A/33/PV.74 General Assembly

Before calling on the first speaker, I should like to remind representatives that, as was decided at the previous meeting, the list of speakers in the debate on item 27, will be closed this afternoon at 5 o'clock. 2. I 110W invite representatives to turn to document A/33/44fJ containingthe report ofthe Fourth Committee on the hearing that it held on the question pf Namibia. May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of the report of the Fourth Committee?

I call on the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Miss Gwendoline C. Konie of Zambia, to intro- duce the report of the Council, which appears in document A/33/24: 4. Miss KONIE (Zambia), President, United Nations Council for Namibia: Mr. President, on·behalfof the United Nations Council for Namibia, I wish to congratulate you warmly upon your election to the post of President of the thirty-third session of the General Assembly. Your distin- guished career as a statesman in your country is a guarantee that under your presidency the General Assembly will be guided by a wise and experienced hand in coping with a complex and difficult agenda. 5. The United Nations Council for Namibia wishe.s to submit for the consideration of the General Assembly the NEW YORK report of its activities during the past year. This report, contained in document A/33/24, is a synthesis of the continuous efforts of the Council to fulftl the responsibility given to it by the General Assembly at its fifth special session in 1967 {resolution 2248 (SeV)] to administer Namibia until independence. The refusal of the colonialist and racist regime of Pretoria to withdraw from the Territory has led the General Assembly for more than a decade to reaffirm its condemnation of South Africa for its illegal occupation ot: Namibia and to strengthen the mandate of the Council for Namibia in order to allow it to intensify its efforts to promote international political mobilization to press for the ~.vithdrawal of the illegal administration of South Africa from Namibia. 6. The question of Namibia has its roots in the attempts by South Africa to manipulate the Mandate, established by the League of Nations and exercised by South Africa over Namibia, in order to promote its colonialist and racist goals of exploiting the people ofthe Territory and plundering its natural resources for the benefit of the caste of Afrikaner supporters of the abominable system of'apartheid. The United Nations, since its founding in 1945, has never accepted the attempts of South Africa to perpetuate its colonialist and racist control over the Territory. 7. The Namibian people, encouraged by, the support of many sectors of the international community, has hero- ically defied South African brutality and Namibian patriots .. under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization {SWAPO] have since 1966 conducted an effective armed struggle against the South African oppres- sor. 8. Unable to !plore the effective challenge to its illegal occupation of the Territory posed by ·Namibian patriots ready to sacrifice their lives for self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibiat South Africa and its allies have been forced in the recent past to accept talks for an internationally acceptable settlem:nt of the question of Namibia. In January 1976 all members of the Security Council voted in favour of resolution . 385 (1976) calling for general elections in Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations as a transitional step towards independence for the Territory. Since then efforts have been made with the participation of the interested parties to defme the necessary political framework for the implementation of that resolution. The Security Council has adopted resolutions 431 (1978), 432 (1978), 435 (1978) and 439 (1978). Each of those resolutions has generated initiatives by the Secretary- General and his Special Representative for Namibia in order to determine with South Africa the necessary conditions leading to elections in Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations as a prelude to independence. 10. By carrying out the political manipulation of Namibians on the pretence of holding elections under its own supervision and control, the illegal South African administration of Namibia is in fact creating a power base for its tribal puppets and neo-colonial racist supporters of apartheid This initiative by the racists of Pretoria has now changed the nature of the role of the United Nations in any transition to independence in Namibia. The United Nations i.. now confronted with manoeuvres to trap the world Organization into actions which will give international legitimacy to the power base being created in Namibia, the beneficiaries of which will be South Mrica's tribal puppets and the neo-colonial racist supporters ofapartheid. 11. The idea that once those so-called elections are completed South Africa will accept a second round of elections to which it will invite the United Nations, thereby fulftlling its responsibilities u "der resolutions 385 (1976), 431 (1978), 432 (1978), 435 (1978) and 439 (1978), is self-delusion. or worse. South Africa's intention is to entrench in power, through these rigged elections, its clique of neo-colonial puppets, so as to ensure 'that its ruthless exploitation of the people and resources of Namibia will continue indefinitely. 12. In spite of the opposition of ~e Security Council to . the rigged elections conducted by the illegal South African Administration in Namibia, which it has declared null and void, any presence oithe United Nations in Namibia after this manoeuvre by South Africa would be a tacit endorse- ment of the new power structure of neo-colonial puppets put into power by their Mrikaner overlords. A resolution of the United Nations can only deny international.legiti- maey; it cannot prevent South Africa from giving its puppets the status and the resources- to perform their functions as front men for their neo-colonial masters. 13. While these criti~al developments have been taking shape the Council for Namibia has endeavoured to strengthen international opposition to the illegal South African presence in Namibia and has implemented, in close co-operation with SWAPO, its broad range of programmes of assistance to Namibians through the formulation of the Nationhood Programme for Namibia, the utilization ofthe resources of the United Nations Fund for Namibia and support for the activities of the United Nations Institute for Namibia in Lusaka. As a result of a decision of the General Assembly in its resolution 32/9 H to hold a special session of the General Assembly on the question ofNamibia during 14. In Lusaka the Council adopted a Declaration on Namibia and Programme of Action in Support of Self- determination and National Independence for Namibia containing guidelines for its subsequent proposals to the General Assembly at its special session on the question of Namibia. After consideration of a draft declaration sub- mitted by the Council, at its ninth special session the General Assembly adopted resolution 8-9/2,on 3 May 1978, containing the Declaration on Namibia and Programme of Action in Support of Self-determination and National Independence for Namibia. The General Assembly thereby established the principles, approved by the overwhelming majority in the United Nations, on the basis of which self-determination, freedom and national independence could legally be brought about in Namibia. In the Decla- ration the General Assembly reaffirmed that the people and territory of Namibia were the, direct responsibility of the United Nations and tlta.t the Namibian people, u~der the lelidership of SWAPO, their sole and authentic repre- sentative, must be enabled to attain self-determination, freedom and genuine independence within a united Namibia, including Walvis Bay. 15. In the document, furthermore, South Mrica was strongly condemned for its illegal occupation of Namibia, its escalating brutal repression of the Namibian people and its military build-up in Namibia'ID preparation for a major confrontation with the liberadon forces led by SWAPO. The resolution adopted at the special session also reiterated that Walvis Bay was an integral part of Namibia and condemned South Africa for its deCIsion to annex Walvis Bay. declaring such illtgal annexation null and void. It strongly condemned the intensified preparation by South Africa for imposing on Namibia an internal settlement designed to give a semblance of power-to a puppet regime and an appearance of legality to the colonial and racist occupat~on. 16. The' Council, during 1978, continued actively to represent Namibia at ,international conferences and organi- zations and was particularly sucCessful in obtaining recog- nition by the United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties1 that South Africa was not the predecessor State of Namibia. The resolution of the Conference on the question of Namibia IA/33/24. annex XIII, para. 20j also declared that the relevant articles of the Vienna Convention should be interpreted in the case of Namibia in conformity with United Nations resolutions on the questiQn of Namibia. Missions of the Council also successfully obtained membership for Namibia, represenq,d by the Council for Namibia, in the ILO and in UNESCO, in accordance with recommendations contained in the reso- lutions of the General Assembly. , 17. The formulation of the Nationhood Programme con- tinued throughout the year under the supervision of the 18. The Institute for Namibia in Lusaka continues to be one of the most successful achievements of the Council for Namibia. The Institute continues to grow and to increase the number of students being trained for responsible positions in a genuinely free and independent Namibia. The experience which the administrators and scholars at the Institute have accumulated during the last few years has enhanced their standing in the international community and ensures the continued support of that community for the goals of the Institute. 19. In accordance with its endeavours to promote con- tinued international political mo1;i1ization in support of self-determination and national independence for the Nainibian people, the Council sent representatives to the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Belgrade in July, as well as to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity lOAUJ, held in Khartoum also in July. The participation of the Council for Namibia in these and other international conferences has intensified the awareness on the part of Govemment officials every- where of the scope and importance of the efforts of Namibian patriots to counter the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. The challenge of the Namibian people, under the leadership of their sole and authentic representative, SWAPO, to the brutal exploitation and oppression of the racists of South Africa is increasingly being brought to the attention of all peoples of the world. Solidarity with tha Namihian patriots is greater today than ever before. The Council for Namibia, in co-operation with SWAPO, is doing its utmost to assist the international community to gain a deeper understanding of the true nature of the struggle despite all attempts by foreign economic interests and those elements of the international press interested in presenting a distorted and adulterated ~age of the heroic struggle of the people of Namibia for self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia. The manoeuvres of South Africa and its allies will not end overnight. 20. The programme of work for the Council for Namibia for, 1979 envisages continued and intensified efforts to break through all obscurantist manoeuvring in order to ensure, through a deeper understanding of the situation, increasing support for the Namibian patriots in their difficult and noble struggle. Even today, as it imposes rigged elections on the Namibian people, South Africa has unleashed a wave ofmass arrests of Namibian patriots, who see through ~ts neo-colon~al schemes. In these manoeuvres South Africa is aided and abetted by a large part of the international press, which continues 'to imply that the so-called elections in Namibia under the administration and control of South Africa constitute a step forward in the preparation for independence. Such obscurantist" tactics require that the Council for Namibia redouble its efforts to reveal the true intentions of the Pretoria racists and their neo-eolonial allies. " 22. What can be the meaning of these so-called elections when mm,:y Namibian patriots, including Toivo Herman ya Toivo, co-founder and distinguished leader of SWAPO, and many other members of SWAPO remain in detention for the sole crime of demanding that the rights ofthe Namibian people to self-determination and independence be recog- nized by South Africa? The Afrikaners speak Qf Namibia's rights to indepen~nce in voices which betray their "insin- cerity and scheming defiance of the well-considered views and decisions of the United Nations. The imprisonment of SWAPO leaders by the police of Pretoria has not a shred of legitimacy and these leaders are subjected to torture and all kinds of inhuman suffering. And yet, despite all the acts of brutality of the racist oppressors, the Namibian people continue to struggle and to reassert their aspirations for self-detcrnrlnationandgenuine independence.In the last few days South Mrican security police have arrested Daniel Tjongarero, Vice-Chainnan of SWAPOin Windhoek; Mokganedi l1habanello, Secretary for Information and Publicity of SWAPO; Lucia Hamutenya, SecretaIJ' for Legal Mfairs of SWAPO; Axel Johannes, Administrative Secre- tMY' of SWAPO;johnKonjore, senior official ofthe SWAPO Youth League; and Salomon Kamatham, Deputy Secretary for Transport. These Namibian patriots and SWAPO offi- cials were arrested in the early hours of 3 December 1978, under section 6 of the notorious Terrorism Act of 1967. A total of 80 other SWAPO supporters were rounded up and gaoled. So much for free elections under South African supervision a~ld control. 23. The General Assembly should be ready to resume consideration of the question of Namibia as the defiant actions of South Africa in Namibia continue to challenge the responsibility of the United Nations for the Territory and to threaten and manipulate the legitimate interests <?f the Namibian people for self-determination, freedom and genuine national independence. 24. The General Assembly must reaffinn the responsibility . of the United Nations for the Territory ofNamibiaand its support for the struggle of the Namibian people to achieve self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia. The General Assembly must reaffirm that there can be an internationally acceptable settlement ofthe question of Namibia only with the complete withdrawal of the South African illegal administration from Namibia and with the holding of free elections under United Nations supervision and control. The General Assembly must declare that the United Nations will not under any circumstances legitimize the power-base of neo-eolonial

I now call on the Rapporteur of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoplest Mr. Sami Glaiel of the Syrian Arab Republic, to introdute chapter VIII of the Special Com- mittee's report in doc~,ment A/33/23/Rev.l. 26. Mr. GLAIEL (Syrian Arab Republic), Rapporte~r of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (inter- pretation from French): I have the honour to present to the General Assembly the chapter of the report of the Special Committee covering its work during 1978 in regard to Namibia. This is chapter VIII ofdocument A/33/23/Rev.l. 27. In paragraph 13 of resolution 32/42, of 7 December 1977, the General Assembly requested the Special Com- mittee to continue to seek suitable means for the imme- diate and full implementation of General Assembly reso- lution 1514 (XV) in all Territories which have not yet attained independence, and in particular: H(a) To formulate specific proposals for the elimi-. nation of the remaining manifestations of colonialism and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirty-third session; H(b) To make concrete suggestions which could assist the Security Council in considering appropriate measures under the Charter with regard to developments in colonial Territories, that are likely to threaten internationalpeace and security; "(c) To continue to examine the compliance of Mem- ber States with the Declaration on the Gran~ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and with other relevant resolutions on decolonization, particularly those relating to Namibia and Southern Rhodesia; 'lfd} To continue to pay particular attention to the small Territories, including the sending of visiting mis- sions thereto, as appropriate, and to recommend to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their Jght to self-determination, freedom and inde- pendence". 29. The views expressed by various speakers and the information provided by the representatives of the national liberation movements invited to participate in the debates, following consultation with the OAU, were very useful. 30. The Special Committee's decision is contained in section B of its report. The fllct that that decision was adopted by consensus demonstrates the unanimity in the Committee concerning the categorical rejection of the illegal occupation of Namibia by the South African racist regime. 31. The Committee condemned the continued occupation of Nimibia by the racist retme, its continuing policy of bantustanization and apartheid, a.'ld the violence and intimidation engaged in against the Namibian militants, as well as their imprisonment. It reaffirmed that SWAPO is the only legitimate representative of-the Namibian people and that the only acceptable solution to the problem is the one that 1e211s to self-determination and independence and that is based on the territorial integrity and unity ofNamibia, in keeping with United Nations resolutions and decisions. The Committee rejected any negotiations that did not include SWAPO, which is the only representative of the Namibian people. It rejected the tribal talks and any manoelwres designed to impose a so-called internarsettlement through the establishment of a puppet regime. 32. The' exploitation of the human and natural resources of the Territory by the illegal regime and foreign corpo- rations was also very strongly condemned. A specific request was addressed to the Security Council to take the appropriate measures under the Charter, including those provided for under Chapter VU, with a vie"!. toJacing up to the miJitarization of Namibia by South Africa, which refuses to implement·, Security Council resolution 385 (1976). 33. It is important to note that the Special Committee reaffirmed-its support for the~Narnibian people, lmder the leadership of SWAPO, in its libe{3tion struggle against the South African regime. The Committee expressed its com- plete and absolute support for the UrJted Nations Council for Namibia as the only legal authority in the Territory. 34. I could not conclude without noting that the Com- mittee actively participated in the work of the General Assembly's ninth special session on Namibia and in various international conferences on South Africa. It decided to 35. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish). The first speaker in the debate on this item is the representative of SWAPO. I call on him pursuant to General Assembly resolution 31/152, of 20 December 1976. 36. Mr. GURIRAB (South West Africa People's Organi- zati')n); During the entire period of the international community's concern·and preoccupation with the question of Namibia, the situation in our country has never been as critical and ominous as today. 37. Notwithstanding the differences in time and distance between Windhoek and New York, it is appropriate, nay imperative, that the General Assembly should be seized of the perennial problem of Namibia at the same time as the illegal regime of South Africa has started unilateral, bogus elections in Namibk, a Territory for which the United Nations in 1966, on the initiative of tms body, assumed a unique legal responsibility until it could acmeve political emancipation and genuine independence. 38. It is, therefore,. imperative that tms Assembly should meet today to consider and decide on what must be done next in order to salvage the image and the .integrity of the United Nations, which have been blemished as a result of South Africa's persistent flouting of its authority and unpunished defiance of its resolutions and decisions. 39. South Africa's continuous refusal to comply with the resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on the question of Namibia, while often acknowledged as regrettable, in fact has come to be considered as customary in the United Nations. This is so because over the years the recalcitrance and dupli~ity .of certain key Western Powers having special reJations of economic collaboration and interdependenr.e with the racist Pretoria rulers have rendered the United Nations indecisive and ineffective. But while salvaging its blemished image and integrity, the United Nations must also frrmly reassert its authority at this critical stage.by adopting a comprehensive programme of effective measures to secure South Africa's scrupulous compliance with its demands and directives.. 40. This meeting of the General Asse!J1bly is convened in· the context of the latest developments regarding Namibia. On 27 November 1978 the Security Council met to review the Secretary-General's progress report contained in docu- ment S/12938 of 24 November 19782-and there is now a supplementary report confamed in document'S/12950 of 2 December 19782-submitted pursuant to Security Coun- cil resolution .439 (1978). 41. .SWAPO wishes to take this opportunity to commend the Secretary-General and ms able staff for their diligence and courage in defending correctly the letter and spirit of the Security Council resolutions on Namibia,. and the 2 See Officilll Records of the Security Council, Thirty-third Year, Supplement for October, NOllemberand December 1978. 42. The SWAPO delegation nrmly believes that the Secu- rity Council and South Africa have now reached a dead end and are on a collision course. We do not believe that those racists should be allowed te hold to ransom the entire international community, exemplified in the Security Council, by creating at each stage ever more faits accom- plis, calculated to permit evasion of the demands of the Security Council and the General Assembly for the speedy decolonization of Namibia. 43. There is nothing new about the defiant attitude of South Africa towards the United Nations. South Africa has absolutely no respect for the decisions or even the authority of this Organization. The 32-year-old history of international dispute between that regime and the United Nations over Namibia is marked not by conciliation or co-operation, but by bitterness and confrontation. 44. The much publicized Western initiative which lasted about 19 month,., since April last year, was originally presented as a serious effort to break the stalemate. Frankly, this has not been achieved and from all we hear, see and know there is no prospect whatsoever that the South African racists will change and accept the United Nations demands and directives intended to bring about the transfer of power from that illegal colonial ~dministration to the patriots of Namibia, in accordance with the agreed principles. 45. It is agai."1st the background of tms manifest defiance ofSouth Africa, against the background ofbroken promises and compromised assurances during those 19 months, and against the ever-escalating violent confrontation inside Namibia that we in SWAPO have concluded that the limit has been reached beyond which neither SWAPO nor the ,UiUttid Nations can go without irrevocably compromising and undermining the sacred cause of liberation in Namibia. It is a cause which both the people of Namibia themselves and, . happily, the international community,. have long accepted as a decolonization problem which, if resolved through negotiations, must be resolved strictly on the basis of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and not on the basis ofcolonial claims and foreign interests. It was not at all difficult to realize that the South African regime had. no intention whatsoever of agreeing to elections supervised and controlled by the United Nations; 46. All this is meant to create more complex problems and to delay genuine independence in Namibia. It must be pointed out that the purpose of the present electoral farce is to establish a constituent assembly. It is not a mere testing of public opinion. In other words, South Africa is about to get away with the effective implementation of the sinister schemes and stratagems it adopted long ago and is conniving to involve the United Nations in order to legitimize its illegal acts. 47. This is the case in point. This is the challenge before the United Nations. This is the problem that the General Assembly is faced with at the moment. 48. It is in this context that the focus of the question of Namibia has shifted from the Security Council. which remains suspended, to the General Assembly. For obvious reasons, SWAPO is pleased that this Assembly now has an opportunity to look critically at the problems at hand, and specifically to pronounce itself on the present crisis in Namibia, compounded as it is by the current illegal. bogus elections and the accompanying reactionary violence there. 49. Over the years during which the armed struggle being waged in Namibia by SWAPO, and all the other forms of the struggle, have progressed through stages and developed into the most effective method of resistance against foreign occupation, the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs, especially the United Nations Council for Namibia, have taken courageous and far-reaching decisions and.adopted projt:cts and programmes to str~ngthen the efforts of the people of Namibia to secure the speedy liberation of our country. SO. Last May the General Assembly met in a special session 011 Namibia. Comrade Sam Nujoma, the President of SWAPO and the national leader of the Narnibian people. had the privilege of addressing that session on three separate occasionr to present the position ofSWAPO. The support and solidarity expressed during that debate by ---- 31bid.. Supplement for July. August and September 1978, document S1t2827. 4 See Of/icW Record' of tile General Assemb9'~ NiIIt" Specilll SeSR!11r. PIetwry Med., 1st meetinc. ~ 77-132; iba. 10th meeting, pans. 48-82; ibid., 15th meeting. paras. 68-13. SI. After a debate which lasted more than a week the special session adopted a political Declaration and a Programme of Action Iresolution S-9/2J which dealt with all the pertinent issues, including Walvis Bay, concerning the independence cfNamibia. The resolution which encom- passed the two documents not only goes to great lengths in reiterating the increased and continued support for our people and our movement, but also assures us of the continued concern and angUish of the overwhelming ma- jority of the Members of this Organization and their commitment to adopting effective m~asures to compel the Pretoria racists to withdraw from Namibia. 52. In addition, the position of the United Nations Council for Namibia as the only leg~ authority admin- istering Namibia until freedom and genuine indtipendence are attained in a united Namibia has been further enhanced and strengthened. The United Nations Council for Namibia, under the dynamic and charming leadership of Ambassador Konie of Zambia, is a reliable and effective ally of SWAPO in the common struggle. The important statement just made by the President of the Council for Namibia attests to this co-operation between the Council, the office of the Commissioner for Namibia and SWAPO. We appeal at this rostrum for support for the Council, the United Nations Institute for Namibia located in Lusaka, Zambia, the Nationhood Programme and,~ the other projects and programmes in support of our present struggle, as well as for the preparations for a future independent Namibia, to be augmented &..!1d revitalized. 53. Before and particularly since the special session the President of SWAPO, Comrade Nujoma, and other officials and spokesmen vf SWAPO inside Namibia and abroad, have explained and reiterated, in a painstaking fashion and with vision, our position on the present stage of the struggle and on the status and ramifications of the diplomatic initiatives that we have been involved'in for quite some time. Our position in this regard is clear and unquestionable. S~. In July and again in September and October of this year SWAPO's views were put forward yet again in the Security Council by Comrade NUjoma and another SWAPO representative.s ~ - ss. Our position with regard to Security Council reso- lution 435 (1978) and the final and deftnitive report of the Secretary-General, endor'Sed by that resolution was set out clearly and succinctly in a.letter dated 8 September 1978 addressed to the Secretary.General by Comrade Nujoma. This letter is contained in Security Council document S/12841 of 8 September 1978. In that lettt!r we presented the analytical background of the armed '3truggle itself, the Western initiative. and our attitude towards all the other forms of the struggle. Specifically, with regard to the s See OfFwiDJ Records of the Security Council. Thirty-third Year, 2082nd. 2087th and 2092nd meetings. "But while carrying out the armed struggle, SWAPO has always maintained the position that, whenever possi- bilities aro~ for a meal1ingful negotiated termination to the illegal oc~upation of our countl)'- by the South African racists, SWAPO would not hesitate to lend its support to such efforts. The history of our own move- m~nt in this direction is clear and requires no further elucidation. It was SWAPO which encouraged and sup- ported the African States as well as the other supporters of our liberation struggle to promote efforts in the Security Council which culminated in the adoption of resolution 385 (1976). It has also been SWAPO which has never for one moment hesitated to encourage and support any and all efforts geared towards the implementation of this and other relevant resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly. " "SWAPO which derives its legitinlacy from the over- whelming support of the people of Namibia, has always maintained that we are prepared for free and fair elections in the Territory. For such elections to be held, a climate of confidence, free of fraud, intimidation and harassment, must be created. It is on that basis that· SWAPO has supported one ofthe fundamental provisions of resolution 385 (1976), that is to say, the holding of elections under United Nations supervision and control. And it is for the same reason that we cannot accept a situation where South Africa is trying to create further -faits accomplis in the Territory and attempting to pre- empt the legitinllate expression of the people of Na- mibia."6 Then we pointed out the following: "SWAPO has taken up arms to resist the violence and repression of the occupying forces. When conditions can be created for putting an end to that violence, the necessity for the contibuation of the armed struggle will no longer be there. You will recmt that, at our meeting with you on Tuesday,S September 1978, we made it very clear that .we attached the utmost importance to the scrupulous honouring of the cease-fire. In this connexion, we had proposed that a formal and binding instru- ment . .. is logical and necessary to avoid further con- frontations and to ensure a scrupulous observance of the provisions of the cease-fire. We hereby reit_erate our 6 Ibid., Thirty-third Year, Supplement for July, August and September 1978. document 8/12841, annex. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. Finally, we assured the Secretary-General that: "With the above understanding, SWAPO accepts the Secretary-General's report and pledges its full co- operation for a speedy action by the Security Council. In so doing, SWAPO is conscious that it is fulfilling its historical responsibilities as the legitimate and authentic representative of our people."8 56. Th.:-t is still our.position today. We are committed ana we are WIlling to participate in elections supervised and controlled by the United Nations. South Africa has never been, and it is not, committed or willing. 57. Given the present situation, and without the prior agreement that will create the necessary peaceful conditions for such elections, there is no hope whatsoever that there will be a negotiated settlement in the foreseeable future in Namibia. Therefore the struggle must continue. We are committed to a protracted struggle. We have the people behind us. It is a people's struggle. It is this knowledge which assures us of victory, which we know is certain. 58. We do not believe that the inability of the Security Council to take action in the face of demonstrated defiance by South Afri.ca in the present situation should prevent the General Assembly from assuming responsibility on the basis of its own powers and obligations to act where the Security Council is unable to do so. It would be doing a disservice to those progressive countries members of the Security Coun- cil that were ready and prepared to act, but could not do so because of certain constrain.ts created by others, if we were to generalize about the Security Council. That is certainly not our intention. We are specifically talking about the reluctance of the major Western Po~ers members of the Security Council-the veto Powers-to face up to South Africa's challenge and to support sanctions against that regime. We know that South Africa is a valuable, perhaps indispensable, ally be'cause of its control over the rich mineral resources and its geopolitical and geostrategic position in the area, in addition to its being at present a white redoubt in southern Africa. Those are the realities. . 59. The futile words and hollow promises that we have been hearing for quite some time have, we submit, been J1leant essentially to deflect the course of the armed "struggle and to lessen the pressure from the progressive international community. In the process South Africa has been enabled to earn itself a degree of respectability in some influential quarters in the West and acquIre the image of a sincere and conciliatory decolonizing power in Na- mibia. That is false; that is misleading. South Africa remains the obstacle. 61. Like the tactics and strategies SWAPO employs on the military front, the General Assembly should view the Namibian problem, on the diplomatic front, as a protracted struggle and adopt both short-term and long-term actions on that basis. 62. We believe that the combined pressure of and con- certed action by the people of Namibia, led by SWAPO, and the international community will inevitably, sooner rather than later, force the South African regime to surrender. 63. In conclusion, we appeal to the General Assembly, to the Secretary-Genet"bi, to the United Nations Council for Namibia and to all members of the United Nations community, as well as to friends outside, to join SWAPO in demanding the immediate and unconditional release of the six SWAPO leaders and officials who were illegally and brutally seized during the early hours of 3 December 1978 by the Fascist police of South Africa. Those comrades are: Daniel 1jongarero, SWAPO Vice-Chairman; Mokganedi Tlhabanello, Secretary for Information and Publicity; Lucia Harnutenya, Secretary for Legal Affairs; Axel Johannes, Administrative Secretary; Salomon Karnatham, Deputy Secretary for Transport; and John Konjore, officer for the SWAPO Youth League. All are now in gaol in Namibia. They are being held under section 6 of the notorious' Terrorism Act, which carries, upon conviction, a minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment and a maximum sen· ttnce of death. That draconian Act-we call it the SWAPO Act-was hastily enacted in 1967 expressly to detain Comrade Toi~o Herman ya Toivo and about 37 other SWAPO members for voicing opposition to apartheid, colonialism and repression in Namibia and for daring to advocate freedom and nationalliberatlon. 64. Those comrades have been severely beaten and tor- tured since their incarceration, and have been taken surreptitiously to a segregated-that is, all-white-hospital at Windhoek, in order that the inhuman, heinous crimes committed against them might be covered up by the South African regime. They were identified by our people as they were being secretly ferried to the hospital. Similar arrests and victimization are continuing unabated at this moment. Even those reportedly released are under orders to appear before the so-called courts. 65. We reject with contempt, and with the scorn that it deserves, any attempt made now or to be made in the 66. With the present unilateral, bogus elections in Namibia SWAPO has absolutely nothing to do. Never in the past have we recognized or dealt in any shape or fonn with puppets, quislings or traitors; we are not doing so now, nor shall we in the future. We urge the international community to adopt a similar position. We ask the Assembly to pronounce itself similarly on this question. 67. SWAPO wishes to put on record our profound thanks and gratitude to the Secretary:General for his persistent efforts in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the United Nations on the question of Namibia. We appreciate the burden that this has placed on his health and his valuable time. We wish him continued good health so that he may persevere for as long as the problem exists. Together we can hasten the day ofliberation. 68. We sincerely thank you, Mr. President, and the General Assembly, for allowing us once again to speak in this debate. We also thank the Rapporteur of the Special Committee, Mr. Sami Glaiel of the Syrian Arah Republic, for the brilliant manner in whicll..he introduced the report of that Committee. 69. Finally, we reaffirm that South Africa is our arch- enemy and we renew our determination to continue the struggle until victory, which is certain. We condemn those who support and abet South Africa. 70. To our Western friends, especially the five Powers, two of which will leave the Security Council at the end of this year, we say at this stage, "Thanks-for what? "But we still urge them to help save the situation for all of us and most of all for the children ef the victims of Kassinga. 71. The struggle continues. The victory is certain. We wish that victory for all our comrades in arms of the authentic national liberation movements, and that certainly includes the Palestine Liberation Organization. " .' 72. Mr. SAHLOUL (Sudan): I should like at the outset to congratulate the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia on her lucid and comprehensive statement this afternoon _introducing the r~port of the Council. The Namibian situation has already reached a critical stage, with the holding of illegal elections under the watchful super- vision of the South Mrican regime and the futile attempts by all concerned to postpone those illegal elections. My delegation will therefore limit its statement in this debate to the latest developments in the Territory. 73. My Government has examined the report submitted by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 7 of Secu- 74. We feel, ther~fore, that the African countries have shown both wisdom and self-restraint in complyingwith the request of the Western countries at that juncture. It was necessary to expose the South African position beyond any reasonable doubt and for the Western countries to shoulder their responsibilities as members of the international com- munity playing a major and perhaps decisive role in the resolution of this critical problem. 75. The discussions that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had with the South African Secretary for Foreign Affai~s, and later with the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs, seem to have been inconclusive. No issue of substance was resolved in those discussions. Instead, all that the Secretary-General seems to have gathered dUring his talks with the Secretary' for Foreign Affairs of South Africa is the contention of the lattf,r that: "As regards co·operation for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) . . . the gap between the Security Council and his Government has been narrowed through subsequent talks; the remaining outstanding iss\l';'$ c~uld be resolved through consultations as envisaged in thf joint ·statement after the talks in Pretoria." [S/12938, para. 13.J 76. The discussions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa were in the same vein, as the South African official in his reply to the clarifica~.ions sought by the Secretary-General merely agreed: "... to recommend to the parties concerned that resolution 435 (1978) be implemented. In the meantime, consultations on the few outstanding points will be continued in an effort to resolve them." {S/12950, para. 4 (a)J 77. Here, we must confess, we are not quite sure which are the "parties concerned" to which the South African Foreign Minister is referring. However, we must be con- vinced by now that t.'le South African authorities are bent on following the course which they have adopted" on the Namibian question since they went back on their agreement to co-operate with the United Nations in leading Namibia "... the election would take place as scheduled by his Government and announced by the then Prime Minister of South Africa.... The election would give an indi- cation whether the elected representatives would repre- sent the people of South West Africa. It was left to $e Secretary-General-and the five Western Governments to decide whether after the election 'in December they would wish to continue to negotiate with the Govern- ment of South Africa." {S/12938, para. 18.J 78. In another respect, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of South Africa, in referring to the elections due to be held under United Nations supervision and the conditions prevailing in the Territory when such elections take place, emphasized: ". . . that after establishjng such a date it should not be possible for any party to delay the election. The date should then be adhered to irrespective of whether there was a cessation of hostilities and a subsequent reduction ofSouth African troops.'· {Ibid., para. 14.J 79. The implications, as my delegation sees them, are the following. 80. First, the present elections conducted by the SOUUt African authorities would lead to an administrative struc- ture which would prove amenable to South African wishes and intentions. 81. Second!y, fallowing the setting up of such an admin- istration the South Afr~an Government would advocate that any future negotiations with the United Nations and the five Western countries be held with that administration. Naturany, South Africa would continue to play a major role behind the sce\1es through that puppet administration. 82. Thirdly, meanwhile, SWAPO and its supporters, who, in our view, comprise the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Territory, would be side-tracked since they would not be able to take part in any elections, . whether present or future, because of the continuation of the state of hostility, bearing in mind that South Africa has persistently skirted the issue that there should be a formal cessation of hostilities between South Africa and SWAPO before any preparations for elections under United Nations supervision can start in earnest. 83. The net result of all those manoeuvres is that South Africa is preparing the ground for the setting up of a puppet regime in Namibia, thus frustrating the plans of the international community to establish a genuinely inde- ~ilO terdtofY of South Africa agai,o&t CUlY incu(sion by benefit. and consequently the resolution of the Namibian African liberation movements attempt,ing to ove..thJow problem should be ;m outcome of the relilization of such such a regime. principles and obje.ctives. An indication of willingness on the part of the Western countries to implement the relevant provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations on South Africa would go a long way towards allaying African suspicions regarding their sincerity and motivations. 84... Thi~ line of thinking may not caU$e any a,Cl.tonisWl1ent in African public opinion, but the impOJ;tant issue to re$Qlve. at this juncture is how thh; line of thinking by the South African authorities is viewed by the five Western countri~s. in their dealing with the problem ofapartheid and l'ac~ in the southern p~t of Africa.. After all. South A,fti~C\ fi&ures. prominent!} in the global strategy aJJd plans of th~ W$l.em Powers. It& strategic position in respect to th9 oU route around the Ca~ and its control of a s,isn.itl~ant part of the mineral w~a1th Qf the African plateau mak~ it om impottant SoUrce of vital raw materials to the indust.riea of the West and ~l anvil in the system of bases overlooking th~ Indian and Pacific Oceans. If such con- sidetations figure prom.inently in tho Western appcoach to the problems of Namibia and apartheid. then the South African regime will continue to feel free to pursue any policy that fits in with its determination to maintain the hold: Of the white minority on thl) territories of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia. 8S. We feel it is imperative at thisjuncture for the Western Powers to· assess the situation correctly and in the light of _if .t-erests .in Africa. and to reconcile themselves to the MMrgoace of genuine majority rule in the Territory as a whok. The rise of African nationallsm cannot be ignored much longer and the genuineness of African nanonalism ~arUl()t be blurred and smeared with acc,·~~tions of ex.- tMmi&m or ideological inclinations~ to th" detriment of Afl'ican interests and aspirations. The Patriotic Front fiptin& f{:lf majority rule in Zimbabwe) the SWAPO mQvc:uaent sU:usaUna for the independence- of Namibiaand ta. ha-Am.canist CQngress. of Azania apd the African N~tiQ:a.ak COllgJ!QSS of South Africain southern Africa a.{e all ~n\Unl,\ Africm mQv~ments. supported by tiw African ~ in ~ Uu" t~mtQries. It is.in the interests.of peace ~d ~~m\tx in Uw ~~OJ1l th¥i those moveme,nts be fuJly -\'l'l'Ort~d \l);. ~ ~~~ati.Qn'Jl, cQmmWlity a,D<l that the i"\l(l~ of 'l\d~~u.\W~{i~ ~ (~Gi;llqq..qlity Qt> resolved if we IU. t() aV~l' \M dm~ \~WlijlQA (~ia1 ((Qnfrontation ap.d • ~v{lnhu\l C9\\f\tct "' ~ (~~on, ~ith tltqir, lWfQr~.se~a.b.le impUpI'UPl,ll. 8f;i, Thtl P{P~n\ \1t Na.uU.l;>~ Qff~f;S; ~ 4Jtiqu~ QPport~ity tp prp~~" il\vn.a .h~ path oi ~QnGiij'ltiQfi> apd th~· dcwe,lqp" ~nt pf " P\la~m {~~l\ltiou, Ql th~· i~p~ iq'.q~;,s4Qq. T!te. ~Qwor~ f9f th.~ ~t~in& \lH- ~ Cl, &~nuin~l~ ~q~~nqe..nt State h~ ~~dy ~~n lai<:i in \h~ (~Q~¥,t{. r~SQlutiQns. ~dupteQ in thl: ~nrity (::~uncit. l~~vr~,s..Qf~\!tP ".fr.ic~ mu~t ).e halted hy a, ~i~ by t,b~, int~rnatiQ~ cC£fmm'lni~y to ~~te the SouUl J\uican, r4gim~. apQ apply ~ u:lev~t ptQ\,i~~ of CAAilt(}I Vii; of t11~, 1]nited Natiuns ~arter. We hone~tly ~\'~ thai ~~. ar~.l~ft. \\dth nu ,"pqon but to call for ~.his move; the five W~stem ~uUP~$ ~ill be Viell ~d¥~d to juiu in this. in~m!ltiQoal .i...iuu if tt~r want to COijooue to play a significantpart in we ~~ping ~f ~H~uts in Namibia tor the pftlsen4 and s:.t~~qu~Otfi" ,p ZimPabwe j,Ud in SoutkAfrica itself_ 88. Mr, GAYAMA (Congo) (interpretation from French): A few days ago the African group of States requested the Security Council to suspend its debate: on the: question of Namibia so as to enable the General Assembly. in ac- cordance with the rules of procedure. to consider the q,' ~stion itself. 89. It was indeed normal that States Members of the United Nation~ as a whole should be able to express their views from this rostrum on one of the problems which in our statements to the Security Council we described as being one "of the most unbearable aberrations in the his.tory ofour contemporary world",9 90. The General Assembly might usefully provide inspira- tion for the Security Council. which once again is to take up the question. 91. This objective of exploration and conciliation that charactemes our approach hn already been illustrated by the repeated consideration of this, question in the As- sembly. Indeed. so as. to ensure that this free and independent Namibia we seek would have every chance. we gave all tl", parties: involved in the affair all the time required so that the General Assembly might be in a position to make a less pessimistic judgement than usual as to the evolution of this situation. 92,. Have we been successfulT That is the crux of the matter. I fear. however. that at the present time we must stilt answer in the negative; and unfortunately that is what the record will show.. 93. on. 4 December. South Africa initiated a movement towards an internal solution by organizing sham elections in Namibia. As one might have expected. it accompanied this operation' with its full quota Qfviolence. Many arrests were tnltde.. patticu}arly of members or supporters of SWAPO, Acts.ofiatimidation, fraud and mindless terror have taken place on a wide scale. providing a clear ideaof how South Afric~ cpnceives ofself-determination. 9A.. We hope. that no one among the w~rld's public will be suxp~ise,4 by sueR a state of affairs~As long as South Africa continues to_a(Iogate to itself the right to exercise any kind Qf trusteeship: even by remote control, over NaIJl;.!)ia, that ~ountIY' will always experience misfortune, because no joy' Ot inde.ed mything.good can come outof South Africa. 9(5" Th.i~ is.so, tlue that histoJY has.rarely witnessei so sad. so tragic a sham eJe~tion ~ this which.. ra~her than hexa.ldin&a.new dawn"presages.a fut.ur& ofmourning. 9Ibid.f Thirty-third Y~, 2013th m~tina. 97. Although South Africa stated at the end of last week that it hoped to co-operate with a view to the implemen- tation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), we do not really see what certainty this statement provides, because South Africa still says that it wishes to discuss the principles of the resolution, the provisions of which have already been submitted to it. 98. Already-and this is my second reason for pessimism- such negotiations would have to begin with an inherent defect. Does Pretoria have the right to keep one of the parties-SWAPO-out of the negotiations? And one may -also wonder why South Africa claims to have the right to decide the composition of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group. 99. H,such excessive prerogatives are given to South Mrica by the Western negotiators. then could not the interna- tional 'COmmunity also demand as a pre-condition the settlement of the 'question ofWalvis Bay? Infact, this port .has never been recognized by SW>\PO or by the United Nations as:anytbing other than anintegralpart ofNamlDian territory. ]f South Afiica is going to ren~e on :the 'commitments it assume~ it should :also realize that the United Nations does after all have ,qghtsto ,exercISe ,orej'ill or part (Qf the Namibia that :South Africa is 'illegally ,occu~g. 100. We :Should perhaps look more "closely :at wha~ W:alvis !BayllIlean.s 10:SouthAfrica. 'We have frequently pointe,d·out ihe :strategic Jimporiance ,of this port located lon ~ Atlantic. It :is ;Cl large military h.ase" with .appl'o.xima-tely 4~OOO w:hite :S.oldieno. M .a ~ poI1" ·W.a1Vis :Bay ;in :this year Jl10ne ihas already emne.d:appJ'9Jdm.ately'$US18;tIii1lipn for :South Africa. '\WaMs ~y is tConsiae,re.doneof"the :five mljjor ports of.'South Africa. It :is -a fact 1b.at SP 10 90 per ~nt ;OfNmnibian ltr.ade passe,slthrOllzb.that )P~.r.t,.With ~uch :facts, now ::can ,one :allow "SOll.th Afrio,a ,to ,suffocate an 'independent Namibia ibydeny~ it :beforehand;its right10 --exe.rcise i'is 1io:ve,~j~jyoye.rtthe )P9rt? 101. ;We lhave ~o 1o~ ~ ~ud:ty iCow;l,~.n 'that,we care ~.t;p.tic.aI ,about ~~B0tiatio.n.s ,whi.® ,:wowd~ompleteb' Jose 1thejr .~ df e~Q1JJ.$.i~Jy j~~(1 ~ ithegoodwilllQf~ ~\lth Africa ·.w~h fu~ ~Q~e.· 'flhe 1),v.e ~e$tem f,owe.J;~hav.e -en!>.ughinf9gua1iQ~ tt:o ~~t ;~eJIl ft-o rre{rmn, ;flOW be~~nli,l!gdnvj:!l1!eP;W~ '~erl:tal11e:diploma.ti~ !t>J\«.le 1h~t1hey ,wou1jllUa'.:e1o-,w1!Se~~§O\l~ ,~C(l. IW.2.\We ~u.eve ~hftt <t\le ifi,x~ lP:owe,r~ [tOAetll~r ~ ,exert :B~re ,~p- Jhe\P;J~:t9Iiit :G9~~wme~i;. ,Jv.ty ,fJ,Ui.tlltl-e' whiCh \YIJuuj\ ll~Ji §Sl!~~\1 ~ya. (to l~)J~y~ iW ~(lllfm~ ;that no ronlUiv.e =m~~.p.{~ i.w9W4 ,ey.~r lb:e ~e.~ ;ilg?iu-st lit ,undQI 104_ It is to be feared tba.t such ~~urilJl~8-whi.cJh ~ven though they have not yet been wrmulatetJ, ilfe neve~~.~ real-may be given to South Mrica in the .B~~ it ~ pl~y~ yis.a-vis the five Western Powel.$, fox. 31 the V~J)' t:P»-e we are debating this .que.stion,the preS3 ~ rep9ItmB flQ.!m~ml transactions and l!Jctatiye invcstme.nts being m.ade qyjetly between certain Westem andSo\1tn AfJica.Q eJlterpri~~ established in Namibia, where they w,Q.U'ol ,the .ecoJJ-omy of the country. In s~h a .situation, we ar~ab.oye aJJ C9n~mefi. with the interests andtlle })1e$t~e \of .<>W' OJ~~g3-tion. These interest5 and prestiie will depen.d upoJJ. jts,capJbjlity to harness in the service .oflaw,and pea~ th~ sinmgth of ~ its Members, inpanicuJar 1ho.se that ar~ ~ntm~~4with. th~ maintenance of.security -:thr.oughOU.t th.e w9dd.. 105. In tbis re,spe,ct- w~ ,<;10 not ~~ wJ].y IDe.~\I1~~1 ~YeJl tho~gh at fmt ~le.ctiy~, <s:ollld .not be ,envis3ge,<J 1,1Q.der ChapterVII ofthe £harteJ, $9.~ .todl~\la.Qe Pre.toriJ. 106. The .report ·of the Unit~d N.atioJ)s Council for Namibia re.c.alls '9r pJOpose.s j. :$eries of ;PI;js:ti9~ nt~M1Jl'~S which, if their ;Unplerdenta.tioJl were tOPe&in-i migb.t '9~~ .ourpe.ssimism \to -turn iooptiJ;nism". - 107. However, southem ,Afn.c.a. which j$$uch '" 1;>ojJi,ng -eauldJ..on, v;iew~<1as a w.h.Qle only~ ,;t.U 9f·~sl (eel mo.st :s.omb~ -about th~ future. The ,keyst9~e oftWs entire .s,\tua.tion -is :pJec..~l'y 'SPllth AJtic.a, W,l!h )1$ system of <9pP.(e~sio.nof AfdC-aJJ:S. 1\1$t a.s ,E.u,rope~s of ~C\ent times u.sed to ~y,about·anAfdcatlPower, Carfu.jge, '~len4f!. est Cfzrlhpgo'~YI~ .must )"~:S9llJtely ~~yJde to de~troY'the ~'ys~m pr capprtheid., so that ii Jr~y las@-$ Jl.eas:ero~y ,re~ in Naw~·l· 1Uld, jnd.eec\" in All ~f :southern JMri.ca, for, ,since the ,,; ,special seS$.ion, devoted to th.e' Slllestion of Namibja. whi~h w.as held ~ Year, all er almost fill ~pects ,o:f tthis .que.stion have .bee~ t~efmed. Wh;l~ NiUlli~iiln9w !~q~ ..are,actions -e~p~~tng the to1;il1 ~9J@liW1ent oftbe P.nited Nations and the .S:t:a.tes;as a whole to.stf.Ulding ~de .by $id~ eWi.th Jts ,people. V:?~9W tlult -that w-ll.1.~ ,~he ,ouj,Comc of:theIBrf}~nt dehate. . 108. .Mr. J~RAKAStl (fudia): If) l:h~ ,hi$,tory of Qpited :Natio~$ G~ne.ral !As~ml>ly and S!::curity COP.Jlc.U re~~h~tio~ Qn ,!he l1lu~tiQn pf.NamlbJa ,isa~ga of.the, d#~mtineil ~d lledicated ~ffpr:ts of the ~Member~ of tb"e wo~ld body to ft~nrtinate ~pu:th Af;(i~~ :,(,~iU 9~PP3ti~n ~ftlle w:t~r­ llationalt~ttit~fY.,'io ~~1g ,to~~ml~$.opth ~fri9.il'~s ~l1l~1. -b.mta1 ~ dnhuman~l1PP'rmiop :audopptessiuJJ. 4lf ~~ '~mibian -people. ~to 1'Xpo~ and ;Pf;e'(~nt .:$O],lth'IM{ic.1l!s attempts to Jnstall.a PllPpet1mP cUent re~.eintllat richly :lC:M.x.!1:ak.a$h SPQkr.: jpHiIl9i 'J1l~ Epglj.$h v~~sion of his 110. At many points during ~hese 12 years the Security CouncU adopted strongly worded resolutions categorically calling upon Sotlth Africa to withdraw from Namibia and sternly warning it that failure to co-operate with the United Nations in the implementation onts resolutions would lead to further action against it, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Chapter VII of the ,Charter. 111. On almost an equal number ofoccasions during these 12 ycm, we have been buoyed up with hopes and .e~pectations that at last South Africa had agreed to .c0-9perate with the United Nations in ending its illegal ~upati<>n of Namibia. Bach time, howaver, these expec- WWns have proved to be nothing but a series ofmi5leading min~e~ in the South African desert of deceit and duplicity. Anc:l !':very time that the Security Council has sought to jmPQsc sJlJctionJ !lgainst th" recalcitrant and unrepentant ,~y.tb Am!;lat such action has been blocked either by ~,WQ .CQUJ)tri~s which cQnt\nue to have massive political M14 ~~m.omtc vested interests in South Africa or by yet MJ.-Q1b.el J;>lomise of "considering co-operation'" by South M~~lf. U:2. 1:~y ,we are at just such another cross-roads as ~be4@oye. -We have before us the proposals ofthe five w.~m member$of the Secul'ity Council1! for an inter- ~~y acceptable settlement of the question of Na- ~. ~ly, for that country's transition to inde- pw.f,ep,« afteJ .t)f.ect~ons held under the supervision and 1~9l. .ofthe United Na~jon$. These proposals" presented iW ]f4.i,[cP 197J$, baye since been adopted by the ~urity £.QWJ.CS, pt,de i~ J~sQlijtjon$ 431 H978) and 435 (1978}. iJ~. {)p 25 4pffi J97~, a date which coinci.ded with the ~ ~~ session Qf the Gl:neral A~embly, devoted to ~ ~Q»' Qf Na,mjbflJ, ~Qu~h AfriPa dtamatica!ly an.- ~ce4 #S f.l.;Cep~:m.~ of the Westem pfoposals-a moye n See ,Officiol {lecords of 'he Secwitj' Council, Thil'ty-third r1!Ilr..,Su.""'Ppltlfienf lor A-priT. May qnd June 1978, document S/'1$'JQ. . " 115. This has now culnrlnated in South Africa's unilateral and completely illegal decision to hold its own elections in Namibia without any United Nations supervision and control. These elections and their results have already been condemned by the Security Council as null and void, a step which the full membership of the General Assembly must now endorse.. The fact that despite th.e Security Counci'. call on South Africa to cancel these elections they are being conducted is yet another example of South Africa's blatant defiance of the will of the international community. This in itselfwarrants immediate and appropriate retaliation by the United Nations in terms of strong action against South Africa, as provided for under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. 116. The purpose, the objective, of these unilateral elec- tions is plainly set out in proclamation AG 63 issued on 20 September 1978 by the South African Administrator- General of Namibia. His proclamation provides for the election of a 50-member constituent assembly to draw up a constitution leading to independence: in short a unilateral declaration of independence by a minority in Namibia, like that in Southern Rhodesia. The ambiguously worded assurances to the contrary. by the Foreign Minister of South Africa should t.~erefore be disregarded as meaningless and as- c~o~tituting a further attempt to hoodwink the inter- na*'~',:!?', ,;oJll...rr.unity. i : ~'".ds is e..· '·'~t from the statement by the leader of '<., ".- ·Jed 'D "'( :atic Turnhalle Alliance, Dirk Mudge, ml Ltl Wind.hO'..:k .1: re~ntly as 21 November 1978, to the effect that the body elected in December will assume the powers envisaged for it in proclamation AG 63. In the same statement Dirk Mudge explicitly said that there is a strong likelihood of no elections next year, because "SWAPO and the countries in the United Nations cannot be felied upon". 118. The South African regime's gross disregard for justice and fair play in the conduct of these bogus elections is evidenced boy the recent acts of violence against and intimidation and detention of 'SWAPO leaders inside Namibia. I can do no better than "quote from the statement made by the Foreign Minister of India in New Delhi on . 4.December 1978·on this subject. He said: "I have learnt with shock the news of the arrest of the entire- SWAPO leadership in Namibia by the racist 12See Official RecorcIs of the General Assembly, Ninth Specitll SnIion. Pleruuy Meeting$.. 4th meeting, paras. 71-110. 119. The United Nations has reached its time for reck- oning, its moment of truth, as far as the question of Namibia is concerned. Either we take action now or we shall be faced with years of further uncertainty and vacillation, as has happened in regard to Southern Rho- desia. The Security Council is at present seized of the issue and is trying to bridge the chasm between what is necessary and what is possible: the necessary mandatory sanctions to bring South Africa to book, as against the Western efforts to block such action by the use of the veto. My delegation, as a member of the Security Council, fully supports all proposals ~med at imposing mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa, as provided for under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. However, in the event of the Security Ccuncil's inability to adopt concrete measures to compel South Africa to end its illegal occupation of Namibia, t}le General Assembly itself mould consider necessary action in accordance with the United Nations Charter and its own resolutions. It is with that possibility in mind that my delegation supports the proposal for a resumption of the thirty-third session of the General Assembly, on the question of Namibia. 120. As a member of the United ·Nations Council for Namibia, my delegation actively participated in the prepara- tion of the report of the Council for Namibia now before the General Assembly for. consideration. We should like at this point to pay a warm tribute to the President of the Council for Namibia, Ambassador Gwendoline Konie of Zambia, for her qualities of leadership ·and her sincere dedication to the cause ofthe Namibian people'. We supprlft the recommendations contained in 1:his report, which envisage a considerable widening in the scope of activities of "the Council for Namibia during 1979, particularly in the field of the dissemination·ofinformation. 121. We support also the proposal that 1979 be declared the international year of solidarity .with the people of Namibia. 122. We attach particular importance to the successful efforts of the United Nations ·Council for N.lmibia in protecting and promoting Namibian interests in the speCial- ized agencies of "the United Nations and at other inter- national organizations and confe.rences. The activities of the Council for Namibia in this regard are especially directed at preventing South African attempts illegally to represent Namibia in various international forums. Of conSiderable importance in this contex.t is the resolution adopted as part of the .Final Act at the United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties held in Vienna [A/33/24, annex XIII, para. 20J. This resolution in its operative part declared that South ~frica is not the 123. In the year under review Namibia; as represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia, was granted full membership in FAO, the ILO, and more recently in UNESCO. All these decisions, the result of the consistent and continuous efforts by the States members of the Council for Namibia, constitute effective proof of the growing recognition by the international community of the vital role of the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until inde- pendence. 124. My delegation would like to pay a tritmte also to the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Mariti Ahtisaari, for his considerable and compJ'ehensive efforts in preparing the Nationhood Programme for Namibia. This is a unique instance of a development programme being drawn up and implemented through providing appropriate training for Namibian patriots outside Namibia even before that country has attained independence. We note and welcome the valuable support of UNDP, FAO, UNESCO and other inte~ationalorganizations for this programme. 125. I take this opportunity to reaffmn the total political, moral and material support of the Government and people of India for the people of Namibia in their struggle for natillnal independence based on majority rule and human dignity. That brave and courageous struggle is being waged by the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO in the face oftremendous odds and at the cost of enormous sacrifices. The General Assembly's annual debate on Namibia provides an opportunity for us to pay homage to all those freedom fighters who have lost their lives in the long war against racism arra colonial domination, to those who ,are languishing in prisons and to those who are the victims of exploitation and apartheid. 126. India will continue to give support both bilaterally to SWAPO and multilaterally through· the various United Nations agencies. We recognize th~ circumstances in which SWAPO has been forced to resort to an armed struggle. We are confident that victory will ultimately be theirs, a victory of the people of Namibia, a victory of truth and justice over tyranny and deceit. 127. What is at stake is not only the future of Namibia, not only the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of the Namihian people. not only the growing threat to international peace and ~curity caused .by the continuing illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist South African regime, but also the credibility of the United Nations and of its principal organs, particularly the Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Let us not allow the will of the interr.3tional community to be paralysed regarding action over Namibia. Let us collectively determine that we can rise to this challenge .and meet it with the powers we have given ourselves under the Charter, bearing in mind at all times that what is at stake is the sacred trust of civilization. "... our clearly defined policy and pledge our full support and assistance to peoples fighting for the elimi: nation of those racist regimes and for their national liberation. We must lend full support to and recognize all the legitimate rights of the liberation movements of SWAPO in Namibia and the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe. There can be no genuine and lasting achievement of independence and transfer of power to the African majority without the participation of SWAPO and the Patriotic Front." [7th meeting, pura. 11O.J 129. Through the United Nations and the non-aligned movement and at a number of international conferences the international community has described the situation in Namibia and the prolongation of the illegal occupation as aggression not only against the people of Namibia but also against all the peoples and countries of free Africa and, consequently, as a threat to international peace and security. 130. The problem of Namibia and the situation in the whole region of southern Africa have worsened. The question of Namibia has therefore acquired the rughest priority, and at this session the General Assembly should devote the greatest attention to it. In saying this, we have in mind that southern Africa has become a focal-point of crisis of global si gnificance, posing a direct threat to world peace. For this reason the United Nations should become actively involved and, with regard to the solution of this problem, demonstrate its effectiveness, and so preserve its prestige and the role it is playing in international life. Owing to the complexity of the problem, and the fact that the funda- mental norms of international conduct and international law and the ethical pr'.nciples on which we are endeavouring to build the world in which we must live are affected by it, the question of the liberation and decolonization of southern Africa has become a touchstone for the con- science of mankind and a test of the ability of the international community to counter the aggressive chal- lenges of racist regimes. 131. The urgent and absolute need to liqUidate the regimes of racial discrimination, apartheid, illegal occu- pation and ~ggression in southern Africa are best illustrated by the most recent events in Zambia and Moz:L'1lbiquc. These have shown that the racist regimes do not shrink from undertaking the most loathsome aggressive acts of State terrorism and openly aggressive action against neigh- bouring countries, thus brazenly violating the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The negative course of events in Namibia is not a local problem, but a factor which has marked with its imprint the general state ofinternational relations in Africa and beyond. 132. At the present moment we are confronted with South Africa's rejection of the United Nations plan for a 133. The question that now arises is what to do in such a situation. I think that the most appropriate move would be to proceed from what was agreed and defmed at the special session of the Genelal Assembly on Namibia. In paragraph 35 of the Programme of Action in Support of Self- Determination and National Independence for Namibia [resolution S-9/2J, it is emphasiz.ed that: "The General Assembly is fully convinced that, at this decisive stage in the struggle of the Namibian people, the international community must take definitive action to ensure the complete and unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and thus eliminate the dangerous threat to international peace and security created by South Africa. To this end, it strongly urges the Security Council to take the most vigorous measures, including sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations ...". 134. I wish to recall that 119 representatives of Member States who were present voted in favour of this resolution and that no one voted against it. Therefore, the decision carried the indispensable force of political obligation for all the States Members of the United Nations. 135. A whole section was devoted to.the question of .Namibia in the Declaration of the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, which was held in Belgrade in July this year. It is stressed in that document that "... the illegal occupation of Namibia by racist South Africa constitutes aggression not only against the people of Namibia but against all the peoples and countries of free Africa and consequently constitutes~a threat to international peace an!i se<:;urity and poses a challenge to the United Nations which is responsible for the temu- nation of the colonial administration of this territory". [A/33/206, annex I, para. 102.J 136. The Conference pledged its support to the national liberation struggle of the Narnibian people. The magnitude· of that struggle can best be judged in the light of the vast military potential mobilized by South Africa and the sum of 200 million rand that it is spending annually in order to oppose that struggle effectively. The Conference also upheld the integrity of the Narnibian Territory and gave full moral and political support to SWAPO as the only legal and authentic representative of the Namibian people. 138. We believe that the time has finally come to forestall all the manoeuvres aimed at circumventing the clear decisions of the United Nations. In this context, it is of the greatest importance that the international community should lend full moral, political, material support and assistance to the liberation struggle, under the leadership of SWAPO, which is the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia and the legal defender of Namibian interests. 139. The debate which took piace in the Security Council at the beginning of November and resolution 439 (1978) provided the right answer by warning South Africa that its failure to co-operate with the Security Council in the implementation of its resolutions 385 (1976), 431 (1978) and 435 (1978) would lead to appropriate action under the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII. 140. In view of South Africa's rejection of this, the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, must take rapid and effective measures in order to prevent South Africa from imposing a so-called internal solution and to compel it to implement the decisions of the United Nations. We must condemn the South African rtSgime for holding elections unilaterally; declare those elections null and void; condemn acts of repressior- and detention of SWAPO leaders and demand their immediate release; demand that South Africa unconditionally comply with the resolutions of the Security Council; and declare that non-compliance with the provisions of those resolutions constitutes a threat to international peace and security which necessitates appropriate action under the Charter, including Chapter VII. Failure to solve this problem, which constitutes an extremely dangerous focal-point of conflict in Africa, would open new areas for the rivalry and clashes of foreign interests and confrontation. 141. In accordance with its policy, Yugoslavia will support every action of the United Nations conducive to the implementation of its resolutions. In keeping with the recommendations of non-aligned countries, it will continue to suppnrt and assist the national liberation struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWArftQ. In fact, this struggle prOVides the best guarantee for the achieve- ment of a peaceful solution. 142. Mr. SAMHAN (United Arab Emirates) .(in.terpreta- tion from Arabic): Our Organization, since its inception over three decades ago, has embodied the nople and dignified hopes of mankind and has gone beyond the 143. The debate on Namibia has seen the contribution of numerous delegations in the Security Council and in our Assembly. During the ninth special session everything was said on this question. The subject was covered in depth. None the less, we now have to translate our words into deeds in order to guarantee the people of Namibia their 'independence and self-government, in keeping with Secu- rity Council resolution 385 (1976), which was adopted unanimously on 30 January 1976 and which calls on South Africa to put an immediate end to its illegal occupation of Namibian territory, to free th.e political prisoners and to abrogate all repressive and discriminatory laws and prac- tices, to allow all 'exiled Namibians to come back to their territory, and to organize free and genuine elections under the auspices of the United Nations in Namibia. 144. That resolution also calls upon South Mrica to respect the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations, as well as the advisory opinion of the International CQurt of Justice of 21 June 1971.1 3 For all these reasons my country's delegation denounces the elections that are now being held in Namibia and we call upon the peace-loving countries of the world to denounce them as well. 145. We continue to support the initiatives undertaken by the five Western countries tending towards the total and complete freedom of the Namibian Territory in keeping with United Nations resolutions, and in particular through the implementation of all the provisions of Security Council resolution 385 (1976). Those countri~s should stre&s the territorial integrity of Namibia by demanding that Walvis ~ay be added to Namibian territory and be considered an integral part of Namibia. That would provide proof of good intentions and the non-usurpatin::t of the rights of the Namibian people as well as respec.: for their territorial integrity. 146. We consider that applying strong pressure upon the Pretoria regime is the only Wh" to create favourable conditions for the elimination of. the illegal regime from Namibia. It is up to those preparing the current initiatives to decide upon specific measures against the SQuth African regime that would make it yield to the will of the international community, because, if the South African regime continues to refuse to withdraw from the occupied territories as stipulated in United Nations resolutions, the countries that take that initiative must support the appli- cation of Chapter VII of the Charter against South Africa, and those countries must implement United Nations reso- lutions. 147. My country's position on this question can be summarized as follows. 148. First, we recognize SWAPO as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people, and we shall support T3 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Re$Olution 276 (1970), Advi$Ory Opinion, I.e./. Reports 1971, p. 16. 149. Secondly, we consider that the parties concerned must respect the sovereignty and the territorial and political integrity of the Namibian people. That means including Walvis Bay in Namibia. Territorial integrity can under no circumstances be negotiable. 150. Thirdly,' we see a need for the withdrawal of all forces from Namibia, includin~ Walvis Bay, without any prior conditions. 1.51. I shall conclude by again stressing the fact that the United Arab Emirates, its Government and its people will on a continuous basis give moral and material support to the people of Namibia and to its legitimate representative, SWAPO. The General Assembly is meeting during a difficult period in the history of Namibia. We urge a rapid solution to this problem, one that would allow the Namibian people to free themselves from the yoke of South African colonialism. Thus Namibia wouJd soon join the concert of nations of the independent and free international com- munity.

The General As- sembly is considering the question of Namibia at a particularly serious and tense moment in the experience of the people of this country. 153. The events taking place today not only threaten to create a new and serious hindrance to the achievement by the people of Namibia of genuine independence and freedom but also are a challenge to the authority of the United Nations and to the international community. In its present actions the Pretoria regime is pursuing the goal of putting a definitive end to allY !,ttlement of the Namibian problem through peaceful means and is thereby increasing the threat to peace and security in this region and elsewhere as well. 154. Throughout this entire year the international com- munity has made many efforts to solve tb.e Namibian problem. 155. The question of Namibia has been studied at a special session of the Genera1 Assembly of the United Nations; it has been repeatedly discussed by the Security Council"and by other bodies of the United Nations. Significant attention has been given to this qllestion likewise by the fifteenth ordinary session of the Assr:'1lbly of the Heads of State and Government of the OAU and by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Non-Aligned Countries. An important positive roie in mobilizing international efforts hI. favour of a just settlement of the Namibian problem continues to be played by the Special Committee and by the United Nations Council for Namibia. None the less, as is clear to everyone today, in spite of active international efforts, the situation in, and around the Territory continues to worsen rapidly. 156. The main culprit in such a development of events is the Government of South Africa, which is moving towards 157. The United Nations Council for Namibia, in its annual r~port in document A!33!24, has drawn the attention of the Assembly to the following illegal actions which contradict the principles of a peaceful and just settlement of the Namibian problPm and which have been undertaken by South Africa just recently. They are the unilateral appointment of an Administrator-General of Namibia; the unilateral registration of voters in Namibia; aggression against Angola; the massacre of Namibian refu- gees at Kassinga; aggression against Zambia; the wanton destruction of life and property at Sesheke; the intensified repression of the people of Namibia characterized by massiv.e new arrests of the leaders and members ofSWAPO in order to wipe out the liberation movement. This was described convincingly, here, by the representative of SWAPO, Mr. Gurirab. 158. Every paragraph of this document is a kind of verdict pronounced against South Africa. Every paragraph of this document is confirmed not only by facts well known to everyone, but alsc by the numerous sacrifices claimed by the inhuman policy of South Africa from among both Namibians and the inhabitants of the neighbouring African States. 159. Today, to this long list of criminal actions by the Pretoria authorities in Namibia, we must add the so-called elections which are being carried out by them under circumstances of wanton racist violence and terror against Namibians and their genuine representatives in the person of SWAPO, and are being conducted without the participa- tion of the United Nations and without United Nations control. Those elections constitute the very core of the manoeuvres undertaken by the Republic. of South Africa . jointly with some Western allies from the North Atlantic bloc and, according to the plans of the neo-colonialists, should be the r.ulmination of the many years of efforts by the racists to set up in. Namibia a puppet neo-colonialist regime. 160. less than a month ago, the Security Council had a special discussion of the situation in Namibia and adopted resolution 439 (1978). In this resolution ,the" Security Council condemned tl).e d~cision of the South African Government to proceed unilaterally with the holding of elections in the Territory, considered that that decision constituted a clear defiance of the United Nations and called upon _South Africa iIllII!ediately to cancel these elections. The Security Council unambiguously warned South Africa that its failure to do so would compel the- Security Council to meet forthwith to initiate appropriate actions under the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof. 161. As is known, the majority of the members of the Security Council, including the Soviet Union, as that time advocated the immediate application against South Africa 162. I would like to tell the participants in this Assembly about my conversations with one of the very well informed representatives of the Western "group of five". These conversations began back in spring of last year. During the fast conversation I asked how things were in Namibia. The representatin of the "group of five" told me: "Oh, we have some brilliant ideas"-some of these sentences I shall repeat word for word-"for a solution to the question of Namibia. We shall show everyone that there still is a chance for the peaceful way out. Namibia will be independent. Our initiatives will be irresistible for Namibia. Our proposals will be like a piece of candy which Namibia will be forced to swallow." Naturally, I had my doubts, because this over-optimism seemed to me to be highly unjustified, and I asked him: "Is that so? Can one believe that? "He answered, "Yes, just as surely as I am standing here". 163. In the autumn of 1977 I again met this repre- sentative. As usual, he was apparently dealing, among other things, mainly with the question of Namibia. I asked him: "How are things going? What is the fate of your initia- tive? " He told me: "O.K. Everything is fme. There has been a noticeable shift in the position of South Africa, and that is encouraging"-and once again he spoke to me in a very optimistic Way-"1978 will be the year of independence for Namibia." I said: "Really? Do you not have any doubts yourselves? Something does not seem to ring true about the common sense of the leaders of Pretoria. After all, they adopted Fascist racist methods and the Republic of South Africa is an up-to-date model of that world empire which the Fascists intended to establish for a thousand years if they wer'3 victorious in Europe and elsewhere during the Second World War." To this he replied: "What do you mean? They were misled; but now it seems they are taking t.~e pat.~ which will lead them to agree with the reasonable arguments of the 'group of five' and with the demands of the United Nations." I said: "Very well, let us wait and see. But you are giving South Africa too much time, so that it will be able to 164. In the spring of 1978, after an interval, we met again. As the Assembly knows the initiative of the "group of five" was under way and among other things I asked him during one of the meetings: "What do you say now about the Western plan for Namibia?" "Shall I tell you frankly? " he asked. "Yes," I said, "tell me." "Doubts have arisen, but we shall intensify our actions against the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of South Africa will yield. We are not giving up hope," he said. To that I answered: "God grant that you will be succesllful in this, if you are sincerely striving for a just, peaceful settlement in Namibia." 165. In the second half of 1978, during one of the meetings after the trip of the five Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Western countries to Pretoria, I again had a conversation with this representative ofthe "group of five". I asked him: "Don't you think it ironic that your ministers went to ask the racists to be reasonable?" "No," he replied. "What do you mean? Although the changes have so far been only for the worse, we shall not cease our efforts. We arc determined to bring our efforts to a successful conclusion." 166. I had no further conversations with him on that matter. 167. The representatives of the Western countries began to assure us that everyone was showing patience, that every- body was waiting for events to develop, and that they intended further to convince the Government of the Republic of South Africa to become teasonabie. But who is it that we have to convince-puppets who will come to power under the protection of the Republic of South Africa as a result of these false elections? 168. One staff member of the United Nations who recently returned from Namibia gave me his opinion about the situation prevailing there. He told us that, in his opinion, there could not be nor would there be any .elections supervised by the United Nations. South Africa could not care less about the proposals the West made to it, and would never allow on its territory United Nations forces, police and a civilian administration to hold any elections whatsoever. Continuing our~nversation he said: "Namibia is too fat and juicy a morsel for South Africa or anyone in the West to leave to the Namibians and to the United Nations." 169. Last spring we had serious doubts with regard to the success of the proposals of the "group of five". So where 170. All these conversations about additional contacts with racist South Africa are intended to drag matters out further and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli. While the Western Powers are going on and on about their readines.s to continue their efforts, events in Namibia are developing according to a scenario worked out by South Africa, which apparently was approved by some people from the North Atlantic bloc. After holding effective elections and after creating a p...ppet regime there, the United Nations will have to deal not with South Africa-and this is something that the leaders of South Africa themselves say-but with their puppets in Namibia. This is something which last spring was acknowledged by the puppets in an African magazine, namely, that no talks in the United Nations would prevent them from carrying out their plans to implement the so-called Tumhalle constitution, although this sham constitution does not give a thought to the creation of an independent Namibia. 171. There can hardly be any doubt that the implemen- tation of a Namibian settlement according to this model will substantially complicate the task of granting genuine independence to this country and will create a serious worsening ofthe situation in this region. 172. For the majority of the participants in the General Assembly today, it is clearer than ever that the time for persuasion is over. Time has come for spedfic and effective actions. 173. Neither the General Assembly nor any of the forces that love peace and freedom can reconcile themselves with the criminal actions of the apartheid regime in ~~mibia. We cannot allow the racists and their protectors from the North Atlantic bloc crudely and constantly to ignore decisions of the United Nations, especially the requirements of the Security Council, for all Members of the United Nations not only gave that body the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security but also agreed to obey and carry out its decisions. 174. The international community has available to it an agreed programme of specific actions. This has been mentioned here by the representatives who spoke before me. This Programme of Action was adopted by an absolute majority of votes at the Vlinth special session of the General Msembly of the United Nations. The General Assembly emphasized, inter alia. that at this decisive stage in the struggle of the Namibian people the international com- munity should undertake specific actions to guarantee a full and unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and thereby eliminate the dangerous threat to 175. A similar appeal to the States Members of the United Nations was made by the United Nations Council for Namibia, which, according to a General Assembly reso- lution t is the sole legitimate governing body in Namibia until that country attains complete independence. Being a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the Soviet Union highly appreciates the activities of that Council and of its President, the Permanent Representative of Zambia to the United Nations, Miss Konie. We fully agree with the position of the United Nations Council for Namibia set forth in the recommendations of the Council to the General Assembly according to which the basis for a peaceful settlement in Namibia, if such a thing is still possible, remains Security Council resolution 385 (1976), as well as the resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. 176. South Afric..a should hnmediately and uncondi- tionally withdraw all its forces, police and administration from Namibia; it should renounce its illegal claim to Walvis Bay; and it should put an end to all its manoeuvres to achieve a so-called internal settlement in Namibia. 177. Since South Africa, as is now clear to everyone t does not wish to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations and is stubbornly continuing te. implement its own neo- colonialist plan for a settlement, the international com- munity is obligated vigorously to condemn it and, again, in a most decisive way to call upon the Security Council urgently to institute the sanctions in accordance with Chapter VII of tile Charter. 178. It is necessary to demand that those countries which are continuing their co-operation with racist Pretoria put an immediate end to such co-operation and not hinder the adoption by the Security Council of the effective measures provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. 179. The Soviet delegation, naturally. firmly supports these and other most decisive and effective measures deriving from the Charter of the United Nations that may be proposed in the interests of a rapid and just settlement of the Namibian problem. ' - 180. It follows fiom the statement of the representative of SWAPO, Mr. Gurirab, that SWAPO is determined to continue both the political and the armed struggle for freedom and independence in, Namibia. SWAPO showed surprising flexibility in its approach to the settiement of th~ problem a!!d it is not SWAPO out rather the racists of Pretoria who are to blame for the fact that that settlement has not come an inch clorer to realization. SWAPO's struggle is supported ·by all progressive forces, by all the socialist countries, by all the African peoples and other peoples as well. The struggle ofSWAPO is supported as well by the peoples ofAsia and Latin America and we are firmly convinced of this. "The socialist States Vigorously support the peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia in their selfless struggle for the early attainment of national independence. They are in sympathy with the just struggle of the people of South Africa for the abolition of apartheid and all forms of racial discrimination. They condemn the attempts to impose upon the peoples of Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa neo-colonialist solutions which are alien to them and which could lead to the outbreak of new conflicts in that region." [See A/33/392-S/12939, annex.] 182. Under. conditions where the imperialist forces, in collusion with racist regimes in southern Africa, are attempting to maintain and strengthen their shaky domi- nation in southern Africa, including Namibia, it is the duty of all anti-colonial, anti-imperialist forces to broaden the support for the nationalllberation struggle of the Namibian people led by its sole legitimate representative, SWAPO. 183. Selfless brotherly solidarity and assistance will help the people of Namibia, we are sure, to achieve a victory over the forces of neo-colonialism, racism and apartheid. Behind SWAPO stand the people, all progressive forces, all the peoples of Africa. It is the duty of the United Nations fmally to get on with carrying out its obligations to the people of Namibia. It is the duty of the United Nations to help it rapidly to achieve freedom and independence.

Two obstacles prevent the United Nations from meeting the new challenge posed by South Africa. The fIrSt is based on the broadness of a subject which we bave dealt with for more than 20 years. It is discouraging to note that the uninterrupted outpouring of resolutions, advisory opinions and even judgements has not changed by one iota the illegal rule of South Africa over Namibia. We resemble those hikers who have gone beyond their strength and who, unable to stol', continue to walk aimlessly with no- goal in view. The second obstacle is the actual complexity of the crisis in southern Africa. It is there that the most obdurate example of colonialism is making its last stand. There is a great desire to make Namibia a part of the broader question-as if for the United Nations the struggle to liberate Zimbabwe or to eliminate JZpaTtheid were the same as the struggle to liberate Namibia. In confusing these questions we lose OUi' strongest case, because in Namibia the United Nations has a separate and fundamentally distinct case-this is a question of the last of the Mandates granted by the League of Nations when the civilized world first became aware of the evils of colonialism: it is the only opportunity ieit to fulfil that sacred duty to the under- privileged peoples which we inherited from the League of Nations and which imbues the Namibian case with its special features. 18~. We must keep in mind this radical difference b~cause the case of Namibia impUr.:s specific responsibilities for the United Nations which we cannot and should not shirk. In addition, we must !l1so take into account all the different 186. Namibia, in the view of my delegation, is the weak link in SQuth Africa's armour. The succeeding generations of representatives which have dealt with this subject since 1946 have felt this to be the case. It is there that we shall find the point of penetration to weaken apartheid-the weak spot through which we can ensure the independence of Zimbabwe. Conversely, anything we do to confuse the case of Namibia with that of southern Africa will lighten the pressure of world public opinion on South Africa and delay the achievement of our goals. 187. In this context, my delegation today finds the time very propitious to advance the cause of mankind. Security Council resolution 385 (1976) opened a new chapter. South Africa is in oefault since it did not comply with a resolution which is binding upon it under the relevant Articles of the Charter, which it, too, signed. It has avoided doing so by resorting, as it usually does, to all kinds of trickery and quibbling. In truth, we should have been forewamed. Since the United Nations declared its com- petence over what was then called South West Africa, tricks and manoeuvres have been Pretoria's favourite weapon. 188. Here theyhave shownthe kind ofingenuity we should like to see used to better purpose. In order not to recognize the ~xistence of the Mandate, not to submit to the Trusteeship System; to flout the supervision efforts, devised with considerable ingenuity by the United Nations; in order to use the International Court of Justice as a cheap shyster would do; in order to undermine the resolution whereby the United Nations put an end to the Mandate- for all of this South Africa has proved to be the most resourceful of cheats. We should not be surprised to fmd that this same process should have repeated itselfsince the adoption of Security Council resolution 385 (1976). The five Western Powers have found in their negotiations a fluid and vanishing mirage. Whenever South Africa is compelled to spell out its position, it finds a new subterfuge. Its endeavours to implement Security Council resolution 431 (1978) are a clear example of this loop-hole policy. We can admire the method and patience of our Secretary- General while condl"mning outright the delaying tactics so well described in documents S/12938 and S/12950. 189. We fmd a tragic and strange example nf this policy in the electoral process which South Africa insists on carrying out in its own way and with its fwthful henchmen. Is it possible that we can doubt the absolute condemnation of those elections by the international community? The excuses and diversions offered by South Africa would be .comical if they were not so tragic. Reference is made to the obligation to fulfd commitments, those same commitments which are disregarded cynically by the Smith regime on the other side of the African continent. 190. And again, we are told that those elections will have no effect since South Africa will continue to govern, but then we are also told in virtually the same breath that that same Government will have to negotiate with the new representatives -to determine how the Security Council resolution is to' be implemented. And as if this campaign of 191. Our situation is similar to that which occurred when the General Assembly put an end to the Mandate, and my delegation believes that the time has come to put an end t9 South Africa's delaying tactics, the only ohject of which is to perpetuate its unlawful domination as an usurper and hamper the negotiated peaceful solution of the question. An analysis of the latest events shows this quite clearly. South Africa agrees to negotiate only to return to its original positions when the time comes to assume commit- ments. It is sufficient to observe how it side-steps any negotiations designed to achieve a cease-fire with me IDlitant armed force of the Namibian people, that is SWAPO, or the hundreds of obstacles it raises in order to prevent the holding of peaceful elections the validity and honesty of which could be guaranteed by the United Nations. 192. My delegation, in agreement with the members of the Council for Namibia and as the Indian representative has juat announced, is happy to submit a draft resolution to which we attach especial importance. This is the one that will put an end to the policy of delay; it iJ the draft resolution which requests the Security Council to carry out its immediate obligations towards the people of Namibia, and it is the text which requests the General Assembly to act directly if the other methods laid down in the Charter lead to no results. For the delegation of Mexico the warning contained in that draft resolution is quite clear. The Assembly is telling South Africa: we have already under- stood the falsity of the policy of concealmen! and dissimulation and we are not prepared to put up with it lI!y longer. 193. If this last warninS is also disregarded; if the last fL,ends of South Africa are unable to persuade it that Namibia is the key to the beginning of the peaceful break-up Qf an empire founded on the violent exploitation of man by man, then the Genera! Assembly is o1'Uged to apply the coeicive measures provided for in the Charter. It is for this reas<m that my delegation believes that this subject should be kept constantly under relview by the General Assembly. 199. The logic of terror quite naturally leads the racists of Pretoria to give vent to their oppression in ever-more varied W&ys and to seek to perpatuate their domination by taking the most unexpected path3, such as. that of a se>called legality consisting in organizing. an electoral masquerade in defWlce of true legality, that of the international communityt which once again has found itself flouted. Yes, the United Nations has adopted aplm for the settlement of the question ofNamibi2. While it is no longer up to us to passjudgement on this plan, it is worth while to repeat that, 1ike any other plaIi, it is worth no more than the will of those who are entrustod with its impl"menta-· tion. But we see that this will has been resisted'by the racist !6gime, which is ignoring the decisions of the international community. The holding of prefabricated elections in Namibia is a grave affront.to the United Nations. 195. Apartheid is not separate development, as the propa- ganda of the Pretoria racists would have us believe. What is really happning in South Africa and Namibia is the veritable enslavement of the Mrican peoples for the benefit of the minority which bases its prosperity on the exploita-

Although racism manifests itself in different forms, nowhere has it assumed su~h intolerable and inhuman proportions as in Africa. In the southern part of our contin0nt white minorities continue to justify their predominance and their domination by claiming the supre- macy of their race over that of Africans considered as inferiors. 196. South Africa has established a vast concentration camp, a fact which has been regarded with indifference by certain Western Powers. The prison population has more than quadrupled sin~ 1948. lloliticaI prisoners number thousands upon thousands. Thousaa'1ds of babies have been admitted to prison along with their mothers. So from very birth to death the life of the African is continually threatened. Even when he is dead, he is not spared, because he is buried in a separate cemetery, as provided for in the Group Areas Act. 197. That is the true fact of apartheid. How can it continue to exist when the international community as a whole condemns it? How can the propon;'nts of this system be associated with the solution of problems whose sole origin is the very regime ofapartheid? Some Western countries are thus ensuring the survival of the apartheid regime and, in so doing, do not encumber themselves with idealistic or philanthropic considerations. In banking on apartheid, economic interests are sacrificing long-term advantages for immediate profits. Africans will not forg~t this easily because more than ever they are now ab~~ to distinguis.'l between their enemies and those who favour the cause of their liberation. 198. Far from learning a lesson from the defeat of colonialism in Africa, Pretoria is entrenching itself ever further in its odious policy and is persisting in trying to perpetuate a system of oppression and racism. What is worse, because of its siege mentalitYt which it has allowed itself to cultivate to justify its abominations, the Pretoria regime, not content with oppressing the African peoples of South Africa and Namibia, is committing.aggression against independent neighbouring countries. The racists are seeking to create a kind of security zone behind which they can pursue their regime of terror. 200. In order not to be outdone, Pretoria has gone further than its rivals, the specialists of rigged elections. To the 201. Not free, not secret and not honest, those mystifying elections held in Namibia are null and v~id. Blemished by irregularities an~ the illegality of the regime which or- ganized them, they are indeed null and void and cannot confer any authority on those who were dected by them. 202. The question of Namibia has since 1966 never ceased to be the subject of the greatest concern on the part of the international community. The United Nations, the guar- antor of the,future of the Namibian people, of the integrity of its territory and of the preservation of its natural reSOUJces, has ceaselessly proclaimed its devotion to the cause of the independence of this Territory, which it envisages within the framework of the organization of a referendum on self-determination once South Africa, the illegal occupier, totally and unconditionally withdraws from the country. 203. That has always been the position of our Organi- zation, which, having been reassured by the opinion of the International Court of Justice, has ceaselessly enjoined South Africa, year after year, to abide hy the resolutions and decisions of international bodies and to withdraw from Namibia in order to permit the people of that Territory to enjoy their sovereignty and national independence. 204. Those are facts which the whole world should bear in mind, particularly because of recent developments which have marked this problem and which show us the point to which these permanent factors in the case are in the course of being altered or falsely in'i:erpreted, thereby entailing new complications which could have been easily overcome if only there had been no such disregard of fundamental principles as occurred when it was decided to seek a compromise with South Africa on condition that it accepted the plan for a peaceful and negotiated settlement of the Namibian problem. 205. My delegation will not dwell today on a repetition of all the procrastinations, delays and unilateral inter- pretations by South Africa, which has always striven to consolidate its advantages throughout all stages of the negotiations on the plan of the five Western members of the Security Council, a plan which has become that of the United Nations and the international community since the Secretary-General of our Organization has been given the task of applying it in its fmal and defmitive form, as Security Council resolution 431 (1978) states. 212. Mr. Justice A. Rahman CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): As developments in Namibia over the past year continue to unfold, two parallel and conflicting emotions have im- . pinged on the consciousness of the world community: hope and disenchantment-hope born of the expectation that there would be a dramatic break-through in Namibia leading to the emergence at long last of a sovereign, independent State on the basi:; of genuine and free elections held under the supervision and control of the United Nations and disenchantment because this objective has been insidiously circumscribed, circumvented, delayed and undermined by the deliberate policy ofSouth Africa not to accept any settlement plan not ofits own making. 206. But what is the situation now? 207. We believe th~ it is no longer possible-if indeed it ever was-to harbour illusions as to the good faith or goodwill of South Africa. Indeed, since the debate Which preceded the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (I978), the mission to Pretoria of the Ministers for 208. Therefore, the cruel game which we are today witnessing should leave no doubt in anyone's mind as. to South Africa's criminal conduct or its willingness to seek a negotiated solution to the Namibian problem. 209. A rereading of the reports of the Secretary-Generat, submitted on 24 November and 2 December 1978 in docu- ments S/12938 and S/12950, makes this clear. Pretoria has never displayed so much arrogance and scorn, first towards SWAPO, which t.lte United Nations and the OAU-that is to say, the entire international community-hold to be the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, and, secondly, towards our Organization itself, which the supporters ofapartheid always take pleasure in deriding. 210. In flict, South Africa has for long opt ~d for confron- tation with SWAPO, against which it is preparing to set up its TUmhalte puppets. It has also opted 'for confrontation with the whole of Africa by declaring that it would react to any threat from African countries. It 1s opposing the international community as a whole by maintaining all these demands. 211. SWAPO for its part has never failed in its role of authentic representative of the struggling Namibian people and has shown the rest of the world that, through its commitment to the armed struggle and its political ma- turity, it represents the only possible alternative to the ag&ressive policy of hegemony of Pretoria. It is therefore illusory to hope to exclude SWAPO from the solution of the Namibian problem. None of the avowed or disguised manoeuvres behind the so·called democratic arrangements will change the irresistible course of the genuine decoloni- zation of the Territory. Hence my country commits itself to continue and to strengthen its total support for SWAPO in the just struggle it is waging for the liberation of its country and for the independence of its people in a united Namibia. 214. The year 1978 began with happy auguries that Namibia would indeed soon become a sovereign, inde- pendent State through the attainment of the cardinal objectives set by the overwhelming majority of the world community, which Bangladesh had unequivocally and consistently endorsed. These included the withdrawal Qf the illegal administrative and military presence of South Africa; the cessation of all hostile acts; the holding of free elections to a constituent assembly under United Nations supervision and control, which itself entailed the inherent right of every Namibian voter to cast his ballot free from coercion or intimidation; the unclJnditional release of all political prisoners; and the return of all exiles in conditions that would enable them to participate fully in the campaign preceding the election. The constituent assembly so elected would adopt a constitution and thus carry Namibia on to genuine independence. 215. The stage has been set for the realization of these objectives by three powerful forces: first, the consistent moral and political pressure imposed by the world com- munity that was ultimately to impel the Security Council to commit itself to a Namibian solution through the adoption of resolution 385 (1976)-the contribution of the United Nations Council for Namibia to this process cannot be overemphasized; secondly, the tenacity, courage and fortitude of the Namibian patriots, led by SWAPO, that was to fuel their unrelenting liberation struggle and thereby compel Pretoria to move towards the acceptance of resolution 385 (1976); and thirdly, the role of the five Western members of the Security Council, which fmally applied their considerable individual and collective weight to persuade South Africa to negotiate arrangements for the implementation of the substance of resolution 285 (1976). In this connexion, Bangladesh would like particularly to underscore the extrer-~ly valuable contribution of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative, whose comprehensive report on the implementation of the pro- posal of the five Western Powers was unanimously endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution 435 (1978) and carried the prospects for a just and lasting solution another vital step forward. 216. While the prognosis, therefore, for an early solution seemed bright even up to the middle of the year, the reality was soon to dawn that South Africa's objectives appeared to be quite different, indeed radically so. Having failed in its attempts at the outright annexation of Namibia, South Mrica's clear intent was to circumvent this failure by gaining, indirectly, complete control of the Territory and its Government, people and resources through the imposi- tion of a puppet regime and to seek thereby to secure the stamp of legitimacy through endorsement by the United Nations. The prime objective, however, was to exclude and negate SWAPO's role in the futvre ofNamibia, 217. The evolution of the international community's wishes through the adoption of Security Council reso- lutions 385 (1976), 431 (1978), 432 (1978) and 435 (1978) must be seen against the background of the 218, First and foremost, the United Nations was per- suaded to retract one of its most important decisions- namely, the revocation of South Africa's Mandate over Namibia and the placing of that Territory under the direct United Nations responsibility through the United Nations Council for Namibia. SWAPO was thus forced to accept the proposal that the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order during the period of transition would rest with the South African police, while over-all authority in Namibia would be retained by South Africa pending implementation. 219. Secondly, SWAPO was also reluctantly to agree to an extremely circumscribed and diluted resolution on the future ofWalvis Bay. 220. Thirdly, SWAPO agreed also to the preservation in ~amibia of a residual South African force of 1,500 troops, even though resolution 385 (1976) called for >':he total withdrawal ofSouth Africa's military presence. 221. Fourthly, the unilateral appointment by South Africa of a so-called Administrator-General and his con- tinued presence and authority seriol'sly undermined the role of leading Namibia in its transition to independence assigned to the United Nations, the Secretary-General and his Special Representative. 222. Fifthly, the unilateral registration of voters in Namibia, pursued at times through intimidation and all manner of corruption, was to lay the essential groundwork for the so-called internal elections, through which South Africa all along had envisaged the sabotaging of the Western proposal, 223. South Africa continues~o maintain an iron hold on Namibia through the stationing there of a military force approaching 60,000 men. The heartless brutality and the indescribable horrors of apartheid have seen no abatement. On the· contrary, the process of harassment, intimidation and subjugation continues to escalate through arbitrary mass arrests, torture, the detention and imprisonmlmt of SWAPO leaders and sympathizers anci the growing use of local mercenaries from tribal armies and agents provo- cateurs. The logical extension of this policy has led to an organized and systematic fragmentation of. the Territory along ethnic and racia} lin<$.s, as exemplified by the system of bantustanization. Many Namibians have been herded into virtual concentration camps. Others have been dis- possessed of their agricultural !ands, their livestock and holdings aI!d reduced to pepury in barren outskirts. Meanwhile, many who have been uprooted and displaced as exiles have been harried and pursued even in bordering countries where they have sought refuge. They have been subjected to genocidal attacks, aerial bombardment and systematic decimation.at the hands of armed paratroopers. These so-called guerrillas give South Africa a permanent excuse to maintains its illegal armed presence in Namibia irrespective of any agreement to which it may pay lip service. 225. In direct contrast is the duplicity and intransigence of South Africa. Notwithstanding the extent and nature of these concessions, South Africa sought to whittle down the provisions further and to tailor the United Nations plan to its own prerogatives. The next stage was its blatant announcem~nt on 20 September 1978 that it would hold elections in Namibia unilaterally in December without United Nations supervision. The issuance of the joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of the five Western countries and the South African Government, instead of deterring South Africa from its illegal and unilateral course, appears to have tacitly acknowledged its stance. Bangla- desh's views ·on the joint statement were made clear in the Security Council debate on this question on 1 November 1978. The Foreign Minister of Bangladesh uneqUivocally declared: "Acceptance of South Africa's stance, even by impli- cation, would be tantamount to a~peasement, particu- larly in the face of the already substantial concessions accorded to South Africa."14 215. nits General Assembly debate takes place against the backgroUJ)d uf South Africa's decision to continue with its L"lternal elections currently under way in Namibia. Bangla- desh condemns unequivocally those sham elections. The incongruity of South Africa's illegal action is further highlighted by the fact that on the day preceding the so-called internal elections the security forces of South Africa arrested the most important leaders of SWAPO in the country. So much, then, for the free elections in Namibia. It clearly follows that it is not enough to declare null and void the elections that South Africa is imposing on the people of Namibia. This hardly obscures the signifi- cance of Pretoria's strategy, which is to use the puppets so elected as a mouthpiece for South Africa, and thus retain in perpetuity its illegal hold over and its ruthless exploitation of the people and the resources of Namibia. 227. The f',:-port of the Secretary-General submitted on 24 November to the Security Council pursuant to paragraph 7 of resolution 439 (1978) [S/12938j' and his supplementary report of 2 December [S/12950] further highlight South Africa's devious game. South Africa's 2Jlswers to the seven crucial questions posed by the Sec~~tary-General leave much to be desired, and tax the credibility of any objective observer concerning South Africa's bona fides in complying with any plan it does not manipulate for its own purpose, for what, in short, the South African Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister have given is a series of convoluted responses dependent on a spiral of interrelated conditions and clarifications, and containing sufficient loop-holes to make it possible to circumvent the Urjted Nations pl:il at any given time. 228. It can oe gleaned from these responses that South Africa is willing to co-operate in the implementati,on of 229. It is clear that these responses are not enough. The charge, therefore, clearly falls upon the five Western countries to intensify their negotiations as never before, and to iron out the miSt mderstandings by the necessary clarifications. Similarly, the Secretary-General's responsi- bility for furthering and consolidating those negotiations is increased, so that the Transition Assistance Group may indeed be able to commence its work by 1January 1979. Finally, the Security Council itselfmust take up this challenge without hesitation. South Africa must be made to perreive that it cannot any longer tax with impunity the patience of the international community by fur6er pre- texts for delaying the process of genuine independence in Namibia. Bangladesh believes that the Secretary-General's implementation plan, as already backed. by the mandatory agreement of the Security Council, should be the sole m&instay in the transfer nf power to the Namibian people. Failure by South Africa to co-operate in its implementation and to vacate Namibia would justify the action already envisaged in paragraph 6 of resolution 439 (1978), namely that the Security Council should meet forthwith to initiate appropriate action under the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof, so as to ensure South Mrica's compliance with Council resolutions 385 (1976), 431 (1978) and 435 (1978). . 230. In the last analysis it is the NamibilL"l people under the leadership of SWAPO who will decide on the course to be pursued, whether it be peaceful or violent. Meanwhile, Bangladesh reaffirms and pledges its total moral, political and material commitment to SWAPO in its just struggle for the total and effective liberation ofNamibia. ·231. Mr_ YOUNTEN (Bhutan): We have been discussing the question of Namibia in this Assembly since 1966, and in other international bodies for many years. A number of resolutions have been adopted by both the Security Council and this Assembly in an effort to put an end to the illegal presence of South Africa in Namibia and to accelerate the attainment of the long-awaited freedom and independence of that Territory. Yet all the efforts of the international bodies have failed to bring about the desired result; the people of Namibia still remain under foreign domination_ Independence in Namibia must be achieved without con- 232. While the racist regime of South Africa pays no heed to thf) dictates of reason and flouts United Nations decisions, some Powers have extended their co·operation and assistance to the apartheid regime of South Africa in order to achieve their selfish objectives. In such circum- stances, so long as the resolutions and the apl'lication of total sanctions are not supported by all the Members of the United Nations the racist regime will always treat the decisions of this world body with disrespect. Any further speech-making and adopting of resolutions will serve only to highlight the weakness and impotence of this body in dealing with a situation which clearly threatens the peace and stability of the world. The problem, therefore, calb for an immediate solution, backed by all United Nations Members and acceptable to the people of Namibia. 233. Lack ofinitiative and progress towards liberation will benefit only the racist regime of South Africa, which has taken steps to maintain and strengthen its grip on Namibia by various means, such as establishing puppet regimes, expanding its network of military bases and training tribal armies. The illegal regimeissteppingup its policyofsplitting up the Territory into so-called homelands similar in every respect to bantustans, and is violating tl:.e territorial integrity of Namibia. Walvis Bay is an integral part of Namibia, and we forcefully condemn any attempt to annex it. The Namibian people are continUOusly haras.cred and humiliated by the representatives of the illegal racist and colonialist administration. We condemn the policy of apartheid which the Pretmia regime is illegally practising in Namibia in order to perpetuate it;:; exploitation and control of the people of that Territory. 'The illegal South African occupation of Namibia perpetu&tes the brutal repression of the Namibian people. 234. The p"~ople of Namibia want to be as free as the peoples of the rest of Africa and other countries. With this aspiration and hope they are determined to struggle to liberate themselves from the racist and colonial rule of . South Africa, despite the campaign of arrest, arbitrary detention, imprisonment, torture and indiscriminate murder that is going on. 235. The delegation of Bhutan whole-heartedly continueS to support the people of Nanlibia in their legitimate struggle against the racist regime of South Africa under the leadership of SWAPO, which has displayp,d its good intentions by declaring its readiness to accept a cease-fire in response to initiatives for peace. 236. Concerning this, the Secretary-General submitted a comprehensive report on the implementation of the pro- posal of the five Western Powers, contained in Security Council document S/12827. This was endorsed by reso- lution 435 (1978), which expressly welcomed the willing- ness of SWAPO to co-operate in the implementation of the Secretary-General's report, including its readiness to sign and observe the cease-fire provisions_ 237. The election now being held in Namibia without United Nations supervision is yet another example of the 238. The acceptance of South Africa's stand at this time, even by implication, would be tantamount to appeasement, particularly in the face of the concessions already given to South Africa. Indeed, the valuable role of the five Western members of the Security Council is ap:,reciated and needs to be recognized. The five members have exerted their considerable individual and collective influence on all concerned to achieve a practical arrangement to implement the main substance of resolution 385 (1976). Any uni- lateral attempts by South Africa to perpetuate its illegal occupation-of Namibia under the .pretext of a so-called internal solution without the participation of the genuine parties involved must be rejected by the international community and unequivocally condemned. 239. The General Assembly at its nfuth special session approved a Declaration and Programme of Action [reso- lution S-9/2} affirming the direct responsibility of the United Nations for that Territory and setting specific conditions and measures for its independence and for the maintenance of its territorial integrity. My delegation fully supports Security Council resolution 431 (1978) und~r which the necessary steps are to be taken to implement in practice the proposals of the five Western Powers in accordance with the plan formulated by the Secretary- General and with Security Council resolution 385 (1976). 240. Mr. ABDEL FATTAH (Egypt) {interpretation from Arabic): Wc are gathered here again to consider the question of Namibia, but this time we shall act in the light of the very importmt a.fld serious ~vents that have taken place at a time when the international community as a whole awaits the results of developments which no doubt l'ill be decisive and lead either to a peaceful and just setilement, enabling the people of Namibia to enjoy complete independence, the right to self-determination and their territorial integrity after a long heroic struggle in which they have made great sacrifices, or to an attempt on the part of the racist occupying authorities to impose an unjust settlement enabling them to perpetuate their domi- r.ation and to continue to deprive that people of their freedom and independ~nce. This second option could only lead to an explosive situation and to more bloodshed and tragedy. 241. I shall not dwell on the details of the historical background to this question with which we are all acquainted. The delegation of my country, -like many others, has spoken about this on many occasions. 242. During its thirty-second session, the General As- sembly adopted resolution 32/9 H, which called for the holding of-a special session .devoted to Nanrlbia. I am referring to the ninth special session, which in fact met from 24 April to 3 May 1978, 10 order to reaffirm the direct responsibility of the United Nations and to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the rapid, total and true independence of Namibia, while affirming the territorial integrity of that country. 243. By devoting a special session of the General As- sembly to the consideration of this question, this inter- 244. The General Assembly at that special session lived up to the task entrusted to it and adopted resolution S-9/2, the Declaration on Namibia and Programme of Action in Support of Self-determination and National Independence for Namibia. That resolution is based on the same principles that inspire the Lusaka Declaration of March 197815 and the recommendation of the United Nations Council for Namibia [see A/33/24, para. 307J, in the preparation and adoption of which my delegation was happy to participate. 245. That event was of great interest, notably for the Security Council which has met to consider developments in the situation, and which, in less than four months, has adopted four resolutions concerning this same question. On 27 July 1918, the Security Council adopted resolution 431 (1978), in which it supported the draft of the five Western Powers concerning the transfer of power to the Namibian people 'and Namibia's right to self<>C1etermination and to its total indepenrlence under the auspices of the United Nations in r(eeping with its previous resolution 385 (l976). On that same day the Security Council adopted resolution 432 (1978) wherein it affirmed the territorial integrity of Namibia, including Walvis Bay. 246. In implementation of resolution 431 (1978), the Secretary-General sent his Special Representative, Mr. Ahti- saari, to Namibia to study the situation on the spot and to prepare a report and recommendations on the implemen- tation of that resolution. Upon the return ofMr. Ahtisaari, the Secretary-General submitted his report to the Security Council [8/12827J, including his recommendations for the implementation of resolution 431 (1978), which in turn is based on resolution 385 (1976), previously adopted by the Council. 247. In this connexion, my delegation wishes to dwell for a few moments on the posit:.on of the racist Government of South Mrica and its reactions to the efforts of the international community and to the resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council for the settlement of the question. w~ do so especi311y sin~ SWAPO has shown great flexibility and made mFJlY concessions by a~pting the proposal of the five Western Powers. Thus SWAPO has shown its goodwill and indicated that the armed struggle is not an end in itself but a means to the achievement of its legitimate legal claims. It has also shown that it would not fail to accept a ~aceful settlement, provided such a settlement led to the satisfaction of its Claims while putting an end to the nightmare through which that people have been living ever since the beginning of the racist occupation. 248. It is evident that the Pretoria Government continues arrogantly and stubbornly to defy the will of the inter- national community and the resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council. In fact, despite its acceptance of the Western proposal, we see that that Government has gone back on its word and has begun to place obstacles in the way of the implementatio~ of is See OfficiDl Records of the General Assembly, Ninth SpeciDl Session, Supplement No. 1, para. 31. 249. It is not difficult to understand the reasons for the manoeuvres by the racist Pretoria Government. When that Government announced its acceptance of the five-Powel' proposal, it expected SWAPO to reject the proposal: The Pretoria Government would the.n have been seen as the flexible side while SWAPO by rejecting the proposal would have appeared to want war. That manoeuvre would have enabled South Mrh:a to attenuate the pressures of the intem.a'£!onal community and the effects of the escalation of SWAPO's struggle. It would also have permitted it to continue to implement its programme·by imposing an internal settlement that would serve its own interests. But what happened? SWAPO accepted the proposal, and Pretoria, realizing that its manoeuvre had failed, imme- diately went back on its word, invoking unfounded pretexts and fallacious arguments. In addition the South African Government began to carry out aggressive attacks against neighbouring countries in Africa such as Angola and Zambia by attacking refuge~ ~r;mps, the people ofNanl'lb\3. and the bases of the SWA1"<J freedom fighters so as to terrorize the peopie of Namibia and have a free hWld to impose its internal settlement. That plan was clear to all. It was aimed at the holding of bogus elections that would put the Pretoria agents 1:-1 power. thus .enabling them to continue to exploit the natural and human resources of that country in a manner unprecedented ~ history. 250. Like many other delegations we emphasized the realities of that si~ation in the Se.: urlty Council when that body was considering developments in the situation in that region after the publication of the joint statement of the. five Western Powers and the Pretoria Government. We affirmed the need to challenge all the attempts of the Government of South Africa to impose an internal settle- ment in Namibia and to compel that Government not to hold elections in December. In fact the Security Council adopted its resolution 439 (1978), calling upon the Pretoria Government not to hold the elections and to co-operate in the implementation of resolutions 385 (l976), 431 (1978) and 435 (1978), failing which the Council would have to take the necessary me&Sures, including thoae provided for in Chapter VU of the United Nations Charter. 16 See Officitll Record, of the Security Council, Thirty-third Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1978, document 8/12902. 252. One might ask what'is the hidden power that enables a regime like that of Pretoria to continue to flout international opinion and ignore the resolutions of the United Nations. Yet the answer is very simple. That Government could not have gone on in that way without economic and military support and assistance from the great Western Powers that enable it to consolidate its military and economic structure and to continue to occupy and exploit the Territory while threatening all the peaceful neighbouring countries. Even more alarming is the fact that those same Western countries co-operate with the racist Government in the nuclear field, providing it with nuclear weapons. We cm well imagine the consequences of this for peace and security in southern Africa and even in the whole of the African continent. 253. Now that we fmd ourselve~ at this hnportant cross-roads and now that it appears that an internal settlement is about to be imposed on Namibia by South Africa, with all the dangers that that implies, there is no longer a single pretext that could in any way allow us to defer implementation of the provisions of Chapter VII against Soutli Africa, because that Government has flouted all attempts to get Pretoria to change its decision and to abide by resolution 439 (1978). That resolution quite clearly in paragraph 6 warns South Africa that unless its Government abides by the r~olutions of the Security Council the Council will apply against it the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. South Africa . has not responded to that resolution. 254. The time has come for the resolutions ofthe United K'ltions and the Security Council to be respected by all and far nothing to be left undecided. Otherwise the peoples of the world will lose faith in our Organization and in its ability to defend their legitimate rights. - 255. In conclusion, Egypt has expressed its concern at the practices of the racist Government ofSouth Africa and the holding of illegal internal elections in Namibia, which run counter to the views of world pUblic opinion and to decisions of the United Nations. This is in fact a colonialist attempt to frustrate peaceful endeavours to help the people of Namibia to achieve .their independence. The Namibian people, represented by SWAPO, have struggled for years to achieve their objective. Egypt has given its unconditional support to the proposal of the Secretary-General con- cerning the holding of elections under the auspices of the United Nations~ it has given its unconditional support also to all the national liberation movements in southern Africa against the racist regimes. 257. Barely two months ago, when the Security Council met to adopt resolution 435 (1978), there was hope that Namibia was finally on the threshold of genuine inde- pendence. There were real prospects that the people of Namibia would be enabled to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, and their right to be the masters of their own destiny in their homeland. The implementation of resolution 435 (1978) would have led to the transfer of power to the people of Namibia through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of th~ United Nations. Unfortunately, again, as in the past, those hopes and expectations have been frustrated by the racist regime in Pretoria. The developments subsequent to the adop1tion of resolution 435 (1978) and the efforts of the five Western Powers to persuade South Africa to comply with that resolution can lead to on!y one conclusion: the South African regime is not prepared to abide by the resolutions of the Security Council, although to delude world public opinion it continul:S to express its so-called willingness to co-operate in the finplementation of that resolution. But its intransigence in refusing to cancel the so-called elections, as called for by Security Council resolution 439 (1978), leaves no doubt as to its real designs. 258. The Security Council has unanimously and cate- gorically declared that South Africa's decision to proceed with the unilateral elections in Namibia-is in cleat violation of its resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), that those elections and their results are therefore null and void and that no recognition will be accorded either by the United Nations or by Member States to any representatives establig.qed by that process. The Security Council has solemnly warned So~th Africa t,"at failure to comply with its resolutions would compel the Council to meet forthwith to initiate appropriate action under the Charter of the United Nations, including action under Chapfer VII. But even that has failed to ewke any response. The results of the discussions which the Secretary-General, Mr. Waldheim, pursued with the authorities ofSouth Africa in terms of the Security Council's resolutions, as reflected in his reports, also bring Qut clearly that South Africa remains intransigent in rnaintainiIig its stranglehold over Namibia. ObviouSly South Africa will not comply With the demands of die international community unless the Security Council and the General Assembly demonstrate their determination to compel it to do so. . 259. Pakistan strongly denounces South Africa's ma- noeuvres to foist an internal settlement on Namibia by means of sham elections. We consider this fraudulent 260. It will be recalled that Pakistan drew the attention of the international community to this aspect of the situation in August of this year, when the President of Pakistan, Gener.al Zia-ul-Haq, in his message on the occasion of Namibia Day said: "It is Palcistan's hope that the Pretoria regime will put no fresh impediments in the way of implementing the decision (if the Security Council nor persist in jeopard- izing the territorial integrity 01 Namibia by its occupation of Walvis Bay. Any breakdown now in the process of Namibia's liberation will surely provoke a bloody conflict in the region and endanger wodd peace and security. "The international community has a vital stake in the success of the United Nations role in Namibia and in ensuring the early independence and unity of the new State. This will no doubt accelerate the process of liberation throughout southern Africa and in other regions as wen. It will, moreover, strengthen the con- fidence and trust of States in the United Nations as the most effective means to pursue 1he goals of freedom, equality and justice in internatim:al relations;' 261. Even the five Western members of the Security Council have declared that they see no way of reconciling the 1lJlilateral elections with the proposal for Namibia's independence which they put forward and which the Security Council endorsed. Furthermore, they have stated that the elections currently being held in Namibia cannot be considered free and fair and are irrelevant to th~ progress of Namibia to internationally acceptable independence. 262: Since the termination ofSouth Africa's Mandate over Namibia in 1967, the liberation of the people of Namibia has been the direct responsibility of the United Nations, and the Members of the Organization cannot evade this responsibility any longer. It is therefore imperative that the world cummunity adopt measures that· will ensure the success of the gallant struggle of the people of Namibia. The only recourse open to the United Nations is to impose comprehensive and mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Any further delay in taking such action would not only prolong the agony of the people of Namibia, against whom a fresh· reign of terror, with widespread arrests, violence and intimidation, has been unleashed, but would also considerably weaken the prestige and authority of the United Nations. 263. Pakistan has always supported the liberation struggle of the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole and authentic representative, and has consistently demonstrated its unswerving solidarity in the cause of 264. Since its establishment as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until independence, the United Nations Council for Namibia has been successful in mobil- izing international political and material support in fur- therance of the struggle for independence. The Council, working in close co-operation with SWAPO for the achieve- mEmt of these objectives, has taken far-reaching initiatives, such as the creation of the Fund for Namibia, the Institute for Namibia and the launching of the Nationhood Pro- gramme to assist the Namibian people dUring their struggle and during their early years of independence. Pakistan, along with other Member States, has made its modest contribution to all those efforts and initiatives under the leadership of the Pi~sident of the Council for Namibia, Ambassador Konie of Zambia. 265. Today Pakistan once again promises to support any initiative or action on the part of the United Nations which will bring genuine independence to the people ofNamibia. The independence of Namibia is inextricably linked with ;tc! territorial integrity. 266. The illegal annexation of Walvis Bay constitutes a deliberate attempt by Soulth Africa to deprive Namibia of its main port and vital economic avenue 2Ild to retain a strategic military base in that part ofNamibia. There can be no compromise on the status of Walvis Bay, and the international community must reaffirm its commitment to ensuring the territorial integrity of Namibia against any attempts to dismember the Territory through tbe illegal annexation ofWalvis Bay by South Africa. 267. In conclusion, my delegation would like to pay a tribute to SWAPO, its leadership and its freedom fighters, who have waged their struggle against daunting odds with tremendous courage and sacrifice.We are convinced that the day is not far off when Namibia will achieve its inde- pendence and join the Members of this' world body as a sovereign State.

More than seven months ago, on 27 April of this year, I had the honour to present Poland's comprehensive position on the question of Namibia to the ninth special session of the General Assembly,l? convened to consider the persistent refusal of South Africa to withdraw from Namibia and condemn its manoeuvres to consolidate its illegal occupation of the Territory. Today, I cannot but reaffIrm the continued v'!Iidity and timeliness of my country's consist~nt stand vis-i-vis the problem before us. In fact, since last spring our assessment of the situation has been further confirmed both by the important decisions of the General Assembly at the ninth special session and by the developments in and around Namibia. 269. I wish to assure this Assembly, and in particular those directly concerned, the African States, the front-line 270. First, the Namibian people, wh,",se land is now illegally occupied by South Africa, have the inalienable right to self·detennmation, freedom and nattonal inde· pendence in a united Namibia. This presupposes the full legitimacy of their struggle by all means at their dispo!ial against the illegal occupation. 271. Secondly, Namibia is the direct responsibility of the United Nations until genuine self·determination and na· tional independence are achieved in the Territory, and the United Nations Council for Namibia remains the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until indep:mdence. Th~\refore, South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia constitutes a continued act of aggression against the Namibian people and therefore against the United Nations. 272. Thirdly, the integrity of the Territory presupposes full recognition of the fact th&t Walvis Bay is part and parcel of Namibia. Any attempt by South Afllca to annex it cannot but be viewed as a flagrant violation of the principle of the territorial integrity of Namibia and an act of alggression against its people. 273. As this Msembly is well aware, the road to Namibia's real independence, in accordance with the wishes of the Namibian people, has been mapped out in at least 20 resolutions of the Security Council and more than 100 tesolutions of the General Assembly. The value of these documents stems from the histor.c process of decoloni· zation and the principles of the momentous Declaration of 1960.18 It stems from the paramount consideration that the oppressor and the oppressed CanFot be treated on an equal footing, particularly when colonial oppression is involved. 274. ;n recent months another plan has been prepared for solving, through the United Nations, the acute problem of Namibia. As Poland's Minister for Foreign Affairs put it in the general debate at the present session, last Septt:Jnber: "The current plan for the independence of Namibia still contains, we submit, too many unclear elements allowing for divergent interpretations." [12th meeting, para. 138.} 275. One such divergent, if not misguided, interpretation has now been made regarding Namibia's independence by the Pretoria regime, which is playing a dangerous game against the international community at the expense of the Namibian people and ofpeace in Africa. For, indeed, South Mrica's reaction to the constructive position of SWAPO and the front-line States has proved to be a resort to force and ..disregard for realities.It stmted with the unilateral and illegal appointment of the so-called Administrator-General, 18 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (resolution i.S14 (XV) • 276. My delegation W~ gratified to see that in the recent debates in the Security Council on tbe question of Namibia numerous delegations so rightly assessed South Africa's adventl;fous policies. 277. Only last October, in Pretoria, a morally corrupt regime was lecturing five distinguished Ministers for Foreign Affairs, representing one·third of the present membership of the security Council, on what is communism and how to deal with it. To add to the irony of the situation, the text of that Nazi-1ik~ lecture has become part of an official do,zument of the Security Coun,9il, document 8/12900.19 The message from Pretoria has again come, as could have been expected, first, in the fonn of another insult to ilie United Nations and especially to Africa a.."d, secondly, in that of a premeditated attack against SWAPO and a blunt denial of the latter's rights as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. It came as a challenge also to the non·aligned movement, which only a few weeks before accepted SWAPO as a full-fledged member. The message, repeated time and again, is loud and clear: the Pretoria regime is not ready to allow the free election -in an independent Namibia of a government over which it would have no control. That is also the gist of the Pretoria regime's distinction between a "responsible" and an "irresponsible" government in Namibia. 278. In the view of the Polish delegation, unless effective political, economic and diplomatic. pressures-are demon- strably brought to bear on.South Africa, no negotiation will succeed. On the contrary, the present state of affairs can only compound the harmful delaying tactics now being applied with regard to the question of Namibia. We therefore reiterate, in accordance with the very spirit and letter of the Programme of Action adopted at the ninth special session, that at this decisive stage in the struggle of the Namibian people the international community must take definitive action to ensure the romple~e and uncondi- tional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and thus eliminate the dangerous threat to international peace and 19 See Offu:ilJl Records of the Security Council. Thirty-third Year. Supplement for O.~tober, November, andDecember 1978. 279. In all the international efforts made with a view to e?fecting an immediate, final and unconditional solution of the question of Namibia, Poland, which is a member of the Council for Namibia, has alv..:.ys been and will continue to be on the side of SWAPO and all the African St&tes fighting for the complete elimination of the vestiges of colonialism from their continent, which have our full solidarity and support in that struggle. We trust that despite difficulties, deliberately built up by the retrograde forces of colonialism and neo-colonialism, we shall be able fmally to welcome in our midst a free and independent Namibia.

The history of the· imrolve- ment of the United Natious with Namibia and its people stretches over most of the past 20 years. It feil, however, to the twenty-first s~ssion of the General A&Sembly to take a decision of historic dimen~ions and dramatic consequence: the decision to terminate forthwith South Africa's Mandate over South West Africa-Namibia-and to declare Namibi& henceforth to be under the direct responsibility ~f the United Nations {resolution 2145 (XXI)]. 281. It seems superfluous to take up the precious time of the Assembly by reiterating all the steps the United Nations has taken in order to achieve the political implementatiun of this decision. We are all aware that the Organization has taken this responsibility, once assumed, verY: seriously and has constantly endeavoured to take practical steps for the discharge of this obligation and for a genuine tra.'1sfer of power to the people of Namibia. With this objective in mind, the United Nations Council for Namibia was fOUllded, the office of the United Nations Commission£r for Namibia was created, and numerous resolutions were adopted in the General Assembly and in the ~curity Council. 282. For all those who believe in the rule of law and the right of peoples to self·determination, it has come as a bitter disappointment, again and again, that despite the massive concern ('f the international community, expressed so forcefully over such a great number of years, Namibia still remains a centre of crisis in southern Africa. To the lack of success of all our consecutive efforts the main obstacles have not come from the people of Nanubia. or from those who carry the heavy burden of the liberation struggle; the main obstacles a(',: not to be found within the United Nations or with the front-line States, which have shown constant devotion to the cause of Namibia's inde- pendence. The main obstacle has always been the unwilling- ness of South Africa to release its illegal hoM on Namibia. 283. After the failure of the many previous efforts, however, in the past year we experienced the fIrst sub- stantial change in the situation, a change which was initiated by the effort of the five Western members of the Security Council to fmd ways and means fmally· to implement Security Council resolution 385 (1976). These efforts culminated in the so-called "Western proposal" and the plan of action for Namibia. 285. On the principles of that resolution the We~tern proposal was built, and dUring the past year that proposal wa"s endorsed by the international community and further completed by the report of the Secretary-General on the details of its implementation, culminating in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Austria, which has con- stantly condemned the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, has, since the inception of that initiative; whole-neartedly welcomed and supported it. We regard it as the most promising way to the achievement of an early peaceful and negotiated transition to majority rule... self- determination and independence in Namibia. I should like at this stage to reiterate briefly that Austria stands ready to lend assistance, if necessary, in t'Je implementation of this process of t~ansition, within the liniits of our capaL~ty. I should also like to take this opportunity to express Austria's appreciation of the untiring efforts of the five Western mem~ers of the Secunty Council and of the spirit of co-operation and under~tane:jlg with which SWAPO and the front-line States participated in their endeavours. 286. To our profound dismay and disappointment, how- ever, the brief period of optimism and hope has been overshadowed by South Africa's recent reje~tion ofsome of the maia objectives of the proposal and by the conducting of internal elections in Namibia. Security Council reso- lution 439 (1978) has aptly summarized the views of the interrational community on this announcement, which Austria can only endorse. We must all strive not to lose the momentum gained towards the achievement of our goal of :m independent Namibia. We must pursue all our efforts with vigour and determination. We must reaffirm inter- national support for the struggle of the Namibian people and put pressure on South Africa to abandon its illegal occupation and to co-operate with the Security Council and the Secretary-General in the implementation of the plan_ 287. Before ccncluding my remarks, I wish to pay Austria's tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia ~d its President, Ambassador Konie, for their untiring work. The Council's lucid and comprehensive report is proof of its commitment to a free, independent, united and multiracial Namibia-a concept to which Austria fully subscribes. I should also like to pay a tribute to the Se.cretary-General and his Special Representative, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, for their commitment and dedication to their high offIces. Austria furthermore wel- comes the increase in and intensifIcation of international assistance to the Namibian people. The Institute for Namibia, based in Lusaka, as well as the Nationhood Programme have during the PllSt year continued to make an excellent contribution to the future requirements of Namibia. 288. Sixty years ago, in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Namibia was declared a "sacred trust of 290. In absolute disregard of the demands of the world cnmmunity, and in contravention of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978), the racist regime !.If South Africa has already proceeded with its so·called elections in the illegally occupied Territory of Namibia. It is no wonder that those so-called elections are taking place in an atmosphere of terror and of the suppression of the free will of the Namibian people. According to different sources, the South African security police have arrested officials and active members of SWAPO and many other patriots. The sham nature of the so-called elections by Pretoria has been recognized even in the Western press, including The New York Times. Yesterday's issue of that newspaper, for example, carried a report of the Church Center of Namibia, in which the following was said: ''The elections in Namibia are a fraud. People are voting not out of choice but because they have been forced to do so." 291. The outcome of such "electinns" is clear. A puppet regime will be installed. As Ambassador de Figueiredo of Angola said in the Security Council, "In effect, Nimlibia will continue to be little more than a bantustan."2o The world community should condemn and reject those rigged elections. 292. The process aimed at the perpetuation of colonial and racist domination over that unfortunate Territory was started by South Africa long ago. The racists have already exported their inhuman policy of apartheid to Namibia through the extensive introduction of racist laws and systems into that Territory. The racist regime has been engaged in an intensive bui......-up of its military potential through a constant expansion of the network of military bases and an increase in the number of its occupation troops. 293. From all this it is clear that the Pretoria regime will never give up its criminal designs and will try to cling to the occupation of the Territory at any cost as a stronghold of its colonial and racist domination. 294. As a result of the so-called elections, the people of Namibia will continue to be denied their inalienable right to freedom and genuine independence and the Territory will remain under the control of the racists, wh~ will use it as a 295. The world community has witnessed repeated acts of naked aggression committed by South Africa against the People's Republic of Angola and other neighb6\..~ng coun- tries. The recent big concentration of troops and military equipment along the border of Angola cannot but cause grave concern not only to the African States but to the world community at large. 296. It is most deplorable t:1at the aggression of the racist regime of Pretoria is encouraged by Western Powers, which always prevent the aJoption of effective measures by the Security Council. The time has come for decisive and effect!~'e action. 297. It is CGmmon knowledge that the racist regime of South Africa would have great difficulties in pursuing its policy of oppression and domination without the political, diplomatic, economic, fmancial and military aid that certarn Western countries contit)ue to give it. The racists of Pretoria continue to receive enonnous aid from Western monopolies, which .operate not only in South Africa hut also to a great extent in Namibia. Transnational cmpo- rations of Western Powers, in collusion with the racist regime of South Africa, continue to exploit ruthlessly the natural and human resources of Namibia and extract astronomiCal profits. It is against that background that we must view the recent activization and increased interest of the Western Powers in a so-called·peaceful solution 01' tL~ question of Namibia. , 298. As to the mediation activities carried out by the Lve Western Powers in ~1spect of Namibia the statement recently issued by !hi" Ministry of Foreign Affairs Of +.he Mongolian People's Repubiic on the question of Namibia .says that: ''The so-called mediation activities are not merely unconducive to the achievement of a truly 3ust solution of the Namibian question but are actually contrary to the inteJ.:,ests of the struggle of the peoples of southern Africa and the consolida~ion of the unity of the African peoples, and of their solidarity with the socialist community and with all peace-loving, anti-imperialist and anti-colonilli forces in the world." 299. In view of the foregoing, my delegation holds the view that those Western Powers who actually enabled the racist regime ofSouth Africa to win time and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli should also bear the responsibility for all the possible consequences. 300. TIieposition of fIe Mongolian People's Republic on the question of Namitia stems.from our policy of prineiple of supporting the just struggle of oppressed people for their freedom and independence and the complete elimination of all sources ofcolonialism, racism and apartheid. 301. The Mongolian People's Republic comes out, as before, for the intlllediate granting of opportunities to the Namibian people to exercise their inalienable right to freedCim, self-determination and genuine independence on 302. The Mongolian People's Republic strongly advocates the immediate application of sanctions against the Pretoria regime and also the adoption of other effective measures for the complete international isolat~~n of the racist regime in accordance with the relevant provisions of Chapter VI! of the Charter of the United Nations. 303. The Government and people of the Mongolian People's Republic express their full support for and solidarity with the Namibian people in their struggle for the realization of their inalienable right to freedom, self- determination and national independence.

The current debate in the General Assembly on the question of Namibia occurs at a time of great anxiety over the future of Namibia. Events since the ninth special ~ssion have moved swiftly and brought us to a decisive point where our commitment to the cause of genuine independence for the Namibian people is being put to the test. Hopes were raised that a free and independent Namibia wnuld soon become a reality following the dramatic announcement in April that South Africa, the illegal occupying Power, had agreed to the plan for Namibian independence proposed by the five Western members of the Security Council. The represent2tive of the Namibian people, SWAPO, subsequently pledged its co- operation, despite negative elements in the plan and despite severe intimidation carried out by the Pretoria regime. The endorsement of the plan by the Security Council in resolution 431 (1978) and the transition arrangements worked out by the Secretary-General and his Special Representative, ad'lpted by the Security Council in reso- lution 435 (1978), laid the basis for the implementation of the plan. In the process of the fmal execution of the plan, it was the general expectation that all parties would in good faith abide by the letter and spirit of the agreed plan, which would result in genuine independence for Namibia. It was on that basis that tile United Nations proceeded to fulfd its role in the implementation of the plan and it was also on that basis that SWAPO as tlte representative of the Namibian people kept its word and faithfully gave its full co-operation to bring about a peaceful settlement of the question. 305. But not so South Africa. Once again the Pretoria regime has demonstrated the trickery and deception for which it has an unequalled reputation. Once again the racist regime has confinned our deep suspicions about the sincerity of its motives and intentions regarding Namibia and its desire to frustrate all attempts to enable the pecple of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination and independence. But South Africa's treachery should come as no surprise. It is now apparent that its acceptance of the plan of the five Western Powers was based _on the expectation that SWAPO would reject the plan and thus appear to be the intransigent party which was unwilling to accept a peaceful solution. The wanton and savage attack 306. The attitude and actions of the South African regime since September have confinned this. It is unwilling to accept an effective role for the United Nations in the transition arrangements and seeks to modify the role and composition of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group. It is clear that the South African racists are intent on controlling the transition process to ensure that their nco-colonial designs on Namibia are safeguarded. Above all . they have sought to frustrate the implementation of the plan by the holding of unilateral elections this week. This action is at the heart of their strategy. Clearly, it was their expectation that elections carried .out fairly under Unit~d Nations supervision would result in an overwhelming victory for SWAPO. To prevent such a development, South Africa is holding its own rigged elections to provide an opportunity for installing puppets who would be unwilling to entertain the idea of later elections under United Nations supervision. South Africa claims that the elections should be seen neither as a fmal step nor as a South African challenge to the international community. But it goes on to state that all options would be referred to the so-called elected representatives who would be free to recommend acceptance of the Secretary-General's report. South Africa would at the ~ime point out to them the various possi- bilities and their likely consequences. In short, the puppets would be used as the means by which South Africa could avoid its commitments. This is apparent from the latest reports of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on his consultations with South African officials. 307. The reports of tlte Secretary-General of 24 November and 2 December 1978, documents S/12938 and S/12950 respectively, show that South Africans are ,not prepared to give clear answers to the vital questions raised by the Secretary-General. Instead they attempt .to dodge the issues by giving qualified assurances and restrictive commitments designed to preserve all their options and gain $le. We must not be deceived by the web of confusion they have created to mask their true intentions. The stark reality of the situation is that the Pretoria regime has no intention of allowing genuine independence for Namibia. It has no intention of allowing free and fair elections to be con- ducted. It is prepared only to transfer power to puppets under its control in order to perpetuate its racist exploi- tation of Namibia. The current harassment and arrests of !!,aders and members of SWAPO, the legitimate repre- sentatives of the people of Namibia, are further confir- mation of the intentions of the Pretoria reginle. 308. The defiant and contemptuous attitude of South Africa towards the United Nations, so often demonstrated in the past, should not be allowed to continue. South Africa must be shown that we are determined to carry out our responsibilities and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to that end. There should be no hesitation in doing what 309. The Security Council in resolution 439 (1978) issued a warning to South Africa that failure to comply with its resolutions would lead to the initiation of appropriate actions under the Charter, including its Chapter VII, to ensure compliance. The time has now come for the Security Council to follow up this warning by firm action. The Council cannot afford to delay or to take the path of appeasement and surrender. The five Western members of the Security Council must recognize that their credibility is at stake ana that their sincerity will be questioned if there is any acquiescence or delay on their part. 310. My delegation acknowledges the significant efforts of the five Powers to bring about an internationally acceptable solution to the problem of Namibia. Their initiative was viewed by many as very positive, not because of any doubt that the people of Namibia wou.ld prevail eventually, but because of the long-held view that the racist regime of South Africa is supported by strong economic and other ties with the West. But the five Western countries must know that, once having assumed the initiative and having taken the road towards dislodging South Africa from Namibia, they cannot turn back or stay their hand if they find the cost higher than anticipated. Any delay now wiJI only strengthen the conviction of most of us that there is a lack of readiness to sacrifice material interests in favour of the people of Namibia. Their action at the next stage of the Security Council deliberations on the question of Namibia will be seen as a measure of their commitment to the Namibi.1D people. 311. The Security Council must meet the expectations of the international community expressed in this body. We must not fail the people ofNamibia. The time has come for the United Nations to act, because it has in its hands the future of the people of Namibia, who have the right to expect that their rights will be protected by this .Organi- zation and whose cause will be betrayed by hesitation, weakness or delay in bringing the full force of international pressure to r~ar on their racist oppressors. Such an approach would result in victory for the forces of oppres- sion and domination, and spell defeat for the ideals of the Charter of this Organization, which we are committed to uohold. 317. How often have the General Assembly and the Security Council been lulled into unwarranted complacency by the Western members of the Security Council? Time and again the international community nas- been led to believe that with the co-operation of South Africa, Na- mibia's independence could be achieved peacefully. Even when Pretoria was attempting to effect the dismemberment of Namibia by declaring the annexation of Walvis Bay, which is an integral part ofNamibia, we were told not to be unduly concerned about South Africa's abiding sense. of 312. Mr. IBRAHIM (Ethiopia): The very fact that the justice and decency. . General Assembiy once again has to address itself to the question of Namibia is, in the view of my delegation, the 318. The fact of the matter is that the racists of South clearest testimony of the failure of the United Nations to Africa and their Western friends are not motivated by a overcome South Africa's continuing challenge to its au- desire to seek a forthright solution to the question of thority. That the General Assembly today should be Namibia by its speedy accession to genuine independence. considering the question of Namibia at the very time when Their policies are designed as nothing but divisive and L" ~.SO~Afil~'S ~ci:,=_ronduc:~g .~ m:~:.:~_ ndNernuna:,~~ti~ f~_~_~~_:~~:rOIOngin: ~:==,-~J 313. What precisely is the situation now? The stark reality is that South Africa has consistently rejected all United Nations decisions demanding that it should totally and promptly terminate its illegal occupation of Namibia. South Mrican troops continue to occupy the Territory while South Africa's colonial administration persists in oppressing the people and in plundering their resources. It is now 12 years since the General Assembly terminated South Africa's Mandate over Namibia by its resolution 2145 (XXI). 314. South Africa, likewise, has persistently refused to co-operate with the United Nations or to comply with its decisions regarding the implementation of the Organi- zation's independence programme for Namibia. As a result of this open defiance, all United Nations decisions, and notably Security Council resolution 385 (l976), remain unimplemented to this very day. 315. Nor is this all. Pressing further -their defiance of the authority of this Organization even as I am speaking here now, the South African racists are arrogantly carrying on in Namibia an illegal, trumped-up and bogus election. The clear purpose of this so-called election is nothing other than the setting up of a puppet regime in Namibia which South Africa hopes will enable it to perpetuate its illegal occu- pation of the Territory, with all the inevitable dire consequences for the people and the resources of this Territory. 316. Regrettably, South Africa has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the covert and overt support and co-operation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bloc of States in its defiance of the United Nations over the question of Namibia, no less than in its pursuit of the inhuman policy of apartheid. Its friends and allies only too frequently have obstructed meaningful action against Pretoria. Lately, ~hey have been quite imaginative in producing all sorts of proposals designed to ensure the further delay of meaning- ful action against their client until such time that the latter, in effect, would have -achieved a fait accompli. 319. My delegation for one has no illusions about what the Western Powers seek to achieve in Namibia. It is but to create the necessary conditions that will facilitate their :ontinuing exploitation of the Territory's rich natural resources. In the basic struggle for independence and freedom carried out by the Namibian people under the leadership of SWAPO, the impossible was becoming inevi- table before the ey~s of Pretoria's rulers and their friends. Unable to break the people's will by all kinds of repression, Pretoria and its allies had to hatch schemes that were nevertheless tunsparent.Those who had been unresponsive to the struggle ofthe Namibian people fOl independence and freedom suddenly began championing the cause of Na- mibian independence. With frantic efforts and endless pilgrimages to Pretoria, th~y are engaged in an attempt to confuse and hoodwink the international community with their sundry proposals for Namibia's independence. 320. In this context, I would iike to recall that Ethiopia, C:eeply concerned as to the possible motive behind the so-called Western proposal, voiced its doubts and expressed its,misgivings during the ninth special session of the General Assembly earlier this year. Subsequent events have proved us right. As we insisted during the ninth specjlll session, we had hoped it would have been possible for the international community to take firm action promptly. 321. As if the inaction of the past has not been a lesson, my delegation notes with sorrow that the United Nations again seems to be going through the same futile exercise by calling for South Africa's compliance, instead of taking measures to enforce its decisions. After all, the record speaks for itself. The South African regime exemplifies its intranSigent .!tlitude ~y its persistent defiance of United Nations resolutions. On what basis, therefore, can the international community refrain from taking positive actions, unless it is solely in order not to displease the raciSts of Pretoria? 322. What is becoming clearer every day is that South Africa and its supporters have no desire to implement strictly and faithfully the various resolutions adopted by the United Nations. On the contrary, they have clearly embarked upon delaying tactics to thwart the decisons of this world body. South Africa, with the tacit support of its Western friends, is seeking an interlude to enable it to bril1g about the establishment of a puppet government in Namibia. This has been South Africa's primary intention for a long time. 323. Security Council resolution 385 (1976) calls, inter alia, for free elections under United Nations supervision and c:ontrol. The present South African elections are being conducted amidst the arrests of SWAPO leaders and supporters. What is most regrettable is that the Western members of the Security Council are putting obstacles in the way of the effective implementation by the United Nations of the proposals they have themselves advanced. 325. Ethiopia long has recognized that the genuine inde- pendence of Namibia can best be ensured through the combination of the intensified struggle of the Namibian people under the leadership of SWAPO and the speedy application by the Security Council of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. Even as Ethiopia is committed to making every possible sacrifice in its total support ofthe Namibian people in their legitimate struggle for their independence, unity and territorial integrity, so it appeals from this rostrum to the Security Council to take urgent action and have all its decisions on Namibia implemented in conformity with Chapter VII of the Charter. Deferring the inevitable would simply be prolonging the sufferings of the Namibian people and thus rewarding Pretoria's racists for their defiance and contempt of the United Nations. Specifically, the Western members of the Security Council owe the Hamibian people, Africa and, indeed, all mankind a singular debt. 326. If the much publicized Western proposal was made in earnest then, in view of the obduracy and eventual reneging by Sou',h Africa, surely the Western members of the Security Council are now left with no choice but to facilitate the application of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. We still wish to believe that the five Western members of the Security Council have made genuine efforts to ensure peaceful independence for Namibia. But since they have failed in that effort it is up to them now to demonstrate by deeds that they are in fact ready to discharge their obligations under the Charter. 327. However, tile position of the Western members of the Security Council notwithstanding, my delegation is more than ever convinced that the Namibian struggle, costly as it ~ay prove, will inevitably triumph. It will triumph because it is just.

The question of Namibia, considered in the context of the explosive situation in southern Africa, has reached its present critical stage because of the intransigent and arrogant policy of colo- nialist oppression, racial discrimination and brutal acts of aggression perpetrated by the racist regimes. With the help of influei;i~al international monopolistic circles those re- gimes deploy every effort to maintain their domination and to hamper the inevitable progress of decolonization. There- fore the current developments in this area of conflict jUstify the deep and genuine concern of the United Nations and the international community in general. 330. Since the ninth special session of the United Nations General Assembly the political struggle of the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO has continued and gained new momentum. At the same time, however, the efforts have continued to impose a solution acceptable to the present regime in Pretoria in utter defiance of the genuine aspirations of the African population and the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Certain Western Powers have made use of all possible means, such as diplomatic manoeuvring and pres· sure on the national liberation movements combined with making promises and delaying the solution of pressing problems. It is not difficult to understand that such ever-increasing activity has been substantially motivated by the selfish interests of some influential circles to prevent the real solution of the question of Namibia in conformity with the principles of self-determination and in accordance with the numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on this matter. 331. All this imparts to our current debate a sense of urgency and major political significance. The African peoples and international public opinion in general are following th." debate with keen interest and they expect the decisions adopted by the General Assembly to have an impact on the intensification of Namibia's struggle fot independence, in full conformity with the genuine aspira- tions of the Namibian people. The liberation of Namibia from colonial racist occupation is indeed of paramount urgency, for the existence of the present situation consti- tutes a threat not only to peace and security in southern Africa, but to international peace and security as well. 332. The ~moval of one of the last strongholds of colonialism in Namibia will be a new and momentous step along the road to the fmal elimination of the shameful system of colonialism. It will represent a new triumph in the implementation of the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, a triumph in the contribution of the United Nations to the struggle to eliminate colonialism, in con- formity with the principles of self-determination and independence. 333. It is against the background of these '~pposing trends that the role of the United Nations has to be assessed, taking into consideration also the fact that the United Nations bears the legal responsibility for Namibia. 335. In this connexion may I recall the relevant paragraph of the communique of 2 October of the extraordinary Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, which reads: "The Ministers furthei condemned the repeated acts of wanton aggression by the racist regimes against Mozam- bique, Angola, Zambia and Botswana and pledged sup- port to these countries in their valiant efforts to maintain their sovereignty and territorial integrity." [A/33/279-S/12875, annex, para. 11.} 336. During its most recent consideration of the question of Namil>ia the Security Council reiterated that con- demnation in the strongest possible terms. The recent actions of Pretoria unambiguously substantiate ·the con- clusion that today that thre..t not only has remained undiminished but, indeed, has increased. The past few weeks have been a period of concern because of news reports about a new plan of the racist forces in southern Africa aimed at carrying out a large-scale attack against the territory of the People's Republic of Angola. I should like to point out that in these difficult days for the People's Republic of Angola my cou~!ry has expressed its unre- served support for and solidarity with Angola in its just cause, guided by the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation concluded between our two countries on 21 October 1978. 337. At the current session the General Assembly is considering the question of Namibia in a complex inter- national setting. On the one hand, there is the political, diplomatic and armeli liberation struggle of the Namibian people to rid its motherland of the colonialist and racist tyranny of Pretoria. On the other, there is under way an overt effort by the racists of South Africa and their sponsors to smother the flame of the national liberation struggle and to fmd a solution to the problem that will not lead to genuine independence for Namibia. 338. The recent decision of the illegal administration of South Africa in Na.mibta to proceed with unilateral meas- ures in relation to the electoral process, which is yet another flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), must be condemned and the Governm~nt of South Africa~must be called upon to cancel these elections. 339. In these conditions, it is the duty of the United Nations and of all who genuinely support L'le Namibian people's national liberation struggle to reinforce their solidarity with the freedom fighters and their sole legiti- mate representative, SWAPO, to create internal conditions conducive to ensuring the speediest termination of Na- mibia's illegal occupation by South Africa. 341. A conditio sine quo non for the solution of the problem of Namibia in full conformity with the aspirations of the Namibian people will be fulfilled by ensuring the transfer of all powers in the shortest possible time to the patriotic forces led by SWAPO, which has been recognized by the United Nations as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people. It has become obvious that without SWAPO's participation there cannot and will not be aJ:lY free and complete exercise of the right of the Namibian people to self-determination and there cannot exist a free, united and independent Namibia. ~2. That is why there is suchjustifiable concern over the attempts made by some Western Powers, members of the Security Council, which, although they supported the decision on the holding of free elections in Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations, have in fact not made use of all the means at their disposal to convince-and if necessary to oblige-the South African Government to implement the decisions of the Security Council to that effect. While they exercised significant pressure O'Ter SWAPO to accept the conditions contained in the so-cal!'Jd plan of tlte five Western States members of the Security Council, they did not exert sufficient pressure on the South African Administration and have not Permitted the Security Council to take effective measures against the racist regime of Pretoria. It was precisely on account of that line of policy that the leader of SWAPO, Sam Nujoma, stated on 29 September of this year, during the consider- ation of the question of Namibia by the Security Council: "... we have participated in the diplomatic exercise they initiated on Namibia conscious of our historic responsibility to represent and speak for our oppressed people in order to hasten the achievement of genuine independence in Namibia. We did so in the conviction that the process of negotiation is an integral part of the struggle. We did so also in the belief that, as the major trading partners and as countries with special relations with racist South Africa, they are best placed to exert pressure on racist South Africa to co-operate at last with the United Nations on the question of Namibia. But, instead, SWAPO rather than racist South Africa has been subjected to massive pressure and blackmail. This has not only been sinister and unfair, but it has provided the Pretoria regime with support and encouragement to continue to defy and rebuff the United Nations and ele~tions. 344. All those actions by the racist regime show but one thing: South Africa does not intend to implement the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and terminate its illegal oc.cupation of Namibia. On the con- trary, the South Afrjcan army, police mtd local admin: istration are making ready for a direct confrontation, first of all and primarily with the national liberation forces, led by SWAPO. 345. Regardless of these overt provoca~ive actions of South Africa, a number of States members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have been maintaining quite a close relationship with the racist regime and continue to render it moral, diplomatic, .economic, fmancial and even military aid. Their assistance has been instrumental in building and expanding the vast military-industrial complex of South Africa, a complex which is in a position now to provide the South African military machine with everything necessary to carry out its role of policeman of Africa and occupier of Namibia. Today, South Africa is able to give moral, fmancial, economic and direct military assistance to the illegal regime of Im Smith. Taking advantage of the assistance of those same Western countries, South Africa is on the verge of creating md testing its own nuclear weapon. It has become exceedingly clear that the manufacture by South Africa of nuclear weapons will have the most severe consequences for international peace md security. 346. The United Nations has the duty, as have all of us to whom the cause of peace is dear, to· undertake new energetic efforts to foil the plms of the Pretoria authorities to create their own nuclear weapons md to see to it that that racist regime places its activities in the nuclear field under the control of IAEA. 347. There can be no avoiding mother fact which is directly linked with the attempts of Pretoria to become a self-sufiicient nuclear-weapon State. I have in mind the tremendous fmancial assistance which Western States md their trmsnational corporations are chaJnne1ling to South Africa. The existence of South Africa's close eco~omic bonds with the Western States is common knowledge. As reported in the press, more than 80 per cent of the production in the private sector in South Africa is controlled, one way or mother, by foreign interests, and first of all by corporations based in the United States md Common Market monopolies. The total volume of invest- ments by Western States in South Africa constitutes more thm S ~\jI billion. The 500 British md 400 American firms at present operating there together account for S10 billion 348. Another aspect of considerable importance in the activities of Western countries aimed at consolidating their positions in the south of Africa. Namibia in particular, is their plan to turn that reg'JOn into a spring-board for the pursuit of their neo-colonialist policy on the African continent, for exerting pressure on independent African States and for directly interfering in their domestic affairs. 349. South Africa's attempts to settle the Namibian issue by a so-called internal solution and by establishing a puppet regime as an alternative to SWAPO, which is fighting for the national and social liberation of Namibia as one indivisible political entity, are doomed to failure. Those attempts can only prolong the misery and suffering of the Narnibian people; they cannot arrest their striving for national self-determination and independence. 350. The delegation of the People's Republic of Bulgaria is finnly convinced that any internal solution based on a South African prescription, on the Southern Rhodesian pattern or along the lines of similar plans of other States ought to be rejected by the international community as unacceptable and as an ill-concealed attempt to perpetuate the illegal occupation of Namibia. 351. The only dependable way immediately to resolve the question of Namibia has been pointed out in the numerous General Assembly resolutions: it is through the termination of the illegal o'ccupation of Namibia by South Africa and the immediate withdrawal of the entire administrative, police and armed forces of Pretoria. Strict observance of the sanctions against South Africa and the adoption by the 352. In the present situation, all the Members of the United Nations should not only observe the United Nations resolutions concerning Namibia but also step up their efforts for the preparation of additional effective measures capable of compelling the colonialists, racists and invaders to respect the will of the world community. An effective contribution to this end would be strict observance of Security Council resolution 418 (1977) establishing an arms embargo against South Africa. The Bulgarian delegation supports the demands by African States foy the prompt imposition of supplementary sanctions against South Africa, in full confonnity with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter; the complete cessation of all economic collaboration with South Africa; and the political and dii'lomatic isolation of racist South Africa. We insist on the implementation of the political Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the special session on Namibia, and support the rendering of full moral and material support to the cause of the Namibian people and the political, diplomatic and armed struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO. . 353. It is our earnest hope that at the current session of the General Assembly, the United Nations, the Organi- zation which has contributed so much by its assistance to the liberation of peoples from colonial oppression, will extend its support for the full and speediest fulfilment of the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people to national self·determination, .genuine independence and social progress. . The meeting rose at 9.05 p.m.