Oral Ottey, John Rutherford;
Dubbing Mixer: John Whitworth;
Production Assistants: Adele McLoughlin, Judith Fraser;
Investigation by: Laurie Flynn and John Coates;
Editor: Stuart Prebble;
Executive Producer: Ray Fitzwalter;
Granada Television MCMLXXXVII.
References

• ^ "The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds". Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  
• ^ "The Dossier". Retrieved 18 March 2010.
  
• ^ Bernt Carlsson and The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds Part 3
  
• ^ "Historical background - UNCN". Retrieved 18 March 2010.
  
• ^ "Council for Namibia sues Netherlands over Namibia's natural resources". Retrieved 18 March 2010.
  
• ^ "The Thirion Report". Retrieved 18 March 2010.
  

[Magda Hassan]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

The Dossier

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

[/TD]
[TD]

Namibia's diamonds, the De Beers' cartel, the Thirion Inquiry
and the victimisation
of Gordon Brown
Further evidence from four independent journalists

Max du Preez, one of Southern Africa's most admired reporters, has worked for the Financial Mail, the Sunday Times and SABC. He was also the founder of Die Vrye Weekblad, closed down by the apartheid government for its fearless reporting of business and political scandals. He lost his job at the Financial Mail for his persistent reporting of the Thirion scandal.In 2003 he published Pale Native memories of a renegade reporter a book length testimony of his life as a journalist in South Africa, old and new. This is how he outlined De Beers' behaviour in Namibia in that book."While I was working in Namibia, I had heard rumours that CDM, a Namibian subsidiary of the South African diamond giant De Beers, had been raping' the diamond deposits at Oranjemund. It was one of the richest diamond deposits in the world, and the mine was the backbone of the Namibian economy…."Anglo American was the one company you didn't mess with without consequences."I should admit that I harboured a deep resentment towards Anglo American. I had long believed one of the most destructive aspects of South Africa's racial policies was the migrant labour system. Black miners ... were housed in huge single sex labour compounds' or hostels'. Their families were not allowed to accompany them."Once in six months or once a year they were allowed to go home.No other facet of apartheid damaged the social fabric of black society as much as this system. Families were destroyed and social structures disturbed. Children grew up without fathers. The hostels became festering sores."The main culprits were the mining companies, the biggest of which was Anglo. Yet Anglo had the public image of being an opponent of apartheid. That's what irked me … ."Early in 1984, the issue of CDM's overmining' of the Oranjemund mine was again mentioned at hearings into government corruption in Namibia. This time I got hold of a solid source, Gordon Brown, a senior man at De Beers who had serious moral qualms about what they were doing to the mine. He started briefing me on the technical issues and gave me a number of documents with explosive content."An understanding of CDM's unique position in Namibia is important in order to grasp the overmining story. CDM mined the world's richest diamond fields in terms of an agreement with the South African administration in Namibia which was bound to act in compliance with a League of Nations mandate to protect the interests of the people of the territory … ."The Halbscheid agreement stated: "CDM when working an area pegged under this, shall conduct operatiaons as thoroughly and economically as it does on its other mining fields and shall carry on mining satisfactorily to the Administrator and not with a view to exhausting the superficial and more valuable deposits to the detriment of the low grade deposits.""… The idea was that the diamond field should provide Namibia with a source of revenue and employment for as long as possible. CDM, I wrote in my first piece in the Financial Mail, was in breach of the Halbscheid agreement because it was in mining-speak picking the eyes out of the mine' preferentially mining the richer deposits at the expense of the mine's future profits."I had CDM's own documents to back this up ….."The smoking gun was a document called A life of Mine Review, drawn up by the then manager at Oranjemund Jack Forster in September 1981 … . Foster used these words … To me this is best described as a power dive and unless we have a conscious change in strategy effective some time in the future, we will power the mine into the ground and we will be unable to conduct the reclamation and cleaning operation which could extend the life of the mine by three or four years.' Click on this link for further details."…. The morning of the publication of my story, Mulholland (the editor) walked to my desk, and slammed the magazine down and asked : What the hell do you think you are doing?'"He said I knew nothing about mining. It is clearly news to you that mining companies are in the business for a profit. I tried to explain about the 1923 agreement but he didn't want to discuss the merits. He warned me to drop the story."I checked with Gordon, who said my story was spot on … I vowed not to leave it there. A few weeks later, when Mulholland was out of town I wrote a follow-up story sticking to my line."Mulholland was livid. He accused me of damaging the reputation of the Financial Mail … . I told Mulholland that I thought it was my ethical duty to follow through with the story."CDM's … next move was to invite me to a briefing where they would explain everything … at 44 Main Street, the Anglo head office in Johannesburg. We met … in their impressive boardroom. Mulholland introduced me."As I heard the names and titles, it dawned on me that this was the entire upper hierarchy of the De Beers empire, including the chairman, the Oranjemund mine manager and the top man of the Central Selling Organisation in London … ."I wanted to explain the documents I had in my possession. Clearly annoyed, they explained some of the technical stuff and … at more than one point they said that the details would be difficult for a lay-person to comprehend. But Gordon had briefed me well, and I did follow the arguments."I started putting more documents on the table to counter what they were saying, especially the mine manager's statement that CDM was powering the mine into the ground' … Mulholland silenced me, thanked the De Beers bosses profusely and apologised for my stubbornness … I was ushered out."This showdown meant the end of my career at the Financial Mail."But it wasn't the end of the CDM story; it was the beginning although the FM would no longer take part in the expose."The FM's opposition magazine, Finance Week had by now taken up the story as had the Namibian press."Mr Justice Pieter Thirion soon expanded his inquiry into mal-administration in Namibia to include an investigation into the Diamond Industry and the workings of the Diamond Board."Gordon Brown came out of the shadows and gave devastating evidence before Thirion."The Thirion report published in March 1986, vindicated every word I had written, and more. The documents Brown had given me were extensively quoted in the report and they were given Brown's interpretation which I in turn used in my reports and in the sham briefing with CDM."Justice Thirion found that CDM had breached the Halbscheid agreement by excessively depleting the Oranjemund diamonds for at least twenty years."The excessive depletion of the deposit was preferential depletion of the more valuable deposits to the detriment of the low grade deposits. The probabilities are that the effect of the excessive depletion of the deposit will be to shorten the life of the mine and to detrimentally affect its profitability towards the end of its life."The next year Brown was the star of a powerful Granada documentary … . shown on ITV, titled The case of the disappearing diamonds. It found that De Beers had secretly stripped Namibia of 3 billion rands worth of diamonds through overmining. Brown went on to appear in the BBC documentary The Diamond Empire, and became a central figure in the authoritative book on violations by Southern African mining companies called Studded with diamonds and paved with gold."But Brown was to pay a heavy price for blowing the whistle on De Beers; first with the reports he gave me, then by giving evidence to Thirion, and finally by appearing in the documentaries."An elaborate trap was set for him. He was asked by an acquaintance, a dealer in rough diamonds … to evaluate a parcel of diamonds … . Brown was given an assurance that these were legal diamonds from Angola, and the necessary permits had been issued and the legal requirements complied with."The Diamond and Gold Branch of the Namibian police then pounced and arrested him on an illicit diamond buying charge. He was found guilty in court and sent to jail."Brown claims he was denied the fundamental right to a fair trial. He says his conviction was based on the perjured testimony of a single witness, a De Beers employee. This witness subsequently confessed in an affadavit made to Namibian justice department officials."Shortly after his incarceration, Brown was released on bail pending an appeal hearing. He tried his best to get the police and justice department to investigate prosecutorial irregularities and misconduct, but nobody would do anything."Brown says he then lost faith in the justice system in Namibia and decided to skip bail. He actually had to swim across the Orange River to his freedom in South Africa. He continued to work in the diamond industry in South Africa.As long as De Beers appointees sit on government regulatory bodies and their security people hold top position in the Gold and Diamond Branch of the Namibian Police", Brown told me, "no serious critic of De Beers can survive criminal charges from the police or De Beers themselves, and you certainly cannot expect a fair trial on such charges.'"That's what happens when you mess with Anglo American."

******

Geoff Shuttleworth was one of South Africa's most skilled finance and mining reporters. He covered the Thirion crisis for Finance Week. In two major cover stories CDM under siege (Finance Week July 4 10 1985) and Forever?subtitled Rape of South West Africa (13 19 March 1986) he set out the dimension of the scandal and profiled the impact it was having on De Beers. Finance Week 4 10 July 1985"De Beers, operator of the world's most successful cartel, left the US to avoid giving testimony on its activities. Ironically it now finds itself cornered in its own backyard in South West Africa. Under the tin roofed magistrates court in Windhoek the reconvened Thirion Commission into maladministration and corruption is once again causing the mining giant a few problems. This time the Commission is hearing evidence on allegations that De Beers' wholly owned subsidiary Consolidated Diamond Mines (CDM) indulged in overmining the ultra rich deposits north of the Orange River."But it is not so much the Thirion Commission as the testimony of a former senior CDM official, Gordon Brown, that is causing the headache … . Brown … worked on CDM from 1968 to 1983. His last five years were as technical assistant to CDM's general manager … ."Brown's evidence is based on actual mining operations and decisions taken on the mine … ."Quoting from CDM documents Brown said that one of the reasons for overmining in the 1960's was to meet unrealistically high' production targets which were set by the De Beers board."As an example, in 1968 the target set (carat call) was 125,000 carats a month whereas productive capacity at CDM was only sufficient to produce 103,000 carats per month … ."The shortfall of 18% was met by overmining the rich upper terraces in the south of the mine. Because this area contained most of the largest stones, overmining depleted these high stone size reserves which should have been available for future mining … ."In a broader context, in the 1973 1980 period, CDM's contribution to De Beers group carat production was only 14%. But it's contribution to revenue was a staggering 47% and to group working profits around 50% ... ."Brown testified that overmining was recognised as an undesirable mining practice and it was brought to the board's attention on a number of occasions and in various management reports ... ."Overmining was also to produce maximum possible profits at CDM each year. Brown told the Commission that from the early 1970's, the mine's objective function became that of maximising profits each year ... ."In 1981 CDM management told the consulting engineer and board members that overmining was causing revenues to fall sharply and that unless steps were taken to change this, CDM's objective function, of maximising profits each year until the end of the mine's life, would have disastrous consequences." Finance Week 13 19 March 1986"The timing could hardly have been less fortunate. Last week state president PW Botha had hardly finished announcing in Cape Town that government was introducing UN-style independence this year to South West Africa/Namibia when in Windhoek transitional government minister Andreas Shipanga tabled the report of Justice Thirion's one-man commission into SWA mining."The effect, taking Thirion's findings on mineral exploration in conjunction with local leaders' own fears over marine exploitation and transport links, is to cast aspersions over the manner in which the territory has really been protected by SA ... ."Major findings of Thirion are:*De Beers' wholly-owned subsidiary Consolidated Diamond Mines of SWA (CDM) has been excessively depleting the diamond deposits of SWA.*SWA authorities whose job it was to have monitored the Halbscheid agreement never did so. The SWA Chief Inspector of Mines only became aware of the provisions of the Halbscheid agreement when they were pointed out to him by the commission.*Other mining companies operating within the territory were guilty of numerous offences. These included submitting incorrect, and incomplete information to government, inefficient mining, high grading, transfer pricing and a host of mining wrongs'."The disclosure of CDM's overmining could have serious consequences for the diamond monopolist De Beers. It will have to answer not only to SWA but also to non-South African CSO suppliers such as Western Australia, Botswana, Angola and Tanzania which also rely on De Beers for technical assistance."With De Beers reliant on non-SA suppliers for two thirds of its CSO diamond purchases, it depends on sustained good will to retain its diamond monopoly."While Thirion found CDM guilty of breaching its lease agreement, he also held that the SWA administration had been inept in monitoring mining activities."Specifically he noted that the Diamond Board does not exercise any control over the rate of depletion of the diamond deposits. That is left entirely to CDM's discretion which in practice is the discretion of De Beers.'"Thirion concluded that, despite the trappings and façade of state control effective control of all aspects of the mining and marketing of SWA's diamonds remains firmly in the hands of De Beers ... ."De Beers and CDM were also criticised by Thirion, along with the SWA administration for the way in which De Beers subsidiary Marine Diamonds was allowed to deprive the SWA fiscus of millions of rands by allowing exploration write-offs against tax ... ."Thirion made several recommendations which, if implemented, will tighten control of the SWA mining industry. Andreas Shipanga (mining minister) himself was stunned by the report's findings:" I personally went through these reports five times. One shudders to think about things which have been allowed to happen in this country. There is no doubt that mining policy will never be the same again. This is a damning report'," he believes ..."That the exploitation of SWA's resources have not been properly controlled or monitored hardly seems in doubt. The question is now whether the new government will seek compensation from SA and the companies which breached agreements over exploitation of its natural resources."

*******

Ken Owen another famous South African business journalist wrote about Thirion in the Cape Times. His piece was titled Cosy diamond industry state ties exposed."The Thirion Commission's investigation of the Namibian diamond industry has set off a dispute that sooner or later was bound to happen as the ties between industry and government are just too cosy."American consumer crusader Mr Ralph Nader's investigations in the United States showed that government agencies tended to develop symbiotic relationships with the industries that they are supposed to regulate, and that both parties become increasingly resentful of any public interference'."It is a formula for a public relations disaster when, as must happen sooner or later, a Nader or a Thirion comes along."'The Namibian diamond industry, represented mainly by CDM, the De Beers subsidiary, has been a classic case'."(Cape Times 13 March 1986)

*******
http://www.gordonbrownisinnocent.co.uk/thedossier.html

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Magda Hassan]

[Magda Hassan]

Historical Background
[size=12]United Nations plan
[/SIZE][size=12][size=12]UNTAG activities
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[size=12][/SIZE]

[size=12]

Historical background

Namibia -- formerly known as South West Africa -- was the only one of the seven African Territories once held under the League of Nations Mandate System that was not placed under the Trusteeship System. The General Assembly recommended in 1946 that South Africa do so, but South Africa refused. Instead, South Africa informed the United Nations in 1949 that it would no longer transmit information on the Territory, on the grounds that the Mandate had lapsed with the demise of the League. In 1950, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that South Africa continued to have international obligations towards the Territory, and that the United Nations should exercise the supervisory functions of the League of Nations in the administration of the Territory. South Africa refused to accept the Court's opinion, and continued to oppose any form of United Nations supervision over the Territory.
In 1966, the Assembly declared that South Africa had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Mandate. It terminated that Mandate, and placed the territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. In 1967, the Assembly established the United Nations Council for South West Africa to administer the Territory until independence. It thus became the only Territory which the United Nations, rather than a Member State, assumed direct responsibility. In 1968, the Council was renamed the United Nations Council for Namibia, when the Assembly proclaimed that, in accordance with the wishes of its people, the Territory would be thenceforth known as Namibia. Later that year, in the face of South Africa's refusal to accept the Assembly's decision and cooperate with the Council for Namibia, the Assembly recommended that the Security Council take measures to enable the Council to carry out its mandate.
In its first resolution on the question, the Security Council, in 1969, recognized the termination of the Mandate, described the continued presence of South Africa as illegal, and called on South Africa to withdraw its administration immediately. In 1970, the Security Council declared for the first time that all acts taken by South Africa concerning Namibia after the termination of the mandate were "illegal and invalid". This view was upheld in 1971 by the ICJ. The Court stated that South Africa's presence was illegal, and that South Africa was under obligation to withdraw its administration. South Africa, however, continued to refuse to comply with the United Nations resolutions, and continued its illegal administration of Namibia, including the imposition of apartheid laws, the bantustanization of the Territory, and the exploitation of its resources.
The Council for Namibia enacted in 1974 a Decree for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, under which no person or entity could search for, take or distribute any natural resources found in Namibia without the Council's permission. Any person or entity contravening the Decree could be held liable for damages by the future government of an independent Namibia. Also in 1974, the Council established the Institute for Namibia, located in Lusaka, Zambia. The Institute, which operated until after independence, provided Namibians with education and training equipping them to administer a free Namibia. In 1976 the Security Council for the first time demanded that South Africa accept elections for the Territory under United Nations supervision and control. In the same year, the General Assembly condemned South Africa for organizing so-called constitutional talks at Windhoek, Namibia's capital, designed to perpetuate the colonial oppression and exploitation of Namibia. It decided that any independence talks must be between South Africa and the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which the Assembly recognized as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The Assembly also launched a comprehensive assistance programme in support of Namibia's nationhood, involving assistance by United Nations organizations and specialized agencies.
In 1977, the Assembly declared that South Africa' s decision to annex Walvis Bay -- Namibia's main port and vital economic avenue -- was illegal, null and void and an act of colonial expansion. At a special session on Namibia in 1978, the Assembly expressed support for the armed liberation struggle of Namibian people, and stated that any settlement must be arrived at with the agreement of SWAPO and within the framework of United Nations resolutions.

United Nations plan

In 1978, Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States submitted to the Security Council a proposal for settling the question of Namibia. According to the proposal, elections for a Constituent Assembly would be held under United Nations auspices. Every stage of the electoral process would be conducted to the satisfaction of a Special Representative for Namibia appointed by the Secretary-General. A United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) would be at the disposal of the Special Representative to help him supervise the political process and to ensure that all parties observed all provisions of an agreed solution. The Security Council requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative for Namibia and to submit recommendations for implementing the settlement proposal. By resolution 435 (1978), the Council endorsed the United Nations plan for Namibia and decided to establish UNTAG.
In 1980, South Africa accepted the plan proposed by the five Powers and in 1981 participated in a pre-implementation meeting at Geneva. However, South Africa did not agree to proceed towards a ceasefire, one of the conditions set by the United Nations for implementing resolution 435. Negotiations were again stalled when South Africa attached new conditions which the United Nations did not accept, in particular one which linked the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola.
In the following years, the Secretary-General and his Special Representative travelled extensively throughout southern Africa, discussing problems, clarifying positions, exploring new concepts and exchanging views with all parties. Various countries promoted talks on the issue -- among them the five Western sponsors of the 1978 proposal and Zambia. Gradually the unresolved matters yielded to the give and take of negotiations.
The Secretary-General reported in 1987 that all outstanding issues relevant to the United Nations plan, including the choice of an electoral system, had been resolved. Only the condition linking independence to troop withdrawal remained an obstacle. On 22 December 1988, a tripartite agreement among Angola, Cuba and South Africa, mediated by the United States, was signed at United Nations Headquarters. The agreement committed the signatory States of a series of measures to achieve peace in the region, and opened the way to the United Nations independence plan. Under the agreement, South Africa undertook to cooperate with the Secretary-General to ensure Namibia's independence through free and fair elections
At the same time, Angola and Cuba signed an agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. In accordance with this agreement, the United Nations sent an observer mission -- the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM) -- to Angola to verify the withdrawal of Cuban troops.

UNTAG activities

The starting date for the implementation of the independence plan was 1 April 1989.
UNTAG was made up of people of 124 nationalities. The authorized strength of its military component was 7,500 all ranks (maximum deployment 4,493 all ranks), supported by almost 2,000 international civilian and local staff. UNTAG's 1,500 police officers ensured a smooth electoral process and monitored the ceasefire between SWAPO and South African forces, and the withdrawal and demobilization of all military forces in Namibia. During the elections, UNTAG was strengthened by some 1,000 additional international personnel who came specifically for the elections.
Namibia was divided into 23 electoral districts. Registration centers were set up all over the country. Some 2,200 rural registration points were covered by 110 mobile registration teams. Registration of voters began on 3 July 1989. When the process ended on 23 September, 701,483 Namibians had registered, and more than 34,000 had been helped to repatriate by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees -- of some 41,000 registered with that agency.
The elections, held from 7 to 11 November 1989 to choose the 72 delegates to the Constituent Assembly, saw a voter turn-out of 97 per cent. UNTAG monitored the balloting and the counting of votes. On 14 November, the Special Representative for Namibia declared that the elections had been free and fair. SWAPO obtained 41 Assembly seats. The Democratic Turnhalle Alliance obtained 21 seats, and five smaller parties shared the remaining 10.
By 22 November 1989, South Africa's remaining troops had left Namibia. The Constituent Assembly met for the first time on 21 November to draft a new Constitution, which was unanimously approved on 9 February 1990. On 16 February the Assembly elected SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma as President of the Republic for a five-year term. Namibia became independent on 21 March 1990. On that day, in Winhoek, the United Nations Secretary-General administered the oath of office to Namibia's first President . On 23 April 1990, Namibia became the 160th Member of the United Nations.
[TABLE="width: 574"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 35%"]http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/untagS.htm[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/SIZE]

[Magda Hassan]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

The Thirion Report

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]

Section 6. Extracts from the Thirion Report.

Pieter Willem Thirion was an honourable but little known white South African judge until 1982 when he was appointed to look into corruption in the divisive tribal structures the apartheid government of South Africa had imposed on the continent's last colony, Namibia.As Thirion's inquiries widened beyond purely political corruption, his two key investigators, Martin Grote and Gerhardt Visser, began to focus on the behaviour of multinational mining companies in the former German colony.They began to investigate the stewardship of the nation's principal economic resource- the gem diamonds of the Atlantic beaches north of the Orange River. These remarkable diamond deposits had, in seeming contravention of the free trade terms of the League of Nations mandate, been given over to De Beers, a monopoly business concern based in London and Johannesburg, and its local subsidiary CDM, Consolidated Diamonds Mines.The Thirion report, one of the most disturbing documents about mining malpractice ever to reach the public domain, sets out their findings:*There were no meaningful controls over the country's most important industry.*The supposedly independent Diamond Board for South West Africa was sited in premises given it by De Beers.*All the Board's agents supposedly checking the diamonds leaving Namibia, assessing their size, quality and value or counting them to see if the same numbers arrived in Kimberley or London, were De Beers' employees.*The entire costs of running the board were met by De Beers, who simply deducted them from the taxes they were due to pay.*The Diamond Board secretary who convened the meetings and wrote the minutes was a De Beers' employee.

*******

As they dug further, Judge Thirion and his researchers found more and more evidence that the Diamond Board, which had been set up as an independent watchdog, had in fact been transformed into a helpless poodle which De Beers liked to keep sitting securely in its generous corporate lap.The situation with the government mining engineer and the Inspectorate of Mines was little better.

• The top officials had never even heard of the Halbscheid Agreement, the key controlling instrument taken over from the German colonial mining law to protect the diamond fields from irrational or improper exploitation.
• Not surprisingly, since both the government mining engineer and the inspector of mines admitted under questioning that they knew nothing about the agreement, they had never thought of enforcing its provisions or even of running the most basic checks on the mine.

*******

The three hundred and fifty page mining report from Judge Thirion and his team paints a devastating portrait of the world wide De Beers diamond cartel and its behaviour towards Namibia.Instead of mining in a proper way, to the average grade of the whole deposit, Thirion found De Beers was blatantly overmining ahead of independence and a new government."The Commission is satisfied that excessive depletion of the reserves in respect of grade and stone size occurred .... but also that excessive depletion in regard to grade occurred from 1963 to 1983 with the exception of 1971 and perhaps 1964 and 1965."Excessive depletion in diamond size occurred (apart from that in the 1940's and 1950's) in the latter half of the 1960's and in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1976."There was furthermore excessive depletion of the N blocks (the richest of all the mine deposits) from 1964 to 1974 ... in both grade and stone size."The excessive depletion of the deposit was a preferential depletion of the more valuable deposits to the detriment of the low grade deposits and therefore a breach of the provisions of clause 3 of the Halbscheid Agreement."The probabilities are that the effect of the excessive depletion of the deposit will be to shorten the life of the mine and to detrimentally affect its profitability towards the end of its life."( Extract taken from Thirion Commission Eighth Interim Report pp320-321.)
http://www.gordonbrownisinnocent.co.uk/t...eport.html

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Magda Hassan]

BERNT CARLSSON: THE TARGET ON PAN AM FLIGHT 103?
By Patrick Haseldine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Haseldine
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Countdown to Lockerbie
1. On 27 September 1974, the UN Council for Namibia (UNCN) enacts Decree No 1 which
prohibits all exploitation of Namibia's natural resources - particularly diamonds and
uranium. The Decree provides for the payment of damages to the future government of an
independent Namibia.
2. UN Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978 orders apartheid South Africa to withdraw
from its illegal occupation of Namibia.
3. On 1 July 1987, Bernt Carlsson is appointed an Assistant Secretary-General of the United
Nations and the UN Commissioner for Namibia. Within two weeks of Carlsson's
appointment, the UNCN institutes infraction proceedings against the uranium producer
URENCO in the Netherlands, and signals similar action against Belgium, the Federal Republic
of Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
4. Reagan/Gorbachev summit of June 1988 decides on Namibian independence. The New
York Accords are scheduled for signature on 22 December 1988 by US/Soviet client states:
South Africa, Cuba and Angola.
5. In July 1988, UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, is invited to address the
Development Committee of the European Parliament in Brussels on 20 December 1988.
6. Early in December 1988, Carlsson appears in the Granada TV documentary "Disappearing
Diamonds" and criticises De Beers for illegal extraction of Namibia's diamonds (value $18.7
billion at 2009 prices). As a result, De Beers summon him to a meeting in London on 21 2
December 1988. Three days before his departure from New York to Brussels on 19
December 1988, Carlsson cancels his return flight booking from Brussels to New York.
Instead, he books himself on British Airways Flight 391 to London for the meeting with De
Beers, and on Pan Am Flight 103 from Heathrow to JFK. (This information is derived from
Jan-Olof Bengtsson's article in the Swedish newspaper iDAG of 12 March 1990. It has never
been published in English. Why?)
7. A 23-strong delegation from South Africa are also booked on Pan Am Flight 103. Their
South African Airways flight from Johannesburg is forbidden by the US Comprehensive AntiApartheid Act of 1986 from continuing to New York. So Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, Defence
Minister, Magnus Malan, Director of Military Intelligence, General Van Tonder, and 20
negotiators have to suffer the indignity of alighting at Heathrow and of taking the US carrier,
Pan Am, to JFK. In the event, none of the 23 South Africans travelled on Carlsson's flight. Six
are reported to have taken the morning Pan Am Flight 101 to New York, and 17 are
understood to have returned by SAA to Johannesburg. (The fact that Pik Botha's delegation
were booked on Pan Am Flight 103 was suppressed for six years - until the Reuters news
agency reported it on 12 November 1994. Why?)
Conclusion
No attempt has yet been made to formally investigate the murder of UN Commissioner for
Namibia, Bernt Carlsson. The decision not to investigate was taken by a junior Scottish
policeman, Detective Constable John Crawford, on the basis of information supplied to him
by "a very helpful lady librarian in Newcastle".
Former MEP Michael McGowan has called for urgent action by the UN. He is the 17th
signatory of an online petition
( http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BerntCarlsson/ ) which demands a United Nations
inquiry into the murder of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988
Lockerbie Bombing 3
References
A. UN Council for Namibia Decree No 1 ( http://www.jstor.org/pss/4186138 ). UNCN plans
enforcement action (
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...ntent;col1 ). (Also
see "Council for Namibia sues Netherlands over Namibia's natural resources" article below.)
B. History of Namibia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...transition ).
C. Michael McGowan's invitation to Bernt Carlsson (
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/M...5612963.jp ).
D. "Finger of suspicion", The Guardian, 7 December 1989 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patric...dine3B.jpg ).
E. Jan-Olof Bengtsson, iDAG, 12 March 1990 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:I...2MAR90.jpg ).
F. Reuters report, 12 November 1994 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:R...2NOV94.jpg ).
G. "The Lockerbie Incident : A Detective's Tale", by John Crawford, 2002 (pages 88/89) (
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh9_p8R...ent:+A+Det
ective%27s+Tale#v=onepage&q=&f=false ).
H. Former MEP calls for urgent inquiry by the UN (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernt_Carls...nt_inquiry ).
Council for Namibia sues Netherlands over Namibia's natural resources
In an unprecedented action, the United Nations Council for Namibia has instituted legal
proceedings in the Netherlands against the Dutch uranium enrichment plant Urenco
Nederland V.O.F. and its State-controlled managing partner Ultracentrifuge Nederland N.V.,
as well as the Government of the Netherlands, "to prevent Urenco Nederland V.O.F. from
carrying out orders on the basis of purchases of Namibian uranium'. The Council is the legal
Administering Authority for the Territory until independence. It is the first time that a
United Nations body has sued a Government. 4
Council President Peter D. Zuze of Zambia said the action was "only a first step by the
Council in implementing its decision of May 1985 to institute legal proceedings, as one of
various options, to safeguard the natural resources of Namibia'. The writ of summons was
served on the defendants on 14 July 1987. On 23 July 1987, the Netherlands, in a letter
(A/42/414) to the Secretary-General called the action "unprecedented', adding that
Netherlands electricity companies did not buy Namibian uranium. Urenco Nederland V.O.F.
and Ultracentrifuge Nederland N.V. operated within a German, British and Netherlands
consortium, Urenco Ltd., established in 1971, that concluded enrichment contracts on
behalf of the three partners in the consortium with electricity suppliers. The enrichment
processes did not take place in the Netherlands.
The Council's Steering Committee on 2 May 1985 decided to institute legal action, in
domestic courts of States and other appropriate bodies, against corporations or individuals
who were violating the Council's 1974 Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural
Resources of Namibia. The Committee had also decided that those legal proceedings would
commence in the Netherlands, against Urenco, a company which it said was known to
process Namibian uranium in violation of the Decree.
The Decree forbids any person or entity from searching for, prospecting for, exploring for,
taking, extracting, mining, processing, refining, using, selling, exporting or distributing any
natural resources, whether animal or mineral, situated or found to be situated within
Namibia's territorial limits without the Council's consent and permission.
Other countries against which such action might be taken are: Belgium, France, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Council+fo...amibia's+n
atural...-a06272039
Extract from The Gulliver Rossing Uranium Ltd Dossier :
Exploitation of Namibian uranium has had a "disastrous impact" on British foreign policy, 5
and the relationship between Britain and many Third World countries. (A visit to the mine
paid by the country's prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, in early 1989, where she
commented that the project made her "proud to be British" can only have deepened this
sense of disillusionment and mistrust among Third World peoples). Moreover - and whether
or not the mine's output has ever directly fed South Africa's nuclear plants - Rossing has
certainly buttressed the apartheid state.
[ http://www.sea-us.org.au/gulliver/rossing.html ]
SEE ALSO: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/0...erbie.html

[Magda Hassan]

See also DPF thread here

[Marius Titulescu]

Thanks for sharing, mate! A really interesting read.
_________________________________________
Marius from Transfer Pricing