A/32/PV.36 General Assembly

At this early stage in our debate on the question of Namibia, the Argentine delegation wishes to intervene to stress categorically its traditional and unchanging position on the problem and to refer briefly to the most recent events that have taken place in that Territoiy. 2. Eleven yea~ have elapsed sipce, by the adoption of resolution 2145 (XXI), the General Assembly declared the South African Mandate over Namibia to be null and void and transferred the administration of that international TenitOIY to the United Nations with a view to ensuring the implementation of resolution 1514 (XV). In. the course of these years, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice have repeatedly taken decisions on the matter, and a body oflaws and rules has been formed that leaves no doubt about the way in which legally, politically and morally the illegal occupation ofNamibia by SouthAfrica deserves to be judged. 3. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for me at present to dwell on the background and the features of the question. Suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of the international community has joined repeatedly in criticizing the anachronistic situation that prevails in Namibia as an open challenge to the principles and purposes of this Organization and as one which, because ofits gravity and the conflicts connected with it, jeopardizes interna- tional peace and security. 4. Furthermore, the Argentine position on the problem has been made very clear and decisive and once again today NEW YORK ! shall reaffmn that position. In complete agreement with the decisibns I referred to earlier, we have unswervingly maintained that Namibia and its inhabitants are the direct responsibility of the United Nations, and therefore that South Africa must comply with the decisions of the Organization. In other words, it must withdraw from Namibia and allow that nation, under the direct supervision of the United Nations, freely to exercise its inalienable right, recognized by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 5. Furthermore, on thi~ premise we have deplored and continue to deplore the adoption of measures designed to infringe the territorial integrity and national unity of Namibia. We have contended that a prerequisite for a solution of the problem is the active and free participation of all of the parties directly concerned in the matter in the working out of any such solution. In this context, I think we should specifically single ~ut certain unfortunate pol- itical and/or administrative measures adopted recently by South Africa which, either because they unilaterally alter the shape ofn'1e Territory of Namibia or because they do not recognize the legitimate representative nature oforgani- zations such as the South West Africa People's Organization /SWAP01. neglect or run counter to the basic and binding guidelines to which we have referred. 6. While this does not mean that.we should ignore the fact that in the course of the year that has elapsed since the thirty-first session of the General Assembly, the South African Government has adopted or appeared to be ready to adopt measures which hint at a more flexible approach to the problem, there can be no doubt that such mea..qJres do not meet the conditions laid down by this Organization. 7. The type of provisions to which I refer are even more unacceptable when, as is the case with many of them, one can detect underlying them a deplorable attempt to extend to Namibia the despicable system of apartheid Argentina has repeatedly and categorically repudiated that immoral and unnatural form of discrimination and wishes' to express its fmn condemnation of such attempts and to associate itself with those who call upon South Africa to renounce that inhuman practice. 8. The Government of my country intends to introduce certain amendments to the Argentine penal code in the near future so as to include rules, providing for severe penalties, including imprisonment, for any act of racial or religious discrimination, and we wish to state once again that apartheid not only constitutes an insult to the peoples of Africa but offends the conscience ofmankind as a whole. It specifically conflicts with the principles of equality and justice on the basis of which the Argentine Republic was created and has developed. 10. Yet, I repeat, we still believe that we must try to follow the path of peace which is the one enshrine~in the Charter of the United Nations and the one which forms the very basis ofthe existence of our Organization. 11. It was precisely with this idea in mind that Argentina, during its term in the Security Council, sponsored three draft resolutions, unanimously adopted, which aimed at establishing conditions conducive to a peaceful and agreed solution of the problem through direct negotiations among the parties. I should add here that at that time we were ". once again given proof of the high degree of political awareness ofthe Mrican representatives who supported our efforts, in sharp contrast to the stubborn intransigence of South Africa. . 12. It is equally logical that we should give our whole- hearted support to the efforts being made by the fIVe Western members of the Security Council to identify, through broad and continuing efforts, including negotia- tions with all the parties directly concerned, areas of common ground that might serve as a basis for an acceptable solution. We ,hope that South Africa will take advantage of this further opportunity offered of fmding a peaceful solution to the problem, and that the efforts to which we have referred will allow the necessary conditions to be established for attaining in the near future the full implementation of the resolutions on this subject. I should add that th6 substantive aspects of those decisions are included in Security Council resolution 385 (1976). 13. Mention of Argentina's support of the Organization's activities regarding Namibia would be incomplete without a reference at the same time to the contribution made by my Government this year to the United Nations Fund for Namibia, which reaffmns our interest in helping, to the best of our ability, to alleviate the situation of the Namibian nation resulting from the illegal presence of South Africa in the Territory. 14. In that context, we wish also to express once again our support of the United Nations Institute for Namibia as well as our appreciation of the work of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the United Nations Council for Namibia. We are happy to note that the last-named body continued its important work in the course ofthe past year, notably through repeated contacts with a number of intergovernmental organizations and with the specialized 15. At the beginning of my statement I mentioned the effects which we believe the situation in Namibia might have on the maintenance of international peace arid security. I: would emphasize yet again that Namibia is not an isolated area of tension but, together with the question of Southern Rhodesia and the problem of apartheid in South Afric~ forms part of a regional conflict which, because of the magnitbde of the interests involved, threatens to make its repercussions felt beyond southern Mrica. 16. In the light of ibis depressing picture, the situation in Namibia calls for prompt settlement. The General Assem- bly, I ~ust emphasize, is coming to the end of its imaginative ability to sugg~stpractical measures that should be adopted by either South Africa or the States Members of this Organization in order to solve the problem. : 17. Therefore, it is now for the Security Council, the only organ which is constitutionally empowered to ensure the implementation of the decisions of this Organization, to adopt the specific measures necessary to achieve the implementation of the resolutions concerned, in particular " Security Council resOlution 385 (1976)-in other words, to . ensure the end ofthe illegal occupation of Namibia and the free exercise bf its people of its inaIienable right to self-determination and independence. . 18. In conclusion, I should like very brieflyto refer to one aspect of the problem which is ofspecial importance to the Argentine Government and people. 19. The Argentine Republic's identification with the struggle against colonialism and racial discrimination is crystal-clear and there is no need to reaffmn it here. Nor is it necessary for me to repeat our unwavering support of t};1e Mrican peoples in their struggle to achieve independence and to eliminate apartheid. Argentina has steod shoulder to shoulder with Africa from the very beginning, and our stand in this respect during the course of the 32 years· during which we have been Members of the United Nations has been active and clear. 2D. Our stand has not been fortuitous. In tlle flIst place, it was born of our identification as a people that seized the flIst opportunity to rebel against colonial domination, with all those who are or were recently the victims ofpillage and oppression. 21. Secondly, we share with a large section of the African continent the important maritime highway of the Atlantic Ocean. That sea, which at one time might have appeared as an insuperable barrier between our two continents, is now, as a result of scientific and technical progress and the parallel increase in communications, a means to increasing closeness and interdependence. 22. Therefore, my country has an undeniable and legiti- mate· interest in following closely the development of - ,.:--0' "~:,- "::,,,,"'~~personalities from SWAP9, and we have been able to 23. All these factors help to explain why we place such reaffrrm tQ them uur commitment of support, morally, emphasis.onrthe,.need ip fmd a peaceful and negotiated materially and politically. On behalf of Guyana, I today solution to'the problem orNamibi~·-a solutiontl?~t would reaffrrm that our support will continue until fmal victory is allow the Namibian -nation to choose its £>wn -d~stiny.,. won. without foreign -interference of any kirid. ,We know that furthennore, such a solution would meet the desires of the international community and, more sp£~ifjcallY~ th()~~_q( the African States. .' .c~. >' • :< 24. Mr: JACK.SON(Guyana): cIt was during the month of October 11 year~ ago that the General Assembly took the authoritative ..and momentous decision to tenninate the .. Mandat~ofcSQuth~rlca over Namibia, then called South '.~ Wesf, Africa' [reiolution 2145(XXl)J-~, The" ~~bly assumed direct reSponsibility for the Territory aric:l ~fmned ·.~·-·thatNamibia had an internatiomu stams which should be ..-- maintained '~ntil fudependence. " .25. A few. months later, in May 1967, the Assembly, ~eeting in special session, agreed upon modalities through which the United Nations cOuld. discharge;- its responsi- .- . bilities mrelation to Namibia and assist its people to attain - independence by 1968 [resolution 2248 (S-V)J. The suc- 'cessful exercise of that legal responsibility by the United .' N~~ions was,-however, premised upon an important con- sideration. This was the compliance by the authQrities in South Africa with the prescriptions of the General Assem- bly and its co-operation for the transfer of the adminis- tration of the Territory to the United Nations Council for . Namibia appointed by the Assembly.. -- .26•. The response given then by SJ'!I!h Africa is a matter of public record. It was predictably defiant~ For nothing in South Africa's behaviour since 1946, when this question was first discussed by the General Assembly:-,had given _ much hope that the white minority regimeW~.~reto!:ia w~s . - "-about {<f'place the interests of the people 'of Namibia above its own pursuit of domination and exploitation.- 27. Since 1967 the question of Namibia has engaged the " concerned attention' of the General-AsserrlblY through the . activities of the CouncU for Namibill~_.ihe.:,"Spe.e.@ _Com- . mitfee on decolonization' and the Fo~rth CQmmitt~e; and the Security Council, in the discharge of its primary responsibility for international peace and security, has on many occasions deliberated on the situation in the Terri- tory and on its future. 28. It is indeed a'sad'-commentary that for 11 years the United Nations has been unable to secure South Africa's withdrawal from Namibia. But the situation· has not remained static. 29. Launching their anned struggle in 1967, when other methods failed, the people ofNamibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, their authentic representative, have waged an 30. Nor indeed has the United Nations been inactive. The Council for Namibia has, it is true, been unable to proceed to Namibia to accomplish the wide-ranging mandate given it by the General Assembly in resolution 2248 (8-V). But over the years, through a series of programmes authorized by this Assembly, the Council for Namibia has sought reso- lutely to advance the cause of Namibian independence through diplomatic and political activities. The Special Committee, also, has never neglected its responsibilities in this regard. The record of the Security Cc•.mcil has, however, been somewhat varied on the question of Namibia. In resolutions adopted in 1969-'-resolutions 264 (1969) and 269 {l969)-the Security Council called for the immediate withdrawal of the South African administra- tion from Namibia and decided that in the event of non-compliance by South Africa the Council would meet immediately to detennine effective steps or measures in confonnity with the relevant provisions of the Charter. Further, in 1972, at its historic meetings in Addis Ababa, the Security Council once again called upon South Mrica to effect an immediate withdrawal from Namibia and again decided that, in the event of failu,re on the part of South Mrica to comply with the provisions of resolution 310 (1972), the Council: ".•• shall meet immediately to decide upon effective steps or measures, in accordance with the relevant Chapters of the Charter, to secure the full and speedy implementation of t4e present resolution". 31. In spite of South Africa's continued defIance of the Security Council, those promised effective steps or meas- ures have not been taken. And when proposals were put to the Councilfor a mandatory anns embargo against South Africa they attracted the negative votes of the Western permanent members: Thus it is clear that the Security Council has-frequently held back from crossing the thresh- old of deCIsIVe action. It has, however, contributed in some w~ys to the objectives of this Assembly in relation to Namibia through its two recent unanimously adopted resolutions, rerolutions 366 (1974) and 385 (1976). 32. Earlier I alluded to the cunduct of South Mrica as regards Namibia from 1946 until 1967. But the record of that country since the latter date has been, if anything, '. :W9rse. It- is .~re~ord of callous contempt for this Organiza- tion and.ifs.decisions;it is-a record which bear~ witness to the consolidation of apartheid and its derivative, the bantustan, in Namibia; it is a record which bears witness to the intensification of violence, through .brutal repression, against the people of Namibia; and it is a record which 35. The geopolitical situation in southern Africa has undergone dramatic changes. Within South Africa itself, the clamour for the restoration of fundamental human rights is ringing with incessant clarity. The youths of Soweto, linked - in common cause with the oppressed majority throughout South Africa, are asserting with words and with their lives their determination to dismantle the apartheid struc- ture-that symbol of white domination-and make freedom reign throughout the length and breadth of that unhappy land. Thus the battle for freedom in southern Africa is being waged eve:l in South· Africa itself, the epicentre of racism in the south of the African continent. 36. It is therefore timely that this year the question of Namibia should receive full consideration in the plenary meetings of the General Assembly. For it is fitting that after 11 years, the General Assembly should in such a session analyse the present situation, assess the correlation of forces in favour of the Namibian struggle and, in asserting its authority, take such decisions and make such recommendations as would assist the people of Namibia in the early attainment of their long-denied freedom and independence. 37. What is· clear is that we must not harbour an illusion that the minority regime in Pretoria will have a so-called "change of heart". For racists never undergo self-induced change. History has attested to this verity no less within societies than in relations which extend beyond national bounda,ries. l110se who practise racism have to be presured into accommodating to change. There is no iota of evidence to encourage a belief-nay a hope-that the white racists instal}ed in Pretoria are, or wnI be, different. On the contrary. The minority regime in South Africa understands one thing about international action; and that is pressure. That regime is constant in that appreciation. 38. Not unexpectedly, the armed struggle of SWAPO has been intensified and the resistance of the people of Namibia 39. In this regard my delegation has followed with irltense interest the initiatives which have been taken over the last few months by five major Western countries-Canada, France, the Federal Republic· of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States oCAmerica-to fmd an internationally acceptable solution to the question of Namibia. We have done so because we are convinced that, because they are ~ivotal and essential trading partners of South Africa, as well as for other reasons, those States have a capacity to influence the regime in South Africa to heed the legible signs of defeat. For those fIVe States have at their disposal, individually and collectively, appropriate means which can at least lead the racists in Pretoria to the realization that they cannot for long survive in Namibia if those States act vn a decision that the game is over. 40. The ascertainable results of those initiatives have not, I believe, reached a sufficiently mature stage to merit discussion. The process is ongoing. It is my delegation's understanding that the current talks between the fIVe and Pretoria are being conducted within the framework of Security Council resolution 385 (1976); and, we assume, they take account of the. corpus of United Nations resolutions, including General Assembly resolutions 2145 (XXI) and 2248 (8-V), which antedate Security Coun- cil reoortltion 385 (1976). This is important, since the States involved are at present members of the Security Council, for in so far as the maintenance of ~ternational peace and security is concerned, that organ of the United' Nations has primary responsibility under the Charter. Thus it is of extraordinary importance that the five Western . coumries now engaged in dialogue with the Pretoria regime, should, in their talks, neither lose sight of, nor allow confusion to arise over, the respective roles of the Council for Namibia, the General Assembly and the Security Council in the implementation of measures which the United Nations as a whole could adopt to hasten the independence of Namibia in and of itseif. Specifically, the position of the United Nations in international law cannot be compromised. 41. If and when firm proposals resulting from those initiatives are brought' to the United Nations, Guyana will make its position clear. In arriving ~t our determination we wnI, of course, take fully into account the wishes of the people of Namibia as expressed by SWAPO, their legitimate representative. We wnI also rem:dn acutely sensitive to the positions expressed by those who speak on behalf of Africa. 42. If on the other hand those initiatives come to naught-though we hope they will not-those fIve Western States carry with them a clear, defmable obligation. It is their unavoidable obligation to lend their positive support to the adoption by the appropriate organs of the United Nations of effective measures designed to achieve the objectives that those States have sought to realize through their joint private efforts. In this respect there can be no reluctance to impose mandatory sanctions against South Africa in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of. the Charter. 44. Today we are at a stage where the armed struggle daily presses upon the illegal occupier of Namibia. Within the Territory, the people aCting under the guidance of SWAPO render the oppressive racist superstructure less and less secure. The Turnhalle escapade, which was nothing but a sh&.i.'11, is over; and Pretoria recognizes it. The marching forces of liberation are in sight of victory in Namibia. The overwhelming majority of the world's peoples is striding with the people of Namibia. Let not this Gen~ral Assembly waver in its footsteps; let it not flinch from its responsi- bilities.

As a neighbour of and friend to the people of Namibia, a people struggling for freedom and iadependence, Botswana fmds it gratifying to contribute to the discussion on Namibia by speaking of practical problems of transition, in addition to expounding, as we have so often done in the past, principles on which South Africa has consistently, as the Americans would put it, "stonewalled". 46. We may, at this stage in tl:.e unfolding Namibian situation, cautiously observe that the efforts of many people inside and outside Namibia may imally bear fruit. I deeply hope that my speech next year will be one of welcome to an independent Namibia on its entry into the United Nations family. The expression of such hopes n-.Jght have sounded vain and wishful a few months ago. Recent events, however, prQvide a sense of promise, if we assume goodwill on all sides, that a solution may, at last, be reached. 47. We are conscious of the fact that the obstacles between the present situation and the future goal are multiple, tenacious and diftlcult of resolution. Literally and figuratively we are still a long way from home base. Before enumerating the obstacles and my hopes about how they might be tackled I wish to express my country's apprecia- tion to those who in the past year have played important roles in the search for solutions. At the Maputo Conference last May the international community closely considered both the issues and the strategies of the Namibia and Zimbabwe struggles. 1 The August meeting in Lagos on apartheid emphasized further the need to solve problems in the minority-ruled countries of southern Africa.2 The Couijcil for Namibia has worked tirelessly on its formidable and often frustrating task of making recommendations to, and implementing the resolutions of, our Organization. 48. The Council, exercising its legal authodty, has con- tinued its active vigil as the champion of independent r~aching a negotiated settlement leading to self-determi- nation and independence for Namibia. I repeat those sentiments today. 50. The leading role in the Namibia struggle throughout has of cqurse been played by SWAPO, the legitimate representative of the people of that Territory. SWAPO has kept the cause of the liberation of the people of Namibia before the world and has effectively increased its political and military support both inside and outside the country. It is highly doubtful whether without SWAPO the negotia- tions now under way would have been undertaken. The people of Namibia continue to look to SWAPO to achieve an acceptable settlement to enable them to exercise their right to self-detennination. We unreservedly support these efforts. 51. The present discussions and negotiations regardi'ng Namibia are, like all negotiations, an effort to establish the processes by which principles can be translated into reality. The guiding principles have been well established over the years and summarized in Security Council resolution 385 (1976). If those principles are to be put into practice, compromises of timing, numbers and even forms of organization may be called for on all sides. Such adjUst- ments must not, however, compromise principles. As we reflect on the efforts to put into. effect the principles we have all sUpported for Namibia it may be worth while to recall that those principles include: the withdrawal of South African occupying military forces; the release and return of detainees and political prisoners; freedom of political activity and the holding of fair and free elections; and the unitary statehood of Namibia. 52. The international community has consistently ob- served that open political campaigning and free elections cannot be carried out in an atmosphere where there is fear of intimidation from any quarter. Military forces recently in combat are likely to generate such fears. While it is understandable that either side in an armed conflict may t>e reluctant to entrust security to its opponent, the installa- tion of a United Nations peace-keeping force simulta- neously with rapid South African troop witb.drawals should allay such anxieties. Botswana believes that both sides ·will acknowledge the need to ensure security for all Namibians and the desirability of the containment ofarmed forces and the rapid withdrawal of South African occupying forces, along with the phasing-in of a peace-keeping force under the supervision of the United Nations and the ultimate creation of a Namibian national army. 53. We uige the prompt releas~ of all Namibian detainees and political prisoners. They should be assured of safe return to Namibia along with Namibian refugees now living. in many countries. We would also support a call for a general amnesty that would make it possible for all to 5 7 It would appear that, with one caveat, the principle of the territorial integrity of Namibia will be observed. The glaring exception is South Africa's claim to Walvis Bay. Botswana has first-hand experience of the impracticability of main taining a foreign presence in a country. The pre-independence decision to move our capital from Mafeking in South Africa to Gaberones in Botswana was prompted by the desire to avoid the tensions and friction which can only result from the existence of a foreign enclave within the boundaries of a country. The experience of India with Portuguese Goa is too recent to be forgotten. 56. Politically, economically, logistically and culturally, Walvis Bay is an integral part of Namibia. The Territory has been governed as such for almost 60 years. Powers relating to legislation, elected representation, the judiciary, taxes and customs revenue have been vested in the South West African authorities. It would, in our view, therefore appear to be an act of both spite and petulance for South Africa to press this claim on the eve of Namibia's independence. 57. To facilitate the early transition of Namibia to independence it is vital that a representative of the United Nations Secretary-General should be appointed soon and that his powers and tenns of reference should be clearly defmed. It is to be hoped that the Administrator-General recently appointed by South Africa will work co-opera· tively under the authority of the United Nations represen- tative to facilitate the transitional arrangements. 58. As the situation in Namibia develops it may be desirable to revise the roles and functions of the United Nations bodies established 10 or so years ago to deal with circumstances which may now be markedly different. 59. The problem of Namibia has been with us too long. Namibia, a Trust Territory, could have gained its indepen- dence before some of our independent States, and certainly long before bogus independence was contemplated for the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, but for South Africa's defiance of United Nations resolutions. We urge this comity of nations to do all in its power to induce South Africa to terminate its occupation of that Territory and enable the people of Namibia to exercise their right to self·determi- nation and independence.

The fact that our Assembly is considering the question of Namibia as a matter of priority indicates how strongly the international community feels about the pennanent chal· 62. There could be no better place to echo the concerns expressed by the African States than this Assembly, which, in its resolution 2145 (XXI), 11 years ago put an end to South Africa's Mandate. 63. The authority of our Organization has been flouted all too often by South Africa for us to be satisfied any longer with half-measures and protestations of good faith. The need for firm and resolute action capable of putting an end to the intolerable situation prevailing in Namibia is today recognized and accepted by everyone. 64. We must unanimously and vigorously denounce a regime which responds to the numerous behests of the Security Council by extending the policy of apartheid and homelands to Namibia. We must condemn the methods practised by the illegal administration of Mr. Vorster's Government, which is imprisoning and torturing men and women, making large-scale transfers of population m;d stopping at no atrocity in its efforts to perpetuate Its exploitation of the people and the natural resources of the Territory. The acts of aggression against the Namibian people committed in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and of the Charter of the United Nations are repugnant to the world's conscience. 65. In these circumstances, we must express our disap- proval of any ambiguous attitude on the part of those who, defying world public opinion, continue to maintain normal and even cordial relations with this minority regime. We vigorously denounce and condemn the activities of all foreign companies operating in Namibia which are ex- ploiting the human and natural resources of that Territory. We consider that those activities constitute an obstacle to the granting of independence to the Namibian people and are designed to guarantee the perpetuation of South Africa's domination over that people. 66. Such activities are unacceptable. They must be de- nounced with increased vigour, especially in the military and nuclear spheres, in view of the potential dangers to which any foreign collaboration with Pretoria gives rise. Indeed, the massive strengthening of the South African anned forces and the fact that the Pretoria administration is increasingly resorting to intimidation and force against neighbouring African States already represent a serious tlueat to international peace and security. It is therefore of the greatest importance that all States should renounce all fonns of military collaboration, direct or indirect, with South Africa. 67. Although the dangers are increasing and they are confronted with brute force, the valiant people of Namibia 68. The policy of evasion practised by the South African regime, which is aimerl at dividing the Namibian people in order the be~ter to subject it to the will of the white minority, only re~,ults in a further deterioration of an already explosive nituation and in postponing the chances for a peaceful settlement of the conflict 69. The leaders of the Namibian people have nevertheles3 on many occasions reiterated their complete willingness to engage in serious negotiations aimed at avoiding bloodshed. 70. They rightly believe that those negotiations, to be u~!id and effective, must take place within the framework of the relevant r?solutions of the United Nations and the OAD. 71. It if; incumbent upon those who argue for th(l need to maintain relations with South Africa in orc:1er to brtl1g it to its senses and to assume their responsibilities. If only they had the will, they could by the numerous means at their ';isposal (untribute to real pIOgres~ ~'}wards the satisfaction of the le6itimate claims of the Namibian people. 72. W,' arc! convinced that resolute action relying on concertt- d mternational pressure and unhampered by par- ticular considerations or short-tenn economic interests would be capable of furthering the establishment of harmony and justice in southern Africa. 73. If, on the other hand, this solidarity for which we are ardently appealing should once again prove to be lacking and the present impasse should continue, we fear a serious and lasting threat to international peace and security. 74. In this connexion the initiative taken by the five Western members of the Security Council of our Organiza- tion can and must lead to a peaceful solution of the conflict. The achievement of independence and the exercise by the Namibian people of its right to self-detennination necessarily imply the complete and unconditional with- drawal of the South African troops and respect for the territorial integrity of Namibia. Furthennore, there C2nnot be free consultation of the population of the Territory without the liberation of the political prisoners. ~imilar1y, there cannot be serious guarantees v,rithout the effective participation of the United Nations in all stages of the process leading to the effective liberation of the Territory. 75. Of course, we know that, whatever the South African Government does, Namibia will inevitably win back its freedom; however, no effort should be spared in order to prevent pointless suffering. In this regard we must pay a tribute to SWAPO, the worthy representative of the Namibian people, for having given a negotiated settlement of the conflict every chance of success. 76. It is now incumbent on South Africa's friends to bring it to accept the inevitable: the freedom of the Namibian people.

The United Arab Emirates has since its independence followed with deep concern the developments in South Africa, Rhodesia and Namibia. We strongly condemned the policy of apartheid anJ bantlstanization practised by the racist Government of South Africa. 79. Many words have been sp.oken and many vo~maes written on Namibia in and outside this body. General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) clearly proclaimed the inalienable right of the NamiMan peopfe to freedom and mdependence. 80. The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in June 1971 made-It quite clear: "... that the ... presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africd is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory".3 81. General Assembly 1."30Iution 3399 (XXX) of Novem- ber 1975 urged the Security Council to take up the question of Namibia. The Security Council met ai"ld adopted resolution 385 (1976) by which it, inter alia, demanded that South Africa agree to hold free elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control. 82. But again South Africa did not comply with the tenns of resolution 385 (197~). On 19 October 1976 the Security Council considered a seven-Power draft resolution4 calling for, inter alia, a complete and mandatory anns embargo on South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Unfortunately, the resolution was not adopted because of the negative vote by three pennanent members of the Security Council. 83. In the meantime, the South African administration in Namibia made the task of the United Nations Council for Namibia very difficult. The Council has been unable to exercise its responsibility for the administration of Namibia, because of the refusal by the Government of South Africa to withdraw its illegal <:dministration from Namibia, in compliance with the repeated resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. 84. However, there is :l glimpse of hope for Namibia as a result of the recent invc .vement of the five Western members of the Security Council, who met with South African officials in Cape Town, on 22 April 1977, and expressed their disapproval of the Namibian independence plans under the proposed Turnhalle constitutional solutions 88. In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm that the United Arab Emirates will continue its material and moral support to African liberation movements until they restore the dignity of their peoples and recover their people's sover- eignty over their mitional soil.

With regard to item 91 concerning the question of Namibia, the statement of the delegation of Venezuela will be very short. We only intend to repeat our firm conviction that the delay in reaching a fmal solution on this question seriously jeopardizes the prestige and effectiveness of the Organization. 90. In parliamentary diplomacy, and this <,>f course is a truism, patience and understanding are tools of known value; but recognition of this fact does not/mean that those qualities can be taken to mean tolerance.and complicity. 91. With respect to the problem of Namibia the immense majority of States Members have already passed judgement on the situation in all -its aspects and implications. The tangible and intangible factors at play are clear to all. We may have failed, not in the analysis. of our ability to act, but in our analysis of the features of the international community's machinery for action to solve the problem. 93. We have all the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and its organs, by t.lte Security Council, and by the International Court of Justicp itst.if. For years they have stood as repetitions of the same conclusions and they all contain the following elements: that the Namibians have an inalienable right to self-determination and independence; that the administration of the Territory legally belongs with the United Nations; that the occupation by South Africa of Namibia is illegal and constitutes an act of aggression; that the true representative of the population is SWAPO; there are energetic denunciations of the regime of South Africa, innumerable exhortations and appeals to States to cut off the different forms of co-operation with South Africa that have allowed it and still allow it to continue its illegal oc~upation of the Territory; and there is a condemnation of South Africa for all its legislative, administrative and economic cctivities linked with that occupation, and the requirement is made that it cease to apply the laws and rules concerned. And we also have the Securit) Council's offer, decided upon in accordance with the terms of resolution 385 (1976), to meet, if South Africa does not fulfd the provisions of that resolution, "for the purpose of considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter of the United Nations". 94. On 14 March of this year the Special Committee adopted a consensus that has already been put before"the Security Council for its consideration which denounces the regime of South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia, its outright violation of its obligations under the Charter, its attempt to perpetuate its domination over the Namibian people by creating an atmosphere of terror and intimidation, and by employing tactics which have as their objective to destroy the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia and deny the aspirations of its people {see A/32/23/Rev.l, chap. VIII, para. 12 (l)J. 95. The true representative of that people, SWAPO, has set forth six prior conditions which require our express support: that South Africa publicly accept the right of the people of Namibia to mdependence and national sover- eignty; that it recognize that the territorial integrity of Namibia is absolute and non-negotiable; that it grrdllt freedom to political prisoners and allow political exiles to return home with guarantees that they will not be detained or intimidated; that it withdraw its military and paramili- tary forces; that it abstain from continuing to use the Territory 8.S a base for committing acts of aggression against the neighbouring independent African States; and that any constitutional talks on Namibia be supervised by the United Nations and that their purpose be the holding of free elections also under the supervision and control of the United Nations. 96. The report of the United Nations Council on Namibia contains among the recommendations it has submitted for the consideration of the General Assembly, a draft.text dealing w!~h the situation prevailing in Namibia as a 98. The position of Venezuela on this subject has been very clearly defmed in the past. We were present recently at the International Conference in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia, held in Maputo, and the World Conference for Action against Apartheid held in Lagos. Our presence at both those meetings attests to our true interest and concern over the problems of southern Africa which, doubtless, constitute an imminent threat to international peace and security. The Head of Venezuela's Government addressed a message to the Lagos Conference expressing, on behalf of the Venezuelan people, active solidarity with the objectives and purposes of that Conference. mal~volent enemy, threatens our territorial integrity and our internal security. The South African mnitary base at Grootfontein·in the north of Namibia is a source of terror for the security of the whole ofsouthern Africa. Moreover, the Fretoria regime keeps over 40,000 South African troops in Namibia, almost one to every two whites. South African troops, tanks, guns and mortars daily threaten our civilian population in the southern part ofAngola. 99. In Maputo, the delegation of Venezuela recognized the profound significance the Conference had for the achieve- ment of the aspir.ations of the peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia and spoke out in favour of the adoption of new measures to strengthen the struggle against colonialism. 100. This very brief glance at the evolution of the problem, together with the fact that all approaches, both regional and global, are converging together must convince us that the responsibility now lies primarily with that organ that is called upon to ensure rapid and effective action on the part of the United Nations. There are grounds for thinking that the international community is now deter- mined to adopt more realistic and effective measures to solve the problem of Namibia. 101. Be that as it may, as far as Venezuela itself is concerned, by reason of our responsibilities and our commitments as a Member of the Organization, the Foreign Minister of my country has unequivocally stated that in the Security Council Venezuela will do what is necessary to ensure that Namibia obtains its independence in accordance with United Nations decisions.

As I stand here to address this gathering, it would appear as if history were repeating itself, as if I were pleading the case of my country, Angola, before the world community. Of course, it is no longer so, and the People's Republic of Angola is a sovereign independent State. However, our comrades, our close neighbours, are still suffering through this treacherous period, and I want to assure them, on behalf of my Government, the Centra! Committee of the Movimento Popular de Liberta~ao de Angola, and all our revolutionary militants in the People's Republic of Angola, that we view the situation in Namibia with as much concern, worry, interest and dedication as we would in our own country. Angola has played a pivotal role in the liberation movement of the African continent, particularly in the southern part. We are proud to have spearheaded the struggle against colonialism and imperialism in our part of the world. Mindful of our role, we do not shirk our responsibilities in so far as they relate to our comrades in all of southern Africa, especially Namibia. • 104. The brutalities perpetrated by the racist regime have caused large numbers of Namibians to flee their homeland and seek refuge and a haven in Angola. We are happy that in these difficult times Angola can be of some service to them. However, that situation would not have arisen if those people had felt safe in their homes and property. The status of refugee is, at best, degradmg, and only the most extreme circumstances force one to flee. 105. Let me state here and now that in this debate on the question of Namibia, we do not hold any mandate for the people of Namibia. Only SWAPO, the only recognized, authentic and legitimate repnsentative of the people of Namibia, has the authority to speak on behalf of the Namibian people, to negotiate, to debate, to answer and to accept. We in our posit~O.l.Jl as friends, neighbours and fellow revolutionaries in the common struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism and apartheid~ as a people whose memory is still full of our own liberation struggle, at: '1 nation whose life is not yet entirely free of the dangers posed by external invasion and by internal subver- sion plotted and planned by reactionary forces aligned with imperialist Powers and their lackeys, we, for all these reasons, and many others that have to do with our historial and fraternal ties, stand ready to defend the people of Namibia, to support them, to fight side by side with them and to rejoice with them in the attainment of their independence.. 106. The West has long dealt with the stn:ggles ofthe peoples of the third world, whether political, economic Or social, as Uquestions"-as witness even the topic of today's debate. What "the question of Namibia" is to the ex-colo- nialist and neo-colonialist Powers who have so long ruled the world is to the African people of Namibia a matter of survival itself, of their existence as a nation, of their right to live in independence and sovereignty. These "questions" are an eloquent testimonial to the arrogance of the West at its worst-whether it be the French mission civilizatrice in Indo-China, the British Empire on which the sun never set, or the modern UniL,d States empire of transnationals or conglomerates. When a black son ofAfrica is gunned down like an animal in the Sowetos that dot the face of s-outhern 107. Until fairly recently, some Westein Powers have been the key nations in rejecting United Nations resolutions aimed at putting arms or tiade embargoes into effect against South Aerica. Pretoria has ruled the Territory and nation of Namibia under a 1920 Mandate from the League of Nations, which was revoked by the United Nations. But Pretoria refuses to give up its empire. After grudgingly agreeing to grant Namibia independence by 31 December 1978 it attempted to install a puppet regime in Windhoek, through a System of bantustans, which would remain totally subservient to Pretoria and be an extension of that minority racist regime. 112. Another area in which ~retoria displays its imperi- alistic designs is with regard to Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay is an integral part of the Territory of Namibia, despite the arguments advanced by Pretoria to the effect that it did not come under the original Mandate. If we followed that argument, the map of the third world would be totally changed .today to accommodate every whim and fancy, often clothed in legal phraseology, of the imperial and colonbl Powers. No one can allow a colonialist enclave right in the middle of the Namibian coastline, ever a threat to the sovereignty of the State ofNamibia. 109. The tribulations being faced by the people of Namibia and certainly by SWAPO are common knowledge; however, for those who do not know the full extent of the crimes being perpetrated against the Namibian people, let me briefly enumerate them. In Namibia, 44 per cent of the total land has been reserved for whites, who fonn ap- proximately 10 per cent of the population. Two million carats of diamonds are mined per annum through a concession owned by the giant Angle-American Corpora- tion: 90 per cent ofthose are ofgem quality; 49 per cent of the income goes to the South African Government under the Precious Stones Act; native sons make $300 per year, while the whites ma..1(e more than $5,000 per year. Non-whites are required to live in segregated townships outside the "white" cities, or on tribal homelands; no blacks are allowed to own businesses. The Pretoria reginle is hurriedly desegregating lavatories and night-clubs-what a mockery ofjustice,equaiity and humanity! This year, the Government has allowed members of any race to buy farmland in a "whites only" sector. Namibia is rich in uranium, which fuels the apartheid system and its imperial masters in the industrialized West, while Nainibian children walk around with "bellies swollen by malnutrition. The racist regime in Pretoria continues to build and expand its nuclear capability, arousing only feeble responses from those Powers who need nuclear raw materials; that is a fact. 108. It is not for Vorster to "grant" independence and sovereignty to the Namibian people; that is their inalienable right. It is not for Vorster to "offer" t~rms; it is for him to accept them. It is he and his Fascist cohorts who are the intruders in Namibia. It is they who,must accept Namibian terms. 110. The five Western members of t,he Security Council, all "of them strong nuclear Powers and all of them with strong and flourishing links with the South African economy, are carrying out a sort of peace plan for Namibia. Actually, SQuth Africa is using this as a delaying tactic to the advantage of both sides. A peaceful transition in 111. There are countless issues yet to be settled-the withdrawal of all South African troops from Namiblan soil, the freeing of political prisoners, elections, cease-fue, and so on. But those are issues that only the Namibian people can settle through their representative, SWAPO. The Western Powers are trying to make their arrangements for Namibia more palatable, more acceptable to the world (ommunity. Why is that? Those arrangements have only to b~ acceptable to the people of Namibia, to SWAPO, and they will be automatically acceptable to all ofus. • 113. We have already heard the representative of SWAPO speak {35th meeting]. He has stated the position of the Namibian people. The position of the Namibian people regarding their independence is fully endorsed and sup- ported by us. We further support the SWAPO request for a special session on Namibia as soon as it becomes necessary; we endorse their demand that South Africa should make reparation to Namibia for the damage caused by its illegal occupation and aggression since the termination of the Mandate; and we fully support the SWAPO request that all States Members of the United Nations should refrain from recognizing or co-operating with any regime that South Africa may impose upon the Namibian people. On our part, we can continue to mobilize all our resources to back that . people with whatever help they may need, in whatever form. If-Pretoria insists on making a mockery of the ballot, then perhaps the bullet is the only way. Freedom won through t..h.e ,barrel of a gun is a heavy price indeed, and we know it. The victims are on both sides, but if that is the only way to achieve independence, npne of us has ever hesitated" The struggle continues. Victory is certain.

Mr. President, please permit me to join other speakers before me in extending to you my warmest congratulations on your election as President of the thirty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly. I am confident that your varied experience and your rich wisdom will prove an asset in our deliberations on this all important question ofNamibia. 115. Exactly two years ago during a debate in the Security Council on the question of Namibia, we underlined our 116. It was not long before we were proved right, as was clearly evident in the political manoeuvres that charac- terized the proceedings of the Tumhalle Conference, which was set up to give legality to the imposition of a puppet government in Windhoek. Th~s largely to diplomatic and international pressure the Conference was adjourned by the racists, who then proceeded to act in the worst demonstra- tion of international brigandage in recent history, by annexing Walvis Bay. 117. Walvis Bay is the largest port in Namibia and is the centre of the fishing industry as well as the home of some of the non-white majority inhabitants of the Territory. The annexation by the Pretoria regime even overrode the decision taken at the so-called Tumhalle Conference by the racists' own hand-picked representatives to the effect that the question of the future status of Walvis Bay would -be among the matters negotiated between the Conference and South Africa prior to the establishment of an interim government, and ignored the demand of the non-white populations represented by SWAPO, that WdvisBay be recognized as an integral part of the Territory. That is not even all. The annexation is a distinct set-back to the Western initiative for resolving the question of Namibia, and this in effect reinforces our earlier scepticism that the racists are certainly not prepared to tenninate their illegal occupation of the whole Territory. That act, in the view of my delegation is, in the mildest terms, an insult to our noble Organization and an affront to the international community. 118. For our part, we would certainly not acquiesce in any diminution of the sovereignty of the Namibian people over the entire Territory. And since sovereignty, self- determination and independence constitute an integral part of the habiliments of any civilized society, we reaffinn our pledge of total support to the people of Namibia in their legitimate and relentless struggle to free their country from all vestiges of colonialism and, in this instance, to bring about the unconditional reintegration of Walvis Bay into the Territory as part of an indivisible and united Namibia. 119. Meanwhile, our Organization watches helplessly, as it were, while South Africa commits such blatant violation of the territorial integrity of a State for which the United Nations has exclusive responsibility. That, by itself, is only one of the ignoble deeds perpetrated by the Pretoria regime in the Territory. There is now abundant evidence of 120. The African population has also been subjected to new draconian laws under so-called emergency regulations. Those repressive laws could, among other things, make any African liable to arbitrary arrest, interrogation and to indefmite detention without trial; ban all public meetings and boycotts; empower the racist gangsters masquerading as law enforcement agents to remove an entire community pennanently from a given area and to take punitive action against anyone refusing to comply; authorize the South African Minister ofBantu Administration and Development and of Education to seal off any area in order for it to be systematically searched; and -defme failure to report the presence of nationalist fighters as a criminal offence punishable by arrest. without a warrant and indefmite detention without trial or access to legal counsel. Under those repressive laws, many Namibians are languishing in the racist gaols and subjected to such mental and physical torture the gravity and enonnity of which cannot be adequately described in words. 121. The intensification of the armed struggle in Namibia and the consequent uncertainty with regard to the future status of the Territory have led to a stampede in the indiscriminate exploitation of the exhaustible mineral and other resources of the Territory by Western economic interests working in close collaboration with the racist occupying administration. The interest of Namibia for South Africa and the international business community lies mainly in its known and potential mineral deposits. Namibia is the largest producer of gem diamonds in the world, an important source of copper, lead, zinc, lithium and potentially the largest producer of uranium in the world for the remainder of the century. 122. Capital mvested in the Territory by foreign interests has increased by more than 10 times since 1946, but that phenomenal increase has not benefited the majority African population. The racists continue to siphon considerable manpower from the agricultural sector on which the majority African population depends into the commercial and mining sectors where, in order to permit the companies involved to ma.'<e huge profits, the African workers are paid only subsistence wages. Not only are wages paid on the basis ofcolour-that is to say, on the basis of discrimination between whites and blacks-they are also paid on the basis of political orientation. Blacks who openly identify them- selves with the racist policies in the Territory get, in consequence, marginally higher wages than other blacks who do not. 124. The question that is easily identified on everybody's lips is whatcan the United Nations do. The United Nations, in my view, can do many things provided there is no lack of political will on the part of its Members. As for my country, Nigeria, we remain unconvinced that an incon- sequential Government like the one at present installed in Pretoria can, with such indescribable ease, defy the resolu- tions of this Assembly and the Security Council that comprises the world's greatest Powers. 125. In other words, we feel that the time has come to put an end to iliis hypocritical attitude on the part of some world Powers in handling the Namibian question if we are indeed to make progress in the matter. Tills can be done by replacing the invidious policy of sanctions-breaking with one of faithful and strict compliance with United Nations sanctions against the racists. They should lend their unqualified support to an intensification of the diplomatic isolation of the Pretoria regime and reverse their so-called 126. We would certainly not stand in the way of the current Western initiative or any other initiative that has the fmal objective of achieving a truly independent Namibia as long as such initiative is carried out within the ambit of the United Nations which remains~the legal authority in the Territory. 127. The Council of Ministers of the OAU during its deiIberations in Libreville last JU'le reaffirmed that any agreement negotiated to lead Namibia to genuine inde- pendence must be based on the following pre-conditions: f1ISt, withdrawal of.aIl the military and paramilitary forces of South Africa; second, unconditional release of all political prisoners and the return of all Namibians in exile; third, th~t any interim authority in the Territory "be of the United Nations Council for Namibia"; and, fourth, acces- sion of the Territory to independence within its present limits, including Walvis Bay [see A/32/3IO, annex l, CM/Res.551 (XXIX)]. 128. While my delegation hereby reaffirms without any reselVation. its endorsement of the position of the OAU, please permit me to say that Nigeria reselVes the right to take additional measures which in our considered judge- ment would accelerate the process of decolonization and bring about the emergence of genuine independence in the Territory. I should like to assure this Assembly that we believe that no sacrifice is too great and 'we consider- no measures too strong in our drive towards the fmal objective of freeing our kith and kin in Namibia. TIns is a responsibility which emanates from our own recent history and the facts of geography, and we certainly do not intend to shirk that responsibility. The meeting rose at 5.15 p.m.