A/34/PV.91 General Assembly

In connexion with this item, I wish to draw the attention of the General Assembly to six draft resolutions, A/34/L.45 to A/34/L.50. Before calling on the first speaker in the debate, I invite representatives to turn their attention to document A/34/ 696, which contains the report of the Fourth Committee on the hearing it held on the question of Namibia. May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of the report of the Fourth Committee? It was so decided (decision 34/421).

I call on the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Mr. Paul J. F. Lusaka of Zambia, to introduce the report of the Council [A/34/24]. 4. Mr. LUSAKA (Zambia), President, United Nations Council for Namibia: I have the honour, on behalf of the United Nations Council for Namibia, to submit for the consideration of the General Assembly the rert on its activities during 1979. This report, contained in document A/34/24, is a synthesis of the continuous efforts of the Council to fulfil the responsibility given to it by the General Assembly at its fifth special session, in 1967, for administering Namibia until independence [resolution 2248 (S-V)}. 5. For the past 12 years South Africa has rejected all resources of Namibia. Furthermore, in order to mislead the international community and the Namibian people, the colonialists and racists of Pretoria have concocted dubious schemes under the pretence of guiding the Namibian people to independence. The colonialist and militaristic intentions of South Africa have been unmasked by its recent nuclear tests, indicating South Africa’s capability of preducing nuclear weapons, as well as by its continous armed attacks against neighbouring States, in particular the recent assaults on Angola. 6. The United Nations Council for Namibia is thus confronted with a fanatical colonialist and racist régime totally opposed to the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people to self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia. 7. Therefore the Council has during the past 12 years endeavoured to increase international political mobilization in support cf the aspirations of the Namibian people and has made unceasing efforts to establish and expand programmes of assistance to Namibians outside Namibia, in close co-operation with the South West Africa Peopie’s Organization [SWAPO], the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. 8. During the current year the situation in the Territory has continued to reflect the brutal policies of the illegal administration, leading to the detention, torture and death of many Namibian patriots. South Africa has proceeded with its plans to dismember the Territory by separating Walvis Bay, the economic heart of the Territory, from the rest of Namibia and placing it under the administration of one of its provincial governments with the obvious intention of destroying the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia. By continuing its policy of support for tribal armies, the illegal South African administration persists in its racist policy of dividing Namibians in order to perpetuate its exploitation of the Namibian people and the plundering of the natural resources of the Territory. 9. The most ominous development of the year has been the clear indication of South Africa’s intention to produce nuclear weapons to intimidate African countries and frustrate the liberation struggle of the people of southern Africa. As i drew to the attention of the international community in a statement issued on 26 October 1979 [A/34/624-S/13590, annex], I am certain that the heroic people of Namibia—many of whom over long years have sacrificed their lives in the struggle to fulfil legitimate aspirations to self-determination, free- 10. The international community must give serious consideration to the consequences of this turn of events for the prospects of an international settlement of the question of Namibia and the withdrawal of the South African administration from the Territory. The Pretoria régime has persistently attempted to undermine the efforts to secure a negotiated settlement of the question of Namibia through a series of unilateral acts, and the contempt of South Africa for the well-considered view of the overwhelming majority of the members of the international community can only be made more vicious by the arrogant display of nuclear weapons. Those Western Powers which assist the development of South Africa’s nuclear capability must bear a grave responsibility for this disturbing development. 11. In spite of this unfortunate development, the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, have intensified the struggle for the national liberation of their country. Namibian patriots have continued to defy the machinery of the police State in order to continue the efforts to mobilize the Namibian people to resist the racist oppressor. Many Namibian patriots are languishing in the goals of the occupation forces of South Africa. SWAPO is not alone. All progressive and peace-loving forces in the international community ave continued to extend their political and material support to the Namibian people. 12. During 1979 the United Nations Council for Namibia has further intensified its efforts towards international political mobilization in support of Namibia through missions of political consultation to Asia, including South East Asia, as well as to Eastern and Western Europe. Delegations of the Council have actively represented Namibia at many international conferences. 13. At its thirty-third session, the General Assembly proclaimed 1979 the International Year of Solidarity with the People of Namibia [resolution 33/182C], and the Council, through its policies of dissemination of information, endeavoured to increase international awareness of the struggle of the Namibian people against the illegal occupation of Namibia by South ca. 14. With the co-operation of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, the Council has continued to develop the Nationhood Programme for Namibia witha larger number of projects aimed at increasing the skills of Namibians in order that they may eventually contribute to the construction of an independent and free Namibia. In this respect, the Council has also proceeded with a review of the guidelines endorsed by the General Assembly for the Institute for Namibia at Lusaka! for the five-year period 1975-1979. A revised charter [see A/34/24, vol. IV, annex XXXII has been finalized and is being submitted to the General Assembly at this current session for consideration and approval. In the formulation of its programme of work, and in the implementation of its policies, the Council for Namibia has always worked in close co-operation with SWAPO, the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. egitimacy for its tribal puppets and neo-colonial supporters of apartheid have so far continuously undermined the efforts of the United Nations and of the Secretary-General to achieve an international settlement. 16. The Council for Namibia has also enjoyed the close co-operation of the specialized agencies, in particular of FAO and UNESCO, which have made a decisive contribution to the success of the Nationhood Programme. FAO, UNESCO and the ILO have, in addition, granted full membership to Namibia, represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia until independence. The participation of the Council in the specialized agencies constitutes a critical step in consolidating the position of the United Nations in its support of the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people in their struggle against South African occupaion y under the leadership of their liberation movement, 17. The effectiveness of the Nationhood Programme has also been made possible by the indicative planning figure for Namibia established by UNDP. In recent years, the co-operation between UNDP and the Council has been a significant factor in the mobilization of material resources for the benefit of the Namibian people. 18. Inits efforts to carry out the mandate entrusted to it by the General Assembly, the United Nations Council for Namibia received the continued and firm support of the Organization of African Unity [OAU]. At its thirty-third ordinary session, held at Monrovia from 6 to 20 July 1979, the Council of Ministers of the OAU adopted a resolution [A/34/552, annex I, CM/Res. 720 (XXXII) recognizing the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people, led by SWAPO, and the efforts of the United Nations to obtain the withdrawal of the illegal South African administration. Also during 1979, the Council was invited to attend the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held from 3 to 9 September 1979 at Havana, where the cause of the Namibian people was strongly supported in the major political documents of the Conference [A/34/542, annex, sect. I, paras. 61-73]. 19. The activities of the Council for Namibia have also had the benefit of increasing support from many non-governmental organizations, whose efforts have lead to a greater understanding of the issue of Namibia by world public opinion. 20. The participants in the proximity talks, held in New York in March 1979, were invited to discussions in Geneva sponsored by the Secretary-General in order to review the degree of support for the concept of a‘demilitarized zone as proposed by the late President of Angola, Mr. Neto. The report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council, issued after the Geneva meeting,” indicated that, while SWAPO and the frontline States had accepted the concept of the de- 21. The reply sought from South Africa has just been received and has been circulated as a Security Council document.* It will obviously rezuire careful study. Suffice it to say for now that it constitutes a conditional acceptance of the concept of the demilitarized zone by South Africa. Some of the conditions given have their fsundation in the very position of South Africa which has hitherto prevented the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Others, such as the suggestion that South Africa should maintain-bases in the demilitarized zone, would seem to contradict the concept of the demilitarized zone itself and bring into question its very utility. 22. It should be noted that, in addition to accepting the concept of the demilitarized zone, the front-lins States also accepted the broad outline proposed by the Secretary-General regarding its implementation. It is to be hoped that no more time will be lost in the discussion of related details and of the conditions given by South rica. 23. South Africa should not be allowed to use the opportunity of international negotiations to adopt unilateral measures aimed at strengthening its control of the people and resources of Namibia. The United Nations cannot tolerate the indefinite postponement, under false pretences, of its efforts to find a solution within the framework of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). South Africa should not be allowed any longer to continue through its maneouvrings to abuse the good will of the international community and of the United Nations. Appropriate measures must be taken to impress upon South Africa that the United Nations is firmly committed to self-determination, freedom and nationait independence for the Namitidan people. 24. The full authority of the United Nations should be brought to bear upon South Africa to conform with the well-considered decisions of the world Organization.

I now call upon 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 Peoples, Mr. Loutf Haydar of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to introduce the report of the Special Committee [A/34/23/Rev.1]. 26. Mr. HAYDAR (Syrian Arab Republic), 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 Peoples: As the Rapporteur of the Special Committee en the Situation with regard to the Impiementation of the Declaration in the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, I have the honour to introduce to the General Assembly the chapter of the report of the Special Committee covering its work dur- 27. The report, which relates to item 27 of the agenda, is submitted pursuant to paragraph 12 of resolution 33/44 of 13 December 1978, on the implementation of the Declaration, in which the General Assembly requested the Special Committee “to continue to seek suitable means for the immediate and full implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in all Territories which have not yet attained independence and, in particular: **. . . To formulate specific proposals for the elimination of the remaining manifestations of colonialism and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session’’. 28. In continuing to perform the above-mentioned tasks in relation to the question of Namibia, the Special Committee took into consideration the various resolutions of the General Assembly, particularly resolutions 33/182 A, B and C, concerning this question, as well as the relevant decisions of the Security Council and the United Nations Council for Namibia. 29. The Special Committee considered this question at its session held in Belgrade in April of this year, once again with the active participation of the representatives of the United Nations Council for Namibia and of SWAPO. A representative of the Special Committee against Apartheid also took part in that session. 30. As reflected in tie relevant sections of the Final Document on the Decolonization of Zimbabwe and Namibia,> adopted by the Special Committee at the conclusion of its Belgrade session, as set out in paragraph 12 of the present report, members of the Committee observed that, despite the most active and intensified endeavours of the United Nations bodies concerned to put an end to the illegal occupation, the situation in Namibia had continued to worsen rapidly owing primarily tc the intransigence, manoeuvres and delaying tactics of the Pretoria régime. 31. The Special Committee strongly condemns South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of the Territory, its brutal repression of the Namibian people and its persistent violation of thezr human rights, as well as its efforts to destroy the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia. 32. In reaffirming, once again, that Namibia is the direct responsibility of the United Nations, the Special Committee also reasserted the inalienable right of the people of the Territory to self-determination and independence in a united Namibia and the legitimacy of their struggle, by all means at their disposal, against the illegal occupation of their country. 33. The Special Committee condemned South Africa for holding so-called elections in Namibia in December 1978 and declared them null and void, and condemned also any decision to annex Walvis Bay. It called upon all States not to accord recognition to any represent:'- tive or organ established as a result of those elections, or to co-operate with any puppet régime that South Africa might impose upon the Namibian population. 35. The Special Committee strongly condemned South Africa for its military build-up in Namibia and its illegal use of Namibia for acts of aggression against independent African countries. 36. Finally, the Special Committee recommended that the Security Council consider adopting effective measures, including the sanctions previded for under Chapter VII of the Charter and, in particular, the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions, including trade, oil and complete arms embargoes, with a view to securing speedy compliance by South Africa with the decisions of the Council. On behalf of the Special Committee, I commend this report to the General Assembly for its serious attention.

In pursuance of General Assembly resolution 31/152 of 20 December 1976, I now invite the observer of SWAPO, Mr. Peter Mueshihange, its Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to address the Assembly.

This Assembly is once again seized of the perennial question of Namibia, which for more than 33 years has exercised the mind and the conscience of the inte: zational community. A just settlement of this question has remained elusive throughout the years. The hopes and aspirations of the oppressed people of Namibia for liberation and independence have been dashed time and again. Repression, oppression and exploitation of our people at the bloody and brutal hands of the successive racist rulers of the Pretoria jynta have increased by leaps and bounds and permeated the entire country. Colonial reactionary violence, in the form of the destruction of lives and property, is the rule rather than the exception in Namibia. But the determination of cur people to persevere in the struggle and to resist by all means necessary, especially by armed struggle, has, on the other hand, remained resolute and strong. 39. The quest for a negotiated settlement, which appeared to hold promise at one point, now seems clearly to hav. run its full course. The illegal occupat*onist régime of the Pretoria junta persists in its defiance and intransigence and is expanding its military build-up in the country, reinforced by repressive acts such as the so-called stace of emergency, security measures and martial law, which cover nearly the entire country. 40. Let there be no mistake about the real situation in Namibia. There exists a state of war in our country. The colc.aial army of occupation is locked in a war with the patriotic forces of the People’s Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). It is a war of resistance and liberation 41. During the long and painstaking process of talks and negotiations on Namibia, SWAPO has exposed the bad faith of racist South Africa by providing this Assembly, the Security Council and the United Nations Secretary-General with relevant information about the atrocities committed by the occupation régime against our people and its unilateral actions aimed at frustrating the early and speedy implementation of the United Nations plan on Namibia. On this occasion, we should like once again to present the tre picture of the intensified chain of brutal acts and atrocities perpetrated by the Boer régime against the Namibian civilian population. 42. The racist Pretoria junta has unleashed a new wave of arbitrary arrests and incarcerations of SWAPO leaders and members since April this year. This campaign of terror involves thousands of Namibian patriots who are languishing in Fascist jails, concentration camps and other torture chambers throughout Namibia and in South Africa. It is a campaign calculated to cow our people into submission and an attempt to destroy SWAPO, the vanguard of the Namibian revolution. The vicious and_ barbaric methods South Africa uses include: the burning of villages; the destruction of livestock, crops and other valuable property; the cold-blooded massacre of innocent villagers alleged to be terrorists or sympathizers; the dropping of people from helicopters while others are forced to watch; rape; the confiscation of property belonging to villagers; the kidnapping of innocent peop!=; and the poisoning of water. It further involves the pianting of landmines on foot-paths, the construction of so-called protective villages, and the setting up of barricades and road-blocks as means of intimidating and controlling the civilian population. In addition to these diabolical and cowardly acts, the Boer junta in Namibia uses the most cruel and degrading techniques of torture during long ard painful hours of interrogation. For example, the Fascist interrogators force their victims to spend long periods in snake huts, where purposely starved snakes are Kept. This cruel and unusual means of torture is one way of waging psychological warfare aimed at extracting so-called confessions from the political prisoners. Another Nazi-like method is that of shoving people into trenches specially constructed to subject them to extreme temperatures. 43. Yet another way to impose total control over the movement of the people is the recent decision to issue the so-called identity document to everyone over the age of 15. This is a diabolical scheme intended to categorize the Namibian people in order to isolate and eliminate the true patriots, in the interests of a neocolonial solution in Namibia. Aiready a number of Namibian patriots have disappeared mysteriously. All the indications are that they have been kidnapped and they are feared murdered by the Boer Gestapo. According to the Windhoek Observer of 10 November 1979, the fo owing SWAPO officers have been abducted by South African Fascist security police: Johannes Kaua, Mathias Ashipembe and Matheus Nahanga. These are but three among the numerous cases of mysterious disappearance of our people. 44. We should like, once again, to draw the attention of this Assembly to the plight of thousands of Namibian Khorixas, Karasburg and Windhoek. Our own sources, as well as foreign visitors to Namibia, have confirmed that these patriots are being subjected daily to extreme forms of intimidation and torture by the Fascist army and police. 45. SWAPO and the struggling Namibian masses denounce and condemn the racist Pretoria junta for its acts of brutality and murder of our people. We appeal to the international community to join us in our demand for the immediate and unconditional release of these patriots, as well as all Namibian political prisoners, whether held in Namibia or South Africa. We appeal to this Assembly and to the Security Council to empower the Secretary-General to facilitate through his good offices an inquiry into the conditions of those Namibians being held in gaols, detention centres and concentration camps in Namibia and South Africa and to secure their immediate unconditional release. 46. We have presented these grim facts of the situation in which our people are forced to exist. It is a situation characterized by an ongoing campaign of brutal repression, generalized terror, intimidation, torture and murder. This situation is made worse by the alarming rate at which the military build-up, with its accompanying construction of new bases and the introduction of sophisticated military hardware, is being carried out by the occupation régime in Namibia. We wish to underscore this development and to point out to this Assembly that South Africa remains committed to entrenching its position in Namibia in order to impose a neo-colonial solution on the Namibian people. [To achieve that objective, the Pretoria junta has opted fora military solution to the conflict in Namibia. 47. We wish to cite a number of specific cases to illustrate the extent of the increase in South African military presence in Namibia. Of late, the occupationist régime has been occupying vacated farms as well as urchasing others to transform them into military bases or the training and deployment of troops and equipment. New bases are likewise being constructed at a number of places in the so-called operational area. These include bases at Kamanjab, in the north-west; at Omauna, in the north-west; at Omupandu, east of Ondangua; at Andara, east of Runtu; and at Ngweze, near Katima Mulilo. Existing bases are being renovated and enlarged, for example, those at Windhoek, Grootfor-. tein, Walvis Bay, Ondangua, Runtu and Mpacha. There is constant movement of troops and equipment by rail, road and air throughout Namibia. 48. Closely related to increased military build-up in Namibia is the constant use of that Territory by the racist régime of Pretoria to commit acts of aggression against and armed invasions into the neighbouring African independent States, in particular the People’s Republic of Angola and the Republic of Zambia. Those acts of aggression have not only continued, but have also been intensified in magnitude and now include the destruction of economic targets such as bridges, roads, railway lines, factories and markets. 49. This military situation, pregnant with dangers, and the aver_ecealatina nolitical canfrontation in the 50. The Pretoria junta has systematically and deliberately created obstructions and fraudulent political schemes, coupled with delaying tactics, in order to destroy the basis for the implementation of the final and definitive report of the Secrctary-General,° as endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Already the Fascist Boer junta has accelerated the military, political and administrative preparations for installing a puppet neo-colonial régime in Namibia on the model of the illegal Smith-Muzorewa régime in Zimbabwe. 5l. The SWAPO delegation, led by President Sam Nujoma, recently participated at Geneva in what were called ‘“‘simultaneous consultations’? on Namibia. Those consultations were under the auspices of the Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim. During those consultations, SWAPO made its position clear with regard to the proposed demilitarized zone to be created along the Namibia-Angola and Namibia-Zambia borders. We reiterated our acceptance of the concept of the proposed demilitarized zone. Comrade Nujoma, addressing a press conference at Geneva on 16 November 1979, stated: *‘While desirous of the early and speedy implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), SWAPO is strongly opposed to any attempt to use the machinery of the United Nations to negate the achievements of the struggling Namibian people and give undue advantage to the military occupationist régime in our country. ‘In this connexion, SWAPO is vehemently opposed to the sinister idea of disarming its armed freedom fighters in Namibia or removing them from their beloved and only fatherland into neighbouring countries, while allowing foreign military occupationist forces to remain armed on Namibian soil. This is unjust, unfair and thus an unacceptable proposition. It is intended to appease and give undue advantage tc the illegal occupationist forces in our country. If accepted, this idea will destroy the essence of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Therefore, SWAPO resolutely rejects this sinister scheme.” 52. By assuming direct responsibility for Namibia, the United Nations bas accepted a solemn obligation to grant all possible support and assistance to the Namibian people in their legitimate siruggle for liberation. We urge the United Nations not to renege on this trust and commitment until genuine national independence has been attained in our country. 53. In this connexion, we express our gratitude and appreciation tc the United Nations Council for 54. Since the creation of the Council, SWAPO has always worked closely with it in the preparation of the annual repo.‘s and other relevant documents submitied to the General Assembly. Thus, we participated actively in the preparation of the report so brilliantly introduced a iittie while ago by Ambassador Lusaka in his capacity as President of the Council. We appeal to the entire international community to give full support to the Council in the discharge of its important mandate. 55. SWAPO feels obliged to renew publicly its trust and conficence in the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kurt Waldheim. His involvement in the question of Namibia has been trying and difficult, but we note with satisfaction and appreciation that his resolve and his dedicacion to tie principles of the United Nations Charter and the resolutions and decisions on the question of Namibia have remained uncompromising. We assure him sgain of our readiness always to co-operate with and support him in all genuine efforts to bring about the speedy and early independence of Namibia. 56. Elsewhere we have stated emphatically and strongly that the Jnited Nations machinery should not be used to undermine our struggle and the position of the United Nations itself by giving support, and gradually legitimacy, ‘o certain non-representative puppet elements in Namibia who are nothing more than quislings and surrogates for imperialism, neo-colonialism and reaction. We condemn and reject any attempts to that end and we shall continue to speak up and expose such machinations, from whatever quarter. 57. The time has come for the United Nations to face up to the persistent chailenge from South Africa. The United Nations must act now to compel that régime to withdraw, unconditionally and forthwith, from Namibia. What we call for are enforcement measures under Chapter VIE of the United Nations Charter. 5&. The Fascist Boer junta of Pretoria has been pampered for far too long. It is an illegal régime which maintains the most brutal, violent and repressive military occupation in Namibia. Pretoria does net want and has never accepted a negotiated settlement; it has long opted for a military solution; hence the elaborate and massive military build-up, contrary to all the efforts to implement the United Nations decolonization plan for Namibia. 59. When we talk about the war situation in Namibia and the serious th-eat to world peace and security, we have in mind the consistent defiance by that illegal régime of the authority and directives of the United Nations; the régime’s continued illegal occupation and the bloody campaign of terrorism and repression being waged against the Namibians; its constant threats and acts of ession and military attacks against the indepedent African States, coupled with covert schemes of 60. These are dangerous developments which should no longer be viewed as ordinary features of a conflict Situation, Rather, thev should be viewed as alarming pointers to an explosive situation with ghastly consequences for the entire human race. The madmen of Pretoria must be stopped now, ¢i. A firm and strong word should be directed by this Assemb!y to the Security Council, in line with the demands of the General Assembly at its thirty-third resumed session [resolution 33/241, para. 12}, of the Couzsil of Ministers of the CAU ait its thirty-thirc ordinary session, held at Monrovia [A/34/552. annex I, Cii/Res. 720 (XXX UD}, and of the non-aligned movement, at the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Governmen: of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana [A/34/542, annex, sect. i., paras. 61-73), to impose all the comprehensive economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter on the Boer régime to fo:ce it out of Namibia, so that our people may enicy liberation ani genuine independence. This is the only act‘on that will convince the vacist usurpers that mis Organization means serious business. 62. in this staternenit we have already said ‘vhat we have to say concerning the recent simultaneous highlevel consultations held at Geneva on Namibia. Actually, we would have preferred to leave it at that. But we have been provoked by the latest situction bearing on Namibia created by the Pretoria racists to say the following. 63. True to type, yesterday, on the eve of this debate, the illegal Beer junta ser‘ ye* another of its familiar tiresome anc outrageo’ -‘iers to the Secretary- General of the United Nations. In that letter the junta, once again, showed its infamous arrogance by requesting publication of the letter as an official document of the Security Council, presumably as some sort of acceptance—awaited from them—of the concept of the demilitarized zone, called for in the Secretary- General’s last report, dated 20 November 1979. 64. That report is explicit. It states, inter alia: ‘**At the conclusion of the consultations, the Front- Line States accepted the concept of the demilitarized zone and the broad outline of the working paper. SWAPO also accepted the concept of the demilitarized zone. It was indicated that, provided that South Africa also accepted the concept, detailed discussions could follow’’.’ Nearly three weeks after the end of the Geneva consultations, there is stili no explicit, clear, unambiguous or direct reaction from Pretoria in this regard. 65. Then, on 28 November 1979, aftei informal consultations on Namibia, the President of the Security 7 [bid., Thirty-fov7th Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1979, document S/13634, para. 10. 66. What we now have before us is a far cry from what the Secretary-General expected and quite clearly contrary to what the Security Council demanded. It amounts to an insult and an cpen challenge to the authority of the Security Council aad also to a further ppuse at the persona aad office of the Secretaryaneral., o7. in our view, the authorities of the Boer Republic are uy to their usual political antics and delay tactics. They obviously delight in the theatre of the absurd. SWAPO definitely dees not. We are confident that, for its part, the United Nations will never entertain such a thing. in fact, South Africa’s ridiculous contention is that a mere acceptance, even in principle, of the concept of the demilitarized zone is subject to certain preconditions—indeed 4 long list of demands—which the rest of us ave exp~.ted to accept first, and then the Fascist junta may consider ac :eptazice of the concept. That is putting the cart befor: the horse. What was expected from the racist usurpers was an urgent and explicit reply coacerning an acceptance of the concept. Once that had been given, other matters of implementation arising from the proposed demilitarized zone would be discussed, as appropriate, and eventually resolved. SWAPO accepied this and indicated that we would participate in such discussions. 68. Instead the Boers have issued an ultimatum. It reads as follows: ‘*,.. the South African Government accepts the concept of the zone, provided agreement is reached in further discussion, inter alia, on the following: ‘*1, The number of South African bases remaining in the DMZ; ‘2. Acceptable arrangements regarding the disarmament of SWAPO personnel on the closure of bases, i.e., seven days after certification of the election; ‘*3. The deployment of an acceptable percentage of UNTAG inside the DMZ in the light of practical requirements; ‘4. Agreement on practical arrangements between the UNTAG military commander and the South African military authorities; ‘*5. Confirmation that the settlement proposal (S/ 12636) accepted by South Africa on 25 April i978 remains unchanged; ‘*6. Confirmation that the claim for SWAPO bases inside South Africa/Namibia, which, in any case, is not provided for in the settlement proposal, will not be revived.’’? 69. Inother words, this is only a partial list. There are, by implication, additional pre-conditions or demands. To us that is totally unacceptable. 71. We appeal once again: let there be no more equivocation; even here, on this front, let the struggle continue and be intensified. This must be a serious and politically charged debate aimed at affirmative and decisive action in support of the armed struggle inside Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO. 72. Vast but not least, Mr. President, we are most gratified te see you presiding over the thirty-fourth session of the General Assembly. In you we have a friend, a fellew freedom fighter and a consummate diplomat. It is fitting and proper that a noted son of Africa should be presiding over this Assembly at the time when the critical situation in southern Africa demands fortitude, cominitiment and leadership. 73. The struggle continues! Death er independence! We shall win. Mr. Gurinovich (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), Vice-President, took the Chair. 74. Mr, SIDDIQUI (Pakistan): The present item has a special significance for the General Assembly. Namibia is a unique instance where the United Nations has assumed direct responsibility for promoting the freedom and national independence of the country and ths self-determination of its people. 75. International expectations were raised last year when the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) and agreed on arrangements to ensure the early independence of Namibia through free and fair elections under the supervision and contro! of the United. Nations. It was then our hope that in the very near future the people of Namibia would be able to enjoy, in an independent Namibia, all those basic rights which are guaranteed them under the Charter of the United Nations. Regrettably those hepes remain unfulfilled. Another year has passed and the people of Namibia continue to suffer the humiliation of racist occupation and exploitation. Violence and repression continue to prevail in the Territory. South Africa persists in its defiance of the will of the world community; it has undermined all international efforts for a peaceful and negotiated sett!ement on the question of Namibia, through a series of stratagems and manoeuvres, and has obstructed the fulfillment of the objectives of the United Nations resolutions. 76. My delegation is deeply appreciative of the determined efforts made by the Secretary-General during the past year at maintaining the momenium for a peaceful settlement, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, as reflected in his recent report to the Security Council.'° The intensive consultations that he has conducted with the parties concerned, aimed at reaching agreement on the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group [UNTAG] and clarifying questions concerning the monitoring and 77. The representative of SWAPO has just recounted in his statement the grim details of the conditions under which the Namibian people are forced to live, conditions—as he stated—‘‘characterized by an ongoing campaign of brutal repression, generalized terror, intimidation, torture and murder” [see para. 46 above]. 78. We join SWAPO in its appeal to the international community to demand the immediate and unconditional release of Namibian freedom fighters and political prisoners, whether held in Namibia or in South rica. 79. Pakistan also endorses SWAPO’s appeal to this Assembly and the Security Council “*, , . to empower the Secretary-General to facilitate through his good offices an inquiry into the conditions of those Namibians being held in gaols, detention centres and concentration camps in Namibia and in South Africa and to secure their immediate unconditional release’’ [see para. 45 above]. 80. Today more than ever, South Africa’s inhuman racial policies, its campaign of terror inside Namibia, its acts of wanton aggression against neighbouring States and its ruthless exploitation of the human and natural resources of Namibia constitute a grave threat to international peace and security. The recent reports of South Africa’s detonation of a nuclear device have added a new and ominous dimension to that threat. It is not too difficult to realize the political and strategic implications of that development. South Affrica’s nuclear weapon capability would be used to perpetuate the occupation of Namibia and Pretoria’s racist policies. 81. SWAPO has very rightly observed that those are dangerous developments which should no longer be viewed as ordinary features of a conflict situation. In that regard, a special responsibility rests with those States that initiated and have since been associated with the efforts to reach a solution through negotiations and compromise. The current situation is a test of their © political will and moral obligation. It is imperative that those States manifest in practical terms their commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Above all, they must immediately and effectively terminate all forms of collaboration with the Pretoria régime and compel it to comply with United Nations resolutions. Further delays, as the Secretary-General has observed, would only add to the toll of innocent human lives and make it more difficult to resolve an already complex situation through a peaceful and negotiated settlement. 82. At this critical juncture it is essential to recall the principles and conditions for the immediate and genuine independence of Namibia. First, the right to self-determination of the people of Namibia can be exercised only through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. Secondly, any constitutional and political arrangements, or any other unilateral measures taken by the illegal administration in Namibia in relation to the electoral pro- 83. As the struggle of the Namibian people enters a crucial phase, my delegation feels that the international community should increase its political and material assistance to SWAPO to allow it to intensify its armed struggle, and should render all necessary assistance to the front-line States so as to reinforce their defence capabilities. It is only thus that they can more effectively fulfil their historical duty to act as the strategic rear base of the liberation struggle in southern Africa. For its part, Pakistan has continued, and will continue, to extend all possible assistance for these purposes. 84. Itis time that the Security Council discharged its responsibilities with regard to the liberation of Namibia. As far back as 1969, the Security Council, in resolution 264 (1969), called on South Africa ‘‘to withdraw immediately its administration’? from Namibia and decided that if South Africa failed to comply, the Council would ‘‘meet immediately to determine upon necessary steps or measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter’. 85. Ten years have passed since then, but South Africa not only has failed to comply with the call of the Council, it has intensified its brutal repression against the people of Namibia and their liberation movement, SWAPO. Is it not a slight to the dignity and effectiveness of the United Nations that, despite South Africa’s defiance, nothing has been done by the Security Council to have its decisions implemented? The least that the world expects of the Security Council, and particularly of its permanent members, is the imposition of comprehensive sanctions, under Chapter VII of the Charter, against South Africa. Those States which so far have prevented such measures will bear a heavy responsibility should the situation further deteriorate and lead to the outbreak of a widespread racial conflict in southern Africa. 86. Thirteen years ago, when the General Assembly terminated South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia, it placed the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. The Council for Namibia was established as Namibia’s legal Administering Authority until its independence. 87. That Council and its President, Ambassador Paul Lusaka, of Zambia, deserve our gratitude and cooperation for the skilful and effective manner in which they have conceived and implemented the decisions an Programmes of the Council in discharge of its mandate. 88. The Council for Namibia has played a most significant role in helping to bring the Namibian people to the threshold of independence. The activities of the Council have included political programmes, public information campaigns and the initiation of various programmes of assistance to promote the social and economic well-being of the Namibian people. Through these activities, the Council has significantly supplemented the armed struggle of SWAPO, the sole and 89. In our view, the Council for Namibia, as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia, needs to be more closely involved in the negotiations for Namibia’s transition to independence. Indeed, as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia, the Council is entitled to be associated fully with the process of negotiations. The Security Council, similarly, should maintain closer liaison with the Council for Namibia regarding the implementation of the proposed plan of action and on all important issues bearing on this matter. 90. Pakistan is proud to be associated with the efforts of the Council for Namibia to mobilize international political and material support in furtherance of Namibia’s struggle for independence. Pakistan is one of the founding members of the Council for Namibia. Pakistan’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Agha Shahi, had the distinction of serving as the President of the Council in 1972. Also, the first Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Agha Abdul Hamid, happened to be a Pakistani. 91, Pakistan’s stand on the question of Namibia is based on principle. Ever since Pakistan achieved independence through the exercise of the right to selfdetermination, the people of Pakistan have been consistently in the forefront of the historic endeavours to eliminate colonialism and exploitation from all parts of the world. Indeed, the very basis of our policy leads us wholly to identify with the aspirations of the people of amibia. 92. The President of Pakistan renewed our pledge of total solidarity with the people of Namibia in March this year when the consultation mission of the Council for Namibia visited Pakistan and called on him. He recalled that . tion on the Granting of Independer.:2 to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the United Nations Council for Namibia. Between its resolutions 264 (1969) and 439 (1978), the Security Council adopted 17 resolutions on the question of Namibia. Yet the situation has remained vachanged, if not worsened and more complicated. ‘*Pakistan considers it an international obligation to support all peoples under colonial and alien domination in exercising their right of self-determination and is irrevocably committed to Namibia’s national independence and territorial integrity.” 93. This year, 1979, is the International Year of Solidarity with the People of Namibia. Let this also be the ear of the initiation of the process leading te national independence for Namibia. The General Assembly, having assumed the responsibility of securing for the people of Namibia their inalienable right to selfdetermination, has the sclemn duty to meet its responsibility fully and squarely. It must act to ensure respect for its decisions, which constitute the expression of the will of the international community, and thus bring to a close the final chapter in the history of colonialism. 94. A continuance of our inability to respond to the situation effectively would amount to a betrayal of the ideals of the United Nations and seriously undermine the trust and confidence of the peoples and States that our Organization represents the most effective means of pursuing the goals of freedom. equality and justice. 96. It is unfortunate that the General Assembly should have to meet again to discuss the question of Namibia. We had great hopes last year that the agenda for this session would not include this question, or at least that the latter would appear under item 19 relating to the admission of new members to the United Nations. But the racist authorities in Pretoria, driven by their expansionist motivations, have thwarted our aspirations and totally ignored them. As we express our deep regret to see this Assembly meeting time and again to review the question of Namibia, we cannot help feeling a deep sense of frustration when we compare the results achieved in this question with its lengthy history before the United Nations and with the many resolutions adopted thereon by the General Assembly and the Security Council. 97. Since the first session of the General Assembly in 1946 and the adoption of resolution 65 (1), the question of Namibia has remained on the agenda of all the ordinary sessions of the General Assembly, not to mention the fifth and ninth special sessions and the resumed thirty-third session of last May. It has been discussed by a number of committees and various internatioral bodies, beginning with the Ad Hoc Committee for South West Africa, the Good Offices Committee on South West Africa, the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declara- 98. The efforts made in our international Organization and its various bodies have been frustrated, and the efforts made outside the Organization have achieved little or no progress on this serious problem. There was great optimism in the international community after the ve Western Powers took their well-known initiative! to try to find a way to ensure Namibia’s independence, through free and impartial elections under international supervision, after all parties came to a reasonable and acceptable agreement at Luanda in July 1978! and after the Secretary-General of the United Nations had taken the practical action necessary for the implementation of that agreement, which was approved by the Security Council. Yet, after all this, the racist Government of South Africa continued to behave in its usual deceitful way and to ignore ail its international commitments and "1 Ibid., Thirty-third: Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1978, document S/12636. 99. The fact is that the Government of South Africa showed its true intentions when, following all that, it acted unilaterally and began the internal sham elections, which were condemned by the international community as iliegal and regarded as null and void because of the lies, false allegations and manipulations surrounding them and which broke the record in vileness and illegitimacy. The Government of South Africa did not stop there. It has imposed, and continues to impose, its hegemony over Naraibia through a puppet national council, in order to carry out the brutal and repressive measures against the leaders and followers of SWAPO, ina desperate effort to keep Namibia for ever under its control. 100. Itis indeed true that the question of Namibia falls within the sphere of responsibility of the United Nations. This Assembly has reaffirmed the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence in a united and sovereign Namibia. It has declared the continuance of South Africa’s occupation of Namibia illegal and constituting an act of aggression against the people of Namibia and humanity as a whole. It has strongly condemned the activities of foreign companies and institutions operating in Namibia under the protection of South Africa and has requested all States to take against South Africa the measures necessary to ensure that it relinquishes control over Namibia. 101. We believe it is high time that all States assumed their responsibilities and made every effort to bring stability to the people of Namibia, who have suffered so greatly from the scourge of war and destruction. At the same time, we are convinced that the Western States in particular can play a more positive and effective role, particularly as there has been proof of the degree of intolerance and intransigence of the Government of South Africa during the various phases of the negotiations, this being most apparent in its rejection of any peaceful and just settlement acceptable to all parties. South Africa must understand that the world cannot agree to its occupying Namibia for ever. We must join forces to exercise all kinds of pressure and take all the measures necessary to put an end to South Affica’s occupation of Namibia. 102. My delegation is following carefully the negotiations taking place in Geneva, in which representatives of the five Western States, SWAPO, the front-line States and South Africa are participating. The holding of those negotiations, particularly in such conditions, is indeed an indication of the international community’s interest in this important issue, and shows the determination of the African States to tackle this question within the framework of the United Nations, particularly as it has become apparent to ali that the negotiations that took place in the past and were limited to the front-line States, the five Western States and the other parties to the dispute, did not succeed in changing South Africa’s intransigent attitude or securing the implementation of the United Nations resojutions on Namibia. The attention paid to the current negotiations shows our true desire to achieve more positive results which would help to put Namibia on the road leading to true indenendance Tf an the hasis of nast exnerience. 103. The General Assembly has reaffirmed on more than one occasion that Walvis Bay is an integral part of Namibia and that South Africa’s decision to annex it is indeed a colonialist and expansionist act and a flagrant violation of the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. Our statement that Walvis Bay is an integral part of Namibia is based on sound and established geographical, historical, economic, cultural and ethnic facts. "Walvis Bay has always been and will continue to be part of Namibia, which must remain united, and South Africa’s claims to ownership are further proof of its desire to expand and to annex territory illegally. 104. Wecannot leave matters in Namibia in this situation of stalemate. We do not wish to shut the door on a peaceful settlement achieved through negotiation, but we must remember that the way to armed struggle is still open and practicable and that the heroic people of Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO as its sole legitimate representative, is indeed able to overcome this stalemate and achieve its freedom and independence.

In Sweden’s statement on Southern Rhodesia at the 30th meeting of the Fourth Committee, on 28 November last, we emphasized that a successful outcome of the efforts to solve that problem peavcfully would be of importance not only to the future of Zimbabwe, but also to the prospects of solving the problem of Namibia as well as that of apartheid in South Africa itself. To all those who have feared change or consistently worked against the process of liberation, the creation of the independent, ree and democratic Zimbabwe, that we all hope will soon become a reality, would serve as the clearest demonstration not only that change is inevitable but that peaceful change is possible and serves the longterm interests of the whole nation and all its inhabitants. 106. On the basis of this firm conviction we expressed the hope that the same mistakes, the same misjudgements, the same prejudices that were made or held by the Smith régime would not be repeated by South Africa in Namibia. Even if the South African leaders think that efforts to prevent changes there may delay the final outcome for some time, they must surely realize that the costs in terms of continued violence, human suffering and destruction will continue to be intolerable and at the expense of the Namibian and South African people. How much better would everybody’s long-term and genuine interests be served if the reverse course could for once be taken, if those fearing or delaying change could instead appreciate the enormous potential and the many possibilities that a peaceful transformation process Is likely to bring out, provided that it is based on 107. A basic difference between the situations in Rhodesia and Namibia has to be underlined. Namibia is a particular responsibility of the United Nations. The General Assembly and the Security Council have again and again reaffirmed the principles on which Namibia’s transition to self-determination and independence must be based. Thus, only the Namibians themselves—and that includes all Namibians—have the right to decide about their future. Until conditions allow them to exercise that inalienable right, the United Nations has the exclusive and direct legal responsibility for the administration of the Territory. South Africa is obligated under international law to withdraw its presence from Namibia and to cease its military occupation of the Territory. 108. In a situation where South Africa makes every attempt to steer and pace the ongoing negotiations to suit its own will, it is of paramount importance not to let the import of these basic principles be lost from sight or compromised. This is important also because of South Africa’s efforts to portray itself as the responsible policeman in the area and a large part of the Namibian people as the villains. 109. This can only strengthen a suspicion that South Africa can only accept a solution which would allow South Africa to maintain a de facto domination ever Namibia. It is to this end that South Africa has used the period since the negotiations started to fortify its position in the Territory even further, not least militarily, to create and boost leaders of its own choice and to use its military power in attempts to weaken SWAPO and its adherents. In executing this strategy, South Africa has not shied away from perpetrating acts of aggression against neighbouring countries, causing unjustifiable death and destruction. 110. In spite of our misgivings about South Africa’s intentions, we continue to insist that every avenue must be explored to find a peaceful alternative leading to a solution that can further and support the legitimate interests of the whole Namibian people. As members of the world Organization which has the sole legal responsibility for Namibia, we have an obligation to the people of that Territory. They have placed their hope in this Organization and in its ability to bring peace and independence to their nation. That has also been the goal of all those Namibians who, after years of fruitless effort to achieve change and an end to racism and oppression through peaceful means, finally saw no alternative but to take up arms in the struggle against South African occupation and brutality. In spite of this choice of means for the liberation of Namibia, SWAPO agreed to participate in the search for a peaceful solution and lias accepted, as it seems, all the substantive elements of the plans worked out. We cannot but understand the frustration that SWAPO must be experiencing as South Africa continues to refuse to give its definite assurances that it, too, will strictly comply with the plans that all the other parties involved have declared that they accept. 111. On the eve of this debate, the South African Government has replied to the Secretary-General with its reaction to the plans for a demilitarized zone. South 112. The five Western Powers involved in the negotiating process continue to play a crucial role in persuading and pressing South Africa to comply with the principles laid down by the Security Council. If the combined weight of these Powers has not been enough to make South Africa abandon its policy of procrastination, the Security Council must decide on measures to be taken against South Africa. The ongoing negotiating process should not exclude simultaneous action by the Security Council as a means of exerting effective international pressure on South Africa. The Swedish Government has, on a number of occasions, presented its views on appropriate action in this respect, and there is no need to repeat these views here today. 113. Let me instead use this opportunity to stress, once again, that the Swedish Government continues to show willingness and readiness to support the United Nations in its efforts to exercise its legal responsibility with regard to Namibia. In this context, we should like once again to pay a tribute to the untiring efforts of the Recretary-General and his Special Representative in amibia. . 114. We also wish to reiterate our preparedness to continue to give humanitarian assistance to the many victims in the liberation struggle, in particular the refugees. Both our support for fair political solutions and our *ssistance to the victims of the present intolerable situation should be seen as expressions of one and the same interest and ambition: to help the Namibian people to create an independent, free and just nation of their own. °

Last spring, the General Assembly convened at its resumed thirty-third session on the question of Namibia. It was a time when the negotiating initiative seemed to have reached a stalemate. Now, when we are discussing Namibia again, we might have hoped that that initiative would at last have come to fruition. Unfortunately that is not the case. 116. Ifa peaceful solution is continuing to elude us, it is certainly not for lack of trying. During the last two years unprecedented efforts have been made to achieve a negotiated settlement. They have involved five Western countries, the African front-line States supported by the OAU and SWAPO. With the co-operation of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative, they have all deployed their best efforts to arrive at a settleciS7e) consonant with Security Council resolution 385 117. Despite frustrations, delays and procrastinations caused by the intransigent attitude of the Government of South Africa, we believe that the international community has been right in persisting in the search for a negotiated settlement. In effect, South Africa should be given no excuse to renege on its commitment to accept the Security Council plan for the independence of Namibia. Against this background, it was a bold demonsiration of the political acumen of the late President Natn af Ananln ta nrannesn tha nansnn 6 nfin AD 118. Whether South Africa was justified in raising these problems is beside the point. The establishment and monitoring of a demilitarized zone is a concept now accepted by the five Western countries, by the frontline States and by SWAPO. Only recently, the Secretary-General was successful in bringing the parties together at Geneva in order to clarify their positions on this question. The Government of South Africa has yet to clarify its position. Its final response will constitute a definite test of whether South Africa has been in earnest in professing its interest in an international solution or whether it has been pursuing other interests. 119. From the point of view of the international community and the United Nations, the aim, and indeed the central element of the negotiations, has been the peaceful attainment of independence by the Namibian people through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. This would at long last bring to an end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. It would at the same time signify the fulfilment of the direct responsibility that the United Nations has assumed for the future of the Territory and the happiness and welfare of its inhabitants. 120. The Nordic Governments have announced their willingness to assist in the implementation of the Security Council plan to bring independence to Namibia and secure genuine majority rule through fair and free elections under United Nations supervision. At their last meeting, in August of this year, the Nordic Foreign Ministers reaffirmed that commitment. In accordance with that commitment, originally given in August 1977, my Government has equipped and maintained a battalion of a stand-by peace-keeping force, in order to be able to respond promptly and efficiently to a possible request for its services in Namibia. 121. Finland, for its part, has a special relationship of friendship with the Namibian people spanning more than a century. Finnish initiatives and proposals led to the advisory opinion of 2i June 1971 of the International Court of Justice!?, which confirmed the illegality of the South African presence in Namibia, to the founding of the United Nations Fund for Namibia and to the establishment of the Institute for Namibia. The Nationhood Programme for Namibia, now in fuil progress, was also based on a Finnish initiative.'* Recently my Government contributed 2 million Finnish marks—that is, about $500,000—to the Nationhood Programme. Finland has also declared its intention to make an independent Namibia one of the main recipients of Finnish ilateral technical assistance. Finland has given and continues to give humanitarian assistance to SWAPO. 122. For more than 30 years South West Africa has been a matter of deep concern te the United Nations. '3 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Securiy Council Resolution 276 (1976), Advisory Opinion., I.C.J. Reports 123. On the basis of the report of the Council, my delegation understands the bewilderment and shares the uncertainty as regards the present situation. The decision of the South African Government last December to hold internal elections was a clear defiance of the United Nations and, in particular, of the authority of the Security Council. So was its decision to bestow extensive legislative powers on the newly-formed national assembly. Those powers have recently been further enlarged. The elections on which those actions were vased have been declared null and void by the United Nations. The massive detention of SWAPO leaders and arrests of alleged supporters of the movement without charge or trial have further complicated the situation inside the Territory. While oppression has been intensified within the Territory, the savage and brutal acts of aggression against neighbouring countries have spread death and destruction outside its borders. 124. This would not seem to be the conduct of a Government that is seriously interested in a peaceful and internationally recognized settlement. What is more, it is in glaring contradiction of the trend in other parts of southern Africa where, after much agony and uncertainty, the forces working for peaceful change rather than violent confrontation seem at last to be taking hold. What I have in mind, of course, is the situation in Southern Rhodesia, where a negotiated and peaceful solution is now at hand. In Namibia, as indeed in Southern Rhodesia, a peaceful settlement by negotiation is a result from which everyone stands to gain. Laying aside preconceived fears and suspicions, this is certainly true of South Africa in its future relations with an independent Namibia. And yet making peace often demands more courage than waging war. 125. But if South Africa should fail to grasp this opportunity, then this Organization, in order to fulfil its mandate, must take full responsibility for the ensuing situation. If the present efforts do not succeed, if South Africa refuses to co-operate, then sooner or later we shall be forced into a position where the United Nations collectively, as well as its Member States individually, will have to review the situation and undertake the measures which, in accordance with the Charter, depend on the decisions of the Security Council, in order to protect the basic principles on which this Organization was founded and which have to be respected if it is to survive. The question of Namibia has always been, and remains, a supreme test of that.

The General Assembly is once again taking up the question of Namibia at a time when negotiations to promote the implementation of the Security Council settlement plan have just been concluded at Geneva. It is obvious that each time an outline for a solution apears, prudence is called for in order to avoid, as we are frequently told, ‘‘indisposing South Africa’’. We also quickly forget that the lack of success of the numerous efforts made so far to assure the independence of 127. We have stated and restated over the past few years that Senegal has always appreciated the corstructive efforts, made individually or collectively by States Members of the Organization, to find an internationally acceptable solution to the Namibian problem. That is why we wish to pay a tribute to the Secretary-General of our Organization who, by his recent initiative, has shown his constant interest in a matter which has been of the greatest concern to my Government. We wish also to associate in this tribute the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, who are striving to bring about the implementation of United Nations resolutions. 128, The General Assembly and the Security Council have, on numerous occasions, reaffirmed the exclusive responsibility of the United Nations with respect to the administration of the Territory until its independence. If Africa, through the voice of OAU, has always recognized the decisions and resolutions of our Organization by emphasizing that the military occupation of the Territory is illegal, South Africa, in contrast, has always used delaying tactics in order to avoid the implementation of those resolutions. 129, This obstructionist technique of the South African Government has prevented the fruition of all initiatives undertaken to date; even worse, it has destroyed any hope of achieving a negotiated solution to the problem. In the last analysis, as far as South Africa is concerned, it is a question of maintaining its de facto domination in Namibia while continuing to exploit the natural resources of the Territory. At the same time the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, is aspiring to recover its fundamental rights and to express its legitimate aspirations. 130. Resolution 33/182 C, which proclaimed 1979 the International Year of Solidarity with the People of Namibia, represents, without a doubt, a very important step in the mobilization of world public cpinion, particularly at this time when it is proving increasingly necessary to isolate the apartheid régime so as to compel it to fulfil the aspirations of the Namibian people. 131. Senegal, as its President stated on the occasion of the commemoration of the week of solidarity with the people of Namibia, simply hopes that the political will will not be found lacking for the implementation of binding sanctions against the racist régime of South Africa. Indeed, it is no longer possible to understand the behaviour of South Africa which has always cast doubt on the good faith attributed to it, at one time or another. 132. Suffice it to recall that shortly after the end of the last special session of the General Assembly devoted to the question of Namibia, South Africa, as its sole reaction to that session, designated a _ so-called ‘*‘Administrator-General’’. 133. Thereafter, after the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). which. inter alia. nra- 134. Moreover, on the eve of the resumption of the thirty-third session, devoted to the question of Namibia, in May 1979, South Africa granted extensive legislative powers to the new coercive body which had been set up as a result of those illegal elections. These were to enable Namibia, according to Judge Martinus Theunis Steyn, South African Administrator-General of the Territery, to enter ‘‘the promised Jand of total responsibility’’. 135. More recently still, that is to say only a few days before the Geneva negotiations, South Africa demonstrated its intention of promoting a unilateral solution. In reality, for South Africa it has always been a question of the “‘bantustanization’’ of Namibia. That is why all the attempts to implement the settlement plan for the Territory have been counteracted by the manoeuvres of South Africa which has always grasped every opportunity, on the one hand, to intensify its repression in Namibia and, on the other, to perpetuate its. acts of aggression against the neighbouring front-line States. 136. Regarding that particular problem, which has been the subject of many denunciations by the Security Council—the last of which took place only a few weeks ago—no one is unaware of the reasons which motivate South African attacks. 137. It is part of the deadly designs of the racist apartheid régime that these brutal and ignoble acts are intended simply to hamper the negotiating process and thus to prevent the functioning of UNTAG in Namibia. 138. My Government hes always condemned the arrogant manner in which Scuth Africa defies the decisions of the international community. That is the reason why our delegation, at the thirty-fifth session of the Commission on Human Rights in February last,'5 invited that body to raise the question of the legality of the resence of South Africa in an Organization whose undamental principles it ignores. 139. In our opinion, the United Nations has reached a critical stage iki respect to the decisions and actions that are to be taken. In face of the arrogant and negative behaviour of South Africa, there is no longer any alternative to the adoption of effective measures to put an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia by the apartheid régime of South Africa. If an international consensus has developed in condemnation of apartheid, that odious practice which is a blot on the conscience of all men, we are nevertheless obliged to acknowledge that the political will for enforcement action has been sadly lacking every time thet it has been a matter not merely of stating principles but of applying effectively and firmly the provisions zontained in the arter. 140. What is at issue? In the first place, we must give effect to the embargo decreed by Security Council res- 141. If there is a consistent feature in South Africa’s attitude vis-a-vis the United Nations, it is indeed the constant violation by the Pretoria régime of the principles of the United Nations Charter and of the resolutions of the Organization. In this case, is it possible to hope that that country will adopt a more conciliatory and reasonable attitude? Facts demonstrate the contrary. Since the end of the Geneva meeting, South Africa has not yet given any response to the proposal to establish a demilitarized zone between Namibia and the front-line States. That is so in spite of the acceptance of that proposal by SWAPO and the neighbouring States and especially in spite of the appeal addressed to that country on 28 November by the Security Council to explain its position before 6 December.*° 142. Indeed, the letter from the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs, addressed to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, constitutes additional evidence of the fact that South Africa is not ready to make any progress. It makes its agreement conditional upon discussions on the following: ‘*1, The number of South African bases remaining in the DMZ; ‘“*2. Acceptable arrangements regarding the disarmament of SWAPO personnel on the closure of bases, i.e., seven days after certification of the election; ‘3. The deployment of an acceptable percentage of UNTAG inside the DMZ in the light of practical requirements; ‘*4, Agreement on practical arrangements between the UNTAG military commander and the South African military authorities; **5. Confirmation that the settlement proposal (S/ 12636) accepted by South Africa on 25 April 1978 remains unchanged; **6. Confirmation that the claim for SWAPO bases inside South West Africa/Namibia, which, in any case, is not provided for in the settlement proposal, will not be revived.’*!? 143. Therefore what can be expected of South Africa? Nothing other than what it is doing in full view and with the full knowledge of the entire international community, that is: the strengthening of its military and police forces in Namibia, estimated today at 75,000 men; the 144, Since conciliatory methods are not likely to produce any results, it remains only to use those which can affect the material well-being of that country, that is to say, its economy. So far as we are concerned, it is necessary to.impose effective sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and we therefore advocate the following action. 145. First, the United Nations should decree an oil embargo against South Africa. Indeed, it is known that the oil industry of South Africa is more vulnerable to foreign influence than any other sector. We believe that the solidarity that has always existed among the Arab and African countries will once again be fully effective in this case. 146. Secondly, all the multinational companies operating in Namibia should be isolatea and denounced. 147, Thirdly, material, military and moral assistance should be granted to SWAPO, the sole and authentic liberation movement of the Namibian people until final victory. 148. Fourthly, the power of the United Nations Council for Namibia, as the legal administrative authority of Namibia, should be strengthened. 149. Thatis the least that should be done, if in its blind stubbornness South Africa persists in ignoring the voice of reason and that of the entire community of nations.

The territorial integrity of Namibia and the inalienable right of its people to freedom and independence, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the resolutions concerning Namibia, have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the General Assembly—let me hastily add, in vain. 151, The plight of the Namibian people is deteriorating further. As stated in the Final Document on the Decolonization of Zimbabwe and Namibia, adc pted at the 1145th meeting 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, at Belgrade on 27 April 1979: “| . . the racist régime of South Africa bear[s] a grave responsibility for the creation of a situation which seriously threatens international peace and security in southern Africa. This has been brought about by [its] persistent denial to the African [people] of the [Territory] which [it] illegally [occupies] of the 152. That responsibility is not borne by South Africa alone; it is shared by those who continue to maintain wide-scale relations with the racist régime and who still support it by all possible means. Without entering into details, let me just refer to the recent annual report of the Special Committee against Apartheid [see A/34/22] Add.1), which gives a full list of the names of collaborators and an in-depth analysis of the nature of their activities in the Territory in support of the South African régime. 153. Surprisingly—although to us it is not surprising—on that list we can find the names of those countries which are very actively posing as liberators of | the Namibian people. Maybe that fact aione offers some kind of explanation why there is no real ¢’ ogress in the decolonization of Namibia. 154. During 1978 and 1979 efforts were made to implement Security Council resolution 385 (1976) directed in large measure at persuading South Africa to co-operate in the holding of Territory-wide elections under United Nations supervision and control. However, the reaction of the racist régime is clearly indicated in the report of the Secretary-General of the OAU to the thirty-third ordinary session of the OAU, at Monrovia, in 1979, which states: ‘‘The racist régime of South Africa has, following its unilateral decision not to participate in the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia, decided to promote, through a quasi-unilateral declaration of independence, the establishment of 2 provisional government in Namibia.” 155. In the face of such arrogance and defiance, displayed by the racist régime in South Africa at the recent Geneva talks as well, in order to delay the date of independence for Namibia, the General Assembiy should in our opinion take appropriate measures in keeping with resolution 33/206. 156. What this forum, the General Assembly, should now do in the first place is to reaffirm that any settlement in Namibia can be accepted by the international community only if it is based on genuine independence and involves the full participation of the people of the Territory, as represented by its authentic national liberation movement, SWAPO, in conformity with the genuine aspirations of the people and in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.

My delegation must express its deep concern over South Africa’s continuing ability to frustrate the aspirations of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence in Namibia, including Walvis Bay. We are also greatly perturbed by South Africa’s contempt for the United Nations and for international efforts to enable the 158. We are sure that the vast majority of Member States share our sense of frustration over the fact that the General Assembly, from its very first session, has been calling unsuccessfully on South Africa to terminate its invalid mandate, in accordance with international law. 159. The situation continues in spite of the remarkably clear and solidly based consensus achieved by the international community, both with regard to the legal and moral responsibility of the United Nations for Namibia and with regard to the measures which should be taken to free the Namibian people fron: South Africa’s illegal, racist and oppressive rule. 160. My delegation is aware that new efforts, are being made by Secretary-General Waldheim to secure South Africa’s co-operation in implementing the plan for Namibia’s independence approved by the Security Council in its resolution 435 (1978), and it highly commends the Secretary-General for this initiative. His untiring efforts to bring about a just and peaceful resolu. tion of the Namibian problem are reflected in his supplementary report, '® concerning the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 161. The proximity talks recently convened at Geneva were a particularly constructive effort to solve outstanding problems. They demonsirated clearly the co-operative approach of SWAPO, of the Governments of the front-line States of Angola and Zambia and of other African States towards the question of a demilitarized zone. African leaders are obviously willing to explore every initiative which could bring about the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We are not surprised, however, that the Pretoria régime stiil refuses to commit itself to the independence process approved by the international community. Indeed, as the Council for Namibia has pointed out in its detailed and comprehensive report on the situation in the Territory [A/34/24], the illegal régime has continued to strengthen its military occupation by increasing the number of its a:med forces and its supplies of sophisticated armaments in Namibia. 162. The history of South Africa’s determined efforts to retain control of Namibia also makes it difficult for my delegation to hold an optimistic view about the outcome of the renewed negotiations. Any opportunity for a peaceful settlement in accordance with internationally approved principles must of course be explored, but the patience of the international community as already worn thin as the Pretoria régime has time and again used the pretence of negotiating as a delaying tactic and employed strategy after strategy in its attempt to defraud the Namibian people of their national inheritance. 163. Less than a year ago it seemed that the long effort on behalf of Namibian independence was near a successful conclusion. My Government had welcomed the negotiated settlement approved by SWAPO—the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people—and adopted by the Security Council. We shared the disap- 164. South Africa's bad faith and intransigence were clearly demonstrated by the obstacles it raised in the way of implementing the independence plan and by its decisioni to impose a so-called internal settlement through fradulent constitutional and political schemes, in order to perpetuate its control and exploitation of the Territory. Furthermore, its atrocious wave of repression directed against SWAPO leaders and supporters throughout Namibia was evidence of the tightening of its oppressive rule. The severe condemnation of these acts by the international community is reflected in resolution 33/206, adopted by the resumed thirty-third session of the General Assembly, on Namibia. However, condemnations alone will not succeed in bringing about significant progress towards the solution of the Namibian problem. The Security Counrc!l must take effective action under Chapter VII of the Charter to ensure South Africa’s compliance with United Nations decisions on the Territory. 165. Unfortunately, South Africa has been allowed to carry out gross violations of international law with impunity. The General Assembly has rightly declared that South Africa’s illegal presence in Namibia constitutes aggression against the Namibian people, against their liberation movement and against the United Nations. The most violent aspect of that aggression is the brutal war being waged against SWAPO and its supporters, who are engaged in a legitimate armed struggle. This war, as we know, involves the callous bombing of refugee camps and acts of aggression launched from Namibia by the racist régime against neighbouring sovereign States. 166. South Africa’s economic and military support for the rebel régime in Southern Rhodesia, in defiance of the mandatory sanctions of the Security Council, has been a major factor in the prolongation of a bitter and blocdy struggle.anu ic further evidence of South Africa’s contribution to tension and conflict in southern Africa. Mr. Botha’s recent announcement that South Africa is prepared to intervene in Zimbabwe if a settlement there is not to his liking underscores the determination of the Pretoria régime to keep southern Africa under its racist and oppressive control. 167. South Africa’s aggression against Namibia is also characterized by the squandering of the natural resources of the Territory, which is being carried out by foreign economic interests under the protection of the racist colonial administration. This exploitation of the birthright of the Namibian people violates the relevant resclutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and Decree No. | for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, enacted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974.?° Finally, South Africa is guilty of aggression against Namibia by its imposition on the Namibian people of apartheid—a crime against humanity and a constant incitement to racial confrontation. All these actions and policies have undoubtedly breached the peace of the region and they threaten international peace and security. 169. The Pretoria régime is of course talking full advantage of the respite it has gained through its deceitful schemes and is attempting to sway international public opinion in its favour by a campaign of false propaganda directed through the international media. Recent scandals in the South African Government have illustrated the extent of South Africa’s financial and political commitment to its public relations efforts. My delegation hopes that Member States, the Council for Namibia and the United Nations Department of Public Information will take vigorous and effective counter-measures against that harmful propaganda which pictures SWAPO'’s legitimate nationalist struggle as terrorist activity directed against Namibia by outside interests, gives the impression that South Africa is the legirimate Administering Authority in Namibia and boldly asserts that its imposition of a puppet régime on the Territory was an exercise in democracy. 170. My delegation believes that the very least the international community can do is to offer sustained and increased financial, material and military support to the liberation struggle of the Namibian people, led by SWAPO. We welcome the fact that the specialized agencies and other bodies of the United Nations system are giving support to SWAPO in a number of ways and we hope to see that support increased. We trust that Member States, in acknowledging the importance of the role of the Council for Namibia, will afford that Council every co-operation in its work on behalf of the Namibian people and particularly in its efforts to implement the Nationhood Programme for Namibia. The success of that Programme will of course depend upon extensive support from the specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies. Increased contributions to the United Nations Fund for Namibia, wherever possible, will also illustrate in a practical way the special responsibility of the United Nations for Namibia and the concern of Member States regarding the human suffering caused by South Africa’s aggressions. 171. Those are all valuable ways of supporting the Namibian people in their struggle. However, it is the Security Council which bears the heaviest responsibility for ending a serious threat to international peace and security and for ensuring that the world Organization fulfils its obligations towards the Territory and people of Namibia. 172. My delegation is confident that the General Assembly will repeat in strong terms its call to the Security Council to convene in order to take effective steps to gain South Africa’s compliance with the United Nations resolutions on Namibia. We trust that the Security Council is prepared to take enforcement measures un- United Nations in establishing a unified and genuinely independent Namibian State. Any other course of ac- The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m.