A/35/PV.109 General Assembly

The past three years have seen what some of us had thought was a positive movement forward in the negotiations for Namibian independence. Unfortunately, as we meet here today Namibia remains unliberated; its people are caught up in a vicious "catch 22" situation. They have become the constant subject of a growing assort- ment of international conferences at the end of which volumes of resolutions are produced, filed and forgotten or ignored. The current debate will not be an exception. At the end of it all we shall adopt a number of resolutions which, no doubt, 'will be striking in their good intentions and audacious enough in their dishing out of ultimatums and threats levelled at those who have equally audaciously defied the United Nations all these years with such unconscionable impunity. 2. The people of Namibia have heard it all. They have over the past 35 years been treated to a cacophony of messianic speeches delivered from this rostrum and elsewhere in the United Nations system, all aimed at verbally wrenching their country from the grip of a stubborn colonial Power. They have waited patiently for the United Nations to deliver freedom and inde- pendence to their country, and all they have got thus far is a plethora of international conferences on Nami- bia, debates and solidarity rallies, proximity talks and endless pilgrimages to Pretoria. 3. In April 1978 South Africa declared publicly that it accepted the United Nations plan on Namibia-a plan inspired, sponsored and sold to the United NEW YORK Nations by South Africa's powerful friends, the Western contact group. In January 1981 the same South Africa declared at the pre-implementation meeting held at Geneva from 7 to 14 January 1981 that it was not ready to co-operate in the implementa- tion of the very same plan it had accepted in 1978. On the other hand, the South West Africa People's Organization [SWAPO] stands ready to co-operate fully with the United Nations in the implementation of the plan. 4. The Geneva meeting has shown that there are absolutely no issues remaining to be resolved between the United Nations and South Africa. Even the question of so-called United Nations impartiality was laid to rest at Geneva, where the United Nations, the front-line States and the Organization of African Unity [OA U] went out of their way to demonstrate their sincerity and impartiality. 5. Where, then, does the problem lie? Why did the Geneva meeting fail to set in motion the process of implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)? The answers to these questions can be found only in the tactics South Africa has adopted with regard to the negotiations since 1978. Since the fraudulent internal elections of 4 December 1978, which led to the establishment of the so-called Constituent Assembly in Namibia, South Africa has been systematically transferring authority to the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance [DTA]. Last year the Constituent Assembly was virtually transformed into an interim Government of Namibia. The so-called Council of Ministers has in consequence been vested with the power of veto, which was used effectively at Geneva. 6. It is quite clear, therefore, that South Africa agreed to the convening of the Geneva meeting for reasons which had absolutely nothing to do with our common desire to see the Namibian question resolved once and for all. The strategy being pursued by the South Africans is simply to push the internal parties to the forefront of the negotiations, and, indeed, they used the Geneva meeting to publicize the DTA and the so- called internal democratic parties. That is why the real South African delegation, led by Mr. Brand Fourie, sat in the conference as nothing more than observers and advisers. The idea was to give the Dirk Mudge the opportunity to appear on television confronting SWAPO across the conference table. That is what they had gone to Geneva to do and that is what they did with unashamed alacrity. 7. Those of us who went to that ill-fated meeting are still fuming at the manner in which our good faith was abused by those tribal factions, which lost no oppor- tunity to use the meeting as a politcal Freedom Square. They lost no opportunity to accuse the United Nations of all sorts of iniquities and decided at the end of it all that they had had a good time and were 12. South Africa cannot cheat us. Why is it that after refusing to negotiate seriously at Geneva, they are now so anxiously willing to participate in the debate here? What is it that they want to tell us in New York that they could not tell us at Geneva? We have had more than enough of their bad faith. The time has come for them to realize this, to under- stand that their blatant infidelity to assurances made in good faith cannot be remunerated. 13. We have all agreed that the United Nations- supervised elections envisaged in the plan must be free and fair. The parties must be treated equally. Even SWAPO stated at Geneva that once agreement to the date of the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) was reached, SWAPO's status as the sole and authentic representative of the Nami- bian people would change. The front-line States have publicly pledged to respect the outcome of free and 16. Namibia will not be liberated by speeches either here in the General Assembly or in the Security Council, where, in any case, some permanent mem- bers are ready to veto whatever action might be contemplated against South Africa. It appears to us that the only language South Africa can understand is the language of war, and if that is the case, so be it. SWAPO must intensify the bush war if war is the only instrument which can force South Africa to face up to its responsibilities at the conference table. 17. To the contact group of five Western States we can only repeat what we have said on several occasions in the past. We are grateful to them for the role they have played in the negotiations, even as we must continue to wonder what has become of their known influence on South Africa. What is it that they have been doing since Geneva? Have they lost faith in their own plan after labouring so hard to bring it to fruition? They must tell us where we should go from here, for the people of Namibia have almost reached the end of the road of silent agony. 18. I speak for a front-line State which in the very recent past experienced the all-consuming fury of a vicious guerrilla war. The alternative to the imple- mentation of resolution 435 (1978) can only be the repetition in Namibia ofthe sad tragedy that was visited upon the then lan Smith's Rhodesia, a tragedy which spared no country in the region, including my own. 19. We have always preferred peaceful change to the wasteful wars of liberation. Even at this late hour we cherish the lasting hope that Namibia will be spared the trauma of a protracted, bitter and bloody guerrilia war and that the southern African region as a whole will be allowed the opportunity to build foundations of peace and prosperity. 20. Our hopes are still invested in a solution of the Namibian problem which we believe can still be found at the conference table, despite the Geneva fiasco. We and SWAPO are ready for such a solur' /11. We are 21. Mr. de PINIES (Spain)(interpretationfrom Span- ish): On 27 October 1966 the General Assembly decided to terminate the Mandate previously held by South Africa for Namibia, declaring that South Africa had not fulfilled its obligations with regard to the administration of the Territory [resolution 2145 (XXI)]. From tnat point on South West Africa became a direct responsibility of the United Nations. The following year, by resolution 2248 (S-V), the General Assembly established the United Nations Council for Namibia and authorized it to administer Namibia until it achieved independence. 22. Since then, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court of Justice have adopted a number of resolutions and decisions with a view to terminating South Africa's illegaloccupation, preventing the plundering of the natural resources of Namibia by foreign interests and organizing free elec- tions under the auspices of the United Nations, so that the people of Namibia can accede to the indepen- dence of its Territory in a united Namibia. 23. Specifically, in 1976 the Security Council adopted another resolution-385 (l976)-in which it declared that it was imperative for free elections to be held under the supervision and control of the United Nations. 24. In the course of 1978 the five Western States members of the Security Council-Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America-drafted a proposal for a settle- ment of the situation in Namibia by peaceful means, which the Security Council took note of in its resolu- tion 431 (1978) and which requested the Secretary- General to appoint a special representative for Namibia and to submit a report cont.Jning his recom- mendations for the implementation of the proposal for a peaceful settlement. In the course of 1979 the Western Powers, in co-operation with the front-line States, increased their efforts in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Secretary-General to prevail upon South Africa to co-operate in holding the elections provided for in Security Council resolu- tion 385 (1976) and endorsed in resolution 435 (1978). 25. The Western proposal provided, inter alia, for a cease-fire in Namibia, the gradual withdrawal of South African troops, except fer a small contingent, and the establishment in that Territory of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group [UNTAG]. UNTAG would be made up of both military and civilian per- sonnel, under the leadership of the Special Repre- sentative of the Secretary- General, whose main task would be to ensure the holding of free and impartial elections for a constituent assembly. 26. Despite the aforementioned measures taken by the Council, South Africa announced its intention of holding elections in the Territory in December 1978 " ... any delay in the effective and immediate implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia represents not only an affront to a people that for many years has been awaiting the attain- ment of its most basic rights...., but also a defiance of the entire international community."? 31. On various occasions, the Spanish delegation has stated that it is of little use for the libe rt move- ments to be open to dialogue if the G", .rnments which exercise effective control over the Territories do not take the steps required to bring about a just and lasting solution. Thus, in his statement at this session of the Assembly, our Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed his concern at the current tensions in southern Africa: "The continued occupation by South Africa of the Territory of Namibia, contrary to the resolutions of the United Nations, is a persistent element ofconflict in the entire region. We consider that that illegal occupation must be brought to an end as quickly as possible, and therefore we have supported the most recent resolutions reaffirming the right of the Namibian people to self-determination, freedom and independence, and the territorial integrity of a united Namibia. We are also concerned at the continuance of the policy of apartheid and terri- torial segregation by South Africa, which gravely affects the human rights situation and is a challenge to the international community." [4th meeting. para. 133.] 32. Spain wishes. once again to reiterate its support for the Namibian people's right to independence, because we believe that the momentum of the forces of liberation is an irreversible historic current whose goals move nearer to attainment with every passing day. We wish also to reject all attempts at an "inter- nal settlement" in Namibia without the direct par- ticipation of the United Nations, as well as the intensi- fication of South Africa's military presence, the arbitrary detention of a large number of SWAPO leaders and the repeated acts of intimidation and violence, not only within the borders of the Territory illegally occupied by South Africa, but also against 2 Ibid., Thirty-sixth Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1981. document S/14333. 33. The Spanish delegation wishes also to express its support for the United Nations Council for Namibia in its indefatigable labours to protect the interests of the Namibian people and to carry out the Mandate entrusted to it by the Assembly. In this connexion, the report submitted by the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/35/24 and Corr.l and 2] and its recommendations for bringing about the indepen- dence of Namibia seem to us to be of particular interest. We should, however, like to express our reservations with regard to references to armed struggle, which does not seem to be in keeping with the purposes of the Organization, as well as with regard to those sections which prejudge the attitude the Security Council might adopt with regard to the application of sanctions pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter, bearing in mind that Spain is a member of that important body. 34. I should like finally to associate myself with the appeal of the Secretary-General of the Organization, which has been supported by innumerable speakers from this rostrum, that the South African Government should ponder very carefully the possible conse- quences of the failure of the Geneva talks and should reconsider its position with respect to the implementa- tion of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) as soon as possible. The United Nations should not slacken its efforts to assure the Namibian people of its right to self-determination and independence by means of free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the Organization. 35. Mr. TSVETKOV (Bulgaria) (interpretation from Russian): More than 14 years have elapsed since the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI). which ended South Africa's Mandate for the Territory of Namibia. And for 14 years the people of Namibia, led by its sole authentic representative, SWAPO. has continued its heroic struggle for freedom and inde- pendence. Its struggle is an integral part of the struggle of peoples to eliminate the remaining vestiges of the colonial system of imperialism. In that struggle the enslaved peoples enjoy the full support of all pro- gressive forces throughout the world. The process of decolonization and the strivings of peoples fully to exercise their right to self-determination and indepen- dence have been reflected in numerous United Nations resolutions and decisions. particularly in the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)], which marked the beginning of the final disintegration of the colonial system. Since its adoption. the national liberation struggle throughout the world has scored significant victories. as a result of which a number of former colonies have won their independence. The victory of the people of Zimbabwe was a severe blow to colonialism in southern Africa. That victory and the growing surge of the struggle of the Namibian people, as well as the universal condemnation of the policies of racism. colonialism and apartheid by the interna- tional community. compelled the racist Pretoria regime to indulge in manoeuvring. trying by various 36. The failure of the Geneva meeting was no mere chance. South Africa's scorn for United Nations resolutions and the will of the international commu- nity is well known to everyone. But we are profoundly concerned at the continuing blatantly provocative behaviour of the racists, the brazenness with which they lay down "conditions" for the Organization. Pre- toria is continuing to strengthen and expand its military presence in Namibia, where the colonial troop strength is now more than 70,000 men. It is continuing to strengthen and increase number of its military bases in Namibia. It is no secret that that military escala- tion is aimed against the Namibian people and its sole legitimate and authentic representative, SWAPO, and, indeed, against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the neighbouring African States. Both last year and since the Geneva meeting the world has witnessed bandit attacks against Angola, Mozambique and Zambia perpetrated by South Africa's armed forces both from the Territory of Namibia and from South Africa itself. 37. Mouthing slanderous lies and untruths, the racists call the national freedom fighters of SWAPO "ban- dits" and "terrorists". Even at Geneva they had no compunction about using such words. 38. Colonialism is not a recent phenomenon, and all its ploys and practices are well known to progressive public opinion throughout the world. But I should like tc draw a parallel which particularly recently has made this even more obvious. The biggest imperialist State uses the same language as the racists love to use, both about SWAPO and about the other national liberation movements throughout the world. That is of course nothing new. Those who find the noble aims of the peoples' national liberation struggle not to their liking have always tried to brand the liberation movement by using various labels and describing its legitimate struggle as "terrorist activities". Of course, they cannot change the political realities by doing so. The fact that imperialism, colonialism and racism have again started speaking in the same language is no surprise to anyone. Everyone knows that Namibia would long have been free if Pretoria had not been afforded military, economic and political assistance in violation of the many relevant resolutions of the United Nations, and if South Africa had not been turned into a militarized State with the assistance of the West. Nuclear collaboration by the United States, 39. It is quite clear that the strategic plans of imperialism assign a significant role to the Republic of South Africa. Obviously, certain Western countries which in words condemn the racist regime are in practice protecting it, considering it a reliable ally in 'their struggle against the national liberation movement and the struggle of peoples. They see it as an appropriate means to exert pressure and practise blackmail against the young African countries, as a means to destabilize the political situation in that region. 40. The Bulgarian delegation shares the opinion expressed by the overwhelming majority of delega- tions here that South Africa's political, economic and military collaboration with certain Western States members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATOJ, particularly in the nuclear field, is the main obstacle not only to the elimination of the continuing illegal occupation of Namibia but also to the elimina- tion of the shameful system of apartheid, which the United Nations has branded a crime against humanity. How else can one describe the continuing systematic deliveries of oil and weapons to the Pretoria regime by certain Western countries or the opposition of those very same countries to the adoption of compre- hensive economic sanctions against South Africa in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter? 41. The need and the legitimate right to resort to economic and other sanctions against South Africa arise from both the provisions of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and those of numerous United Nations resolutions, in particular General Assembly resolution 34/92, and also the appropriate provisions of the Declaration and Programme of Action on Namibia, adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia at Algiers on 1 June 1980, at its extraordinary plenary meet'&lg [ibid.. para. 91]. It is an incontrovertible fact it the immediate cessation of all contacts with Soutu Africa, and particularly the cessation of eco- nomic and military collaboration, would lead to the - cessation of the illegal occupation of Namibia. 42. We therefore call for the immediar- convening of the Security Council to adopt comprehensive sanc- tions against the Pretoria regime. It is high time that 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. lCi}, Reports 1971, p. 16.

On 12 December 1981, the General Assembly marked the twentieth anni- versary of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde- pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [93rd meeting]. In the last two decades, great strides have been made in the decolonization process, which, as an organization, we may be proud of. Conspicuously missing from the list of achievements, however, is the independence of Namibia. 57. It is thus with a great sense of shame and embarrassment that the General Assembly still finds the question of Namibia on its agenda. I say it is an embarrassment to the Organization because the dis- grace of this century has been the twin problems of colonialism and racism and their attendant oppression. Those run 'Counter to the principles of the Charter which we are pledged to defend. There is no better example of the flouting of those principles than in Namibia. It is an embarrassment to the Organization because as successors to the League of Nations, it is our bounden duty to bring Mandated Namibia to independence so that it may play its part in the com- munity of nations. Furthermore, it is an embarrass- ment because we have shied away from imposing on South Africa the measures envisaged in Chapter VII of the Charter in the vain hope that the regime in Pretoria would co-operate in implementing the United Nations plan of action. In the meantime, South Africa has continued, with characteristic arrogance, to flout the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council by contiming its illegal occupation of Namibia. 58. My delegation has carefully studied the reports of the Secretary-General and 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 that of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We commend them for the efforts they are making to implement the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on the question. I wish particularly to pay a tribute to Mr. Lusaka and the United Nations Council for Namibia. who have been steadfast in their resolute support of the Namibian people through SWAPO, the only authentic representative of the Namibian people. We are encouraged by the expansion of programmes of assistance and the level of political mobilization undertaken by the Council to prepare the Namibians for independence. 59. We had expected to discuss this item last Decem- ber. We were told. however. that a debate on the subject would sour the atmosphere at the pre-imple- mentation talks at Geneva and make it difficult to reach a negotiated settlement. My delegation reluc- tantly went along with the decision to postpone the debate despite our doubts of the willingness of South 60. What we are witnessing in Namibia is a confronta- tion between those forces which believe in racial superiority', on the one hand, and those determined to remove the last vestiges of apartheid, on the other: a confrontation between those who are bent on main- taining a white racialist colonial hegemony in the Territory and a people determined to assert its inalien- able right to self-determination. In that confrontation, it is incumbent upon all of us to take a stand as to which side we are on. There is no middle course. Support for oppression cannot be masked under the cover of fighting communism. The people of Africa and, indeeed, the overwhelming majority of the mem- bers of the international community have indicated their support for the just cause of the Namibian people and their authentic organization SWAPO. The General Assembly has through numerous resolutions given meaningful expression to the international commu- nity's concern in that regard. 61. Recently. there has been an atte: ,backed by South Africa, in Western countries \,,:rmine that international consensus. Insinuations a. .ing made in some capitals, equating the liberation 'l.lovement with a terrorist organization. Some leading personalities have been quoted as saying that they view the expan- sion of a rival super-Power as a greater challenge than the existence in perpetuity of the South African re- gime, a regime that espouses and carries out policies that are similar to, if not worse than. those of the Nazis. 62. The international community. irrespective of differing ideologies and competition for world influ- ence, was unanimous in condemning nazism as abominable. The world united to defeat nazism. Those who now try to give a stamp of respectability to the present regime in Pretoria and to its illegal occupa- tion of and wanton practices in Namibia are, wittingly or unwittingly, retrospectively giving a similar stamp of respectability to the Nazis. Fascism and its concomi- tant oppression, whether practised against the Jews. the Arabs or the black people in southern Africa. are abhorrent and unacceotable to an equal degree. My delegation believes that the international community, as in 1943, will meet the challenge and invoke all the means at its disposal to eliminate that evil. SWAPO and Africa as a whole have already taken up the challenge. We seek the unwavering support of all well- 68. We must ask ourselves why South Africa has persisted in its affront to the international community and strengthened its illegal occupation of Namibia. It is because South Africa knows it has the tacit sup- port of the Western countries, which, as would appear from their actions, do not like genuine independence for the Territory. We have been given sufficient testimony that those countries, together with South Africa, are engaged in mining and exploiting uranium and other minerals in the Territory. They exploit the resources of Namibia knowing that they are in contra- vention of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, which requires that such exploitation cease forthwith. I submit that to condone South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia is reprehensible; but actually to join it and actively participate in its criminal enterprise is a criminal felony. The Assembly ought to condemn in the strongest terms such actions being perpetuated by its own members. 69. My delegation believes that the United Nations has a duty to act to prevent the exploitation and depletion of Namibian resources by any external Power. Furthermore, to my delegation's thinking, the refusal of South Africa to heed the requests of this body and the opinions of the International Court of Justice to bring the Territory to independence demands firmer action on the part of the United Nations. We therefore advocate that it is time for the Security Council to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, including an oil embargo, on the racist regime. The argument noto- riously advanced by interested parties that economic sanctions will hamper a peaceful solution has never found sanctuary in our mind. The failure of the Geneva talks at the instigation of South Africa is testimony of the fact that Pretoria is not genuinely interested in a negotiated settlement. Furthermore, the experience of Zimbabwe illustrates clearly that in similar situa- tions comprehensive sanctions can act as a desirable catalyst to the negotiation process. 70. In seeking a final solution of the Namibian question, my delegation wishes to make it clear that we consider Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and all other islands off the coast of Namibia to be integral parts of Namibia. In no circumstances, therefore, will we accept any move by South Africa to Balka- nize the Territory by way of annexation or otherwise. We appeal to all Members of the Organization to act in timely fashion to forestall South Africa's express desire to retain hegemony over one or other of the areas referred to. ti?~ of SWAPO and be under United Nations super- VISIOn. 74. My country's position is clear; we have reiterated it before the General Assembly on various occasions. Here we wish to express our full support for the resolu- tions adopted by the OAU and by the Sixth Con- ference of Heads of State or Government of Non- Aligned Countries, held at Havana in September 19797 , as well as for the relevant paragraphs on Namibia in the Declaration of the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned, Countries held at New Delhi. 75. My delegation wishes to take this occasion to confirm its position on the following points. First, Namibia being occupied by South Africa, the people ~ See Officiul Records of tlu: General Assembly; Twenty-fourth Session, Annexl's. agenda item 106, document A/7754. 6 lhid., Plenary Meetings, 1780th meeting, para. 3. Twenty-fourth Session. 7 See A/34/542. 76. The ministerial conference of non-aligned coun- tries, held at New Delhi last month, condemned the racist South African regime for its persistent refusal to withdraw from Namibia and for being entirely respon- sible for the collapse of the Geneva meeting, which was held with a view to implementing the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. The ministers declared that the racist regime's refusal posed a threat to peace, and they held the Pretoria regime fully responsible for the collapse of the pre-irnple- mentation meeting which was to fix a date for a cease- fire and for the introduction of a United Nations team for the period oftransition, in accordance with the provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 77. The Geneva meeting exposed the fraudulent, hypocritical position of South Africa and its unwilling- ness to co-operate in order that the people of Namibia could gain its independence. That regime has colluded with certain countries of Western Europe in order to protect their economic interests, particularly Western investments in uranium. The racist South African regime must bear full responsibility for this state of affairs which threatens international peace and security. That regime denies the Namibian people the most fundamental of human rights-its inalienable rights to self-determination, freedom an indepen- dence. In so doing it has resorted to repression and oppression, in order to to thwart the aspirations of the Namibian people, in addition to committing acts of aggression against the neighbouring States and refusing to comply with resolutions and decisions ofthe General Assembly and Security Council. 78. Under the leadership of its sole authentic repre- sentative, SWAPO, the Namibian people is carrying on a legitimate struggle, one in which it has the right to resort to all possible means against South African occupation of its country, including Walvis Bay. My delegation wishes to express its conviction that it is essential to provide all possible material, military, political, diplomatic and moral support to SWAPO so that it may intensify the Namibian people's war for the national, political and social liberation of its country. 81. Now that all attempts to reach a peaceful solu- tion to the problem have failed, we believe that without such sanctions it will not be possible to implement the resolutions and recommendations adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia. 82. Finally, our delegation would like to pay a tribute to the front-line States, which have come to the support of a free, independent and united Namibia. We also wish to thank them for having provided all kinds of moral and material support to the Namibian people and its national liberation movement, SWAPO.. 83. We would request the Secretariat to redouble its efforts through the various information media in order to mobilize world public opinion against the policies pursued by South Africa with regard to Namibia.

The situation in Namibia today is the most urgent problem facing Africa and the United Nations: a remnant of colonialism, a denial of human rights, a disregard for legality and a threat to peace. Let us not forget, not for a single instant, that the abusive policies pursued by the unrepresentative South African authorities in South Africa itself, and in Namibia, constitute a continual source of outrage for the international community as a whole. The intransigent and backward-looking policies of South Africa are all the more intolerable when viewed against the ominous signals emerging from the ongoing armed conflict in Namibia. Already thousands of lives have been lost and the toll is steadily increasing. All this results from South Africa's illegal presence and repressive policy in Namibia. 85. Over the past decade and a half since its inde- pendence, Malta has deliberately refrained from establishing official contacts or relations with South Africa. Malta has consistently and resolutely denounced the pernicious policy of apartheid in whatever forum has been open to us. It has helped students striving to apply their education to benefit their native land. Malta's means are modest but they have been given unstintingly and in full. 86. The international consensus on the future of Namibia is clear, both in the Assembly and in the Security Council, and is backed by the decision of the International Court of Justice. And yet, instead of seeing the inevitable writing on the wall, South Africa has recently thrown over the Namibian scenario a pall 89. Despitejustified scepticism, it was still hoped that the January pre-implementation meeting at Geneva would go far towards removing the final obstacles in the way of Narnibian independence and that a settle- ment could be reached via the conference table and an internationally supervised electoral process instead of on the battlefield. The fact that all parties got together, and the wide exchange of views that took place, are positive elements on which tangible progress could have been consolidated. Instead, we witnessed a crude attempt by South Africa to play for time by unilaterally repudiating all chances of progress, a retrograde step which gives cause for concern and for censure. The shocking repression has since been intensified by South Africa. Tragically, the spectre of further blood- shed looms once more over the Namibian scene. Instability will prevail, and from that the region and the international community are bound to suffer. 90. It may well be that South Africa will find it convenient not to return to the negotiating table on the Namibian issue. It follows therefore that concerted and co-ordinated economic, diplomatic and political pressure should now be brought to bear on that regime by the international community as a whole. The recom- mendations contained in the report of the United Nations Council, for Namibia, born of so much frustra- tion, appear to us to provide a broadly reasonable framework for further action. As a first step, the Security Council could give a clear signal, unmis- takably indicating that economic sanctions against South Africa would have to be taken if South Africa continues in its defiance of that body. That is so because the Pretoria regime now seems to be immune to exhortation, which has reached the saturation point and shows a tendency to render diminishing returns on efforts expended. 91. Sanctions have consequently now become a necessary expression of international concern over 94. Malta therefore can no longer condone negative or indifferent action by the Organization at this crucial stage of the proceedings. Such action would only add one more tribulation to the many already suffered by the people of Namibia in their long and legitimate quest for self-determination, territorial integrity and independence. All nations should join in the concerted I 'fort to bring about the necessary peaceful transition. '1 'he dying embers of hope must be revived if tragedy is to be avoided. The example of Zimbabwe must remain our inspiration and our objective. This objective is not beyond our collective means and it is our clear responsibility, which none of us can shirk.

The fact that the question of Namibia has remained on the agenda of the General Assembly since its first session, that is, for more than 30 years, indi- cates two important things: first, the awareness in the United Nations that decolonization and, in particular, assisting the people of Namibia to exercise its right to self-determination, freedom and independence are the responsibility of the Organization; and, secondly, the awareness that the failure of the United Nations to discharge that responsibility is a negative aspect that the Organization must do everything possible to remedy, in accordance with its commitment as defined in the Charter. 96. The General Assembly has resumed its thirty-fifth session at a time when the question of Namibia was entering an important and decisive stage, in view of the failure of the Geneva meeting. That failure was due to racist South Africa's refusal to honour all its commitments and obligations with regard to the imple- mentation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) 98. Africa has been expecting such developments, and not without reason, because Africa has always cautioned against the irresponsible conduct of the racist regime of Pretoria, its immoral attitude and conduct in dealing with the international community. This has been clear to us at all the various stages of the Security Council plan for a peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. 99. In spite of the fact that SWAPO and Africa sanctioned the initiative of the five Western countries and the plan that resulted from it, Africa has always expressed its apprehensions and uttered warnings with regard to certain short-comings and ambiguities of that plan. 100. Now that we are trying to determine our next step for the solution of the question of Namibia, I must reacall what the Sudan said on behalf of Africa when it had the honour of presiding over the Assembly of the OAU and the suggestions and remarks we made with the aim of removing any ambiguities that characterize the plan. They were contained in a most important statement delivered by the Vice-Presi- dent and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Sudan before the Security Council on 30 September 1978.8 10J. Our delegation would like to recall these im- portant facts today and, in so doing, to emphasize three important things. First, we wish to confirm the constructive spirit of co-operation shown by SWAPO and Africa regarding the initiative of the five Western countries for the peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. Secondly, Sudan's statement before the Security Council expressed Africa's feelings of doubt and caution with regard to South Africa's conduct and the manoeuvres to which it has resorted. For that reason we asked for certain guarantees and concrete measures to do away with any short-comings and ambiguities in the settlement plan endorsed by the Security Council. Thirdly, we wish to stress the need for participation in the present discussion on Namibia in the light of the recent developments, notably the Geneva meeting, and for an assessment of the situa- tion so that we take a decisive stand with regard to it. 102. At this crucial stage of the Namibian struggle we have to make clear the position of our country with regard to the failure of the Geneva meeting. especially as news reports have indicated that the racist South African regime is still pursuing maneeuvres in the K See O{f7cia{ Records of the S('cl/rity Council, Thirty-third }'('ar. 2088ih meeting, 103. No just settlement can be achieved without SWAPO's participation. The international community must intensify its support and assistance to SWAPO in the various fields, in the light of the resolutions in which the General Assembly has confirmed the legitimacy of the armed struggle of the Namibian people. The Assembly should reconfirm its commit- ments, particularly those contained in Decree No. 1 for the Protection ofthe Natural Resources of Namibia, and the Namibian people's ownership of those re- sources. The Assembly must also endorse the recorn- mendatior.s of the United Nations Council for Namibia following the uranium hearings [A/35/24, vol. /If], which exposed gross violations in this regard. 104. We wish to pay a tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia for the great efforts it has exerted and the many activities it has undertaken. We praise the African States members of that Council for the role they have played therein and express our support for the Algiers Declaration and Programme of Action on Namibia and all the recommendations adopted with a view to solving the question of Namibia. 105. The Sudan would like to reiterate that at this critical moment African participation in the discus- sion of the Namibian question within the United Nations framework. whether in the General Assembly or the Security Council, as well as in all consultations to be carried out, should be broad and tangible. More- over, the Sudanese delegation believes that the General Assembly has a great task to perform, now that we know the real intentions of the racist South African regime following the Geneva talks. 106. We call upon the Security Council to exert all possible pressure on the Pretoria regime, including sanctions, in accordance with the provisions of Chap- ter VII of the Charter, and to isolate it so as to make it comply with its international commitments. It is necessary to affirm the importance of the Security Council's taking such a decision, in the light of our experience of more than three decades during which the South African regime has continued its procrastina- tion, trying to gain more time so as to be able to tighten its grip on Namibia, to set up a puppet regime and to evade the international sanctions imposed on it. 107. South Africa is trying to achieve a twofold goal: it wishes to oppress the Namibian people and undermine its human dignity. 108. Africa, which gave continued support for the initiative of the five Western countries, wishes to reaffirm today that it will not leave the situation in Namibia as it is, hecause we cannot abandon a whole people to its fate and we cannot accept that the situa- tion should remain unchanged. 109. Mr. KALINA (Czechoslovakia) (interpretation ji'O/11 Russian): As a result of many years of discussion in various United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, basic principles for the settlement of the Namibian problem have been elaborated, taking 117. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic has always spoken out in favour of a political, peaceful solution to this problem, which nevertheless presupposes an immediate guarantee to the people of Namibia of its inalienable right to self-determination and indepen- dence, based on the maintenance of the unity and terri- torial integrity of the country, including Walvis Bay; the immediate, complete withdrawal of South African troops and admimstration; and the transfer of power to the people of Namibia under the guidance of SW APO, which has rightly been recognized by the United Nations ar.u the OAU as the sole legitimate and authentic representative of the Namibian people. 118. The Czechoslovakian delegation is convinced that the task now facing the United Nations with regard to Namibia can be appropriately discharged only if the Security Council adopts effective measures which would compel South Africa to comply with the relevant decisions of the United Nations, and if independence is granted to the people of Namibia. One of those measures, to our mind, is to impose complete interna- tional isolation and a boycott on the racist regime by adopting comprehensive mandatory sanctions against it pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter. 119. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic will con- tinue decisively to promote compliance with United Nations resolutions on Namibia. In this respect we highly commend the activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia and its unremitting efforts to reach a just solution to the Namibian problem. The Czecho- slovak delegation likewise supports the just course for further action by the Security Council and other United Nations bodies as outlined in the draft resolu- tions prepared by the United Nations Council for Namibia. My country welcomes the decision taken recently at the meeting of the Co-ordination Com- mittee for the Liberation of Africa at Arusha. The posi- ,,""" ' (.J 120. I should like to stress th~1vth~~~~lJl~"Ui"l\lamibia, determined as it is to shake off the hateful shackles of colonial dependence, to rid itself of the domination of the transnational monopolies and to put an end to the racist oppression, enjoys the full support of the Czechoslovak people. That was once again reaffirmed during the visit by the representative of SWAPO, Mr. Nujorna, to Czechoslovakia in December 1977 by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and Presi- dent of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Gustav Husak. 121. Czechoslovakia's position of principle was again reaffirmed during the official visit paid by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Mozambique, Mr. Chissano, to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic at the beginning of February this year. In the joint Czechoslovakia-Mozambique com- munique both sides "vehemently condemned the intransigence of South Africa, which was the reason for the collapse of the Geneva meeting on Namibia, and once more reaffirmed their political, material and diplomatic support for the people of Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, and spoke out in favour ofimmediate implementation of United Nations resolu- tions on Namibia."

I now call on the representa- tive of the United Kingdom who will speak on behalf of the five Western countries.

In making this statement today the Governments of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States wish to reaffirm our unabated commitment to certain basic principles in the search for a peaceful negotiated settle- ment for Namibia. 124. Our objective remains to secure a peaceful, internationally recognized settlement in Namibia. We urge all those countries interested in obtaining a just settlement to look for positive ways forward. 125. We consider that it is only through negotiations that Namibia can begin its life as a truly independent sovereign State. The people of Namibia have the right to choose their own Government through free and fair elections. 126. We firmly reject violence from whatever quarter. It can only bring immeasurable suffering to the people of Namibia and to the region. The consequences of unleashing violent military measures would be felt not only by this generation but by many generations to come. 127. The cause of independence for Namibia will not be advanced by measures designed to drive South Africa further into isolation. 128. Despite the untiring efforts of the Secretary- General and his staff, the pre-implementation meeting at Geneva did not achieve its intended objective of setting a date for implementation of Security Coun- 131. A few years ago the five Western countries then members of the Security Council initiated negotia- tions which culminated in the adoption by the Secu- rity Council of a United Nations plan for the inde- pendence of Namibia. At every step of the way South Africa showed that it had no intention of allowing true self-determination for the people of Namibia. The racist regime has used every means to sabotage the implementation of the Secretary-General's plan, from silence and stonewalling to armed attacks on and invasions of the front-line States, to wholesale massacre of unarmed civilian men, women and chil- dren in the territory of front-line States and to political manceuvrings like the installation of a puppet regime in Windhoek and the attempt to present this farce as self-determination. 132. The following quotations give, in capsule form, a good idea of the course of the Namibia talks, especially those held in 1980 and 1981: "Hope rises for United Nations plan for Namibia"; "Prospects for black rule in Namibia appear dimmed"; "Narnibian outlook: Pretoria of two minds"; "Namibia talks collapse as South Africa says it is premature to set election"; "How to lose the Namibian game"; and. finally, ..South Africa's delays on Namibia spark United Nations wrath". Those quotations give a fair 135. Southern Africa desperately needs peace, but it cannot be a false peace imposed under duress. achieved through betrayal, bought with false promises and maintained by the same structure of racism. imperialism and expansionism that created the tensions in the first place. The peace that southern Africa needs must be genuine, based on honour and dignity, on majority rule, on respect for the peoples and their inalienable ;-ight to independence-words which the racists do not know, concepts which the apartheid regime does not recognize. 136. The situation in southern Africa is close to catastrophe, and Africa is in a militant mood. Wc have participated in negotiations and seen them fail because of the opposition of the South African elite to the principles of justice. We have asked for sanc- tions as a way to force an end to the illegal occupa- tion of Namibia by the racist Pretoria regime, and we have seen even the limited arms embargo fail because of the co-operation of the major Western arms producers. We have waited, and we have seen our patience rewarded by a hail of bullets and bombs dropped from helicopter gunships. We have hoped. and we have seen our dreams destroyed as entire camps of refugee men, women and children have been massacred on our land. We have appealed to the Security Council and seen our requests answered by the sending of racist troops into Angola. Zambia and Mozambique. We have asked for compensation. and we have seen our needs relegated to the pages of United Nations documents. 137. There are many wars going on in Africa today, wars on poverty, hunger. famine, drought and the remnants of colonial structures which impede inde- pendence. But our major war today is on racism and 139. We demand the imposition of sanctions against the racist minority regime in Pretoria to force its w.zh- drawal from Namibia. We demand effective imple- mentation of those sanctions so that Africa does not witness a repeat of the tactics that allowed Pretoria's partners to survive so long in Salisbury. Although ultimately it was the liberation struggle of the Patriotic Front that led to the independence of Zimbabwe, and although SWAPO and its armed wing, the People's Liberation Army of Namibia, known as PLAN, have taken on the entire racist military structure of South Africa and its surrogates in Namibia, the effective implementation of sanctions against South Africa can be "the contribution of the international community towards the independence struggle of the Namibian people. 140. We make our world significant by the courage of our actions. We shape our history by the way we respond to it. We should depend on the achievements we realize, not on the slogans we employ. We can choose what we are to become. an architect or an archaeologist. Will we build for the future or will we dig in the ruins of the past? 141. Those who oppose sanctions serve the vested interests of South Africa and of their countries. They advise caution and negotiation. We know the value of human lives, for we have lost so many. We know the value of negotiation. for we have been a party to it. But caution and negotiation may be brilliant cures. but what good are they if the patient is lost'? Six decades of colonization is long enough. Namibia wants independence, and the people of Namibia want it now. in 1981. If the General Assembly does not unanimously throw itself behind this demand, then it will be a betraval of the very principles it espouses and for which it was created. L42. We are not preaching to the committed and the reformed. We are trying to reach out to those who, no .matter what their intentions may be, still help racism to survive in Africa, help military adventurism to flourish in southern Africa and assist in the survival of those structures which are condemned by the Charter of the United Nations. Unless the racist Pretoria regime accepts the decisions of the interna- tional community, withdraws from Namibia and allows implementation of the Secretary-General's plan. it will sow the seeds of its own obsolescence. 143. Ihose of us who support SWAPO and the Namibian people do so by choice and out of fidelity III the principles of our own revolution. If one of us IS imprisoned, none of us is free. Apartheid is a good example of the human cost of bogus causes-the

There is so much in common between the Narnibian and the Palestinian people that both peoples feel they are twins. 149. We are geographically located at the south- westernmost tip of Africa, that is, Namibia. and to the north of the north-easternmost tip of that same con- tinent, that is, Palestine. Our plight-ajoint plight-has been an integral part of the history of the United Nations since its inception. Both are a legacy from the defunct League of Nations. We are both the victims of a "betrayal of trust", a betrayal of a mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to the Western Powers in order to, as it was termed. prepare our peoples for independence. 150. But what really links us more closely together is that the Palestinian people and the Namibian people are determined to struggle, using all means, and to pursue and escalate our struggle until we attain and may freely exercise the inalienable right of our peoples: our right to self-determination and national independence and sovereignty in our respective coun- tries-in Palestine and in Namibia. Despite the Western Powers, our peoples have made great head- way, as manifested by the international support we get, be it in the OA U or in the non-aligned movement. Only last month, at New Delhi, both causes-.the cause of the Palestinian people and the cause of the Namibian people-won great triumphs, and solidarity with our struggle was further entrenched. At the United Nations. it is no accident that our peoples have gained recognition, and the PLO and SWAPO .are seated in this Hall. albeit in the capacity of observers; hut what is more important. we sit here a'i the representatives of our respective peoples. 151. We have our plight in common. v c have our aims in common. and for all practical purposes the solution to both problems is identical. The powers of illegal occupation. the racist regimes in Pretoria and Tel Aviv, must unconditionally withdraw and our peoples must be enahled freely to exercise their inde- pendence and sovereignty. As the General Assembly decided in its resolution 35/169 A in regard to the 152. As was the case with Palestine, it must also be decided that after the unconditional withdrawal of the illegal occupation forces of the racist Pretoria regime, the United Nations Council for Namibia should hand over the administration of the Namibian territory to SWAPO, the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. In our opinion, the Council must immediately proceed with the implementation of the process of the transfer of authority, first of all, by preparing adequate cadres and by planning for the post-evacuation period in all fields, particularly the social and economic fields. We are certain that the Council, under the very able and sincere stewardship of Mr. Lusaka, will undertake such a task. With the aid of SWAPO's specialized cadres, the immediate economic future of Namibia could be planned, even through the United Nations Council for Namibia. i53. The task before the Assembly and the Security Council remains paramount, under the provisions of the Charter, particularly Articles 4\ and 42. The intran- sigence of the racist regime in Pretoria and its policy and practices, as well as its continuous acts of aggres- sion against the front-line States, constitute a threat to international peace and security. For if this were not the case, how could we explain the numerous meetings and emergency sessions of the Security Council and of the Assembly? The racists of Pretoria are flouting every single article of the Charter and are violating all the principles enshrined in it. Never did they "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council" on the question of Namibia and the future of the Namibian people. The principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are trampled upon and contemptuously ignored. Yes, the General Assembly was absolutely right when it decided to reject the crede- 's of the delegation of the racist regime of South -virica. The Organization was not intended to perpetuate the teachings of Hitler and his likes. It was intended to eliminate the vestiges of a dark era. The United Nations has reiterated its determination to eliminate all forms of racism from A to Z-from apart- heid to zionism. The Organization, as the Charter says, is the will and the determination of the people. It reads, "We the peoples of the United Nations", • ,d truly, the victory is for the people-the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all people. I)4. What has united the Palestinian people and the N amibian people is the fact that we are both suffering from the designs of an axis, not unlike that other axis of 40 years ago. 155. It is ironic that 35 years after the defeat of Hitlerian nazisrn, we are still witnessing the presence and growth of neo-fascism in the forms of apartheid and zionism. They are quite strongly linked in their ideologies. In a nutshell, the view of the Afrikaaners could be summed up as follows: "Malan and the Nationalists viewed the success of the Jews against the Arabs as a victory of white over non-white." 157. At this juncture, I wish to recall that President Reagan of the United States referred to the South African regime as "the friends who helped in the hour of need". If Vorster and his likes are friends, I can only tell President Reagan of the United States, "keep them". 158. But perhaps President Reagan has a point; there is talk in town that the United States, through one of its numerous agencies, facilitated the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. Jack Anderson reports: "The CIA is probing the possibility that the' joint development of cruise missiles by Israel, South Africa and Taiwan was aided by high-level leaks of U.S. technology to Israel." Anderson calls it a "leak"; nothing prevents me from calling it "planning". 159. Need one recall that the nuclear research work at Dimona in the desert of Negev in southern Palestine, now occupied by Zior.ist Israel, is tested in the Kalahari desert in Namibia? 160. Both Zionist Israel and apartheid South Africa proved ungrateful to their master. H was reported that in 1975 the Israelis fired on an American spy plane that got too close to their nuclear facilities, and South Africa expelled United States Ambassador William Edmundson if' 1<)7<) when a hidden camera was dis- covered in the belly of his private plane. 161. Again, to President Rcagan I say: if these are your friends. keep thcm. 162. And that mysterious flash in the Indian Ocean off South Africa, spotter! and recorded by an American spy satellite, remain- a mystery right up to today. Not even reports on the movement of technicians among the three-s-lsrael. South Africa and Tarwan-e- could serve to produce a .oncrete link, because the main source is here in the United States. 163. The modalities t action of both racist L:glmes :\"e not only sirnil.u I here i'i clear co-ordi.iation. Armed aggression aga.nst and invasion of the ten iturv of the neighbouring front-line States-s-Angola. Zambi. Mozambique and Lebanon-v-Is almost a daily occur- 166. On 2 March 1981. the representative of the United States of America expressed deep concern-I do not know how genuine it was-ahout the "funda- mental questions of membership and the rights of membership" [/03rd meeting, para. 30] in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Charter. The representative of the United States forgot to read the opening words of the Charter. "Wc the peoples of the United Nations ... ". and I am sure that now. after the voting that took place on 2 Mrch 1981, the United States representative realizes that it was the will and determination of the peoples of the United Nations that decided to keep a racist regime out, and this should be an indicator. The United States must realize that a "hig stick" and a "gunboat." are things of the past. and those who do not read the writing on the wall and respect the principles of the Charter will only have themselves to blame. Article 6 of the Charter reads: .. A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organiza- tion by the General A.nbly upon the recommenda- tion of the Security Council." 167. How often has the racist regime of Pretoria violated those principles. how often has it ignored the resolutions of the Security Council and of the As- sembly? The United States representative said "The 172. Mr. MUNOZ LEDO (Mexico) (interpretation .fi'OI11 Spanish): The United Nations is passing tnrough a particularly difficult period which, if it is prolonged and becomes even worse, will jeopardize the very existence of the Organization as a forum for the convergence of the will of States to solve international problems in accordance with what is right. 173. Through years of unflagging effort. we have achieved considerable progress in defining principles and seeking instruments to enable us to face the major issues of our time, both in the political field and in the economic and legal fields. Those efforts are now in jeopardy because of a sudden change in the interna- 176. We reiterate the brotherly recognition by the delegation of Mexico of SWAPO, the sole and legiti- mate representative of the people of Namibia, because of the firm and, at the same time, flexible attitude is has taken in extremely difficult circumstances. We reg, et that the mediation efforts of the Western coun- tries that advocated the plan for Namibia's indepen- dence have led to failure. 177. That fact should lead to some reflection by those States about the obvious lack of viability of the methods of persuasion in this specific case, and about the desirability of replacing them by a more energetic attitude so that tolerance does not become complicity. 178. This is a time for taking a stand. There is no longer any room for equivocation. That is understood even by those who now wonder whether it would not be more to their advantage to declare openly their alliance with the Pretoria regime and make clear the strategic and economic reasons for the covert support they have given so far. 179. The case of Namibia is, par excellence, a question of principle. The essential values on which the United Nations is based are at stake. Obviously, they are the self-determination of peoples. non-inter- fCIC/1Ll in the internal affairs of other States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. I HO. "he South African policy represents a many- faceted defiance of international legality; it is asso- ciated with the denial of the right to independence, th, occupation and exploitation of a foreign territory; and the use of that territory as a base to threaten and ..utack neighbouring States, not to mention the ~ lbid.. Thirtv-fifth YC'ar, SlIfJfJll'/I/C'1/1 [or ./111.1', August and SI'p' IC'/IIher /980, document S/l4179. 189. The authors of the plan for the independence of Namibia bear the grave responsibility for preventing this last failure from undermining the influence of the voices of moderation in southern Africa. The States involved must prove by deeds that they are in favour ofjustice and democracy for all. They should by their actions refute the usual affirmation that the prosperity and security of a few are based on the unequal status and oppression of the majority. 190. At the end of this debate resolutions will be adopted urging the Security Council to impose measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. These would be ,a supplement to and would strengthen decisions already taken by a large number of Govern- ments to have no economic relations of any kind with South Africa. We shall also have to adopt deci- sions effectively to guarantee that the obvious infiltra- tion of weapons and war material into South Africa will not continue. 191. The responsibility is clear and the decisions should be likewise. One cannot accuse the forces militating in favour of Namibia of intransigence. Rather that is the characteristic of the racist strorg- hold in Pretoria, prompted now by an anachronistic conservatism which is reviving an international atmosphere inconsistent with the evolution of the contemporary world. 192. The struggle for the independence of Namibia, like all the other battles for decolonization, social transformation and complete development of peoples. need in no way be affected by the artificial theories of those who refuse to go beyond a narrow bipolar conception of the world. 193. Other delegations have already wisely seen the problem of Namibia as part of the present international <ituation , in which unexpected tensions are distorting the normal development of international relations and seriouvly jeopardizing our efforts to impose them. 194. The Government of Mexico has already had an opportunity I:) xtate at the highest levels the concerns of our country at this time. We do not wish the international community to undo what has been achieved over the last decades. Nor do we wish hcgcrnonistic tendencies to attempt once again to divide the world into spheres of influence. We cannot agree that our countries should be raised to the undcvircd rank of strategic border zones nor do we accept the transformation of our territories into battle- fields in an attempt at world domination. 195. We the developing countries have established the bases on which a fruitful and mutuallv beneficial dialogue is possible with industrialized nations. The 196. Such a policy would lead us very soon into a pre-war situation, the consequences of which are easily foreseeable, and would foster a world trend towards the formation of satellite States far more pronounced then it was during the so-called cold war because of the dangers which a state of virtual nuclear alert would involve for all at this time. 197. On this assumption we should have to abandon the efforts that have been the very reason for the existence of the United Nations: the struggle for political and economic decolonization, the achieve- ment of universal disarmament and the establishment of the new international econcnic order. The Organiza- tion would at once lose its meaning and, de facto, the purpose that gave rise to it. 198. What is now happening in the area closest to us geographically is but a foretaste of what will occur tomorrow on other continents: the claim to interfere in the internal political processes of nations in accor- dance with the requirements or the mirages of hege- monistic views of the war Id. 199. Thus the inalienable and sovereign right of each people 1.0 choose for itself the form of Govern- ment best in accord with its interests and to choose its own road to development would be done away with. This would change the course of history that for more than two centuries has made it possible for modern States to come into being as a result of their great national revolutions. 200. For all those reasons it is appropriate for the voices of States that appreciate their sovereignty to state their position clearly and on a bilateral. regional and global basis to co-ordinate their efforts so as to prevent among all peoples the dangerous resurgence of practices and philosophies that would exalt the concept of strategic domination as the ultimate value of history. ~OI. The defence of the United Nations and of its principles is identified. perhaps as never before, with the defence of the vital interests of mankind as a whole.

Once again I am honoured to extend to the President the cordial greetings of the Government of Honduras and to assure him of our support and co- operation in the discharge of his lofty functions. 203. The urgent resumption of the thirty-fifth session to consider the question of Namibia is in itself an event which bears witness to the importance of our deliberations. We could not conclude our work in December because in respect of various questions, in particular Namibia. it was thought necessary to provide adequate time for substantive negotiations in good faith to lead to conclusions that would be generally acceptable for the implementation of prior resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly. 204. Unfortunately the meeting on Namibia convened at Geneva failed. and a valuable opportunity to give 211. Our country firmly believes that the solution of the problem of Namibia is a primary responsibility of the United Nations, and we stand in solidarity with the activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia. 212. In the context of a confrontation between the racist authorities of Pretori- and the Namibian people organized to win their ' .edorn and independence, our country cannot hesitate to reiterate its support of the principle of self-determination. SWAPO has in 214. Our delegation has carefully studied the draft resolutions before the General Assembly for con- sideration and, although we cannot agree with some specific condemnations of various countries, we are in accord with the general guidelines and principles and shall vote in favour of them, as in past years. 215. Our country wishes to reaffirm its confidence in United Nations action to continue trying to obtain South Africa's withdrawal from Namibia, and I wish expressly to place on record our appreciation for the action of the Secretary-General and to offer our modest co-operation for the setting in motion in due course the mechanisms necessary to achieve a cease- fire and the holding of free elections in Namibia.

For nearly four years the Secretary-General, the five Western mem- bers of the contact group, the front-line States and other African States have, with the full support of the Organization, been engaged in patient and steadfast efforts to bring about a settlement in Namibia. The negotiations have been difficult; they have been pursued with skill and persistence. By the end of last year, with consensus having been reached on virtually all aspects of the United Nations plan, there was reason to believe that agreement by the South African Government to the plan was within reach. What was needed still, as the Secretary-General observed, was a climate of confidence and understanding. That was what the pre-implementation meeting in Geneva was intended to establish, so that agreement could be reached on the date for a cease-fire and for putting the United Nations plan into action. 217. It is clear from the Secretary-General's report- that at the Geneva meeting South Africa continued to display the inflexibility and obstinacy that have im- peded past efforts to bring about a peaceful transition to independence in Namibia. The tactics it adopted called into question its motives and its good faith. It is indeed ironical that it was the South Africans that made an issue of trust and confidence in Geneva-for it was they who, after more than three years of negotiations about elections under United Nations supervision, began to assert that the United Nations could not be impartial. It was South Africa that, 10 See (~/.lici{/I Records o] tlio G£'II£'/'(/I Assembly, Thirty-third Session, Plcnarv Meetings, 104th meeting. Il/hid.. Nineteenth Session. AI/nexes. annex No. 8 (part I) (A/5800/Rev.I), chap. IV, paras. 18-65. 236. Must they and their usurpers undergo the ordeal of a blood-bath before the word-which is represented by us-realizes this inevitable fact and does something to prevent it, for the good of all, regardless of colour or race? 237. The tragedy is-and this is really the point-that irrationality is as much a component of human nature as rationality, and it is our sacred duty to see to it that the latter prevails over the former. 238. In this context, and in the most earnest hope that rationality will prevail, Jordan expresses the hope that the Security Council will at long last imple- ment an acceptable solution based on its own resolu- tion 385 (1976), with a view to ensuring free elections under the auspices of the United Nations. Such free elections can be held only after the withdrawal of the armed forces of South Africa from Namibia. and they must be premised on the preservation of the Territory's integrity. 239. The Assembly of Heads of State and Govern- ment of the OAU, at its seventeenth ordinary session, held at Freetown from I to 4 July 1980, like the Con- ference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at New Delhi, has come to the same inescapable conclusion that the time for action, after all possible means for a peaceful settlement have been exhausted, is long overdue, if the community of nations is to fulfil its trust towards the people of Namibia.

Namibia provides dramatic testimony of a consistent pattern of massive violations of human rights on an unprecedented scale-the rights of the oppressed people of Namibia to self-determination and independence. As we meet 24 I. During the Geneva meeting, South Africa did not hesitate to resort to deceit and treachery, as it had often done in the past, to frustrate the peaceful efforts of the United Nations to implement Security' Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978). Such an attitude on the part of the racist minority regime clearly demonstrates that it has no intention of relin- quishing its illegal hold over Namibia. There is no doubt that the illegal presence of South African usurpers in Namibia is intended to impede the speedy implementation of the process of decolonization in the Territory. 242. The Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemns the inhuman policies of South Africa in Namibia and is convinced that such policies will ultimately fail to prevent the irreversible process of self-determination and independence in the Territory. We further condemn South Africa for its repeated acts of aggres- sion against the independent African States, in par- ticular Angola. Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 244. Relying on the continuous collaboration and support of Western States, South Africa has sys- tematically strengthened its military establishment in Namibia with the intention ofexploiting and plundering the economic and human resources of the Territory as well as preserving and safeguarding the interests of imperialism. Continuation of the present policy would have never been possible without this active support and collaboration in South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and its massive violations of the most fundamental human rights of the African people, violations which constitute an affront to the sense of human dignity, freedom and justice. 245. The time has come to mobilize all the interna- tional efforts with a view to putting an end to the illegal presence of the South African oppressors in Namibia and supporting the Namibians in their just struggle to free themselves from foreign domination and to exercise their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. To accelerate this process the Security Council should be called upon to convene urgently to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the satanic and oppressive Power that is South Africa. It remains to be seen how South Africa's collaborators, who usually pose as promoters of human rights around the world, will act in the Security Council when the moment of truth comes.