A/34/PV.95 General Assembly

It seems that none of the su ceeding speakers is yet here. I very much regret that ot efforts to start this morning’s meeting earlier tha usual, in the desire not to inconvenience members by Saturday meeting, have not been successful. In th circumstances, I have no option but to suspend th meeting for a short time. The meeting was suspended at 10.20 a.m. and re sumed at 10.40 a.m.

The attempts of the racist régime of the sc called Republic of South Africa to annex the Territor of Namibia go back to well before the time of the found ing of the United Nations. When the General Assembi in 1946 rejected the proposal to make Namibia part o the Union of South Africa in 1946, the Pretoria Fascist undertook the task of ensuring, by all means, thei domination over the Territory which they were occupy ing illegally. They did so by enacting racist aparthei Jaws, including the Terrorism Act of 1967, the Interna Security Act of 1976, the Suppression of Communisn Act of 1950, by proclaiming the bantustans of Ovambo iand, Kavangoland and eastern Caprivi, and by subject ing more than 50 per cent of the Namibian population tc mel law, all the while increasing their own military might. 5. Confronted by ihe growing liberation struggie o! the Namibian patriots under the leadership of SWAPC and its military arm, the People’s Liberation Army o! Namibia, and concerned over the increasing isolatior imposed on them by the international community, Hen Botha and his cohorts decided to engage in pseudo-legal schemes and to put together a so-called constitutional conference, controlled by a white minority and exclud- 6. For the past few years, five Western Powers— which, of course, had systematically opposed the implementation of economic or any other sanctions against their associates in Pretoria—have been holding talks allegedly aimed at bringing about a peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. The Secretary- General of the United Nations has engaged in tireless efforts to implement the United Nations plan for Namibia, the declared objective of which is to bring about a peaceful and negotiated settlement in order that free elections may be held under United Nations supervision, with guarantees for the exercise of the right to self-determination and independence by the Namibian people. 7. The negotiating process has however been marked by a series of unjustified postponements which, in effect, each represent a concession to the Pretoria racists. The objective of those postponements was inevitably to make it possible for South Africa to gain time and to lay the groundwork for a sham “‘internal settlement”’, similar to the one imposed by their acolytes in Zimbabwe, with the complicity of the traitors Muzorewa, Sithole and other local ‘“‘Uncle Toms’’. 8. In the meantime, the South African ruling class maintains its defiant and intransigent attitude and increases its military control over the Territory, subjecting the population to the most barbaric repression, torture and extermination. The leaders and militants of SWAPO have been subjected to signal persecution by the Boers of Herr Botha who, like the North American imperialists in Viet Nam, have razed villages, destroyed crops, killed livestock, murdered innocent people, and indiscriminately spread ruin and terror. 9. Comrade Peter Mueshihange, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of SWAPO, announced a few days ago {91st meeting] the mysterious disappearance of a number of Namibian patriots and the adoption of an identification system which is obligatory for all persons over 16 years of age and through which the racists are attempting to isolate and eliminate the true patriots, for the purpose of imposing a neo-colonial solution. 10. The international community cannot fail to respond to the clamour of the Namibian people and the demands for assistance from thousands of fighters for independence and freedom who are confined to the concentration camps in Hardap, Ogongo, Runtu, Windhoek and many other districts of Namibia. The General Assembly must demand, in the strongest terms, the immediate and unconditional release of those patriots and all political prisoners in Namibia and South Africa. il. Furthermore, the undue increase in the South African military force strength in Namibia is not only for the purpose of achieving a local objective. As is well known, it is from the bases located in that occupied ‘Territory that attacks are launched against the Republics of Angola and Zambia, whose sons have many 12. Those who are truly responsible for the fact that a peaceful and negotiated settlement has not been reached in Namibia are the racisis of Pretoria and their imperialist collaborators and allies. That fact— proclaimed in the General Assembly and the Security Council on many occasions by my delegation—was corroborated only a few days ago by the results of the talks held at Geneva. 13. First and foremost, it is intolerable that the Pretoria régime should have tried to impose its quislings of Turnhalle and other puppets in the meetings where the United Nations plan was discussed. The only objective of that action can be to try to undermine the position of SWAPO as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people recognized by our Organization. Also, the belated and arrogant reply of South Africa to the Secretary-General,* filled with unacceptable preconditions, is clearly aimed at delaying the negotiating process in order later to impose the neo-colonial solution they so ardently desire. 14. Weagree with SWAPO that it is unreasonable and inadmissible to propose that South African troops remain armed within the demilitarized zone, while at the same time demanding that SWAPO patriots be disarmed and forced to abandon their homeland to go to Zambia or Angola. 15. South Africa, as the whole world knows, is occupying the territory of Namibia unlawfully. No South rican soldier can remain armed in the demilitarized zone, or that zone will lose its demilitarized character. 16. Such armed presence would also be in breach ‘of as teal and spirit of Security Council resolution 435 17. The General Assemblv must speak with one voice in condemning South Africa’s manoeuvres and those of its imperialist allies. The racists in Pretoria must be forced to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Namibia, as stipulated in the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly. The sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter must be applied without delay. 18. The situation in Namibia and the terrorist activities of the South African racists against neighbouring independent countries are serious threats to international peace and security. This is not a merely hypothetical or theoretical danger, but something very tangible and immediate. The apartheid régime, with the assistance of a number of Western Powers, has already, it would seem, acquired a nuclear capacity. Its record of aggression is very well known, as is its savage hatred of the African peoples, which flows from the very entrails of the policy of apartheid. It is not necessary to look far for the aggressor; it has appeared before our very eyes 19. We must strengthen the role of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the sole legal authority over the Territory during the transitional period as it moves towards full independence. To its President, Mr. Paul Lusaka of Zambia, we express our appreciation of the hard work and selfless effortshe has devoted to his difficult and delicate tasks. At the same time, increased financial, political, military and other assistance must be afforded to SWAPO in order to increase its fighting capacity and enable it to defeat the South African occupation forces once and for all. We must use the instruments provided for in the United Nations Charter to impose the will of the international community on those who repeatedly and systematically violate it. 20. It is our bounden duty to contribute effectively and immediately to the attainment of self-determination and independence by the people of Namibia.

The question of South West Africa was first addressed by the General Assembly 33 years ago.? It is 13-years since the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for the Territory and eight years since the International Court of Justice ruled that South Africa’s presence in South West Africa was illegal.* Despite this, and notwithstanding numerous calls on South Africa to fulfil its obligations and to withdraw from the Territory, South Africa has persisted in its defiance of the voice of the world community. 22. For the past three years South Africa has deflected the efforts of the Secretary-General and the five Western Powers to bring about a negotiated settlement under United Nations auspices. The failure of the South African Government to respond adequately to the set~ tlement proposals, and the persistence with whichithas - obstructed their implementation, has called into question its motives and good faith. It has contributed to a mounting sense of anger and disillusionment among the Namibian people and among the front-line States, which have borne the heavy burden of economic and social disruption and joss of life, and it has well nigh exhausted the patience of the international community. The time for a negotiated peaceful settlement is running out, 23. My Government has always maintained that the people of Namibia must be allowed to determine their own future in free and fair elections under United Nations auspices and supervision. We have depiored the efforts of the South African Government to stifle internal opinion through the arbitrary arrest of SWAPO leaders and their detention without trial. We have rejected totally the attempts of South Africa to impose an internal settlement in Namibia. We did not recognize the elections in Namibia in 1978. We do not accept in any way the establishment of the National Assembly as 4 Legal Consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 24. The New Zealand Government looked with favour on the late President Neto’s proposal for a demilitarized zone on the northern borders of Namibia. This unquestionably offered a hopeful prospect for overcoming the impasse in the settlement negotiations. We welcomed the acceptance of that proposal by SWAPO and the front-line States. Last week, in response to the Secretary-General’s urgent request for an indication of its position, the South African Government finally advised him of its conditional acceptance of the proposal.* It is a response that gives a measure of hope that negotiations can resume. But the need for caution remains. South Africa has in the past shown its readiness too often to adopt certain positions, but too seldom to implement them. We hope that this will no longer be the case and that their present response reflects a genuine decision to co-operate in establishing the demilitarized zone that could pave the way for a negotiated settlement and the establishment of an independent Namibia under genuine majority rule. 25. After three months of intensive discussions at the Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House, Zimbabwe now stands on the threshold of a new and hard-won independence under genuine majority rule. That this is so is a tribute to the determination and flexibility of all parties concerned. The Lancaster House talks have shown that peaceful change is possible, that with political will and determination even the most intractable and long-standing problems are not beyond resolution. It is our profound hope that the South African Government also, which has so often in the past seemed unready to compromise, will on this occasion be prepared to join in genuine efforts to reach a just and peaceful settlement in Namibia. The Secretary-General and the five Western Powers can be assured of New Zealand’s support for their continuing efforts to implement the settlement plan in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Security Council and of this Assembly. 26. Mr. von WECHMAR (Federal Republic of Germany): It is my privilege to address the General Assembly on behalf of the Governments of Canada, france, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. 27. Our five Governments continue to spare no effort to help bring about an internationally acceptable settlement of the Namibian question, and we are working closely with the Secretary-General and his staff in the effort to secure the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 28. Since February of this year we have striven to find a way, Consistent with the terms of the United Nations settlement plan, to overcome the objections expressed by the South African Government to certain aspects of Secretary-General Waldheim’s report of 26 February.® Last summer the late President of Angola, Mr. Agostinho Neto, proposed a formula in an effort to achieve a settlement. He envisaged a demilitarized 9. Our five Governments worked closely with the ecretary-General and his staff in developing President Yeto’s proposal by drawing up a working paper to acilitate the implementation of the concept of the denilitarized zone. As a further step, Secretary-General Valdheim last month sponsored high-level simulta- 1ieous consuliations at Geneva to discuss the concept of he demilitarized zone and to clarify questions arising rom the working paper. As the Secretary-General has tated in his report of 20 November to the Security >ouncil: *‘At the conclusion of the consultations, the frontline 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 technical discussions could follow.’”7 30. In a letter dated 5 December® the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Botha, informed the secretary-General of South Africa’s acceptance of the soncept of the demilitarized zone, provided agreement s reached in further discussions on a number of South African concerns. Our five Governments are now in ouch with the Secretary-General and his staff with ‘egard to arrangements for the technical discussions which are needed to work out the details of the denilitarized zone, so that the zone can be established and implementation of the settlement plan can begin. 31. These discussions must begin as soon as possible. The Namibian settlement is long overdue, and the setilement process cannot continue endlessly. If full agreement is not reached in thé near future, then we must collectively examine appropriate next steps. Ali concerned must understand that the five Governments are dedicated to the early achievement of an internationally recognized independence for Namibia. 32. As we near that goal, we wish to reiterate our Governments’ support for the efforts of the Secretary- General and his staff and our great appreciation for the support of the many Member States which have joined us in this settlement effort. The five Governments are encouraged by the progress achieved in the Lancaster House negotiations. This positive result confirms our common policy of seeking solutions in southern Africa through negotiations, taking into account the legitimate interests of ail the parties concerned. 33. We call now on all the parties to the Namibian conflict to restrain themselves, even in the face of provocation, as we work towards a final settlement. We call on all the parties to rededicate themselves to an internationally acceptable settlement and to the prompt resolution of the remaining issues. Only in this way can an enduring peace and a just and promising future for Namibia be secured.

Thirteen years ago—on 27 October 1966 to be exact—the United Na- 7 {bid., document $/13634. 35. South Africa’s policy over Namibia amounts to no less than a slap in the face for the United Nations community, The demands of the latter have resulted in an unconscionable tightening by South Africa of its grip on Namibia. A virtual police State has been created, a State whose foundations are rooted in apartheid, in the creation of bantustans, in detentions, in torture, in murder; in sum, in the inhuman and ruthless exploitation of Namibia’s people and its natural resources. 36. The intransigence of South Africa and its tyrannical exercise of power over the Namibian people can only serve to bolster the world community and, in particular, third-world States in their continued support of SWAPO. Recognized by the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity [OAU] as the sole and authentic voice of the Namibian people, SWAPO continues to wage with unfaltering determination its just struggle for liberation. 37. Expectedly too, South African Governments have with grim determination waged a campaign of terror against the leadership and supporters of SWAPO, have tried to nullify SWAPO’s indisputable claim to be the voice of the Namibian people by recognizing other groups and organizations as the legitimate representatives of the population, and have even organized illegal elections so as to continue, through elected puppets, the occupation of Namibia. 38. The delegation of Grenada joins the rest of the international community in its strong condemnation of all that South Africa represents in Namibia, and also condemns that Government’s decision in 1977 to claim for itself the vital port of Walvis Bay. That Fascist-like attack ou the territorial integrity of Namibia will not go unanswered. 39. The delegation of Grenada stands firm in its support also of Namibia’s neighbours, which have suffered military attacks at the hands of the cruel and desperate South African régime. The emergence of black independent States on South. Africa’s borders is striking and, for that country, unnerving evidence of its increasing isolation and of its inevitable destruction, founded, as it is, on undemocratic and racist principles. 40. It is in this context that the recent news of South Africa’s acquisition of a nuclear capability is to be seen and feared, for it is a capability that will be used by the Fascist régime to defend its world of apartheid. That régime constitutes a serious threat to international 41. My delegation wishes at this point to voice strong support for the work that has been done end is being done by the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority of the Territory. My delegation also warmly commends the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Ahtisaari, for all that his Office is doing in implementing the Nationhood Programme for Namibia. We also strongly support the role of the various United Nations agencies. 42. Finally, my delegation calls upon all members of this community of nations to give support to SWAPO and the Namibian people in this vital struggle for selfdetermination, independence and territorial integrity.

In considering this item the General Assembly is confronting one of the most important questions that the United Nations has ever had to face in its history and vis-a-vis which it has a special responsibility. When the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXT) 13 years ago, an end was put to South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory of Namibia. Since that time, the Organization has assumed direct responsibility for the administration of that Territory until it achieves independence. Since that date, the United Nations has been engaged in trying to put an end to South Africa’s administration of the Territory and the presence of its troops there and to make it possible for the people of the Territory to exercise its inalienable right to independence and freedom through free democratic elections under United Nations control. Notwithstanding the efforts that the United Nations had made to fulfil its commitment, it has not yet been able to do so. 44. Indeed, the racist troops of the Pretoria régime continue their unlawful occupation of the Territory, creating a dangerous political and military situation which threatens peace and security in Africa and throughout the world. 45. The troops of the racist régime still mercilessly persecute the people of Namibia, and they are also continuing their barbarously repressive actions against the members of SWAPO, who are the sole legitimate representatives of the people of Namibia. They have done so by all means available, such as detention, torture, exile and extermination, thereby trying to put an end to that liberation movement and destroy it. To that end they have also escalated their aggression against Angola and Zambia. 46. The racist Government of South Africa continues to make every attempt to thwart the efforts of the international community and stall the talks that have been under way for two years to produce a solution in accordance with resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) of the Security Council. It has also tried to bring about an 47. The racist authorities of South Africa have thus defied the United Nations Charter and the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, the resolutions of OAU and those of the non-aligned movement. They have also defied world public opinion, despite the grave risks to peace and security which such an attitude entails, not only in Africa but all over the world. 48. It is truly regrettable that some Member States of the Organization continue their economic, military and political relations with the racist régime, as is mentioned in the report 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 and the other reports. Yet they know that those relatiors make possible South Africa’s violation of human rights, international law and United Nations resolutions. They know that the assistance received from those States by the South African racist régime makes it possible for the latter to deprive the Namibian people of its independence, its freedom and its legitimate rights. 49, The intransigence of the South African régime that will be maintained so long as it receives support, will, however, never prevent the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO from fighting for freedom and independence; it will never succeed in thwarting the efforts of peace-loving peoples to support the combatants and the efforts of the United Nations to implement all its commitments vis-d-vis the people of that Territory. 50. The Security Council has made appropriate efforts to solve the problem peacefully, but there are even more effective measures that could be adopted. The Security Council took its first important step on 30 January 1976, when it adopted resolution 385 (1976), for the first time calling upon South Africa to accept the principle of general elections for the whole of the Territory of Namibia, under United Nations control, with the ultimate goal of making it possible for the people of Namibia to exercise self-determination in full freedom. 51. In 1978 the world felt a certain optimism regarding the possibility of a peaceful settlement within a near future, for on 25 April 1978 South Africa declared that it accepted the plan presented by the five Western Powers.? On 27 July 1978 the Security Council adopted resolution 431 (1978) in which it requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative for Namibia and ‘o present recommendations regarding the implementation of the plan of the Western Powers. But the entire world saw the South African régime renege on its acceptance of the plan and turn down the report of the Secretary-General!® which had been approved by the Security Council in resolution 435 (1978). 52. Thus, in spite of the wise efforts made by the Secretary-General and his Special Representative, and in spite of the very constructive and comprehensive co-operation of SWAPO and the front-line States, the plan was not implemented because of South Africa's > Ibid., Thirty-third Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1978, document S/12678, annex. 53. Today South Africa is still engaged in delaying tactics to obstruct the efforts of the United Nations and the Secretary-General, who called ameeting at Geneva in which SWAPO, South Africa, the five front-line States and the five Western Powers would participate. That effort was designed to break the present stalemate in the negotiations brought about by South Africa’s negative position and which has persisted for more than a year. That new initiative met with a negative response on the part of South Africa, which wished to send also the so-called representatives of the internal parties that resulted from the ‘‘elections’’ that took place in the Territory in December 1978 and were declared illegal by the whole world and by the United Nations. 54. Inthe face of the intransigent position adopted by South Africa, the United Nations must, as a matter of urgency, adopt the necessary measures to put an end to the unleyful occupation of Namibia by the racist ré- gime of South Africa. My delegation believes that such measures must include the following: first, the condemnation of the unilateral and illegal election of the ‘‘National Assembly”’ set up by South Africa and the refusal to co-operate with any puppet régime installed in the Territory by South Africa; secondly, the provision ofall possible support to SWAPO, the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia, and the reaffirmation of that people’s right to self-determination and national independence over the entire Territory of Namibia, including Walvis Bay, which is an integral part of it; thirdly, the condemnation of South Africa, which continues to occupy Namibia illegally and to persecute the Namibian people and the leaders ‘and members of SWAPO, the release of all political prisoners and the authorization to all exiles to return to their horeland; fourthly, the provision of assistance to the front-line countries, the condemnation of South Africa’s attacks on those countries and the demand that such continued acts of aggression be ended forthwith; fifthly, the reaffirmation that the United Nations Council for Namibia is the sole legitimate Administering Authority for the Territory until it attains its independence, and the strengthening of the Council so that its plans and programmes can be carried out with the co-operation of SWAPO, to help the people of Namibia to achieve self-determination and national independence; sixthly, a request to all States to put an end to their co-operation with South Africa, which is liable to encourage the latter’s continued unlawful occupation of the Territory of Namibia, since such occupation is contrary to United Nations resolutions; seventhly, a recommendation that the Security Council adopt strict measures against South Africa if it does not submit to the will of the international community and does not stop hindering the negotiations aimed at a peaceful solution. 55. Ishould like to reaffirm the unchanging position of Qatar, which continues to support the people of Namibia as they struggle to attain indenendence and 56. Finally, on behalf of my delegation I should like to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary- General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, for his constant efforts. We also wish to thank the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee on decolonization for their efforts and for the valuable information contained in the reports, which they have submitted znd which we invite the General Assembly to adopt.

The United Nations is once again faced with the question of Namibia, a country which of all the former Mandated Territories remains the only one still under colonial domination. This situation of dependence is becoming worse every day because, if colonization is unacceptable in itself, it is totally abominable when it is conceived and applied by the apartheid ré- gime, in describing the absurdity and iniquity of which words fail us. 58. The mistake that was made in entrusting the administration of South West Africa to Pretoria was repeated after the Second World War. And so it goes on. After having betrayed its commitments under the Charter and to the community of nations, South Africa transformed Namibia, a country of peace with a high level of civilization, into a country of terror in which the fundamental rights of man were denied by the institutionalization of the system of apartheid. The Powers which, on the morrow of the Second World War placed Namibia under the trusteeship of South Africa, should have prevented such an inadmissible development. In failing to do this, they actually shirked one of their primary responsibilities under the Charter, namely that of assisting peoples under foreign domination to recover their independence. 59. The adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), calling for the withdrawal of the South African administration and armed forces from the Territory of Namibia, may be considered as illustrating the will of the United Nations to honour fully the mandate that it assumed to lead Namibia to the free choice of its political, economic and social institutions. But unfortunately it was unable to prevent apartheid from becoming even more repressive in that Territory, it was unable to prevent the systematization of the policy of bantustanization and it was unable to prevent South Africa from imposing upon the Namibian people the simulacrum of popular consultation. South Africa would certainly not have adopted such an attitude, nor would it have been able to persist in such defiance of the international community, without the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of its traditional friends and allies who have given it aid and comfort by maintaining all kinds of relations with it. 60. So the question of Namibia is both a unique case of colonization and a grave and equally unique affront to the authority of the international Organization. 61. History will undoubtedly recognize the absurdity of the presence of South Africa in Namibia. We already realize that it is damaging international relations. It is to be hoped that history will not fail to record how the United Nations, in a sudden awakening of its international resnoncihilities: helmed the Namihian nannla ta 62. The solution of the Namibian problem, therefore, cannot fail to be a unique one; that uniqueness flows from the incongruous nature of Pretoria’s domination of that Territory. This is a question of extreme importance and is recognized as such by the General Assembly, which devoted its resumed thirty-third session to it, because if affects the mai:itenance of peace not only in Africa but throughout the world. We therefore need a new approach in our examination of the question of Namibia. Indeed, it is not merely a matter of understanding the gravity of the question, but of finding a solution to it in keeping with our commitments under the Charter, a solution in keeping with the will of the peoples of the United Nations ‘‘to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’’. 63. The decision to put an end to South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and to create the United Nations Council for Namibia was certainly part of the search for this new approach, without which we shall never be able to respond to Pretoria’s insult to the conscience and moral sense of the world in depriving the Namibian people of their historical rights. The report which the United Nations Council for Namibia has just submitted [A/34/24] has, among other merits, that of having laid emphasis on this ever-increasing awareness on the part of the international community of the cause of the valiant Namibian people. 64. My delegation would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Council for Namibia, not only for having fulfilled the mandate entrusted to it, but for having taken a series of initiatives to bring about a better understanding and acceptance of the underlying motives and the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people, and a beiter identification of the obstacles delaying their victory. 65. The Onited Nations has undertaken twa series of actions to speed up the process of Namibian independence. namely, assisting the victory of iaw in the Territory and at the same time creating therein the conditions necessary to good administration, once independence has been achieved. However, it must also see to it that the application of that law does not take place in a Territory that has already been drained of its natural resources by international capitalism. 66. Decree No. | of the United Nations Council for Namibia for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia,'! should thus be binding on the whole of the international community. The apartheid régime is incapable of improving the living conditions of the Namibian people, since the concept of humanity is totally foreign to it. It dashes to the assistance of transnational corporations solely in order to strengthen itself and solely in order to be in a position to issue new challenges to us. The best conceived codes of conduct with regard to economic co-operation can draw substance only from the principles and ideals of the Charter, principles and ideals to which the leaders in Pretoria are impervious. 68. Despite this conviction, the Government of Mali welcomed with interest the actions undertaken by five Western members of the Security Council to bring South Africa to listen to reason. It would have shown the same interest to any other initiative designed to bring an end to the long calvary of the Namibian people. However, it has never granted its trust to the racists of Pretoria, who have deliberately chosen violence to settle disputes among nations. 69. Indeed, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) has had no effect on the despotic conduct of Pretoria. The adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXD, calling for an end io Pretoria’s presence in Namibia, has rather encouraged it to take more atrocious measures to strengthen that presence. Since then, all the reports issued on the situation in Namibia have given additional indications of the barbarity of the South African racists in that Terrritory. Even the most fertile imagination, however, can never comprehend the true dimension of the sufferings felt by the Namibians, who are hunted down in their own country and for whom methods of torture have been devised whose dehumanizing and destructive effects on body and soul can be fully understood only by their victims. 70. In Namibia, patriots are not merely shot for their opposition to the shameful system of apartheid; they are arbitrarily dragged before tribunals and they are hanged because they are guilty of being able to think, because they are guilty of having a national conscience. 71. Hatred cannot be more intense. Such hatred, the hatred of the leaders of Pretoria, is today focused on the Namibians and the Azanians. Tomorrow, they will turn it upon all who believe in the greatness of man and upon all who kave placed their confidence and hope in the Charter. Pretoria’s attacks against the States bordering on Namibia are a clear manifestation of this hatred. Their open contempt for the resolutions of our Organization 1s another. Pretoria’s so-called commitment to negotiations to bring about the independence of Namibia should thezefore be examined in the light of this sorry reality. 72. _The last recommendations made, particularly by the Secretary-General, for the holding of free elections in Namibia under international surveillance, relate to the creation of a demilitarized zone on the northem frontiers of Namibia. Such proposals are undeniably proposals of peace. They are addressed once again toa régime that chokes whenever it pronounces the word “*peace’’. Its attitude at the recent talks at Geneva on Namibia is an eloquent illustration of this. 73. The delegation of Mali has already denounced Preteria’s felonious conduct whenever the question of adopting measures to consolidate and strengthen peace arises. Today it has still not abandoned that position with regard to Namibia. Therefore, we believe that the United Nations would be continuing to aggravate the damage being done to Namibia were it to agree to engage in a futile game with the racists of Pretoria. The international Organization has reclaimed ite Mandate 75. In order to assure its victory over hatred and the abasement of the human person and to ensure the triumph of the right of the Namibian people to selfdetermination and independence, the General Assembly must during its present session totally endorse each of the recommendations contained in the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/34/24, part three, para. 1). 76. With regard to the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group [UNTAG], that body will be stillborn if the international community does not make Soutli Africa understand that the time for procrastination over the independence of Namibia has passed. And for the achievement of that independence the international community must have recourse to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter.

The General Assembly is considering one of the major issues connected with the culmination of the process of decolonization in Africa, the question of the fate of Namibia. The importance of this question is dictated by the fact that among the unresolved questions of decolonization, the question of the fate of Namibia—tike that of the fate of Zimbabwe—is one that, if not settled justly and ina fitting manner, will prevent the young and independent States of Africa from feeling confident about the stability of their national independence and sovereignty, and the whole of Africa wili be unable to rid itself of the inevitable threat of a new war. 78. The special feature of the current stage of developments in southern Africa is the fact that the formation of an independent Africa is taking place under circumstances of severe struggle between the forces of national liberation and progress and the forces of racism, colonialism and reaction, which are striving to put a brake on this irreversible process and even to reverse the actual course of events. 79. The situation that now exists in the south of the African continent is arousing the most serious alarm and concern on the part of ail the peoples of the world. The Fasicist racist forces, with the support of imperialist forces, are making desperate attempts to break the will to victory of the patriots of Zimbabwe and Namibia, to install there puppet neo-colonialist ré- gimes, to obtain for them international recognition and to convert that region into a long-term reservation of “acism and oppression. As informed observers of Africa have been asserting, not without grou..ds, all this looks very much like a conspiracy on the part of the racists and their protectors against the freedom and independence of the peoples of southern Africa. There is no way of closing our eyes to this fact if we really want to make an objective assessment of the present situation in southern Africa and its likely development in the future. 80. Next year will mark the twentieth anniversary of fie adoption of the Declaration on «ie Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This Dec- 81. What is Namibia to become? Is it to become a place carved up by the racists into ‘‘homelands’’ and *‘bantustans”’ for the enslaved indigenous population or is it to become free and independent arid to be a member of the international community of the United Nations on an equal footing with other countries? That is the crux of the matter. 82. The decolonization of Namibia is an inseparable part of the conclusion of the liberation process of the peoples of southern Africa. The just struggle of the people of Namibia for their freedom and independence, under the leadership of SWAPO, is an inseparable part of the struggle of all the African peoples against the racist and colonialist régimes. The whole of Africa has an interest in the victory of the Namibians, as does the whole of progressive mankind. 83. Immediately after the Second World War it became clear that the rulers of South Africa, among whom the most reactionary Fascists and racists were on the ascendant, would strive to keep a permanent grip on the Territory of Namibia, over which they had been givena Mandate by the League of Nations. 84. It is well known that Pretoria openly asserted a right to the establishment of military and economic domination in southern Africa. That plan for the creation of a so-called common market, which was expounded by the then rulers in Pretoria, included the subjugation of a whole group of African countries. The inner ring was to be made up of the bantustans, which were to be the source of cheap labour. The now independent States of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland were, according to the plar, to perform the same functions as the bantustans in South Africa itself. This sphere of dependence on Pretoria, according to the Original racist plans, was to include racist Rhodesia, Malawi and also the Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola. The same fate was in store for Zambia and Zaire. Mr. Maiane (Papua New Guinea), Vice-President, took the Chair. 85. But these perfidious plans of the racists were thwarted by the national liberation movements, and when of the Territories just enumerated only Rhodesia and Namibia remained in the hands of the racists, Pretoria determined to undertake extreme measures. Accordingly, we had the preparation and implementation of the “‘internal settlement” in Rhodesia and the putting in power of the Muzorewa-Smith puppet Government. 86. Regarding Namibia, the rulers in Pretoria decided to hinder any attempt to free that country from their grip and in somewhat different form to carry out the same plan there that they had had in mind for Rhodesia. ic of South Africa in Namibia has been acknowledged and repeatedly confirmed to be illegal and to contravene the elementary norms of international law, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and the !atter’s actions have been quite rightly assessed as a threat to peace and security in Africa and in the world in general. 88. What is the reason for this failure so far to comply with the decisions of the United Nations and those of such representative bodies as the OAU, and with the decisions of the Conferences of Heads of Statz or Government of Non-Aligned Countries? 89. We should like to point to a few of the factors involved in this tragic situation, in which, in defiance of United Nations decisions with regard to the cessation by the racists of their occupation of Namibia and the withdrawal of their forces and administration, Namibia still remains in racist hands. 90. We should like first of all to point to the fact that the rulers in Pretoria have no intention of leaving Namibia voluntarily. Namibia is necessary to the racists as a source of strategic raw materiais—uranium, vanadium, diamonds and others. According to scientific estimates, Namibia could by the end of this century become. the major source of uranium outside the socialist countries. 91. Racist Pretoria needs Namibia to continue the war against the neighbouring independent countries of Africa—Angola, Zambia and Mozambique—which it has. been waging ceaselessly from the time those countries became independent. 92. Itis no accident that this economically important Territory has been converted into one of the main military bridge-heads in southern Africa, where even now Pretoria is keeping two major military units and has created the biggest air-force base in Africa. All that has certainly not been done for defence purposes, just as Pretoria has noi been proceeding to the manufacture of nuclear weapons for defence purposes. 93. In its merciless exploitation of the indigenous population and the natural resources of Namibia, Pretoria is continuing persistently to expand the use in Namibia of the Fascist racist legislation and its inhumane and atrocious policy and practice of apartheid. 94. Pretoria’s goal is to consolidate at all costs a puppet régime in Namibia which will be a servile instrument of its will. 96. Quite recently the Security Council, not for the first time, considered the question of the aggressive actions of the racist rulers of Pretoria against one of the ‘front-line’? States, the People’s Republic of Angola. 97. Pretoria’s aggression against the neighbouring States is a reflection of the fear of the racists. They are afraid that the success of the national liberation movement in southern Africa will lead to the collapse also of the domination of the racists of Pretoria. Armed aggres- Sive actions are being carried out by the racists not only to intimidate independent African States but also to warn. their neighbours that they too will be subject to attacks if they do not cease their assistance to the national liberation movements in Namibia, Zimbabwe and the Republic of South Africa itself. 98. Pretoria’s aggressive war against neighbouring African countries is the precursor of the major war being planned by the racists in southern Africa for the establishment of their domination in the region, and that is the main reason why all efforts towards a political solution to the Namibian problem, with the participation of the United Nations, have so far not been successful. 99. The decisions of the United Nations with regard to Namibia are clear and unambiguous. The Republic of South Africa should leave Namibia, without any conditions. But those decisions have to be put into effect. And are there other factors which explain why the Namibian people so far has not been able to exercise its inalienable right to freedom and independence and to rid itself of the colonial racist yoke? 100. In an attempt to answer these legitimate questions, we must consider, at least briefly, other factors which have been promoting the creation of an extremely dangerous hotbed of war in southern Africa and hindering the decolonization of Namibia. 101. The point is that the rulers in Pretoria have had many grounds for believing that their protectors in the North Atlantic bloc are by no means against the existence of such a régime. The latter is necessary for them to secure their major investments, which have been made and continue to be made by the transnational corporations and the banks of the West in the economies of South Africa and Namibia. Such a régime iS necessary to them as a reliable supplier of strategic raw materials. They need it also as a reliable partner for curbing the national liberation movements in Africa, as a shield against the progressive development of the African countries, and as a strategic sentry for communications around Africa. 102. When South Africa attacks neighbouring countries, the West scolds it, ‘‘criticizes’’ it slightly and even “‘condemns’’ it. But never, so far, have the influential forces in the West permitted a situation where i03. Atthe same time, any African country need only apply for ; ssistance to socialist countries against the aggressive actions of the racists for frantic campaigns to be immediately begun to the effect that allegedly a threat is thereby being posed to the so-called ‘‘free world’’. 104. Could it be that we are exaggerating? Perhaps Soutn Africa really intends to change and give up its plans to establish its domination in Africa? But there are really no grounds “>r believing this. 105. The long-term plans of Pretoria have not undergone any substantial changes, tney have not been forgotten, they have just been modernized. This is a characteristic admission of one of the racist military ieaders: ‘“We have less than five years in which to waite. We have the resources of South Africa at our cisposai and can become a world Power.”’ 106. Ans has not Botha himself threatened ovenlv to bring his armed forces into Rhodesia if the Patriotic Front of Zimbabwe is victorious? 107. Even now the armed forces of South Africa are in Rhodesia. Such an open assertion on the part of one of the rulers of South Africa that widespread intervention will immediately be organized against Rhodesia if there is a Vi--iory on the part of the Patriotic Front is the best confinuation of the fact that the racists have not given up their plans for establishing their domination in southern Africa. 108. Whether one likes it or not, what we have here, as has been asserted by the African experts and the African press, and not without grounds, is the fact that there are people at work here, as it were, behind the backs of the Africans, on a plot between Pretoria and its protectors in the West for a distribution of roles. Some express regret about the presence of apartheid, and others, the racists of Southern Africa, are fighting the Africans and intend to expand this war. 109. This discussion of the question of a settlement in Namibia is taking place in a very speical set of circumstances. Pretoria, under the cover of talk about its readiness for a ‘‘peaceful settlement’’, is dragging its feet so as to be able to resolve the Namibian question on a neo-colonialist basis. In the last two years there have emerged plans, which are known to everyone, for settlement of the Namibian probiem by means of talks. They have been put forward precisely by those countries which could do so much to help the implementation of the just decisions of the United Nations on Namibia. However, all efforts within the framework of the United Nations in this area have been fruitless. They have come up against the stubborn manoeuvrings of the Pretoria authorities and their desire at any price to protract and to consolidate their illegal occupation of Namibia. Pretoria has no rights in Namibia. Pretoria occupies this Territory; it is an aggressor. It oppresses and suppresses the people of Namibia and, thanks to the protection of the Western countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizticn [VATO}, it has emerged in the role of a ‘‘major party”’ in the talks about a Namibian settlement. It is constantly being asked for its 110. What the Pretoria racists should undoubtedly do is to leave Namibia. And now they are proposing that the patriots of Namibia should withdraw their detachments from their homeland. The Namibians are being asked to leave Namibia, while the 60,000-strong anay of the occupiers remains in Namibia. This is monstrous, but it is a fact. iil, Now, it is a secret to nw one that the South African rulers are using their participation in the talks in the interests of preparing conditions which \ould exclude the possisility of the attainment by ‘he people of Namibia of true independence and the accession to power of SWAPO, which is the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibicn people. Pretoria has never been serious about taiks about a Num'bian settlement. or about yenuine talks at all. It has been using them. to cover up its own desire tc “‘settie’’ the question in a way that weuid ensure that there would be no independence for Namibia. Pretoriz. has carried ouc its illegal elections in Namibia aid has created a fake constitutional assembly, afterwards renaiing it a national assernbly. Under the fuss and flurry of talks about a peaceful settlement, the South Arican régime has been pursuing a policy of the mest cruei terror against the patriotic forces, led by SWAPO, aimed at the physical destruction of the patriots. Namibia now is like a dungeon, and is filled with the military bases of the racists. i2%, Whetaer.: =: :tiators of political initiatives, like it or not, the r_..:sis have made use of the time and of these initiatives in their own interests. Highly-placed emissaries have been going to Pretoria, all kinds of talks have been going on and various kinds of notes, letters and proposals have been sent. During that time, Pretoria, seeing that the Western initiatives are working in its favour, has become even more bold and arrogant. It has gone to such a point that it has even taken its retinue of tribal lackeys to the consultations at Geneva, calling them representatives of political trends. 113. Now, what has been the result of these ‘‘onetime. consultations’’, in which, under the aegis of the United Nations, representatives of SWAPO, the ‘‘front-line States’’, the five Western Powers and Pretoria have taken part? Has Pretoria perhaps finally agreed to & political settlement? Certainly not. It took its puppets from the so-called Turnhalle Alliance to Geneva to lend them a legitimate status as an equal participant at the negotiations. Having given its agreement to the demilitarized zone, Pretoria again brought up proposals of further study and called for guarantees, additional clarifications, and so forth. 114. The Heads of State or Government of Non- Aligned Countries, at their Sixth Conference held at Havana from 3 to 9 September this year, categorically 115. We are firmly convinced that the still audible voices which say that Pretoria may still agree to an acceptable political settlement on Namibia on the basis of the ‘“‘United Nations plan’’ and cite the so-called restraint which they are exercising are only nlaying into the hands of ihe racists of the Republic of South Africa. The African countries and all the friends of real independence in Africa must be as vigilant as possible with regard to the dangerous manoeuvres and machinations which are being engaged in with regard to the Namibian settlement, 116. The Soviet Union has been and continues being in favour of ensuring for the people of Namibia its inalienable right to self-determination and independence on the basis of the preservation of the unity and territorial integrity of that country. We are in favour of the immediats and total withdrawai of the troops and the administration of the Republic of South Africa from Namibia, including Walvis Bay, without any conditions Wwhaiscever. We are in fa’ uur of the transfer of power in its entirety to the people of Namibia, as represented bv SWAPO. recognized ty the United Nations and the OAU as th sole icgit mate and authentic representetive of the people of llamisia. SWAPO has sufficient experience and the necessary cadres, enjoys the full trust of the people and is capable of assuming responsihility fur the leadership of the country in leading it to independence, prosperity and peace. 117. Tine Soviet Union wishes to express its solidarity with the people of Namibia and firmly supports it in its struggle, under the leadership of SWAPO, for freedom and true independence. The Soviet Union has been giving, and will continue to give, every possible support and assistance to the Namibian people in its just struggle. 118. Our country is a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We consider that that Council is performing an important task, aimed at ensuring the independence and territorial integrity of Namibia and mobilizing international efforts for the purpose of rendering every possible assistance to the Namibian people in its just struggle. We must create the conditions for the United Nations Council for Namibia to be able to carry out its mandate to administer Namibia until it attains independence. 119. Inthe view of the Soviet delegation, a good basis for resolving the Namibian problem lies in the wellknown decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly which provide for the immediate cessation of the occupation of Namibia by the Pretoria racists. A reliable path to this goal is the application of sanctions against the Republic of South Africa by the Security Council, in their full scope, pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. 120. Inastatement made at the present session of the General Assembly. A. A. Gromyko. Member of the Politbureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the USSR, referring to African problems, peoples. All kinds of combinations, no matter how superficially clever, which are aimed at preserving the domination cf racists and colonialists with the help of hastily formed puppet régimes should be resolutely rejected. “*Is 3% possible to achieve a political settlement in scuthern Africa? Yes, it is possible, and there are ways leading to it. But sc far the racists and their stooges have replied with bullets to proposals that a cheice be made in favour of a just and peaceful solution, ‘The session of the General Assembly of the United Nations will be right if it clearly states its resolute support for the liberation struggle cf the peoples of southern Africa and condemns attempts to drown this struggle in blood as a crime against humanity. It is a direct duty of the United Natiens to make those who ignore the decisions of the United Nations on southern Africa respect them.’’ [71 meeting, paras. 173-175.] 121. We are firmly convinced that the aggressive plans of Pretoria are not fated to be successful, and that the powerful thrust of the struggle for national liberation cannot be stopped. The plot of the racists of Pretoria and their protectors in the West agains: the freedom of the peoples of Africa and against the independence of the people of Namibia will end in failure. 122. As pointed out by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, L.I. Brezhnev, in his message of congratulation to the States and peoples of Africa on the occasion of Africa Liberation Day: **The just struggle that the peoples of Africa, with the support of the progressive forces of the world, are waging for the complete and definitive elimination of the vestiges of the system of colonialism and racism has reached its final stage. The day is not far off when those shameful phenomena will disappear from the land of Africa forever.’ [See A/34/282, annex.] 123. In conclusion, the Soviet delegation considers that it is the duty of the United Nations in this situation to take the necessary steps and measures that would help the peoples of southern Africa in their str: 32: for freedom and independence.

Ever since the collapse of the Lisbon-Salisbury-Pretoria axis, the racist régime of South Africa has sought alternative means for perpetuating its domination over southern Africa. At first, it seemed to them that a regional alliance between Salisbury and Pretoria might stem the tide of freedom, independence and human dignity that was pressing in upon and inexorably destroying the privileged position of the white minority that ruled southern Africa. Today, however, faced by 125. Undeterred by the march of these events, South Africa has continued to seek ways and means to entrench its hold over the human and natural resources in the region. 126. Its concept of a military and economic alliance with Salisbury in defence of so-called Western democracy has given way to a strategy for the creation of a buffer of client States stretching north to the Limpopo. Included in this buffer of client States is the international Territory of Namibia, which South Africa illegally occupies and in which it intends to ensure the installation of a Government beholden to its diciates. 127. It is for these reasons that, as the International Year of Solidarity with the People of Namibia draws to a close, the hopes of the Namibian people for freedom and independence have once more been dashed by the devious behaviour of the South African authorities. 128. In spite of the fact that the decision of the General Assembly in 1966 to terminate the South African Mandate over Namibia and to assume direct responsibility for the Territory has been upheld by the International Court of Justice and has subsequently been reaffirmed in numerous resolutions and decisions of the Assembly and of the Security Council, the South African régime remains firmly entrenched in the Territory to this day. 129, Some 18 months ago, the Security Council adopted resolution 43 { (1978), by which the Secretary- General was requested to submit a report containing his recommendations for the implementation of the proposal for a settlement of the Namibian situation based on the early independence of the Territory through free elections under United Nations supervision and control. On 29 September of last year, the Council in resolution 435 (1978) approved the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of the proposal for a settlement of the Namibian situation, welcomed the preparedness of SWAPO to co-operate in the implementation of the Secretary-General’s report and called upon South Africa forthwith to co-operate with the Secretary-General in implementing the resolution. 130. Since then, the Pretoria régime has managed to delay the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) by raising a series of objections and questions which have clearly indicated its lack of goad faith and its determination to thwart a settlement of the Namibian situation which it regards as contrary to its own plans for the territory. The latest manifestation of this obstructionist attitude on the part of the racist régime of South Africa is its letter dated 5 December 1979 to the Secretary- General conveying a conditional acceptance of the proposed demilitarized zone on the Angola-Namibia and Zambia-Namibia borders. This proposal, which has already been accepted by the other concerned parties, including SWAPO, emerged after the Secretary-General had initiated high-level consultations on the matter at Geneva from 12 to 16 November 131. Inaddition to such tactics, the international community has witnessed over the last year an intensification of South Africa’s aggression against neighbouring States, particularly Angola and Zambia, and of its repression through intimidation, torture and incarceration of SWAPO’s leaders and supporters. Do any of these actions reflect the attitude of a régime willing to see a negotiated peaceful settlement of the Namibian situation? 132. JI do not intend to recite here the long list of delays, prevarications, stalling tactics and other devices—including the holding by South Africa of unilateral elections in Namibia in clear contravention of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978)—resorted to by the Pretoria racists in order to obstruct the exercise by the people of Namibia of their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Suffice it for me to say that if South Africa has been able to defy the will of the international community on Namibia, that if South Africa has ignored with impunity the numerous decisions of the Security Council which are binding on all States Members of the United Nations and that if the Security Council, through the actions of those who are able to prevent decisions being taken, has failed to take the necessary measures to compel South Africa to comply with its decisions, then no one should be surprised if today there are others who are willing to brush aside decisions of the Security Council and to flout the will of the international community. 133. The international community is aware that South Africa’s occupation of the Territory continues only because of the overt and covert support which it receives from certain Western and other interests in the political, economic, military and nuclear fields. It is the view of my delegation that the adoption of effective measures to bring about a total isolation and boycott of the régime in those spheres is the only method of forcing South Africa to implement the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. 134. With this conviction, Trinidad and Tobago wishes to reiterate its support for all efforts which would lead to the imposition of a comprehensive régime of sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. 135. We also wish to reaffirm our unstinting support for the struggling masses of Namibia and their sole and legitimate representative, SWAPO, whose resilience, courage and unswerving determination to achieve its inalienable right to self-determination and independence within a united Namibia in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) we commend. We are firmly convinced that the international community must continue to provide them with both the moral and material assistance which they need and deserve to carry on their struggle. In this connexion, my delegation also wishes to join the call for the immediate release of all SWAPO leaders and supporters incarcerated by the South African régime because of their efforts to free Namibia from the yoke of colonial and foreign domination. ations. 137. Time is running out. If the international community does not act now, it will be faced with an alternative that is too ghastly to contemplate. As my delegation has stated before, the international community can avail itself of the provisions of the Charter to avert such a disaster. Let us therefore act constructively and make use of those provisions to put an.end to South Africa's illegal and racist domination of Namibia, thus enabling the Territory to take its rightful place in this family of nations, without any further delay.

Thanks to the struggle waged by the masses against all forms of colonialism and all its wily manoeuvres, and thanks to their continuing sacrifices in the pursuit of independence and full sovereignty, our world has seen over the past years the clear retreat of colonialism in many countries which had been subjected to it. This is, of course, a source of satisfaction and of optimism to us. It strenghtens our conviction that the last bastion of colonialism, in both its new and old forms will soon be removed and that mankind will soon be living in a world where justice. equality and equity will prevail in relations among all nations. 139. But in spite of that, painful contradictions continue to exist and their after-effects are still felt here and there, and one example is the occupation of Namibia oy the forces of the racist régime of South Africa, while another Is the occupation ot Palestine by Scuth Africa’s ally, the Zionist entity. 140. -By the end of this session, [4 years will have passed since the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI) demanding the termination of South Af rica’s Mandate over Namibia. Notwithstanding the adoption of many resolutions in successive sessions of the General Assembly which have demanded the liquidation of the racist coionialist régime of South Africa in Namibia, that barbaric colonialist régime still defies these resolutions and the will of the international community by its intransigence and its stubborn occupation of Namibia, whose people are fighting under extremely difficult circumstances. Their struggle has won the admiration of all peoples throughout the world who love freedom, peace and security. We are sure that that régime, in spite of its means of repression, terror and destruction, and in spite of the presence of its powerful military bases in Namibia, buttressed by armoured cars 141. Weare sure that freedom and independence will be won by the Namibian people, thanks to their tireless efforts under their national organization, SWAPO, the sole legitimate representative of Namibia, regardless of how long that may take. The disappearance of racist colonialism is inevitable and will be imposed by the Namibian people through the force of their conviction and through their courageous struggle and the support they receive from other peoples throughout the world. 142. The present régime, like other colonial régimes throughout the world, is still trying to stifle fundamental freedoms and to fight against patriots; it also persecutes free citizens. In order to annihilate SWAPO, the racist and colonialist régime of South Africa makes collective arrests of its members and any other citizens who are fighting against occupation. 143. During April and May 1979, in addition to the aforementioned repressive measures, that régime arrested over 50 SWAPO members. including all the members of the National Executive Committee, with the exception of one single member. Then it arrested more than 5,000 citizens, inhabicants of Katakura, and kept them in an outdoor camp, under terrible conditions. Those arrests spread into most of the regions of Namibia, where the number of persons arrested and imprisoned, up to three months ago, was estimated at more than 15,000; these persons have been subjected to barbaric acts unprecedented except in the camps known as ‘“‘refugee campsTM’ where Palestinians have been living for more than 30 years. Following its repressive acts perpetrated against the local population, the South African régime has organized sham elections, acting unilaterally in defiance of all relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council in connexion with the peaceful settlement of the problem of Namibia, and in particular General Assembly resolution S-9/2 of 3 May 1978 and Security Council resolution 439 (1978) of 13 November 1978. After those sham elections the régime set up a Constituent Assembly, which was even more of a fraud than the elections organized earlier. Added to that is the fact that South African troops are still in Namibia in the form of a network of military bases possessing the most modern weapons, including armoured cars. tanks. fighters and bombers. 144. In May 1979 South Africa strengthened its active units in the north of Namibia and sent in some 8.000 to 145. Avery complicated situation has been created in Namibia. That situation is deteriorating daily, and con- Stitutes today, even more than in the past, a grave threat to international peace and security. Day by day the international community becornes more convinced that South Africa does not want to heed the voice of world public opinion and has no intention of cc-operating with the United Nations in an effort to bring about a solution which will put an end to the occupation of that country. This compels the international community, represented by our Organization. to act more firmly and more seriously than in the past and ensure the adoption of measures and resolutions guaranteeing a solution of this dangerous situation so that the legitimate national aspirations of the Namibian people may be fuily achieved. In view of these considerations, Iraq supports the just and honest struggle of the people of Namibia, under SWAPO’s leadership, for the full liberation of their national homeland and for their accession to freedom and independence. Iraq has always had the pleasure of expressing sympathy with that struggle in international and other forums and has given its moral and material Support to the people of Namibia. While expressing its admiration for the positive efforts made by the United Nations Council for Namibia. Iraq wishes to reiterate that it will support all the efforts, attitudes or resolutions approved of by SWAPO as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people.

The General Assembly is once again considering the question of Namibia. As we know, it has been on the agenda for more than 30 years; in other words, it is not a new question. It began as far back as our Organization. In light of the continued illegal occupation of that international Territory by South Africa, in spite of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and the opinion of the International Court of Justice issued on 21 June 1971, what is the situation now? 147. In his moving statement on 6 December [9/st meeting], Mr. Peter Mueshihange, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of SWAPO, described that situation. The country remains in a state of war. The Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole authentic liberation movement, continues to resist the oppression of the South African colonial troops. 148. Furthermore, in response to the appeal of the international community, three years ago SWAPO agreed to engage in talks with a view to reaching a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. It was within that framework that it gave its agreement in good faith to the settlement plan proposed by the five Western Powers, which became the plan of our Organization. 149. Unfortunately, it is very much to be feared that the most recent Geneva consultations may have banished all hope of a rapid implementation of that settlement plan. 151. Thus, Sorth Africa is being consistent and true to itself in its procrastination, cynicism and arrogance. In an effort to gain further time, Pretoria is pretending to agree with the settlement plan and granting itself new delays so as to conclude its work on erecting the political and juridical machinery that will enable it to carry out the plan it had originally conceived—that is, if not to annex Namibia by extreme action, at least to control it and place it within its sphere of influence on the basis of a position of impregnable strength vis-a-vis neighbouring African countries, Africa and the international community. 152. This explains the fact that, in spite of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), the Pretoria régime has stubbornly pursued the application of unilateral measures designed to enable it to bring to power in Namibia authorities in its pay and to eliminate SWAPO, the only authentic representative of the Namibian people. The continued increase in the military potential of South Africa, and particularly its efforts to acquire a nuclear military capacity, are part and parcel of the same strategy. 153. Inspite ofall this, outside the country, in order to appear to be undertaking change, South Africa is pretending to co-operate with the United Nations, is making numerous demagogic statements and is alternating the stick and the carrot, while, inside the country, the peoples of Namibia continue to be the victims of brutality, torture, summary execution and massive violations of human rights. It is in this climate of terror that, as my Minister for Foreign Affairs said on 8 October last, **...South Africa is once again striving to gain time, substantially to alter the facts of the situation, and to distort the application of an internal settlement plan in order, in the final analysis, to achieve the goals of its own domestic settlement plan.’’ [See 25th meeting, para. 137.] In that regard, its most recent ‘‘ingenuities’’ at the consultations which were held at Geneva with regard to the setting up of a demilitarized zone on the Namibia- Angola and the Namibia-Zambia frontiers are particularly revealing. 154. For Cameroon, the situation is clear. We cannot expect any honest co-operation with the United Nations from South Africa for an internationally acceptable peaceful settlement of the Namibia question. 155. Our Organization, which bears responsibility for enasling the peoples of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination and independence, must display authority and firmness and compel South Africa to give up the international Territory of Namibia in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, so that it may put into effect the operational provisions for the deployment of UNTAG. 157. There can be no doubt that the setting up of a demilitarized zone cannot mean a veiled capitulation, a kind of spontaneous surrender through emigration cn the part of the freedom fighters of SWAPO, who, by their sacrifices and their determination, have won the admiration and respect of us all. 158. The sufferings they have had to undergo to bring about an authentically independent Namibia mean that our Organization must take into account the substantial and relevant objections submitted by our brother Mueshihange, representative of SWAFO, with regard to the unequal treatment advocated by South Africa in the demilitarized zone, treatment that would be detrimental to the armed forces of SWAPO and advantageous to its own forces of repression. 159. One cannot allow South African forces of oppression, harassed and demoralized by SWAPO which controls the greater part of the Territory, to gain through negotiations and the establishment of that zone an advantage that they have not been able to obtain by force of arms. 160. It can be understood why Cameroon, like SWAPO, rejects the cynical approach that South Africa has taken concerning the demilitarized zone. 161. At the risk of repeating ourselves, we appeal to those countries whose friendship with South Africa is based upon major economic and strategic interests in southern Africa, countries that have brought that State its present nuclear capability, to exert more than friendly pressure on South Africa to resume negotiations with our Organization. 162. As amember of the United Nations Council for Namibia, my country, Cameroon, unreservedly supports the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence and respect for the integrity of its territory, including Walvis Bay, as well as the legitimacy of its struggle to attain its noble objectives under the leadership of SWAPO, its authentic representative. 163. We reaffirm the illegality of the occupation of the international Territory by South Africa, and we recognize the United Nations Council for Namibia as the sole legal authority in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2248 (S-V) of 19 May 1967. 165. We also condemn their acts of aggression against Mozambique, Zambia and Angola and the military nuclearization of South Africa, which constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security in the area. 166. We are convinced that—and we shall never cease to say it—only peaceful enforcement action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter can induce South Africa to co-operate with the United Nations in the implementation of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) of the Security Council. 167. Itis high time and a matter of urgency, if we wish to maintain the initiative and help the situation to develop in accordance with our views, to move from declarations of principle to acts and to action. 168. I cannot conclude without paying a welldeserved tribute to our Secretary-General, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, for the constant efforts he has again made this year to help to bring about a peaceful settlement to the question of Namibia. 169. Iam also pleased to congratulate my friend and colleague Mr. Lusaka, President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, on the competent and amiable but firm authority he has brought to his lofty and difficult mission. Organization of work

As members will recall, the General Assembly, at its 90th meeting, held on 5 December, decided that the deadline for the submission by the Second Committee of draft resolutions with financial implications should be extended until Saturday, 8 December. I have now been informed by the Chairman of the Second Committee that, because of the need for extensive negotiations, the Committee was unable to conclude by 8 December consideration of the draft resolution with regard to agenda item 70, entitled ‘United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development’, which has financial implications. The Second Committee has thus requested that the deadline for the submission of draft resolutions with financial implications, which had previously been extended by the Assembly, be further extended to Wednesday, 12 December. I take it that the General Assembly agrees to that request. dt was so decided. The meeting rose at 12.40 p.m.