A/32/PV.37 General Assembly

Before calling on the first speaker I should like to remind representatives that the list of speakers in the debate will be closed today at 12 noon. It will help if proposals on the item are submitted as soon as possible. If the such proposals have fmancial implications some time will be needed for the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee to submit their reports. May I therefore suggest that the time-limit for the submission of proposals be set for tomorrow, Thursday, 20 October, at 12 noon? If there is no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees with my suggestion.

In the summer ofl?\St year it became clear that the struggle of the Namibian people for freedom and independence had reached a decisive phase. The South West African People's Organization [SWAPO! had demonstrated that it commanded the support of the vast majority of the people. It had greatly mtensified the anned struggle in the most difficult circumstances. Indeed, it had thrown the South African forces in Namibia on the defensive and it had begun to establish liberated areas in the southern part of the country. 3. Thus in mid-1976 it was generally believed that Namibia would soon be free. The United Nations began preparations to establish a transitional administration in the Territory in the expectation that South Africa would see that its only real option was to withdraw. NEW YORK 4. South Africa, however. refused to leave Namibia. Despite the immense cost of mobilizing a large proportion of its ready manpower, it sent increasing numbers of regular anny, so-called "Citizen Force" and police units to Namibia. It launched a brutal 9Qunterinsurgency war against the civilian population of l~he country, and much of Namibia became a war zone, with the population being subjected to every known abuse and to mounting violence. 5. At that point it seemed clear that the United Nations had to act. The Organization is the legal authority in Namibia. The well-being of the Namibian people is, and has been since 1971, a United Nations responsibility. The South African .occupation, it was generally agreed, could not be tolerated any longer. South Africa's reign of terror in Namibia was an affront not only to civilized consciences but to international law as well. It ~~ defiance ofthe will of the Genera! Assembly. 6. The determination of many Member States to take action in the United Nation,; was made clear at that time. Those States, however, encountered one obstacle after another in their efforts to ensure that action would be taken. 7. A major diplomatic effort was then made by certain Powers to convince us that South Africa had formulated a plan to bring Namibia to independence. It was said that South Africa had in fact agreed to independence and majority rule and that it had accepted the Security Council's demands for concrete evidence that it was prepared to leave Namibia. We were presented with a plan according to which South Africa would appoint an interim Government in Namibia and later Ugrant" the country "independence". I put the word "grant" in quotation marks because I do not know what authority South Africa has to grant independence. A great deal was made of South Africa's so-called "reasonable" attitude and of its willing- ness to create a "multiracial" administration. 8. It was obvious to everybody, however, L;'at the famous Tumhalle plan' was merely another name for continued South African domination of Namibia. South Africa was to keep its troops in the country for an indeterminate period. Many crucial areas ofpower-foreign affairs, defence, police and so on-were to be retained by the South African Gov~rnment in the long transition to "independence". There was no certainty that any elections of any kind would be heid before then. The whole system of Govern- ment was ~o be based upon apartheid, upon the ethnic division of the population and the continued dominanca of the white community. 9. The Tumhalle plan, to put it simply, was a fraud. Its purpose was not to chart a course for freedom for the 10~ The plan was trundled out in an atmosphere of stark cynicism. It had so little substance to recommend it 'that one wondered why it had been intrQduced at all. The answer, of course, was that the illusion was useful at the moment. The presentation of the plan was clearly timed to confuse the situation and to avert Security Council action against South Africa. 11. As these facts became clear, members of the Security Council began to search for means to force an end to the illegal South Mdcan occupation. On 15 October last year Benin, Guyana, the Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania and the United Republic of Tan- zania-then members of the Security Council-introduced a draft resolutionl calling for an end to South Mrican rule and free elections under United Nations supervision and control. Citing Chapter VII of the Charter and fmding the war in Namibia a threat to international peace and security, they called for a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa and for the cessation of all forms of military collaboration with that country. The enactment ofsuch an embargo would have greatly increased the difficulties and risks for South Africa of pursuing its aggressive policies in Namibia. It would have been an important step in our efforts to isolate South Africa in the international com- munity and to force it to listen to reason. 12. However, three pe,imanent members of the Security Council vetoed the draft resolution, leaving the Security Council-and the United Nations-in the contradictory position of fmding South Africa in defiance of its resolu- tions and yet of doi'lg nothing about it. This was particularly striking as Security Council resolution 385 (1976) of January 1976 had been passed unanimously. 13. It must be said that the triple veto which was cast at the end of last year's Security Council debate cost the Namibian people dear. It provided a diplomatic screen behind which South Africa was able to pursu the war in Namibia more or less with impunity. It would not be tdO much to say that those vetoes cost the Namibian people many lives and much suffering. This is a responsibility of which the Security Council members concerned cannot fail to be aware. 14. The Security Council, in the view of my delegation, should have resumed the discussion of the Namibian question soon after the end of the thirty-frrst session of the General Assembly. The Council remained seized of the question after the vote, and there was a general under- standing that the matter would be taken up again quickly. It needed to be, for th~ war in Namibia continued. The 16. My delegation believes that the failure to do anything about the crisis in Namibia reflects badly upon all of us. However, it must be said that the principal responsibility for this long delay rests with those same Powers which cast their veto against the draft resolution calling for an anns embargo nearly a year ago. For those Powers, together with two other current members of the Security Council, have moved heaven and earth to secure this delay. 17. In the spring of this year they announced an "initia- tive" aimed at securing a "settlement" in Namibia indepen- dently of the Security Council and of SWAPO. They proposed to secure that settlement by entering directly into negotiations with the South Mrican Government. The representatives of the five Powers who launched that "initiative" claimed at the time that they wished to obtain South Africa's agreement that it would comply with the terms of Security Council resolution 385 (1976). They , wished to obtain an agreement, we were told, that South Africa would end the bantustan system, withdraw its forces from Namibia and ensure elections under United Nations supervision andtontrol. That seemed at the time rather like proposing to square the circle. However, the influence of the Powers in question is such that they succeeded in persuading many that they were sincere in their declared intentions to bring South Africa round and that they had a reasonable chance of success. And so the initiative was allowed to go ahead. 18. My delegation must emphasize at this time that that "initiative" was not authorized by the Security Council. It was undertaken by five of the Western Powers as an independent initiative. It is important to emphasize that fact because the effect of the "initiative" has been to bias the negotiations towards a "solution" which suits South Mrica. SWAPO has been prepared to negotiate with South Africa at any time and to seek a reasonable settlement. However, .SWAPO has always asked for the acceptance of certain legitimate and reasonable conditions as a prelude to negotiations. Those included the release of political pris- oners and the setting of a date for the withdrawal of South African forces. The recent Western "initiative" simply circumvented those conditions and therefcre gave South Africa much more freedom and bargaining power in -shaping the so-called settlement which has now emerged. 19. We have now seen several rounds of talks. In the most - recent of these, which took place only last month, South Mrica put forward its "last compromise offer". The "re~ults", the contents of these proposals, are exactly what one might have expected in the circumstances. South Africa has offered a "settlement" which does not begin to comply with the terms of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. Indeed, it does not even satisfy SWAPO's 21. The so-called fmal South African proposals appear to be the following. Fi"st, SWAPO is to accept a cease-fIre and to surrender its am~s. Secondly, some weeks after a cease-fue has taken effect, South Africa will begin a phased ''withdrawal'' of its forces from Namibia. Thirdly, South Africa will retain a large military force in the northern part of the country in order to "secure" the border with Angola. The number of South African forces to remain in the north is put at between 4~OOO and 10,000. Fourthly, additional "Namibian home arm::.:" forces under South African com- mand will also remain in the north. The number of these is put at between 15,000 and 20,000. Fifthly, the United Nations will establish a small force of "mllitary observers" in the country. These are to be armed with personal weapons only. Their number is put at between 1,000 and i 5,000. Sixthly, a special representative of the Secretary- General will go to Namibia with a staff of a mere few hundred in order to supervise elections. Finally, elections for a constituent assembly are to be held. South Africa wants these elections held within a very few months. 22. That ~ not a summary of details and is meant only to highlight what seems to be, according to the best informa- tion available, the main points which have been agreed upon in the negotiations conducted over the last six months. 23. One conclusion is clear immediately. This "settle- ment" ensures the continued occupation of Namibia by South African military forces. South Africa is proposing to maintain a very large force in Namibia. The fact that a part of this force might be composed of Namibians is of no significance if Namibian troops remain under South African command. 24. Beyond that, the mention of"Namibian" troops raises many questions. South Africa cannot create a "Namibian home army" in the country. The United Nations cannot recognize any S&ch army. Moreover, it is known that South Africa has been able to raise only a few battalions locally. There is great concern that most of the "Namibian home army" will consist of a large number of troops of the Uniao Nacional para a Independencia Total de Angola and, some people say, troops of the Frente Nacional para a Liberta~«o de Angola which South Africa has been training and using in Namibi~, both against the local population and against the population in southern Angola. It is known that at least 15,000 of these troops have<been operating in Namibia. "neutralize~' South Mrican forces: it calls for the with- drawal ofSouth African forces. 26. The South African proposals also fail to provide for an adequate United Nations civilian force. Three or four hundred administrators could do almost nothing to set up an administration in Namibia, much less to supervise and control an elaborate electoral process. In an election it would be necessary to have at least 1,000 polling pla~s in the country. It would therefore take at least 1,000 United Nations personnel just to watch the polling places. When one considers the complexity of the tasks which would have to be carried \Jut in a transition period it becomes clear that, at the very least, an administrative staff of 5,000 or 6,000 would be required tc set up l:m adequate administration. 27. The South African proposals are therefore not at all serious proposals. They provide simply another formula for the maintenance of the existing South Mrican administra- tion, with some reduction and redisposition of military forces. Nothing is said about the police. Anti it has apparently been assumed that the South African police will r~main, along with the administration. 28. It is not enough, however, to say that these proposals are inadequate, for they are far worse. What South Africa is actually proposing, and what certain Powers seem to be supporting, is that a constituent assembly should be elected in Namibia under the conditions which would prevail if these proposals were accepted. And that is a serious matter. For we can see that elections under the conditions proposed would be a travesty. When the Security Council called for elections under United Nations supervision and control it intended for those elections to be free and unfettered. By putting these proposals South Africa is asking that it. should be allowed, indeed that the United Nations should legitimize, elections in Namibia which would be completely unfree. 29. How can there be free elections with South African military forces still in place, with South Africa in control of central and local administration, with the courts still in the hands of South African officials, with South African police on duty, with communications and transport still in South African control and with a United Nations presence which would be little more than nominal? The answer is that there cannot be. South Africa knows that and those who support it know that. 30. We must ask, then, what the recent proposals amount to. The answer is not difficult to fmd. A year ago South 31. The present proposals solve cl! those problems; for South Africa proposes to go through the motions of holding an election; it proposes to go through the motions of accepting a United N~tions presence; and it proposes to go through the motions of allowing the Turnhalle group to compete against SWAPO in an election. In each case the new South African proposals reduce a provision ofSecurity Councn resolution 385 (1976) to a sham. That is what South Africa wants-a sham election, an election in which the Tumhalle group, which has already constituted itself as a political party and which has already been conducting an electoral campaign, can use the conditions created by a continued South African presence to beat SWAPO at the polls. 32. We are not suggesting that SWAPO should be unwilling to participate in elections. But it would be preposterous for SWAPO to agree to participate in the kind of election which is now being proposed. Such elections would be completely unfair. The cards would be stacked against SWAPO. And 1.'1at, ofcourse, is the whole purpose. 33. What South Africa and its supporters are now pro- posing is a fraudulent election which will enable South Africa to place its clients in Namibia in power and to continue its rule of the country. They are proposing, moreover, that the United Nations sanction this manoeuvre by accepting those proposals and establishing an ineffectual prt:sen~e in Namibia. 7'"~e proposals do not allow for United Nations "supelVision and control", as prOVided for by resoiution 385 (1976), but only for a passive United Nations presence_ Such a presence would have only one effect. It would confer legitimacy upon the proceedings which South Africa proposes to set in motion. 34. My delegation fmds its surprising that such proposals could be taken at all seriously. They reveal, in our view, a clear attempt to deceive the world, to speak of democracy and self-determination while undermining it. Certainly, this Assembly will not be deceived. Namibia is our particular responsibility. We have all b~en fonowing this matter closely for some time. My delegation is confident that the Assembly will see these proposals for what they are-an- other attempt to undermine the UnUed Nations and to prevent it from carrying out its responsibilities to th~ Narilibian people. South Mrica has been in violation of Security Council resolutio.ns for quite some time now. These proposals make it clear that nothing has changed. 35. That was the end of my statement on the question of Namibia, but J should like now fo refer to the latest news which I have just received with regard to South Africa. I hope that it will be of some interest to the members of the Assembly. "In custody were at least six prominent leaders of the Soweto black township, sources there said. "Among the 18 groups banned by Justice Minister James Kruger, as a threat to public order, were the anti-apartheid Christian Institute and the black news- paper, The World "Under editor Percy Qoboza, who was also arrested today, the newsp,aper has championed black rights and challenged government policy since unrest in South Africa boiled up in June oflast year. "'The Government is detenpined to ensure that the peaceful coexistence of peoples in South Africa is not disturbed by a small group of anarchists', Mr. Kruger said today. "The measures were the most drastic since unrest came into the open. They were announced in a government gazette. Mr. Kruger said in a statement that special committees had investigated the now outlawed groups and found they endangered public order. "Also on the banned list was the Black People's Convention. This is the 'black consciousness' movement whose honorary President was activist Steve Biko. His death in detention on 12 September aroused world prot~st. "The Christian Institute, outlawed today, brought together clergy and laity of different sects and laces to protest against racial segregation. 'It is a sad and terrible day for South Africa', Director Beyers Naude said to reporters this morning. "Minutes later police said Drr Naude was served with a banning order, coniming him for five years to the Johannesburg area. He must report weekly to the police and may neither attend meetings nor be quoted in the press. Two of his staff also were selVed with individual five-year banning orders. "Today's measures meant all main groups working for black rignts were suppressed! ( "Others to react with views akin to Dr. Naude's included Mrs. Helen Suzman, opposition Member of Parliament and long-time critic of apartheid 'The very views the Government should be canvassing it is now silencing', she said. "Editors saw in the ban on The World r. developing crisis for press freedom in South Africa, where blacks number some 18 million and whites fewer than 5 million. "Newspaper reports said police raids began in Cape Town at 4.30 a.m. and extended to cities includin'g Johannesburg and Durban. "Mr. Kruger said in his statement that detentions had been made under the Internal Security Act, which enables people to be held without trial. "Soweto sources said another editor, Aggrey KIaaste of the weekend edition of The World, who was among members of the Soweto unoffidalleadership-the 'Com- mittee of 10'-he was also arrested today. "Mr. Kruger said in his statement that black unrest was not spontaneous. Initial grhvances had disappeared but 'new grievances, new objectives and new processes are being brought into l'ocus pra~tically day by day ...'. "The Justice Minister said 'A relatively small group is taking the lead in this •.•' to foment black-white con- frontation. "Police action largely had succeeded 'against the physical manifestations of the hate campaign', he s~jd, but 'the big organizers' had kept in the background and used groups, publications and young people to create a revolutionary clim8te. " 'People who think the Government will allow itself to be intimidated or dictated to are making a big mistake', Mr. Kruger's statement said. "The World, the black newspaper banned here today, championed black rights in language that for months had angered the Government of Prime Minister John Vorster. "The news,aper, owned by whites but run by blacks for blacks, was at the centre ofa boiling row between the Government and South Africa's press and lived in the shadow of threatened action. "Editor Percy Qoboza, 39, arrested at his office this morning, in August was summoned to see Mr. Vorster to be told of the Prime Minister's distaste for articles in the paper. "Mr. Qoboza said on another occasion that 'the authorities are trying to cripple The World ••.'. "The tabloid morning and evening newspaper bore the banner 'our own, our only paper'. It was bright. and sometimes almost garish in its treatment ofblack protest, beauty queens, crime and sport. "The South African Government's massive crackdown today on opponents of its race policies brought instant protests. "Opposition Member of Parliament Helen Suzman, a long-time campaigner agamst apartheid, said black organi-

Yesterday [35th me2nng] we heard the two most competent representatives of the cause of the Namibian people: the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Ambassador Konie, and the President 'of SWAPO, Mr. Sam NUjoma. Their statements have made a very deep impression on the Yugoslav delegation and we fully support the just demands put forward by memo 38. Mr. Nujoma demonstrated in this Assembly utmost understanding for the current process of negotiations and clearly pointed out the difficulties encountered during that process. He welcomed every effort exerted,in conformity with the responsibilities of &\e international community and the United Nations, for the liquidation of the colonial and illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa. He encouraged every constructive step directed towards the achievement of independence by Namibia, in accordance· with the provisions of relevant United Nations resolutions, but he stressed, simultaneously, that the people of Namibia will continue its political and armed struggle until all the conditions posed by SWAPO are met. 39. SWAPO is right in demanding the implementation of all the provisions of Security Council resolution 385 (1976), as well as all the other decisions ofthe United Nations regarding Namibia. Unless such action is taken, serious doubts will continue to linger i.Il the minds not only of SWAPO, but also of all those who have been supporting the liberation struggle of the Narilibian people and who are aware of the sacrifices and suffering otthe people under the colonial oppression of the South African regime. As Mr. Nujoma said, there are certain differences which are irreconcilable. 40. The United Nations has been directly responsible for administering Namibia for more than 10 years and the world Organization should take concrete steps in order to accelerate the elimination of the continued illegal occupa- tion of Namibia by South Mrica, which in itselfconstitutes an aggression against the people of Namibia and against the United Nations. 41. The Souib. African illegal occupation regime should immediately put a stop to its attempts to "bantustanize" Namibia, to disrupt its territorial integrity, to plunder its natural resources and to perpetuate conditions of slavery through the domination ofwhite slave-masters. Large South African military and police forces are engaged in a daily practice of intimidation and terror against the black population. More than 50,000 South African troops and police are endeavouring to suppress tile resistance of SWAPO and of the people of Nam~Dia. This is particularly evident in the northern part of tile Territory, where the liberation struggle of SWAPO has achieved significant results. South Mrican military activities are supported by white settlers whose farms selVe as paramilitary camps.. In the northern region, bordering on the Republic of Angola, 42. South Africa is continually introducing into Namibia sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. It is forcibly removing Namibians from the northern"border of Namibia for military reasons; it is establishing military zones and sealing off villa$es and whole regions in orqer to suppress the people's resistance or to impose upon Namibians, by force, arrangements liable to disrupt the territorial integrity and unity ·of Namibia and to perpetuate South African control tluough representatives chosen in advance by the South African racists. The military build-up in Namibia continues to be a threat to all neighbouring{independent African States: 43. Along the same line of aggressive policy, the South Mrican racists have announced their decision to annex Walvis Bay, which is an inseparable part of Namibia, thus directly violating the basic principles of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on respect for the territorial integrity of Namibia, including Security Council resolution 385 (1976), calling for .free elections in the whole of Namibia. 44. There are serious and jrr(}futable indicatbns that South Africa has reached the threshold of becoming a nuclear-weapon State and this poses a grave danger to Africa and to the whole world. South Mrica is making preparations for using, part of Namibia's territory-the Kalahari Desert-as a testing ground for nuclear explosions, thus violating, in a drastic manner, the territorial integrity of Namibia and presenting its people with bne more perilous hazard. 45. It is our uAiderstanding that the front-line African States and SWAPO have accepted a peaceful solution in Namibia through free elections, under the control and supervision of the United Nations, as a way leading to the attainment of independence by peaceful means, provided South Africa, too, resorts to peacf':ful means and returns this Territory to the people of Namibia. Actually, this was the· main purpose of Security Council resolution 385 (1976). But free elections in Namibia will be possible only when South Africa withdraws its military, paramilitary and police forces from the Territory and dismantles its colonial administration, and when alien forces, supported by South African military advisers, cease to use northern Namibia as a military spring-board. South Africa should also release all political prisoners, discontinue its policy of terror and intimidation, and abrogate its apartheid and discriminatory laws. Only under such circumstances would the Namibian people be able to participate in elections freely and to express, without any restraint or fear, their genuine desire to be free. This would be the way leading to the freedom, self.determination and independence of Namibia, the stabilization of the situation in the region, and the eradication of the root-causes of wider crises and foreign interference. 47. It appears that some Western countries are becoming aware of the fact that the policy of illegal occqpation of Namibia by South Africa is an untenable one. According to some infonnation, they are trying to induce the South African regime to withdraw from Namibia with a view to creating conditions for the achievement of the indepen- dence ofthis Territory by peaceful means. However, it does not seem that much headway has been gained towards the attainment of this goal. The attitude of South Africa shows that this persuasion has not been convincing enough and that it has no intention of withdrawing from Namibia. 48. The Genera Assembly should once again strongly condemn the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, its aggression against the Namibian people and against the United Nations, its policy of terror, its brutal violation of all human rights, its increased mDitarization and, particularly, its current efforts to reactivate the Turnhalle group under a new guise, with multimillion-dollar help from abroad and from multinational corporations in Namibia. It should also strongly condemn and consider as null and void the illegal annexation ofWalvis Bay by South Africa. The motives for this illegal act are clearly dis- cernible. Walvis Bay is the biggest port of Namibia, representing its lifeline to the sea and trade with the outside world. The port alsO serves as a large South African military base from which mDitary expeditions, launched by land, sea or air, can easily control any part ofthe Namibian territory. 49. Moreover, the General Assembly mould this year address a strong appeal to all countries that maintain any links with South Africa to put an end to their military, economic, fmancial and other relations with the Pretoria regime in connexion with Namibia, and to prevent South Africa from recruiting mercenaries in their countries. 50. The General Assembly should call the attention of the Security Council to the situation in Namibia, especially in view of the fact that South Africa so far has failed to comply with any of the provisions of Security Council resolution 385 (1976). South Africa has not withdrawn from Namibia; it has not created conditions for the holding of free elections in the Territory; it has not abrogated its discriminatory laws; it has not put a stop to its policy of terror, imprisonment, intimidation and 'all-out war against SWAPO. It has appointed its Administrator-General in order to help the Turnhalle group pursue its activities in another f~rm. 51. The General Assembly should once again reiterate itS position that any independence talks regarding Namibia must be conducted by SWAPO, as the only legitimate and authentic representative of the Namibian people as recog- nized by the United Nations. 52. Pi!st experience has taught us that oppressors, and racists yield only under pressure. In this case, the people of 53. The fact that South Africa is forced to keep more than 50,000 troops in Namibia, and to organize other mercenary groups, indicates that the SWAPO war ofliberation and the support of the Namibian people for SWAPO are decisive factors in the destiny of Namibia. We fully support this liberation struggle. We also support the efforts of SWAPO to bring about peaceful implementation of the principle of self-determination through free elections, under the control and supervision of the United Nations, if such elections are possible and if they actually lead to the independence of Namibia. 54. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the United Nations plays a very important role with regard to the liberation of Namibia. Namibia is the direct responsi- bility of the -United Nations, which has entrusted its administration, pending the achievem~nt of independence, to the United Nations Council for Namibia. 55. As a member of the United Nations Council for. Namibia, Yugoslavia fully supports its current report (A/32/24J and the recommendations contained therein, which we believe will assist the General Assembly to adopt appropriate dp.~isions that : ill accelerate the process leading to the full independence of Namibia.

The situation in southern Africa, wherl~ the racist regimes of Pretoria and Salisbury still hold the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe and the population of South Africa in colonial and racist slavery, constitutes one of the most urgent problems confronting the United Nations and the international community. 57. That very grave situation is due to the fact that South Africa has suppressed in a most flagrant manner the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of the people of Namibia. Furthermore, South Africa con- tinues to occupy Namibia illegally; keeps on with the military build-up of its armed forces there, a.ld intensifies its miIitarization. 58. The racist oppressive regune defiantly refuses to comply with Security Council resolutio~ 385 (1976) of 30 January 1976, and with other relevant decisions of both the Security Council a!ld the General Assembly. What we have here is a clear example of how South Africa deliberately violates the principles of the Charter ofthe United Nations and the fundamental rules of international law. This is not something that we are stating, emphasizing or reiterating for the fust time. This is an outright and outdated challenge flung in the face of the world Organization and the international community. 59. For colonialism 35 a system has been rejected alto- gether by mankind, which unreservedly supports the principle of the right \yf r~vples to self-determination and national independence. In this century, that principle was not only proclaimed by the Great Octcber Socialist Revolution, but it was embodierl in the first international treaties of the newly emerged socialist State in the Soviet 60. It is only the racist regimes of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, actively supported, assisted and abetted by certain'imperialist circles, that are trying in vain to stifle the struggle of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe and to deprive them of their rights to self-determination and independence, thereby halting tIre process of decoloni- zation in Africa. In order to retain their colonial domi- nation and rapacious exploitation of the countries' natural and human resources, those racist regimes have employed various ways and means, ranging from ruthless Fascist methods of open terror and genocide, to cunning "divide- and-rule" tactics. They have tried to use the Territories of Namibia and Zimbabwe -as a spring-board for aggression against independent neighbouring African States. 61. All that is being done in flagrant disregard of the principJes of the Unitec Nations Ch3I'ter, the provisions of important international treaties on human right!) and a significant number of pertinent resolutions of the Security Council and the General AS3embly of the UrJted Nations. Those attempts to rip asunder the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia as a means of maintaining colonial domination and. oppression, have been combined with demagogic constitutional manoeuvring. 62. The so-called Constitutional Conference, convened in 1976, was denounced from the very beginning by the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity {OAUj, SWAPO and the international coinmunity, as a ploy by South Afl:'f:a to dismember the Territory, to perpetuate white mmority rule and to maintain full control over the country. The fact that SWAPO's representatives and those of other political groups known for their firm opposition to ilie policy of the so-called "homelands" were excluded from participating in the Conference is yet further evidence of the real intentions of the Vorster regime. 63. The creation of "homelands" in arid and economically disadvantaged areas in Namibia where the African popula- tion is being herded, on the one hand, and that of a kind of "police zone" in the most fertile and rich lands which are to be reserved exclusively for the whites, on the other hand, aim at one and the same thing: to parcel out the Territory, to procure cheap labour and to ensure that slavery remains for ever. The Africans are deprived of the right to move freely about the country. They cannot leave the reser- vations withOut a special licence and have no right to choose either their job, or even their employer. Whenever they are forced to work in the so-called "police zone", they are compelled to leave behind their wives and children, and to live separated from their families. The working people are deprived of any trade-union rights. 64. Such a system, which forces an entire nation into slavery, is a crime against humanity and has no right to exist in our world. Yet South Africa's presence in Namibia is intolerable not only because it has subjected the people 6S. As a' Territory under the special responsibility of the United Nations, Namibia represents an obligation for the world Organization to do everything possible to put an end to the illegal South African occupation and to seek full compliance"with the Security Council and General As- sembly resolutions on the question. 66. In this respect the position of three of the permanent members of the Security Council causes justifiable resent- ment, for, as is well known, they vetoed a draft resolution submitted to the CouncD in document S/12211 of 15 October 1976 and prevented the latter from taking effec- tive ':l1easures under Chapter VII of the Charter. 67. Unfortunately, however, the situation in Namibia has been worsening ever since. South Africa is steadily increas- ing its mllitary presence in the Territory. New mllitary contingents, possessing the most up-to-date sophisticated weapons, including tanks, l"~avy artillery, helicopters and jet aircraft, are being deployed there on a permanent basis. Terror and violence is being employed against the local population on a grdwing scale. Military actions against SWAPO units are being stepped up. The Territory is increasingly being used as a spring-board for aggression against neighbouring African countries and, above all, against the People's Republic ofAngola. . 68. The Vorster regime is able to pursue this policy because it continues to enjoy increased aid and assistance on the part of certain Western States. The flow of uJrto-date weaponry to South Africa has never been discontinued. The same is true of foreign investments in South Africa's economy. Transnational corporations based in the West, as well as South African companies, are feverishly trying to squeeze fabulous profits by exploiting Namibia's natural resources and manpower. These trans- national corporations extend not only fmancial and eco- nomic assistance to the Pretoria regime, but also moral support, by defending it before the international com- munity by different means. The exploitation of the uranium deposits in Namibia causes serious concern, be- Cause it enables South Africa, by using the technological expertise and equipment supplied to it by the transnational corporations, to reach the stage where it can manufacture and possess nuclear weapons and to proceed with nuclear weapons tests on Namibia's soil. This kind of weapon in the hands of the Pretoria regime will inevitably create an immediate .danger for all African States and for universal peace and security. In this respect prompt and effective 70. Last spring five We:1tern States, members of the Security touncD, undertook 3- number of steps with the tirn of reaching a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. The series of talks, as reported officially, made South Africa give up its plans to set up an interim Govemmf}nt on the basis of the Tumhalle proposais and inste~d appoint an Administrator-General for the Territory, until elections for a constituent Assembly are held. At the same time, it was reported that South Africa remains intransigent in it,> intention of retaining direct control over Walvis Bay. 71. Yet, if we are to judge by facts and not by mere promises and declarations of good intent, then we have to admit that all those efforts did not change South Africa's policy with respect to Namibia, nor did they bring about any change for the better in the plight of the Namibian people. 72. South Africa has embarked recently on a diplomatic offensive under the guise ofthe so-called policy of dialogue and improvement of relations with African States. This line ofpolicyofthe South African regime has been given massive coverage and support in the mass media of the Western countries, thus creating illusions and unfounded expec- tations. The fact remains, however, that this policy of South Africa runs counter to the legitimate interests of the penple of Namibia and is part and parcel of an imperialist and neo-colonialist strategy. There are enough facts to show unequivocally that, as a matter ofprinciple and in practice, South Africa has not abandoned its policy of annexing Namibia. ( 73. For all those reasons, South Africa's so-called policy of rapprochement and detente with the African States can only be construed as an attempt to deceive world public opinion and to torpedo the unity of the African countries in the struggle for the complete elimination of the vestiges of colonialism, racial discrimination and apartheid in the southern part of the continent. This represents the essence of the decisions of the Declaration adopted by the International Conference on Namibia and Human Rights, held in Dakar in January 1976, the International Confer- ence in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia, held at Maputo in May, the World Conference for Action 74. The Bulgarian delegation fmds this position funy justifiable and lends it its fun support, because 1t is in compliance with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and corre~onds to the basic interests and century-long aspirations of the Namibian people to live in their free, democratic and prospering country~ We have no doubts whatsoever that the just struggle of the people of Namibia will attain final victory. 75. Our frrm beJief is based on the advancement of the Il&tional liberation struggle of the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, their increasing unity and political maturity, the support and assistance they receive from the African m:tions, and particularly from those which only recently won their independrnce, as well as the international solidarity and fraternal support of the socialist and other countries. 76. We are confident that the United Nations will con- tinue to make concerted efforts for the complete and speedy implementation of the historic Declaration on decolonization [resolutian 1514 (XV)j, which the General Assembly adopted on the initiative of the Soviet Union at its fifteenth regular session in 1960. 77. In conclusion, I should like to repeat that my country, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, in pursuing its unswerv- ing policy against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism and apartheid, and as an active member of the Special Committee on decolonization, will COT,ltinue to render its full support and assistance to the p~oples of Namibia and Zimbabwe and the people of South Africa, in their struggle to achieve their freedom and independence. 78. The President of the Council of State of the People's Republic of Bulgaria and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivko'¥, stated in his message to the International Confer- ence held in Maputo last May: "The People's Republic of Bulgaria, together with all peace-loving and progressive forces in the world, will continue to make its contribution to the United Nations struggle for the complete and fmal elimination of colonialism and for the establishment ofa just and lasting peace in the world." This has always been our consistent policy ofsolidarity and fmn support for the just struggle of the people ofNamibia.

Egypt, as it participates in the debate on the 80. The international community and the Unit~d Nations have condemned the presence of South Africa in Namibia, considering it an unlawful occupation of that Territory, since the 'General Assembly of the United Nations ended the Mandate of South Africa over the Territory at its twenty-fIrSt session in 1966 {resolution 2145 (XXI)J and established, at its fifth special session, the United Nations Council for Namibia to administer that Territory [reso- lution 2248 (SeV)I. The General Assembly and the Security Council, in numerous resolutions, sought to put an end to that occupation, but the Government of South Africa did not comply with the will of the international community or with United Nations resolutions. 81. The Governm~nt ofSouth Africa has been granted one thance after another to alter its st~nd. This has been demonstrated by the recent Security Council resolution 385 (J.976) and by the agreement of the representative of the liberation movement, SWAPO, the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people, to negotiate a peaceful solution with objective conditions. It was further demonstrated by the numerous peaceful efforts dp.ployed and still being exerted by many countries up to this day. 82. What was the reaction of the Government of South Africa to all these opportunities? What did the Govern- ment of South Africa do to take advantage of all these opportunities? It merely increased its defiance of the international community, and consideration and assessment of its recents acts is an eloquent irrdication of this. 83. The racist regime in South Africa has increased the consolidation of its nIegitimate occupation of Namibia through the use ofarmed force. Moreover, the racist regime has extended the period of military service to two years so as to be able to strengthen it3 occupation. 84. At the same time, it has redoubled its acts of repression, terror and barbarism against the indigenous population and the fighters in Namibia, so as to deprive them of their freedom and independence. Here I should like to refer to the contents of the valuable report of~e Special Committee which is now under consideration [A/32/23/ Rev.1, chap. VII/I. 85. The racist regime continues to plunder the wealth of the natural resources of the Territory. The depletion ofthe resources of Namibia is being pursued at a quickening pace in recent times. 86. But the Government of South Africa is not satisfied with stealing and plundering the natural resources of Namibia; it is still trying to seize parts of the Territory itself. This is demonstrated by its declaration of the annexation of Walvis Bay, which is an integral part.of the Territory ofNamibia. 87. This is just a sample of Vorster's recent actions, and our fmal analysis is that this regime is an outlaw regime 88. Vorster's attempt unfolds before us today, &n attempt to distort the geographic character of Namibia with a view to annexing Walvis Bay. We must resolutely stand out against this attempt, since it constitutes a vioIatiop of one of the basic principles of the United Nations Charter, the principle of respect for territorial integrity. 89. Such an attempt closely resembles Israeli policy in the occupied Arab' territories and the acts of Israel aimed at annexation, Judaization and the establishment· of settle- ments. The resemblance between such unlawful actions is no surprise. The existing co-ordination between the regimes of Pretoria and Tel Aviv is clear to all. Moreover, co-operation and collaboration between them in all fields has become an obvious fact that cannot be concealed. It is a fact that is,. now recorded in United Nations documents. -the collaboration of those regimes in the nuclear field now constitutes a clear threat to peace and security in the Middle East and on the African continent. This subject deserves our: closest attention, since it constitutes a danger to pe2~ and: security for the international community. 90. My delegation wishes to draw attention to the fact that countries which collaborate with the racist regime in South Africa, either in sapping the natural resources of Namibia or supplying arms to the racist regime, must realize that through such actions they are defying the will and feelings of the African peoples and encouraging the racist regime to pursue its disregard of the international will and to continue its oppression of the indigenous population of the land. We should like to say to those countries that the time has come when they should take cogniz~ce of a fact that can no longer be ignored, that is, that the defence of such a racist regime is a lost cause. By taking such a position they are losing the friendship and respect of the Mrican peoples and of peace-loving peoples for the sake of fleeting interests, doomed to an imminent end. Egypt urges those countries to take the necessary mea.sures and enact laws to prohibit their companies and institutions from dealing with that racist regime, with due regard for the political implications ofsuch economic dealings. A political decision is required to bring about justice and truth and to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions. 91. Our African continent has on numerous occasions extended the hand of peace in order to achieve a peaceful solution to this important problem. Nevertheless the racist regime in South Africa has completely ignored all peaceful initiatives. Up until this very moment there have been commendable efforts by some States to seek a peaceful solution and our Mrican continent has, as in the past, not closed the door to such attempts. 92. We warn Vorster, as he attempts to exploit these efforts so as to manoeuvre or to create puppets within N~ibia who would on his behalf assume domination over Namibia: all this will not mislead us or the representatives of the liberation movement, SWAPO. 94. Egypt, which supports and continues to assist our heroic brothers in the liberation movements of the African continent, will stand by the SWAPO liberation movement with all its moral and material potential until the inevitable triumph of the Namibian people is achieved. 95. Egypt's position is as follows. First, we will give full support and continued assistance to the heroic people of Namibia in their anned struggle until they achieve their legitimate right t9 self-determination and independence. Secondly, we consider SWAPO as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people, and Egypt fully supports it, and lauds its great heroes and martyrs. Thirdly, Egypt will not recogpize any so-called constitutional talks or any negotiations in which SWAPO does not partici~ate. Egypt also rejects the latest Vorster attempts to reactivate such negotiations, which have already failed. Fourthly, Egypt strongly condemns the Government of South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia, its barbaric r&cist policies applied to the peoples of Namibia, and its plunder of the resources of Namibia. Fifthly, Egypt totally rejects the annexation by the racist regime of th~ Walvis Bay region, which is an integral part of the temtory of Namibia. Namibia's territorial integrity is not negotiable. Sixthly, Egypt supports the right of the people of Namib~a to full material compensation for the looting of. therr natural resources. Seventhly, Egypt fully complies with the resolutions adopted at the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU [A/32/310, annex Ill, the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non- Aligned Countries2 the Eighth Islamic Conference [see A/32/235/, and the political declarations ofthe Conferences held at Maput03 and LagoS.4 Eighthly, Egypt fully enc dorses the role of the United Nations Council for Namibia in fulfilling the mandate given it by the General Assembly nf the United Nations in 1967, and Egypt believes that any individual or collective attempt to achieve independence for Namibia should not interfere with the proper exep-.'.ltion of the Council's task. Ninthly, Egypt calls upon the United Nations, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, to shoulder their international responsi- bilities, and calls for adequate measures to be taken by the United Nations against the racist regime and its barbaric policies. 96. The Egyptian stand OIl this cause is one of principle. To us, it is a cause destined to triumph, and we are fully convinced that our African peoples will triumph over the racist regime. It is a question of time. The desperate and 97. Egyp'.. gives them its full support and endorses their position, just as all the peoples of our African continent stand by them-may all the peace-loving p-ecples of the world do so. The unanimity s.ltown at t!le Maputo and Lagos Conferences is but concrete evidence of that fact. 98. I should like to conclude by referring te the statement of Mr. Fahmy, Deputy Prime MiilisteI and Foreign Minister of the Arab ~epublic of Egypt, to the General Assembly of the United N~tionson 28 September 1977. He said: ". .. the racist regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa, nothwithstanding world public opinion and its unanimous condemnation of their policies and practices in violation of. human rights and in breach of the principles recog- nized by civilized nations, are persisting in their policies ofaggression, intimidation and terroristic atrocities. "These tw\J regimes are adamant in their irresponsible behaviour and refuse to recognize the right orpeoples to self-determination. I believe that we all agree that the international community cannot stand idly by faced with this untenable situation, a situation where a man lives as an ~1ien in his own homeland, subjugated by those who have usurped hit rights. We must be honest with uurselves and hence we must be committed to securing th.e total isolation of the illegal Smith racist regime, in conformity wjth Security Council resolution 409 (1977), adopted in May 1977. We aiso h~ve to ensure the implementation of Security Council resolution 385 (1976) on Nanu"bia ~"ld the termination of the illegal presence of South Africa in that Territory." {10th meeting, paras. 95-96.1

The Great October Sociali~ Revolution, the sixtieth anniversary of which is now being celebrated by all progressive mankind, laid the foundation for profound all-embracing social changes in the world ane gave a powerful revolutionary thrust to the national liberation struggle ofpeoples. 100. The land of the Soviets from the moment ofits birth has done everything it can to support fighters for national liberation and by its successes in the building of a new society instilled them with confidence in their fmal victory over the colonialists. The great significance of the UPSUi6C of the liberation struggle of peoples was provided by the example of the solution of the national question of the land of the Soviets itself. One of the first decrees of the Soviet Government was the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, which proclaimed the equality and sovereignty of peoples, their right to free self-detenni- nation, including the right to secession and the formation of an independent State, the repeal of all national privileges and restrictions and the free development of national minorities and ethnic groups.' 102. All this was a powerful stimulus to the development of the national liberation movement which, even in the pre-wa:- period, had been marked by the establishment ofa. number of countries which had chosen an independent W'4y oflife. . 103_ As a result of the collapse of HitIerite Germany aDd militarist Japan-a decisive role in which was playf'ld by tho Soviet Union-and under the powerful prenure of tM national liberation movement, the colonial syst~ of imperialism has fallen apart. About 100 new States have risen up in the place of the former colonies. Their fOIo in peaceful development is constantly growing. ThatiJ Uw logical process ofhistorical world social development. 104. However, some bastions of colonial slav6 j stm exilt on our planet, and this is one ofthe most dangerous 5Om'ceJ ef international tension and conflict For example, tho vestiges of colonialism and racism persist in southern Africa and represent a crime against mankind and a threat totho peace md security of peoples. The indigenoos African popuIations of Namibia, Zimbabwe and the R"public of South Africa are subjected to racial and national oppresaion and to cruel exploitation. The colonial :md racist r6gimes of Pretoria and Salisbury ale fl-&grantly flouting the Principlel :md decisions of the United Nations, disregarding wod4- public opinion and trying to perp~roatetheir existence, and. have raised to the level ofState plJlicy the systemofbloody terror and repression inflicted Up"lU the African populatklll, and are undertaking armed aggrEr'won against noighbourUil independent States. 105~ We may ask the legitimate question, Why do racist regimes continue to exist in southern Africa? Perhaps it is because their positions are strong and consolidated'? Certainly not. The existence of this shameful political anachronism is the result of the Widespread systematic support which the racist regimes of Pretoria and Salisbury receive from imperialist monopolies and a number of Western Powers, above all the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bloc. 106. The elimination of the vestiges of colonialism, as weD as of racism and apartheid, stands out as one of the most important international problems, the solution of which would promote an improvement ofthe whole intentationa! situation, strengthen detente and help to restructuretho whole system of relations among countries on a just atld. democratic basis, and promote the elimination of flagrant and mass violations of human rights in that part of the world In his message to the participants in theWodd Conference for Action against Apartheid, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the COBUllumat Party of the Soviet Union and Chainnan of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Leonid nyich Brezhnev said: "It is the fault of the racists and their imperialist supporters that southern Africa is one of the flash-poiil'l\ts of our planet. Peace and security can be attained there 100. The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic fully .pports the official statement of the Soviet Union on the coDlt'lete elimination of the vestiges of colonialism, racism sdtrli;;nheid made on 5 October this year at this session of the UniteoNa,tions, in which it is pointed out that "The Soviet Union reaffirms its readiness to support the proposals of African countries concerning application of the effective sanctions prOVided for in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter against the racist re&imes in Sou1h{lm Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa, which are ignoring the United Nations decisions aimed at the prompt elimination of the colonialist breeding ground in southern Africa." [see A/32/259, annex, p. 2.J . 109. For more than 10 years now tt.e question ofNamibia has been constantly under consideration by various United Nations bodies. What progress has been made towards a solution of this problem in the period since the thirty-fust session of the General Assembly? It really is difficult to give an opmnistic answer to that question. As can be seen from the statements by the overwhelming majority of delegations here in the plenary meetings of the General Assembly and by the representatives of SWAPO, as well as from the documents and materials of the United Nations, the situation in Namibia certainly is not improving. Rather, it is deteriorating. The Special Committee, in its resolution of 2 August of this ye..- [see A/32/23/Rev.l, chap. IV, para. 10J has again conf1irmed that foreign economic, financial and other interests, in association with the unlawful racist minority regimes, are exploiting and ex- hausting the natural resources of Zimbabwe and Namibia, Violating the rights of the people of those Territories and ~d~priving them of an opportunity to exercise their inalien- able rights, and fostering the strengthening of the racist mincrity regimes and their continaing colonial domination of thes~ Territories. 110. The South African regime, continuing its unlawful occupation of Namibia despite the repe~:ed demands of the Security Council for their withdrawal from the Territory, is trying to perpetuate its rule over the people of Namibia by creating throughout the Territory 3i, atmosphere of terror 111. Recently the racist powers in Pretoria ~nounced. the annexation to the Cape Province of South Africa of the deep-water port of Walvis Bay, which is situated in the Territory of Namibia that they are unlawfully occupying. Thus, the Vorster regime has pursued a policy of annexa- tion of part of Namibian territory. The port ofWalvis Bay, the second largest town in Namibia, has been turned into one of the largest strategic naval bases- of the Republic of South Africa on the South Atlantic coast. 112. Open colonial plunder ef the natural wealth and the exploitation of the people of Namibia are continuing despite resolutions and decisions of bodies of.the United Nations, in particular the decision of the United Nations Council for Namibia regarding the pro(ection of.the natural resources of the country from plunde{- by foreign corpora- tionS' and South African authorities. The South African occupying powers are issuing mining andp.rospecting licences for minerals. Together with foreign. businessmen they are making haste to shovel out ofthe country as large a quantity as possible of valuable raw materials before an end is fmally put to their arbitrary rule. 113. Foreign corporations control a significant part of the . economic activity of Namibia. Transnational corporations of the main Western countries account for about three fifths of th,; .IX revenue of Namibia, and this goes straight into the hands of South Africa, according to United Nations document EjC.IO/26 and Corr.1. 114. The 'mperialist monopolies are carrying out a special drive in regard to the key branch of the economy: the mining industry, which is the main source of foreign currency earnings, accounting for two thirds of the coun· try's gross national. product. Here the domination of transnational corporations is almost complete. 115. "Approximately one third to one half.of Namibia's gross national product is exported annually in the form of profits and dividends for the imperialist monopolies. 116. Namibian uranium 's attracting the special attention of transnational corporations. A number of national atomic agencies of Western countries have already concluded agreements for the long-term purchase of Namibian ura· nium. The imperialist Powers are counting on meeting 15 per cent of their energy and armaments requirements for uranium ore in the coming years from deliveries from Namibia. The exploitation of uranium, too, is criminal plunder of non-renewable natural wealth belonging exclu· sively to the people ofNamibia. 117. The Special Committee has strongly condel1\ned the activities of all foreign corporations which are operating in 118. We cannot fail to heed the statement by SWAPO that the possibility of South Africa's direct access to Namibian uranium has most serious consequences in the light of South Africa's capability of producing enriched uranium, which in turn increases South Africa's potential for the production of nuclear weapons. And the presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of racists would be fraught with danger for peace and security on the Mrican continent. 119. Thus, a further explosive element enters the threat- ening picture in southern Africa-that is, the manufacture of nuclear weapons by the racists ofthe Republic of South Africa and their use of the Namibian part of the Kalahari Desert as a test-site. The responsibility for this dangerous development rests with the leading Western Powers, which have furnished Fascist South Africa with nuclear t~chnology. 120. In this connexion the Special Committee on decolo- nization has categorically condemned any kind of nuclear collaboration by certain Western and other States with South Africa. 121. South Africa's military activities on Namibian terri- tory cannot but cause alarm. As is noted in United Nations documents, with a view to crushing the growing armed struggle for national liberation South Africa increased its troop build-up in 1~76 in the Territory and expanded its string of military ba;es along the northern border [see A/32/23/Rev.1, chap. VIII, para. 21}. There are now tens of thousands of South African troops stationed in the northern part of Namibia. The militarization of the Territory is actively proceeding. Various zones are being established: a so-called operational frontier zone, a security zone, a no man's land. Thus, with the proclamation in May 1976 of a state of emergency in the northern part of the country, one third of the Territory was declared to be a security zone. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Mricans have found themselves under ma...'1ial law. Through- out the country patriots, and especially members of SWAPO, are being prosecuted. Courts are imposing arbi- trary sentences on those who are fighting for the freedom and independence of the country. In fact, the African racists have established in Namibia a Fascist military and police system. 122. The Special Committee on decolonization has con- demned the massive use in Namibia of ilie armed forces of the racist Pretoria regime in the attempt to crush the struggle of the Namibian people for freedom and indepen- dence. The delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic fully endorses that cond~t;mation and dem2Ilds the immediate withdrawal of all he armed and police forces of the Republic of South Ahica from Namibia. We endorse also the condemnation of those Western countries that are giving constant military support and assistance to Pretoria to enable its racist regime to break the people's opposition and perpetuate its illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia. 124. For some 18 months now certain persons in the West have been engaging in increased activity with regard to the destiny of southern Africa and the future arrangements for that part of the world. Various schemes are being put forward for a so-called peaceful settlement of the problems of that region of the world. We are in favour of pe.ace initiatives if they are truly designed to achieve the speedy and unconditional transfer of all power to the genuine representatives of the people who are fighting for their freedom and independence. But our suspicions are aroused by the fact that the widely publicized "initiatives" of certain Western Powers, allegedly aimed at solving the problems of southern Africa, actually reflect the desire of those Powers to fragment and weai{en the fighters for national liberation and to protect the interests and privi- leges of those Powers in that part of the world, as well as to legitimize colonial and racist domination in a new form. 125. The Byelorussian Soviet Socailist Republic decisively agrees that there is a need to ensur~ the transfer of all power in Zimbabwe to the genuine representatives of the people of that country at the earliest possible date-and we are referring to the patriotic forces of the country, led by the Patriotic Front, which is the sole legitimate represen- tative of the African majority. These measures must also ensure the prompt realization by the people ofNamibia of their right to self-determination and independence on the basis of respect for that country's territorial integrity. In conformity with the decisions of the United Nations, the occupation forces of the Republic of South Africa must be withdrawn from Namibia, and power in the country must be transferred to the legitimate representatives of its people-SWAPO. At the same time, it is essential to oppose vigorously the attempts of imperialist forces and the. racist regimes to impose a neo-colonialist solution to the prob- lems of southern Africa. 126. In calling for the fmal elimination of colonialism, racism and apartheid and for the total liberation of oppressed peoples, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic re~ffirms its unwavering dedication to the Leninist foreign policy of the Soviet State, as brilliantly reflected in the new Constitution of the USSR.

When in January 1976 President Senghor opened the Dakar International Conference on Namibia and Human Rights, he addressed himself to Mr. Sam Nujoma in the following terms: "Upon reading the moving testimony of your com- patriot Kaura before the special group of experts of the Commission on Human Rights, I felt sadness and indig- And the Senegalese Head of State continued his address by quoting Kaura, who had said: "It is my turn to take you among the wretched hills of the Branberg, along the skeleton coast and through the Namib desert, to unveil to you the picture ofthe hollow eyes, the swollen knees of young boys and girls who stubbornly drag themselves across mounfains and valleys looking for something .•• Itis my turn to take you along the roads and over the dry, dusty plains of Namaland, where children sit for whole days not knowing what to do, staring at the horizon$••• "How long will the world community continue to be indifferent to our sufferings? " ~ 128. The vain efforts of the United Nations and of the African States to fmd just solutions to the Namibian problem are no longer a secret to anyone. To those increasingly sustained efforts the South African Govern- ment thus far has only respmided with the great~st contempt and arrogant indifference. The unlawful presence of South Africa in Namibia is an insulting challenge to the whole of the international community, while the funda- mental rights ofthe Namibian people to self-determination, freedom and independence in the context of a united Namibia, as well as the legitimacy of its struggle against the unlawful occupation of its Territory, remain a fundamental objective among the concerns ofour Organization. 129. Thus, after putting an end to South Africa's Mandate over Namibia in 1966, the:United Nations in 1967 created the United Nations Council for Namibia, which was to take over the administration of the Territory until its accession to international sovereignty. 130. That Council was created after four other Commit- tees had been set up and had attempted in vain between 1951 and 1962 to fmd a solution to the Namibian problem. The last of this Irrst series of attempts at contacts and negotiation was the establishment of the Special Committee for South West Africa, headed by Mr. Carpio, in May 1962. 13L That Committee, like the previous ones, ended in failure because of th~ stubbornness of the Pretoria Govern- ment and its systematic refusal to co-operate. However, the conclusions of its report led to the emergence of the following two facts which left no doubt as to the nature of the steps that should then be taken. One conclusion was: "That the policies and methods, as well as the objec- tives, followed by the South African Government in its administration of the Mandated Territory has consistently been, and continues to be, in utter contradiction with the principles and purposes of the Mandate, the Charter of the United Nations. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the enlightened conscience ofmankind."6 132. Despite the precision and cla:ity of those conclu- sions, the United Nations was unable to draw any useful conclusion by reason of the negative attitude of certain Western Powers more concerned with protecting their economic and strategic interests than with helping our Organization to fmd the obvious just solutions to the problem. 133. It is clear that Pretoria's stubbornness in unceasingly defying the international community is thus encouraged by those Western Powers. This is in fa~t the reason why some have begun to feel concern at the sudden interest shown by certain Western Governments in the distressing events which are taking place in that southern part of the African continent. We know full well that the liberation of the former Portuguese colonies ofMozambique and Angola and the development of the armed struggle of the liberation forces of South Africa are not unrelated to :his rather belated awakening on the part of Western friends of the Vorster clique, although their proteges do not appear to understand the full scope of the dramatic consequences which might arise from its foolish stubbornness. 134. The countries of the European Economic Com- munity, which are still awaiting Pretoria's response to their demand for the liberation of political prisoners and the return of exiled Namibians to their homeland, will not contradict us on this point. That demand is in fact a moderate one and its satisfaction would have given us an initial effective proof of the goodwill of the South African Government. 135.. The current President of the European Economic Community has announced the drafting of a code of conduct for European enterprises operating in South Africa [see A/32/267, annex]. We are follOWing with the most vigilant attention the effective implementation of these measures, which could offer proofof a clear political will to work towards justice and understanding among peoples. 136. At present Vorster and his acolytes think that they can fmd a solution to the NamlOian problem in a so-called "Constitutional Conference", a conference whose partici- pants are no more than the puppets and devotees of Vorster.. 137. The preliminary declaration of i'1dependence of that so-called Constitutional Conference is unacceptable to us, especially since it stipulates that independence will be granted to a confederation of states carved out along ethnic lines. 138. Senegal for its part strongly condemns this policy of bantustanization, which impairs the territorial integrity of Namibia. We similarly consider the South African decision 139. The question now is no longer that of proving the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia. An international consensus has emerged on the interpretation of the basic facts surrounding this problem, and that consensus could be summed up as follows. Namibia is not a part of South Africa. Namibia was placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, and since 1966, when the Organization put an end to the Pretoria Government's Mandate over that Territory, the presence of South Africa in Namibia has become unlawful, as, in fact, was stated by the International Court of Justice in its opinion of 21 June 1971.' Lastly, the racist Pretoria regime must comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations at"1d put an end to its unlawful occupation of the International Territory. Everyone now seems to agree with this con- sensus. 140. In this context it is encouraging to note that of late even those States which so far had maintained close relations with South Africa, have felt it necessary to reaffirm uneqUivocally their desire for a solution to this distressing problem. 141. However, we should emphasize that the question of foreign economic interests operating in Namibia, which hinder the elimination of the unlawful South African regime from that Territory, still gives us reason for concern. In this connexion we must stress forthrightly that the natural resources of Namibia are the heritage of the Namibian people. Furthermore, we consider that the exploitation of those resources by foreign economic inter- ests, under the protection of the racist, repressive South African administration and in violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter and resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, is inadmissible and helps to maintain the illegal occupation regime. 142. The rapid exhaustion of the natural resources of the Territory, as a result of the unbridled plunder by the economic interests in collusion with the unlawful South African administration, represents a serious threat to the integrity and prosperity of an independent Namibia. We believe it is necessary to denounce the activities of economic interests operating in Namibia, especially since a number of resolutions of the United Nations invite States to refrain from any dealings with South Africa when it claims to act in behalf of Namibia. 143. This debate, as the Assembly knows, has aroused great hopes among us. I therefore think it is no longer necessary to emphasize the importance we attach to it I should only say that the African States, in requesting the inclusion of this question as the fust item on our agenda, thought that the Assembly had not often met in circum- 7 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, LCJ. Reports 1971, p. 16. r den~e of a united Namibia. 144. We must draw the attention of the Western Powers supplying weapons and munition to South Africa, to the fact that these practices help to strengthen the unlawful occupation of Namibia and the" pursuit of the war of. aggression against the Namibian people, and makes those Powers fully responsible for the sufferings and damages of all kinds cauRed by South Africa in Namibia. We therefore urge them, in accordance with General Assembly resoiution 31/146 adopted on 20 December 1976~ to cease or to prevent any supply of weapons and munitions to South Africa, because those who continue to support the South African Government must understand the inevitable reper- cussions that a racial war in Namibia would have beyond the frontiers of that Territory. 145. There is no question then of our considering the so·called new efforts of the Pretoria regime, which occupies the Territory unlawfully and must leave it without delay, rather than strengthening its military presence there and massing troops to repress the legitimate aspirations of the people. The compassion of world public opinion is no longer enough to ensure the realization of the national aspirations of the Namibian people. 146. We expect the Western Powers to take appropriate measures to compel South Africa to effect a radical change in its present line of conduct: instead of engaging in delaying tactics which no longer meet the demands of the hour. It is simply a question of affrrming that we shall not weaken our unstinting support of SWAPO as long as Namibia's territorial integrity is not restored. 147. The unlawful presence of South Africa in Namibia has lasted too long, and we must put an end to it. 148. Let me read the following quotation: "There can be no peace in southern Africa until all the necessary changes, so long called for by ·the United Nations, come about. We can no longer afford delay, as the potential for major disaster becomes more real every . d~~8 . This sentence is not mine; it comes from the introduction' to the report on the work of the Organization which the" Secretary-General of our Organization presented to the thirty-first session of the General Assembly. 149. Should we recall here that self-determination and independence have not always been achieved through peaceful means and that the General Assembly re~ogn!zed 150. The United Nations, for its part, established the necessary plan for initiating positive action in Namibia. It was thus that on 17 December 1974, the Security Council adopted resolution 366 (1974), demanding that South Africa take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal of its illegal administration maintained in Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Narr-dbia; and that pending the transfer of power, it should comply fully with the provisions of the Uniyersal Declaration of Human Rights; and proceed in particular to the release of political prisoners, to the abolition of all racially discriminatory repressive laws and practices, while according uncondi- tionally to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for their return to their country. ISI. Finally,' the Security Council decided, in paragraph 6 of its resolution 366 (1974), that in the event of the non-acceptance by South Africa of the above prescriptions, it would consider "the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter of the United Nations". 152. In January 1976 the Security Council affrrmed in its resolution 385 (1976) the legal responsibility of the United Nations for Namibia and declared: n ••• that, in order that the people of Namibia may be enabled freely to determine their own future, it is imperative that free elections under the supervision and c"ntrol of the United Nations be held for the whole of Naml(na as one political entity". 154. Senegal, for its part, solemnly reaffrrms the right to self-determiIlation and independem:e of a united Namibia, and remains determined to continue to advocate and support any initiatives likely to safeguard peace in southern Africa, regardless of their origin .or their authors. Similarly, we shall continue to give our frrm material and moral support to SWAPO, which is fighting so bravely and with such dignity for the liberation ofits people. . 155. A just and defmitive solution of the Namibian problem requires a sincere and decisive determination on the part of all the members ofthe international community expressed in terms'ofpolitical, fmancial, material and moral assistance to the Namibian people and to its national liberation movement. ' 156. In this period of interde-pendence between peoples and nations, no one can foresee the consequences that might ensue from a generalized conflagration in the southern part of the African continent. In any event, the liberation struggle at present being waged by the SWAPO freedom fighters will continue inexorably until the total liberation ofNamibia. However, the drama is that with each day that passes added suffering and destruction occur and bring tears and mourning. The community of nations has the duty to put an end to this useless flow of blood and the means for doing so; and this is what Africa asks again today,in the hope ~t at long last we shall be heeded., The meetingrose at 1.25p.m.