A/36/PV.71 General Assembly

It seems that the international community's hope that Namibia would finally accede to independence will once again be dashed. Since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), terminating South Africa's Man- date over Namibia, the Organization has repeatedly sought and proposed solutions that would restore the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Namibian people. To every solution, to every proposal, South Africa has responded only with an attitude of disdain and arrogance. Security Council resolution 435 (1978), originated by the very ones that have always had blameworthy relations, to say the least, with the racist regime of South Afric'!, a resolution negotiated with all the parties concemed, seemed to be a compromise which could be agreed to by the parties. However, although South Africa was consulted and gave its agreement at all stages of the negotiations to . the settlement plan endorsed in resolution 435 (1978), it continues, three years after the adoption of the resolution 15. This defiance, this unacceptable arrogance on the part of a regime that has been placed outside the pale of the international community, puts in doubt the capacity of the Organization to translate its own decisions, adopted unanimously, into deeds. Such persistent defiance and ar- rogance are not only an insult to the entire international community but above all reflect the inability of the Se- curity Council, and more precisely of the major Powers, to intervene swiftly and effectively when international peace, stability and security are seriously threatened. 16. However complete and incurable its political blind- ness and however powerful its arsenal of instruments of oppression, South Africa would not have persisted had it not been assured of the collusion of some major Powers. When one considers the vehemence with which the States of the capitalist West have in other circumstances con- demned what they regard as violations of human rights, one cannot but be perplexed at their attitude towards a regime that has turned the denial of the most basic human rights into a system of government. 17. One can therefore feel only indignation and con- demn those who in the Security Council through their tri- ple veto opposed the adoption of specific political and economic measures to isolate South Africa and compel it to withdraw from Namibia. We are· staggered by all the prec&utions the five Western Powers of the contact group are taking not to irritate South Africa by the initiatives they take to induce it to take part in the implementation of the settlement plan with which it had associated itself and to which it had agreed. 18. The truth-demonstrated repeatedly-is that South Africa is but the bridgehead of a vast system of imperi- alistic exploitation in which those Powers are participating through their multinational and transnational corporations; hence the reluctance of the member States of the contact group to pressure South Africa. One can only conclude that the true nature of the problem faced by the Namibian people is an imperialistic plot. Indeed, the optimism flaunted by the members of the contact group and the publicity given to all their actions are only a smokescreen to conceal their present manoeuvres designed to impose a neo-colonial solution on Namibia in order to safeguard their political, economic and military interests by joining i.b Pretoria's attempts to gain international recognition for the puppets that submissively and shamefully serve its in- terests. 19. By approvinL, ~...~ South African demand that con- stitutional guarantees be given the white minority in Namibia, the members of the contact group are guarantee- ing a racist policy whereby the whites would continue to enjoy privileges that are denied to the blacks. The present debate once again gives us an opportunity not only to express to South Afrka the resolve of the international 20. My delegation, in reaffirming here its position of principle of total support for the just struggle of the Namibian people, would like to congratulate the United Nations Council for Namibia, which under the leadership of its President, Mr. Lusaka of Zambia, spares no effort to carry out its responsibilities as legal Administering Authority for Namibia until its independence. 21. My delegation shares the views expressed by the Council in its report [AI36124]. The relevant and just con- clusions and recommendations therein, if accepted by all and strictly implemented, will fmally enable the Namibian people to live -in peace Oil the recovered land of their an- cestors. 22. Far its part, the PeopJe's Republic of Benin, its peo- ple, its vanguard party, the party of the people's revolu- tion of Benin, and its Government will continue to offer to the Nambian people and its sole authentic representa- tive, SWAPO, active and staunch support until the day of final victory.

For yet another year the General Assembly has to debate and deliberate on the vi- tally important question of the independence of the Af- rican country of Namibia. It is a problem which at the moment is exercising the attention of the international community, and especially that of the African countries that have lived all these years with the unacceptable situa- tion-the continued occupation of Namibia by the South African regime and the application of the cruel and inhu- man practices of apartheid to the people of Namibia. 24. As one speaker in the Assembly aptly observed last week, one of the cardinal tasks of the United Nations since its inception has been decolonization, and, to the credit of the Organization, this task has been carried out with commendable success. The signs are that before very long this goal, which the world body has set out to achieve, will be fully accomplished. It is in this context, therefore, that the Kenya delegation wishes to express its dismay that South Africa, which.has been illegally ruling Namibia in arrogant defiance of the United Nations, should continue to deceive itself into thinking that it has the capacity-which it does not have-permanently to ar- rest the hurricane of change and decolonization in Africa. Let the message go once again to the Pretoria regime and those who extend undue comfort to it that the writing is on the wall and that, willy-nilly, Namibia will be inde- pendent. 25. There was a time in the history ot decolonization when the struggle for independence was almost solely between the metropolitan colonial Power and the colony. The odds against the colonized, as many in the Assembly can testify, were e:l0rmous. My own country, Kenya, was not spared this ~gony, as many will remember. But the bitter experience of colonialism had so much stiffened the determination of the people that they were prepared to dare the might of the colonial Power, indeed to the extent ?f laying down their own dearflives f~r t~e cau~e of the 32. We are also concerned about the insecurity to neigh- mdependence, freedom and human dignity which they bouring African States caused by South Africa's occupa- knew to be theirs and which they knew to have been de- tion of Namibia. We strenuously deplore the frequent mil- nied them. itary attacks on Angola, Mozambique and other countries, 27. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/9 H,'a' special session-the ninth-on the question of Namibia was convened in New York in April 1978. The convening of that special session was prompted by South Africa's defiance of Security Council resolution 385 (1976), which, in the eyes of the international community, pro- vided for steps likely to bring a logical solution to the settlement of the Namibian problem. That defiance by the regime in Pretoria has prolonged and created further com- plications in the Namibian problem. 28. While the ninth special session was in progress, it was insulted by the invasion of Angola by racist Govern- ment troops citing, as has been the custom, the excuse of combating SWAPO freedom fighters. This act alone showed quite clearly South Africa's determination to con- tinue its illegal occupation of the Territory. The flagrant invasion did not and will not, however, deflect the atten- tion and determination of the United Nations, for the As- sembly at that same special session adopted, as resolution S-9/2, the Declaration on Namibia and Programme of Ac- tion in Support of Self-Determination and National Inde- pendence for Namibia. 29. The Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) after years of negotiations between South Africa and the five Western Powers. That resolution provided a frame- work for a peaceful solution of the problem of Namibiu Unfortunately, as usual, South Africa reneged and blocked that process, so the problem continues. 30. When the International Court of Justice ruled in 1971 1 that South Africa's continued PR?sence in Namibia was illegal, that was an unequivocal and irreversible inter-: national verdict that South Africa had to withdraw from the Territory. The United Nations and other bodies have since then never ceased striving for opportunities to bring about a settlement. South Africa's response has been naked defiance and ignoble delaying tactics. The world watched with indignation as South Africa in January this year deliberately wrecked the pre-implementation meeting at Geneva, where it had been expected that it would co- operate, since SWAPO had made many concessions. ? 31. I should like to turn to other worrisome aspects of this illegal racist South African domination of Namibia. In spite of United Nations resolutions against the practice, and in a hurry because of the inevitable achievement of independence, South Africa, working in cqncert with, Western multinational corporations, has continued to . plunder Namibia of minerals and oth'er natural resoqrces. This is blood money, and the aim is to bleed Namibia dry of its minerals, with the wicked design of weakening the eventual Namibian Government. We call upon all con- cerned to put an immediate halt to these activities. 33. While the negotiations between the five Western Powers and South Africa are going on, naturally we must give them a chance. But we can make comments that we believe will help. We are opposed to any attempt by any- one to link settlement of Namibia's independence to the domestic affairs of any of the neighbouring sovereign States. It is a separate issue and should be thus ap- proached. Linkage would mean interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign States. It would also be diversionary and a wasteful activity that would lead to delays in attain- ing the goal we have set ourselves, namely, the speedy independence of Namibia. 34. We have heard references to the partiality of the United Nations towards SWAPO. That is a strange notion The United Nations has to work with the representative ;;[ the people of Namibia in its effort to bring to an end the illegal occupation of that Territory. This has not prevented the illegal regime from organizing puppets that co-operate with it in its ill~gal occupation. The important question is not the futile discussion of the partiality of the United Nations but whether the SWAPO leadership is prepared to submit to the will of the people of Namibia in an election fairly and freely organized in the Territory. The answer is already known, as. SWAPO agreed to submit to the demo- cratic process years ago. 35. We should also like to caution the five Western Powers not to usurp the fundamental rights of the Nami- bian people by attempting to impose a constitution and principles not acceptable in their own countries. In any case, the racist South African regime is in no position to give advice on democratic practices. Finally, we must em- phasize that time is of the essence. The process of bring- ing Namibia to independence cannot be allowed to drag on in the name of negotiations. It has already been de- layed too long. 36. We commend the work being done by the United Nations Council for Namibia, including work during its extraordinary plenary meetings held at Panama City from 2 to 5 June 1981-as described in the Council's report [ibid.• pams. 169-223]-and would like to urge the As- sembly to continue to render all necessary assistance to the CounciL 37. I should like to recapitulate by putting it on record that Kenya's stand on the Namibian question is that South Africa must unconditionally withdraw from "lamibia, drop its chum and intention to annex Walvis y, since annexation would result in fragmentation of th\.. rerritory prior to independence. Kenya strongly supports the in- aliena~le right of the people of Namibia to independence and insists on free and fair elections, leading to the un- conditional independence of the Territory. We also insist that South Africa stop its military aggression against neighbouring sovereign States. And, finally, Kenya sup- ports all efforts directed towards forcing South Africa out of Namibia, including the imposition of mandatory sanc- tions. 39. In the spirit of the Nyayo philosophy of Kenya, which is love, peace and unity, I thank you.

The international community is very interested in the Namibian question, and this interest ts shown at the. United Nations for the third time in the space of a few months. Last April the Security Council held a series of_ meetings on the initiative of the group of African States, but for reasons known to all it was not able to adopt the logical and effective decision advocated by Africa. The General Assembly held an emergency special session. in September and in resolution ES-8/2 called on the Security Council to respond to the wish of the international com- munity by imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on the racist regime of South Africa, as provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Once again we are meeting here, for the third time, but the situation has remained unchanged. 41. The racist regime of South Africa has refused to consider the resolutions adopted by United Nations bodies and arrogantly disregards them. It continues its illegal oc- cupation of and domination over Namibia, imposing all forms of repression on the people and stripping them of their human rights and legitimate aspirations to a digni- fied life and the right to establish an independent State. That regime imposes upon the people the most odious and hateful policy that the history of colonialism has known and attempts to apply the system of apartheid, which has been condemned by the international commu- nity as embodied in the Assembly. 42. The position of my country on the question of Namibia has been set forth in many regional and interna- tional gatherings. That position is as follows. The United Nations is responsible for Namibia and the people of Namibia has the legitimate right to'. self-detennination, freedom and independence. SWAPO is the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. In recaliing (ihat position, we should like to stress the f~ct that the cred- ibility of the United Nations as an effectiVe instrument for ensuring international security- and peace depends on the extent to which the international Organization can adopt effective measures to restore the rights of the Namibian people, of which they have been deprived by force. The Organization has attempted to safeguard those rights, but, as the saying goes, if the shepherd deserts his post, the lion will take his place. No one wants- the Organization to repudiate its obligations. 43. The peace plan approved in Security Council resolu- tion 435 (1978) was supported by the African countries, including the Sudan, because it constituted an acceptable norm. We therefore pay a tribute to the spirit of co-opera- tion manifested by SWAPO, and we continue to believe that its struggle is legitimate and its victory is inevitable, whether it comes today or tomorrow. The African coun- tries gave their blessing to the initiative of the five West- ern countries in spite of the inadequacies of the plan. We drew attention to .the fact that it lacked the necessary guarantees to ensure its success. In this regard the repre- sentative of the Sudan, on behalf of the African countries, presented a proposal on 30 September 1978,3 containing the following elements: first, the declaration of a cease- . fIre in the Territory through the signing of an agreement' 44. The negotiations that are going on to this day on the question of Namibia have shown that the African coun- tries have faced up to their responsibilities, motivated by the desire to bring about a peaceful and just settlement in order that the aspirations of the Namibian people to a free and dignified life may be realized. The flexibility shown by SWAPO, supported by the African countries, has only increa,sed the obstinacy and the procrastination of the rac- ist reg~me of South Africa, which the Organization must treat with the necessary firmness in order to restore the prestige of the United Nations. The attempts of South Af- rica to lend legitimacy to the puppet Windhoek regime are well known. While that racist Government has ac- cused the United Nations of partiality towards SWAPO, it wants to establish constit~tional principles which would guarantee the rights of the white minority, under the pre- text of strengthening the trust between the parties to the conflict. Such ~ policy can only strengthen the rights of the whites to the detriment of those of the blacks. These constitutional guarantees are only an attempt to transpos~ the experience of the racist regime of South Africa to Namibia and to give the whites the same advantages as those enjoyed by the whites in South Africa. The peaceful settiement provided for in the plan includes free elections in the country, leaving it to the people of Namibia to take the initiative in working out its own constitution free from any foreign influences. The experience of Zimbabwe is there for all the world to see. 45. My country believes that resolution 435 (1978) con- stitutes the basis for an acceptable peaceful solution. In this conn~ction we should like to lay stress on the posi- tion of the African countries at the thirtv-seventh session of the Council of Ministers of the Organfzation of African Unity, held at Nairobi from 15 D 26 June 1981, that this decision without reservations or modifications, was the sole valid one (see A/36/534. annex /. CM/Res.853 (XXXVlI)I· 46. In conclusion, I should like to p~y a tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia for its immense efforts. It is the Administering Authority for the Territory and in that capacity dmws up th~ ~1.i\\'s and measures to safeguard its natural resources. V·/e are also pleased by the co-ordination between the Council and SWAPO, the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people. '+7. Mr. KARRAN (Guyana): The past year has wit- nessed intensified efforts by the international community, and particularly this world body, to find a sQlu~ion to the qn.nestion of Namibia that will ensure the achievement by the people of Namibia of its inalienable right to freedom, independence and territorial integrity. These efforts have included the pre-implementation meetiiig on Namibia held in January at Geneva. The General Assembly has met twice already in 1981, once in the eighth emergency spe- cial session. The Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries devoted an extraordinar~ ministerial meeting to the question of Namibia, meeting at Algiers from 16 to 18 April 1981, and the Security Council addressed the issue of Namibia shortly thereafter. Indeed, the effort ex- pended by this Organization on behalf of the freedom and 49. This is the context within which our debate takes place. The progress t~y.Nards the early withdrawal of South Africa's illegal occupation forces, for which Security Council resolution 435 (1978) provided the framework, continues to be stalled before the obstmacy of the racist regime, buttressed by the indolence of its Western friends. 50. We have had dialogue with South Africa, Wl'~ have negotiated, we have condemned-all to no avail as far as South Africa is concerned. Our efforts earlier this year to move decisively to the implementation of enforcement measures after the deliberate sabotaging by South Africa of the Geneva talks were blocked by South Africa's friends in the Security Council. Clearly, the blocking of enforcement measures merely served to renew the confi- dence of the racist regime and to steel its resolve to con- tinue the illegal occupation of Namibia and to increase its aggressive intent against the neighbouring States. 51. As if that were not enough, South Africa is further emboldened in its intransigent attitude by those who would not only indiscriminately prescribe military solu- tions to every issue of conflict but who, moreover, place these issues in the constricting strait-jacket of a so-called global strategic rivalry. This plays into the hands of the South African racists and has been used as a major justi- fication by that illegal regime for its continued illegal hold over Namibia. 52. :rhere can be no mistaking what is at stake in Namibia. Namibia is an issue of illegal occupation. It is an issue of a people's legitimate struggle, sanctioned by the Charter and the decisions of the Organization, for lib- eration from alien domination and exploitation. It is ar:t issue of the untenable extension of the apartheid system, which the international community has by consensus con- demned as an affront to humanity, to subjugated people. Namibia has nothing to do with the strategic rivalry of the big Powers. The people of Africa do not see themselves as part of any power game, as pawns to be sacrificed at will on behalf of the strategic advantage .of one or the other of the Powers. 53. The Organization has displayed tremendous patience in the flice of the effrontery and arrogance that have been so characteristic of South Africa's behaviour. The advo- cates of patience and caution must know full well that South Africa has abused this attitude on the part· of the Organization in order to perpetuate its domination over the Territory and to influence decisively in its own favour the nature'of whatever change will take place in Namibia. Can we honestly be asked to be patient much longer? My delegation is firmly of the view that the time has long 54. My delegation is ?ware of certain contacts between the five Western Pow~rs, the front-line States, SWAPO and the Pretoria regime concerning the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). There are some aspects of these consultations which cause my delegation considerable concern. We do nc)t want to enter into the fine details of these aspects; I merely wish to reaffirm that, as far as my delegation is concerned this resolution represents a univer- sally agreed basis for :Lt! internationally accepted solution to the question of Namibia. My delegation reaffirms its support for SWAPO as the sole authentic representative of the people of Namibia and expects that in consultations or contacts concerning the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) this position of SWAPO will be respected at every step and that the legitimate rights and aspirations of the people of Namibia, so long ignored and trampled upon, will be fully recognized. There can be no other basis for a lasting and effective settlement. Any purported settle- ment which fails to give recognition to the inalienable rights of the· people of Namibia will lack legitimacy and international support. We cannot accept the reopening at this late stage of issues on which agreement was reached after protracted bargaining and compromise. 55. The process of appeasement of South Africa must now end. South Africa's friends within the Organization must recognize the tremendous responsibility they bear for that regime's recalcitrance. They must now join the mainstream of the international community in applying those measures laid down in the Charter for dealing with issues that represent a threat to tr.~ernational peace and security. 56. It is for this reason that Guyana fully supports the actions taken by the United Nations Council for Namibia in carrying out the mandate entrusted to it. My delegation wishes to express its continuing support for the work per- formed by the Council under the wise leadership of Mr. Lusaka of Zambia. 57. We have studied the recent report of the Council and are indeed gratified to learn that the Council will be taking decisive action to set in train certain measures for the implementation of its Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, enacted on 27 Sep- tember 1974.4 We are convinced that the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Council's report [A/36/24, para. 708], if faithfully applied, can only , hasten the termination of South Africa's illegal occupation and, in consequence, the early independence of Namibia. They are consistent with the just aims and aspirations of the Namibian people and are in accordance with the Char- ter. 58. My delegation wishes to reaffirm its unstinting sup- port for the heroic struggle being waged by the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, its legitimate representative, for its freedom. 60. We are pleased at the positive role being played by the United Nations in the consideration of this question. Many important resolutions have been adopted in an at- tempt to find a solution to this problem. The colonialist countries, however, have prevented the implementation of those resolutions and have at times gone as far as to ig- nore them or to resort to manoeuvres designed to hinder their implementation. 61. In spite of such difficulties, the United Nations has not given up. On the contrary, it has continued to con- sider this question within the framework of the General Assembly &nd its subsidiary bodies and in the Security Coul1cil, which has adopted 19 resolutions on this topic since -1966. The question of Namibia, however, has not yet found a solution, and the people of Namibia still lan- guish under the yoke of occupation and repression, endur- ing the sufferings caused by racial segregation and apartheid. 62. We did not succeed in ending South Africa's Man- date over Namibia because of the stubbornness of the rac- ist regime, which refuses to implement United Nations resolutions. The support it receives from colonialist coun- tries, moreover, encourages it in the practice of its inhu- man policy. 63. South Africa must understand that the world has changed, that it is different today from what it was 30 years ago. World public opinion has also changed, even in the colonialist countrie3, and there is a growing ten- dency to assist the struggles of oppressed peoples and give them moral support. Colonialist countries and those that maintain guilty relations with· South Africa must reas- sess their policies and behaviour.· They must understand that such actions can only produce hatred for them on the part of the struggling people of Namibia, on the part of the African countries and on the part of the peoples of the third world. 64. The racist regime of South Africa commits terrorist acts against the people of Namibia and practises a racist and colonialist policy, even annexing some important parts of the country such as Walvis Bay, the Penguin Is- lands and other islands off the shores of Namibia. The General Assembly denounced such practices at its thirty- second session and has adopted many resolutions on the subject. 65. The Yemen Arab Republic considers that Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and other offshore islands are an integral part of Namibia. The international community has condemned measures taken by South Africa to annex those areas, measures which it considers null and void and without lega! foundation because those territories are part of Namibia geographically, economically and cultur- ally. 66. We categorically denounce all the military measures taken by South Africa to impose a so-called internal set- tlement aimed at giving power to a puppet regime and legitimacy to the racist occupation, which are incompati- ble with the aspirations of the people of Namibia. 68. We appeal to peoples which cherish peace and jus- tice to support the Namibian people in its struggle until victory, and we ask them to denounce the racist policy of South Africa in all international forums so that the people of Namibia may regain its rights. 69. The crimes that nave been committed in Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa are so numerous that they. cannot be listed here. They have been committed against man and against the land. Man suffers from the policy of racial segregation, and that regime has plun- dered and continues to plunder the natural resources of the country in a shameful manner. We believe that all countries of the world must fulfil their obligations so as to safeguard Namibia's natural wealth and ardently sup- port the struggle of the Namibian people to recover its resources by ending all trade and economic relations with the racist regime of South Africa. 70. We also call upon the international community, rep- resented by the United Nations, to apply Chapter VII of the Charter by imposing an international embargo against that regime to confront it with a fait accompli, thus en- abiing the Namibian people freely to express its will freely, like all the other peoples of the world. 71 . It is high time for us to support the cause of all the oppressed and colonized peoples of the world. That the Namibian people still suffers under the yoke of racist ?c- cupation is a challenge to the internat~onal commun!ty, one which must be answered by supportmg the strugglIng people. Such support is necessary to safegu.ard the legiti- mate interests of the peoples, and any resistance to the struggle of those peoples runs counter to the movement of history. Oppressed peoples will accept all sacrifices to ex- ercise their right to life. 72. The sufferings of the people of Namibia resemble those of the Palestinian people in occupied Palestine, be- cause the South African regime and that of the Zionist entity practise the same inhuman and immoral methods, which are, furthermore, incompatible with the most ele- mentary rules of morality. Murder, destruction, imprison- ment, assassination and displacement of population have been made the rule by those two racist entities, and bloodshed has become an everyday affair. 73. For all these reasons, tolerance of the crimes of these two racist entities can only make them intensify their racist and Fascist policies. We believe that the real- istic and logical solution to this problem lies in imposing an embargo on those two regimes, in a political, eco- nomic, cultural and military boycott so as to prevail upon them to respect the United Nations resolutions and the will of the international community, as well as that of the peoples of Namibia and Palestine.

A few days ago Sam Nujoma, Presi- dent of SWAPO, the sole legitimate and undeniable van- guard of the people of Namibia in its struggle for its freedom, denounced the existence of an imperialist plot 76. Solidarity between the peoples of Namibia and Nic- aragua and their vanguards emerges not as part of a vast international conspiracy within a situation of E~st-West confrontation, but rather from the conviction that the pur- suit of the right to independence is being hampered by the oppressors in the area and by a whole spectrum of eco- nomic and strategic interests, the defence of which is for some major Powers more important than the suffering and oppression of subjugated peoples. 77. It is not sufficient for the international community to continue to condemn the continuance of the illegal rac- ist occupation of Namibia or the brutal repression and ex- ploitation of its people and resources. It no longer suf- fices to condemn the killing and imprisonment of Namibian patriots or the inhuman measures of collective punishment aimed at intimidating the Namibian people and breaking its will to achieve its legitimate aspiration to self-determination, freedom and independence in a united Namibia. It is not sufficient for us to express our concern over the mounting acts of racist aggression against inde- pendent front-line States, especially Angola, Zambia and Mozambique. 78. To.day, more than ever, we must concentrate our de- bates and our efforts on countering any co-operation that may resu~t ir supporting or encouraging South Africa in its defian· ~ or the United Nations. It should not be neces- sary to re..:all-but such is not the case-that Namibia is the direct responsibility of the United Nations until that nation attains true national independence. We must also reaffirm that SWAPO has been recognized by the Assem- bly as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people and that its struggle is supported by us. 79. The e is no doubt about Pretoria's manoeuvres to transfer power to puppet groups in order to n~o-colonize Namibia and thereby maintain its domination and exploi- tation of that nation. Nor is there any doubt about the transnational economic interests which continue illegally to exploit the people and natural resources of Namibia in defiance of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. It is equally clear that the Reagan Administration .insists on opposing and treating as enemies peoples which are struggling to attain or maintain their true independen~e and is denying the representativeness and legitimacy of the liberation movements. 80. There is ample evidence of SWAPO's mature posi- tion, its faith in the United Nations, its readiness to en- gage in dialogue and to accept a cease-fire. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is proof of that, and the international community, particularly the non-aligned movement, has demanded, and continues to demand, that that resolution, which was so difficult to arrive at, be im- plemented without delay or modification. 82. That racist strategy is aimed also at dissociating the United Nations from the future of Namibia and manip- ulating the contact group in favour of giving recognition and legitimacy to South Africa's illegal position. Actually, South Africa, by resorting to the use of force and appeal- ing to the strategic interests of the United States, is now attempting to impose its version of peace on southern Af- rica by distorting Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and, thus, the United Nations. 83. We therefore reaffirm the inadmissibility of the uni- lateral racist measures taken during the period of the talks on a negotiated settlement in Namibia, to the detriment of the Namibian people and of SWAPO, and in violation of the well-known resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. It should never be forgotten that the parties to the conflict, as reaffirmed by the General As- sembly in resolution 35/277 J, are South Africa, the ag- gressor, on the one hand, and on the other the Namibian people under the leadership of its sole, legitimate repre- sentative, SWAPO, supported by the United Nations, which is directly responsible for the Territory until its genuine independence. 84. In recent days SWAPO has once again displayed its genuine readiness to engage in dialogue and its willing- ness to arrive at a jus!: and complete peace on the march to independence. We hope that this flexibility will be echoed within the framework established by the vast majority of members of the international community so as to guaran- tee for Namibia independence and a Government reflect- ing the _popular will of the Namibian people. We remain convinced that flexibility and negotiation are praisewor- thy, but only as long as they are genuine, are not dictated by outside interests, and are shared by all parties to the conflict. It was precisely because we consider dialogue to be necessary that we became the bearers of the peace pro-' posal of the Salvadorian patriots in the search for a politi- cal solution to Central American problems. 85. We believe that neither the United Nations nor the United Nations Council for Namibia, as the Administer- ing Authority of the Territory, under the presidency of Mr. Paul Lusaka of Zambia, which has been doing such laudable work, can divorce itself from that responsibility until the right of the people of Namibia to independence, sovereignty and self-determination has been fully exer- cised. We must remain alert to ensure that the enemies of the liberation struggles of peoples do not impose a condi-. tional solution, as was attempted in our case in the final' days of the Samoza dictatorship. Any political solution must be just and must represent the true interests of the Namibian people and SWAPO. 94. Meanwhile, we note with satisfaction that this inten- sive repression has in no way weakened or slackened the determination of the Namibian people or its ardour in its legitimate struggle for the restoration of its inalienable rights, a struggle which not only compels our admiration but also imposes on us the obligation to give unreserved support until the final triumph of that struggle, the out- come of which has in any case never been in the slightest 86. In conclusion, we reaffirm our total and complete doubt. ' . solidarity with our brothers in SWAPO, as well as with the front-line States and all peoples struggling for true 95. As an international organization which has the pri- and final independence. . mary responsibility for Namibia and the Namibian peo- 88. After South Africa was stripped of its Mandate over South West Africa in 1966, the Pretoria Government has continued with impunity its illegal occupation of Namibian territory, whose natural resources it is pillaging out- rageously. Furthermore, it is engaging in repressive and aggressive action, both inside the Territory and in inde- pendent neighbouring countries. 89. Such a negative attitude provides proof, if proof were needed, that the South African regime has no intention whatsoever of accepting international decisions or of co- operating in the implementation of the basic Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which remains the immu- table basis of any peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. 90. That resolution is a very important gain for the Namibian people, for African countries and for the inter- national community as a whole, with the support of all the members of the Security Council. That resolution is indeed an irreplaceable gain, the implementation of which is consequently incumbent upon the United Nations, which is solely responsible for the Territory of Namibia until its complete independence. 91. All the States Members of the Organization, particu- larly' those which have the political, economic and 'mili- tary Il)eans of exerting pressure on South Africa, are duty-bound to remain faithful to resolution 435 (1978), and neither to tolerate nor to do anything in the future that could constitute an obstacle to the complete, faithful and urgent implementation of the. Council's resolution. 92. Any delay, whatever the scruples invoked to justify it, only serves to prolong unnecessarily the suffering of the Namibian people, which for decades not only has been subjected to a colonial regime which the interna- tional community has unreservedly repudiated, buc is suf- fering from the horrors of the racist policy of apartheid, a policy which constitutes an intolerable affront to human dignity. 93. The repression being inflicted upon the Namibian people in these conditions, disturbing echoes of which reach our ears, has reached a point which the Generetl Assembly can no longer tolerate without shouldering a share of the responsibility for it in the eyes of history. 97. While deploring the obstacles which are still pre- venting the Security Council from assuming its respon- sibilities, we consider that those Powers which are the only ones that possess the means of exerting effective pressure on South Africa should use those means without delay and unequivocally, not only to halt once and for all the aggressive, murderous actions of the racist Pretoria re- gime against Namibia's neighbouring countries and partic- ularly against the sovereign rights of the Angolan people, whose territory has been violated in an unprovoked fash- ion on several occasions, but also to prevail upon the South African Government to permit the people of Namibia to attain independence and sovereignty as soon as possible within the framework of constitutional institu- tions established in conditions which provide them with all the necessary guarantees inherent in full and unre- served, sovereignty. 98; The Western Powers in the contact group continue to maintain the only still viable bridge between the inter- national com.nunity and the Pretoria regime. In spite of the vicissitudes of such a thankless mission, both for those who are carrying it out and those who against all hope expect results from it, we are ready to welcome with due warmth both the sincere efforts which may be made in this endeavour and the decisive results which may be achieved by 1982 at the latest, with a view to the total independence and territorial integrity of Namibia. 99. .I :should like to pay a very well deserved tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia and particularly to its President, Mr. Paul Lusaka, for the hard work they have continually done to ensure that the Namibian people assUmes its full rights as soon as possible and that in the mean time all the necessary measures are taken to safe- guard its national interests and to end the repression of which it is t~day an innocent victim. 100. In the light of the eport of the Council for Namibia, the General Assembly, if it wishes to do useful work, should call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the troops and the administration of the South African regime from the Territory of Namibia, which would at the same time make possible the ending of the bloody repression being inflicted upon the Nami- bian people and the repeated aggression and murderous acts committed against the neighbouring countries, partic- ularly Angola, which is bearing the brunt of the burden. 101. The Namibian people will thus be ablf" to recover its independence and obtain international guarantees for its unity and its territorial integrity, including Walvis Bay. It would also, with the assistance of the United Nations, be able to elect its constituent assembly so that it could have the institutions it needs, with respect for human rights, particularly in all the areas of the fundamental freedoms which would guarantee free choice to its cit- izens.

Fifteen years have passed since 1966, when the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI) terminating South Africa's Mandate over Namibia. Ten years have passed since the Interna- tional Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on 21 June 1971,1 in which it held that South Africa's Mandate over Namibia had been validly terminated by the General Assembly. Three years have passed since 1978, when the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) endorsing the United Nations plan of action for the independence of Namibia. 104. In the 15 years since the termination of South Af- rica's Mandate, hundreds of resolutions have been adopted, either by consensus or by overwhelming major- ities, in this Assembly and other international organiza- tions, movements and bodies, all calling for an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. 105. In the 15 years since the United Nations decided that the occupation of Namibia was illegal, the process of decolonization has brought self-determination and inde- pendence to almost all of Africa and most other parts of the world. These independent and sovereign States now participate here as equal Members of the United Nations. Only Namibi~., for whose independence we in the United Nations have striven for so long and so hard, has been denied its rightful place in the Assembiy. All the United Nations decisions on Namibia have been to no avail. South Africa has shown blatant disregard for them all. It not only deserves but also rightly receives our condemna- tion. 106. Without a doubt, we can confidently say that the independence of N"mibia is one objective that.every Gov- ernment represented in the Assembly supports. The case against South Africa is both damning and irrefutable and has been presented ably by speaker after speaker in this debate. The question, then, is: what is the United Nations doing to right this injustice? In my delegation's view, the immediate and unqualified implementation of resolution 435 (1978) will right this terrible wrong. 107. What is this resolution 435 (1978)? It endorses the United Nations plan of action; which is a detai.led blue- print as to how the process of Namibian self-determina- tion would be supervised by the United Nations. The plan pro~'ides for a cease-fire, the establishment of a demi- litarized zone, the deployment of UNTAG ~md the holding of free and fair elections under the control and supervi-. sion of the United Nations. This plan has the support of the Security Council and the States Members of the United Nations. South Africa has also accepted this plan. But for three years now the international community has been patiently waiting for the implementation of the plan. 108. Why has this plan not been implemented? The plan has not been implemented because South Africa has reneged on its agreement to support it. Since its adoption, as in the years preceding it, South Africa has raised one 109. It is public knowledge that the United Nations plan of action was conceived by five Western countries, or the contact group, consisting of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the :United· States. These five Western countries have the pri- mary responsibility for the implementation of the United Nations plan. 110. Why do these five countries have this special re- sponsibility? First, they have a paternal duty to implement their conception. Secondly, they possess the political and economic influence and clout to alter, or to melt, the in- transigence of South Africa. Thirdly, as proponents of the doctrine of peaceful change, they must ensure that it suc- ceeds in Namibia. If the process of peaceful change fails, the people of Namibia will have no option but te intensify their armed struggle to achieve their liberation. The West must not forget that the alternative to peaceful change is not acquiescence to the strtus quo: it is a change by vio- lent means. 111. My next question is: what has the contact group done to implement this plan? 112. In search of an answer to that question, we turned to and examined closely the statement made by the repre- sentative of Canada on behalf of the contact group in the 67th meeting. In that statement he pointed out that the Foreign Ministers of the contact group met in New York on 24 September this year and decided to relaunch their negotiations on Namibia. For my delegation it is a matter of regret that these negotiations have' been in suspense since the faiiure of the pre-implementation meeting held at Geneva last January. In our view, precious time has been Jost. 113. We understand that the contact group is now pre- sentinga .prop'osal for three stage~ of.negotiations which will, it is hoped, lead to the implementation of the United Nations plan of action. We welcome this new initiative, hut with a certain amount of scepticism and caution. We _re sceptical because our hopes for the independence of Namibia have been !aised and dashed so many times over so many years. We wonder if South Africa's intentions are sincere. Is this another attempt by South Africa to buy more time and entrench itself further in Namibia? Is this another attempt to pacify an indignant international com- munity? 114. We are at the same time cautious. because con- stitutional proposals are being made. We have been as- sured by the contact group that they have not attempted to write a constitution for Namibia, that this is the task of I the Namibian constituent assembly. We trust that the con- . tact group will adhere strictly to this pledge. We further hope that this exercise will not result in amending the United Nations plan of action. What is wrong is the atti- tude of the Government of South Africa. It is therefore not the plan but the attitude of that Government which needs to be altered. We would also stress that the right to decide how independent Namibia shall be constituted and governed cannot be prejudged or preordained. That right 116. Namibia will be free one day. For historic reasons, the United Nations repres,':nts for the people of Namibia the only source of legitimacy. If the United Nations fails in this unique responsibility, a very high price will be paid by the Namibians and all of us present here.

Before I call on the next speaker, I have a painful duty te perform. It is with deep regret that I must announce to the members of the General Assembly the sudden death this morning of Mr. Juan Arango, Ambassador Extraordi- nary and Plenipotentiary, represent&tive of Colombia to the United Nations. 118. On behalf of the Assembly, I wish to express my most sincere condolences to the Colombian delegation and ask it to convey our sympathy to the family of the deceased.

It is sad news we have just heard. I wish to take this. opportunity to express on behalf of the Congolese delegation our deep condolences to the delegation of Colombia on the death of Mr. Arango. 120. The position which has been expressed many times by the People's Republic of the Congo on the question of Namibia is well known. Our Mini"ster for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Pierre Nze, reaffinned that position again in Septem- bel, at the 5th meeting of the eighth emergency special session. We shall therefore further explain some of those views in the light of recent developments on the question. 121. After many years, the cause of the Namibian peo- ple continues to find an ever-increasing echo in interna- tional public opinion. That reflects the deep awareness which is emerging throughout the world day after day on that question as a whole. 122. Since the time which South Africa believes it is gaining clearly favours the Namibian people, it has be- come practically impossible, even for the regime in Pre- toria, to deny to Namibia its right to self-detennination and independence. The advantages of such a development rest first and foremost with the Namibian people, which, under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole legitimate libera- tion movement, has been waging an heroic struggle for many years to remind the world that its future indepen- dence will not result from a charter granted by the op- pressors but from the requirements of the progress of his- tory. . 123. For its part, the United Nations can also consider itself to be the important architect of the fundamental rights of the Namibian people, by dint of the Declaration 125. Thus it can be seen that law and fact should long since have led to their natural results, all to the benefit of Namibia and its people. But it would be necessary, in such a case, to reckon without the arrogance of the oc- cupying Power, South Africa, whose clearest role, so far, has been nothing but creating obstacles, following a logic which wholly points to the fundamental illegality and the bad faith Which have led to its persistent occupation of Namibia. 126. Needless to say, in the view of t.~.e delegation of the People's Republic of the Congo, the situation of obstructionism which currently prevails Ca.i only be ex- plained as what must be called "manoeuvres" on the part of South Africa Wilth, unfortunately, the avowed com- plicity of certain Powers. Since last January, those ma- noeuvres have taken the form of sabotaging the Geneva meeting which was supposed to decide on the practical modalities for implementing Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 127. It is clear that South Africa, encouraged by the sit- uation which in some countries-and not the least impor- tant ones-was one of confrontation and armed revolt, did not hesitate to speculate on such a climate, sure that it could play zealous allies in the defence of what it calls the "common cause of the West". 128. Rathr: than subscribing to the official commit- ments that it had entered into under the negotiating pro- cess of the United Nations plan of action, South Africa was able to take advantage of the concern and understand- ing produced by the needs of a certain "global strategic consensus". And it worked, for Pretoria was able to gain acceptance for its. idea of constitutional guarantees as a necessary counterpart to the independence of Namibia, as if the independence and sovereignty of a people could ever be balanced against the preservation of the privileges of its oppressors. 129. I should like, therefore, to express from this ros- trum the doubts of the Congo with regard to steps which so closely espouse the racist philosophy on which rest the administrative, economic and social structures of white minority power in southern Africa. 130. Such steps, aimed at obtaining in advance more constitutional guarantees for the white minority, if taken by the Western Powers of the contact group, would mark their express contribution to the consolidation and per- petuation of a social, political and economic regime based on inequality and would entail unprecedented violations of the very constitutions of those Western States. 131. In addition, the procedure to which the five West- ern countries resort is basically in violation of the essen- tial principle of good faith in negotiations, and at the same time it unpleasantly confirms certain practices; re- 132. The five Western countries, ready to denounce the exclusive recognition of SWAPO by practically the whole international community, find, for example, that a "false intf,rpretation" has been given to the efforts of the contact group, as stated here last Friday [67th meeting] by the delegation which spoke in its name. But it is not, :that clear that those five countries express much concern over the implications, disconcerting to say the least, for Af- rican and international opinion of the quite exaggerated, unwarranted and at times enigmatic precautions which they use to convey to the Pretoria regime the requirements of credibility-something that regime really needs to im- prove its image as a respectable counterpart. We say this because of the particular interest which the People's Re- public of the Congo has with respect to the action under- taken by the contact group of Western countries on the independence of Namibia. My country wishes to follow and support those efforts, without departing from a posi- tion of caution which it has leamed Jrom it~ long years of experience at the United Nations concerning South African duplicity. 133. We thereore hope that true negotiations with true counterparts may finally give the Namibian people its freedom and it:; right to decide its own fate, without any interference. 134. With the same conviction, we wish to express here our high esteem for the United Nations Council for Namibia and its distinguished President, Mr. Lusaka of Zambia. whose dedication to and vigilance in the cause of the Ten;tory of Namibia have never, in our view, been la~king. 135. As for Africans, the resolve to support the people of Namibia in its just struggle will extend, if necessary, to sacrificing that which is most dear to us, sparing nei- ther blood nor the last remnants of our energy and our resources. The firmness of that commitment invalidates at the outset some of the arguments which are heard here that the Council for Namibia, whose assessments we shareo' cannot contribute anything useful to the quest for a negotiated settlement by submitting draft resolutions to the Assembly which contain "totally unrealistic demands" and by supporting the armed struggle of the Namibian people. Such a position is surprising even when those who have expressed it have come to accept the accusation formulated by South Africa against the United Nations and deliberately refuse to consider that the South African regime is clearly unfair and biased. 136. But the United Nations cannot afford to cast a de- corous veil over the behaviour of South Africa, which, just in the course of this year, has engaged.in unprece- dented vandalism in its relations with other States,. while at the same time submitting the Namibian people to fur- ther repression, arbitrariness and exploitation. 137. For, after the failure of the Geneva meeting, inter- national opinion realized that South Africa enjoyed im- punity and favours not only because of the three vetoes which in April spared it any risk of incurring the sanc- tions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter, but also when in August the racist and colonialist regime attacked 138. Such a selies of fortunate circumstances for the South African regime is by no means 8'\ accident. Geo- strategic considerations are not absent fj Jm the calcula- tions of those who coddle it. From that standpoint, the problem of decolonization, which is the essence of the Namibian question, is, in the eyes of some, subsidiary to the cold war which pits the Western world and its military organization; the' North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], against the sodalist world grouped within the Warsaw Treaty. It no longer even enters the mind of the most bellicose to imagine that such a people as the Nami- bian people even exists, or that it alone is most concerned about everything which touches upon its destiny. Hence, after the frenzied militarization of the Indian Ocean, it is coldly calculated to place the whole South Atlantic under the sway of the military empires. 139. Such a context lt~aves us no illusions as to the readiness of certain States, pern1anent members of the Se- curity Council, to be really concerned about observance of the provisions of Council resolution 418 (1977), estab- lishing an arms embargo against South Africa. Therefore, as was stressed by the Special Committee on tne Situation with regard to the Implemen:ation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, it has become urgent for the Security Council to envisage the adoption of new measures to strengthen, and widen the scope of, resolution 418 (1977) in order to make it more effective and, more comprehensive. 140. The future Namibian State, like Zimbabwe before it, will have a place in the OAU and in the non-aligned movement, which excludes its belonging to any camp and hence allegiance to rival military blocs·. The DAU Assem- bly of Heads of State and Government, which met at Nai- . robi in July, expressed a position .in that regard which is essentially reflected in one of the draft resolutions pre- sented to this Assembly by the United Nations Council for Namibia, namely, that the Namibian question is not related to the problems of East-West relations, but is es- sentially a decolDnization question. 141. The Namibian people being thus the standard against which any initiative dealing with Namibia must be measured? it will be understood that while we look to the negotiating process envisaged in the decision, on 24 Sep- tember ~ast, by the Foreign Ministers of the five Western countries of the contact group, it is a priori difficult for us not to mistrust South Africa, like the ancient Greeks, even when bearing gifts or showing signs of friendship. 142. We need only cite the persistence of the policy of apartheid as applied by the racist and colonial administra- tion installed at Windhoek as an extra illustration of the causes of that mistrust. Some puppet leaders of the so- called Democratic Turnhalle Alliance have perceived its: fatal effect so well, from the perspective of the elections envisaged by the United Nations. that they are practically imploring Pretoria fi"j)t to insist too much on exporting its apartheid system to Namibia, for fear that this would cost them the elections. 143. Time is running out for Pretoria and its minions. Apartheid is not only a group of texts; it is also a state of mind and a tested practice which all those who owe their 145. First and foremost, there is the problem of the ter- ritorial integrity of Namibia. No deCision, no legal preceol dents can render acceptable the dismantling of Namibia, which for us definitively includes Wal~ris Bay, the Pen- guin Islands and other islands off the Namibian coast. Likewise, we cannot in any way accept the completely illegal decision by South Africa to extend its territorial sea and to proclaim an economic zone detrimental to Namibia. . 146. Lastly. South Africa has impressively strengthened its military presence in the Territory by creating there nu- meroqs new bases for its forces, now estimated at approx- imately 100,000 men. This deployment of forces, whose raison d'etre one cannot really see if South Africa really wishes to grant the Namibian people its right to self-de- termination and independence, is being justified by the acts of forced expulsion of which many Namibians living near the northern border of the country are the victims. 147. It is quite unthinkable that those Namibians, iike those who have long been exiled or imprisoned for politi- cal reasons, should not be able to play their proper role in the process of their own country's accession to indepen- dence. Thus, the dismantling of this South African oc- cupation army and the repeal of ali the so·cal!ed internal security laws must in our view be considered as priorities among the measures which are to be envisaged by tbe negotiators to restore a climate of confidence and which should not be dem:.mded only of S\VAPO and the United Nations. 148. The cause of the Namibian people, whose univ~r­ sality we alluded to at the begmning of our statement, calls for our support, not solely as an historical and legal phenomenon but as a basic human cause that has provoked a challenge which disarms a major part of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such a challenge is neither acceptable nor tenable;' it di- rectly questions more than one value, more than one prin- ciple proclaimed here, particularly in the Charter, which we all support. 149. In any case, while this year of 1981 has turned out to be a year of fools for all those who hoped for the advent of a new era of peace, progress and prosperity in Namibia, we have not failed to recognize-in various important initiatives such as the Special Declaration on Namibia, adopted by the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa, held at Paris from 20 to 27 May 1981,5 the Panama Declaration and Programme of Action on Namibia adopted by the United Nations Coun- cil for Namibia at its extraordinary plenary meeting held at Panama City on 5 June 1981 [A/36/24. para. 222], as well as the eighth emergency special session in Septem- ber-some encouraging· breakthroughs which are a credit to human dignity. 150. In this connection, it is good that, whatever the apartheid regime may think, the United Nations, tbe law- ful administering Power, has placed itself in this affair on 151. in this context, we share tlle view of the Secretary- General, who stated in his report on the work of the Organization that: "These and other serious violatictls . . . which affect large numbers of people cannot be toler- ated or excused, whatever the circumstances and wherever they occur, and the United Nations would be failing in its essential mission if it proved unable to deal with suc~ violations in an effective manner". [A/36/1, sect. VIII.]

I should like, ftrst of all, to asso- ciate· the delegation of Zaire with the c;ondolences to the delegation of Colombia on the sudden loss sustained by that friendly country. 153. The question of Namibia which we are considering once again today is no more nor less than the question of the responsibility of the United Nations vis-a-vis a Terri- tory over which it exercises the iiuthonty of administering power and which it should lead to independence as soon as po:ssible. 154. This is first of all a general responsibility, by vir- tue of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), which contains the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Indeed, all the major colonial Territories have become independent. Why not Namibia? Why are there so many difficulties and so many obstacles with regard to Namibia, that window through which we can glimpse and observe the prison world of South Africa? Is it because of that Territory's proximity to South Africa? Is it because there are those who would make the Territory of Namibia into an advance post for' South· Africa's defence system, a post whose eventual fall, it is judged, would surely announce that of the cit- adel of apartheid? Is it possible to protect that citadel from a political, legal or moral point of view, or from that of the principles of the Charter? In· the name of what Charter principle or what principle of international law can one protect or defend the system of apartheid? These are some of the questions we are entitled to ask ourselves when we recall the prevarications, hesitations, delaying tactics, ploys and subterfuges of all kinds and, in fact, all the difficulties and obstacles that have been strewn in the path of Namibian independence. 155. The responsibility of the United Nations is also a special one, by virtue of the implementation of the settle- ment plan for the Namibian question accepted by the General Assembly and approved by the Security Council, which is the supreme body entrusted with the mainte- nance of international peace and security, in its·resolution 435 (1978). The adoption by the Security Council of that settlement plan was based, I recall, upon two convictions that are unanimously if not universally shared: that as the successor of the League of Nations, the United Naticns, under General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), resumed the administration of the Mandated Territory of South West Africa because the administration of that Territory had been conducted in a manner contrary to the Mandate, the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal ~c­ laration of Human Rights; secondly, the failure to carry 157. In the letter ~nt by the representatives of the five members of the Western contact group to the President of the Security Council, they stated, "The objective of our prcposal is the independence of Namibia in accordance willi resolution 3f~5 (1976), adopted unanimously by the Security Council Ud 30 January 1976".6 I shall not go into the content of resolution 385 (1976), other than to say that in it the Council "Reiterates its demand that South Atrica take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal, in accordance with Security Council resolutions 264 (1969), 269 (1969) and 366 (1974), nf its illegal administration maintained in Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Namibia with the assistance of the United Nations." This resolution also stipulates that lite Security Council 'c'Decides to remain seized of the matter and to meet on or before 31 August 1976 for the purpose of review- ing South Africa's compliance with the terms of the present resolution and, in the event of non-compliance by South Africa, for the purpose of considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter of the United Nations." 158. It will soon be six ye8lI'S since South Africa began its policy of failing to observe the provisions of th&t reso- lution, and the Security Council has not effectively con- sidered the appr.Jpriate measures to be taken under the Charter. 159. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the proposed settlement the following is stated: Bearing in mine Jteir responsibilities as members of :he Security Council, the Governments . . . ". . . have dr. . '1 up a propoSal ~: I the settlement of the Namibian quesljon designed to bring about a transi- tion to independence during 1978 within a framework 161. There are grounds for believing that the people of Namibia would rapidly achieve recognition of their funda- mef 1 rights were they fIrst to accept certain social, po- litical and economic options that are not in conflict with South Africa's interests. Is this in the spirit and k;~tf:- of resolution 1514 XV), of the veclaration on the Prepara- tion of Societies for Life in Peace [resolution 33/73] and of the principles of the Charter? All societies founded on law and democracy, however, must offend the Pretoria re- gime, which is the very one that distorts the meaning of law and institutionalizes arbitrariness and anti-democracy. 162. There i'" also the question of legal and moral re- sponsibility, 't;g~~l first of aJI, because this is a matter of applying in r- T .]~nibia the principles of the Charter and of international '8.W and the resolutions of the General As- sembly and the Security Council, which commit the inter- national community vis-a-vis this Territory. It is for the body that alone has authority as the administering Power-namely, the.United Nations, in accordance with General ASSembly resolution 2145 (XXI)-to apply those principles and resolutions in the proper interests of the Namibian people, of which it is the guarantor. It is not without interest to recall that resolution 2145 (XXI) was adopted unanimously and without any reservation, and certainly no permanent member of the Security Council voted against it. At all times we should recall that Namibia has no other protector but the prih'-lples of the Charter, international law and the resolutions of the United Na- tions. And if the United Nations does not shoulder its responsibilities, are we to leave this people-I say "peo- pie", not the Territory-as a prey to the vultures of rac- ism and slavery? 163. There is a moral responsibility, too, because a pep- pIe in distress appeals to other peoples on earth meeting within the United Nations to help it to throw off the chains of slavery, recover its own identity, affirm its per- sonality, live like other peoples on earth, prosper and make its contribution to the attainment of the common objectives of humanity which it has set itself through the United Nations, and to make the gift of its own identity to the cosmo-eulture and cosmo-civilization. In the name of what principle and by what justification are we going to, or do we wish to, refuse the aid and assistance it seeks? 165. The progress of science and technology which has broken down the frontiers of nations should have given all men a h<'meland known as "humanity". Humanity is not an abstract notion; it has become a commu'1ity of des- tiny through the expansion of man's field of knowledge, a community of destiny which has been forged through and in two world wars and which, since Hiroshima, has also become a community of life or death. 166. The threats of annihilation of the human being that we are right now witnessing have a genetic virtue for hu- manity and transfer abstract ideas into concrete reality. But there are factors which contravene these tendencies and the planetarization that is occurring in and through technology, in and through the community of destiny, which seem to be something not brought about at the level of humanity, which is divided and torn apart into nations, empires and races; divided by the will for su- premacy, hegemonism and racism. It must be agreed that where this process of planetarization is progressing through political, cultural and racial hegemony, as in South Africa, and through the desire to homogenize inter- ests and needs, humanity is regressing. But here we are faced with a crisis of humanity-humanity which has not succeeded in becoming humanity, in the face of a crisis in the world yet unable to become a world, in the face of a crisis of man still impotent in terms of becoming a man. History will remember the contribution of the policy of apartheid and the sys.tem of government established in South Africa, which has been extended in Namibia to the point of dehumanization. 167. When we should all be united in the implementa- tion of resolution 1514 (XV) in Namibia, the question of this Territory has become a source of dissent, distrust and instability in international relations. Who of us is unaware of the grave consequences at this time of confrontation? In our view. that is the substance and certainly at least one of the thorny aspects of this debate on this problem. 168. In posing in an untimely way today, directly or in- directly, implicitly or explicitly, the problem of political options of Namibia after independence, there is no doubt that people are putting the cart before the horse and dis- torting the substance of the problem. Still worse, an at- tempt is being made to inject divisive elements or factors and to fan tensions and dissension, fIrst among Nami- bians, whose principal and collective responsibility is log- ically to eliminate the main'contradiction which pits them against the foreign occupier and whose priority is to be free and independent. Then there is a contradiction be- tween the defenders of imperialist ideologies, because if the preliminary condition is for Namibia to be yellow or 169. The problem of Namibia does not lie in that area. As I have had occasion to say before, we are convinced that by leaving it up to the people of Namibia to decide freely on its own future through free elections under United Nations supervision, it will prove to the world, as others.have done in the recent past, the extent of its polit- ical maturity and its savoir-faire; in a word, everything pf which a people is capable when it is working in freedom. 170. Within the framework of the application of Se- curity Council resolution 435 (1978), we can certainly in good faith, and undoubtedly quite rightly, invoke or intro- duce the question of proper measures for establishing trust. But this does not exclude caution, because in this particular case, as between the occupier and the occupied, the guilty party and the victimt. the powerful and the weak, the oppressed Namibian and the oppressive and racist South African, must we ask in good faith that the proper measures be taken to establish or inspirr trust? Who is to inspire trust in whom? What is the direct threat represented by Namibia and SWAPO to South Africa? What would be the object sought by the Namibian people and SWAPO in threatening the Pretoria regime? 171. Is the Namibians' only right to make concessions and be treated as eternal minors because God, Providence or chance saw to it that they were born in Namibia or in Africa and covered them with a skin the colour of which they did not choose? 172. The Pretoria regime must without doubt-if not primarily, at least also-take measures that could estab- . lish or inspire trust, first of all among the Namibians and secondly in the international community, by accepting a cease-fire and undertaking to accept the holding of free elections under United Nations control; by accepting the withdrawal of its troops and its illegal administration from Namibia; by agreeing that Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and other islands are an integral part of Namibia; by promising to respect after the Territory accedes to independence the political independence, the national unity and territorial integrity of Nan.ibia, and particula:ly, the sovereignty of the choices freely made by the people of Namibia, by ceasing to favour one political party over other groupings through rigged, manipUlated and illegal elections; by co-operating with the United Nations in its efforts to bring about the immediate independence of Namibia; by ceasing to use the territory Qf Namibia as a base for attacking other neighbouring States; by ceasing to lay down preconditions which remir.d one of the time when the black man had a right to nothing but contempt; and by ceasing to attempt to direct Namibia's affairs from a control tower in Pretoria-in a word, by applying with- out nostalgia and in good faith resolution 435 (1978) and the efforts of the United Nations and the international community to bring about a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. 173. We have noted with interest the declarations or. the initial favourable reactions of the parties concerned with 174. The question of Namibia is first of. all one of decolonization and, secondly, one of illegal occupation which defies the authority of the United Nations and undermines its credibility, particularly for peoples like that of Namibia, which has only the United Nations, the rule of law and the norms of international ethics with which to defend itself. 175. In Africa, we are all in favour of the emergence in Namibia of a democratic society on the basis of majority rule, respect for human rights, respect for law and the protection of the rights and interests of all citizens, irre- spective of race, religion, philosophical outlook or politi- cal opinion. On that basis the Security Council and the five countries of the contact group should be able to bring together all the necessary conditions for a resumption of negotiations for the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), while at the same time maintaining a firm, steadfast attitude towards South Africa. In the opinion of the delegation of Zaire, there is no other choice if w-e are to safeguard peace in the southern part of the African continent. 176. Towards the end of his life, in tears over the plight of his country, Hosea Kutako, who sparked the liberation struggl~ of his country-a struggle which, as he himself had written, he was not destined to see triumph- declared: "0 Lord, help us who are condemned to wander endlessly. Help us who have been placed in Africa and have nowhere else to go, no other home. Give us back our country." 177. That prayer of Hosea Kut-ako, in the name of his compatriots, is addressed to each of us, to tb.e United Na- tions, to those who possess the key to the riddle-that is, the permanent members of the Security Council. Implaca- ble history will judge us strictly in accordance with the answer we give to Hosea I~utako and his compatriots, if we fail to understand that the dignity of all men is flouted and reduced to naught when the humanity of any human being is denied. 178. We all live in societies which we want to be societies ruled by law, because we feel we are civilized. We live in a world where a legal order governs relations among States and within each State. But the ultimate goal of right and law is to ensure the prospering of man. What then is the law in South African terms? What is the South African right that degrades man? What is this society that 179. The international community is thus duty bound to draw upon all its energies to uphold the decision that all States in the world, without distinction, took-in a remarkable spirit of co-operation in the service of man- kind-by putting an end to South Africa's Mandate over Namibia. If the international community fails in its efforts, sooner or later the African people of Namibia will find in its intrinsic values, which are also those of the whole of mankind, the law which will permit it to defy and cast down the values of enslavement and humiliation that are imposed upon it. This people has been extraor- dinarily patient, and its patience has been exploited as a weakness to exacerbate its internal contradictions and to divide it so as to postpone independence. But this is noth- ing but a policy of desperation, for the day will come when the patience of all the sons of Namibia will be exhausted and when the common denominator of all the sons of Namibia will be impatience-impatience to be free. And then there will no longer be any contradictions to exploit, because on that day there will be men and women-indeed, States-in Mrica and, I am sure, else- where in the world, that will be unable to refuse the appeal of the Namibian people as a whole for the ultimate assistance. We know it, we fee1 it, because we are sensi- ble people, which is why this debate is taking place here today. 180. The delegation of Zaire reaffirms its complete sup- port for SWAPO, the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people, and the legitimacy of the heroic strug- gle being waged with all means at its disposal by the courageous people of Namibia, for its independence with respect for its dignity and for the territorial integrity of its homeland. 181. I cannot conclude my statement without paying a tribute to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his remarkable contribution to the efforts of the interna- tional community and the United Nations to bring the people of Namibia to independence. I wish in particular to commend the efforts of Mr. Paul Lusaka and the United Nations Council for Namibia, over which he pre- sides, for their patient but difficult work carried out with such praiseworthy devotion to help the United Nations to discharge honourably the responsibilities it has assumed before the world for the fate of Namibia. 182. It is with particular interest that we are following the efforts of the five Western countries of the contact group to create the necessary, propitious conditions for respect for, and implementation by all parties of.. Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). We ven- ture to hope that they \viII coritinue their-efforts widi the special sense of urgency dictated by the sufferings and martyrdom of the Namibian people. I 183. The international community, through the United Nations, has no interest in pre:;iding over a situation of violence in Namibia and South Africa. That is why we share the view of the spokesman for the 10 member States of the European Community, who declared on 20 November at the 67th meeting that violence can only serve to postpone and impede the achievement of our common objective, which is the independence of Namibia by 1982, in accordance with a precise timetable·of ar- rangements to that end. We share their appeal to all par-

It is my sad duty to commence by associating my delegation and myself with the sentiments of sorrow at the untimely passing of Mr. Arango, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Colombia, and with the expression of condolence to the Government and delegation of Colombia, as well as to the bereaved family. 185. The international community and all peace-loving countries have been seriously concerned about the situa- tion in Namibia. Further delay in taking appropriate measures to remedy the situation would undoubtedly cause further loss of life and property and endanger the peace and security of countries in the area. The longer the delay in the exercise of the right to self-determination by the Namibian people, the greater the threat to interna- tional peace and security. 186. My delegation strongly condemns the illegal pres- ence of South Africa in the Territory of Namibia and de- mands that it be withdrawn immediately so as to enable the Namibian people to exercise freely their right of self- determination and to enable Namibia to become a full Member of this Organization in furtherance of the princi- ple of universality. 187. The eighth emergency special session of the Gen- eral Assembly, on Namibia, recently focu:3ed world atten- tion on this important problem, which has been with the United Nations since its inception. In this regard, the le- gitimate rights and aspirations of the Namibian people re- main thwarted by South Africa, which illegally occupies Namibia and which uses the Territory as the springboard for aggression against its neighbours. Thailand's consis- tent policy is to demand the cessation of South Africa's illegal acts and its complete withdrawal from the entire Territory of Namibia_without further delay, so as to en- able the Namibian people to exercise their right to self- determination. Since Thailand has scrupulously abided by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this question and has voluntarily imposed for several years a trade em- bargo against Pretoria, my delegation voted in favour of General Assembly resolution ES-8/2 and the call for the comprehensive mandatory sanctions ag~inst South Africa. 188. It remains the earnest desire of my delegation to see a peaceful settlement in Namibia on the basis of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and Se- curity Council resolution 435 (1978), as well as other rel- evant United Nations resolutions, at the earliest oppor- tunity. 189. However, since Namibia is still subjected to illegal occupation by South Africa, which has engaged in du- plicity and manoeuvres to thwart the free exercise of the right to self-determination, the Namibian people have been compelled to wage an armed struggle, under the rec- ognized leadership of SWAPO, in order to attain their freedom and independence in a united country enjoying full sovereignty over every part of its territory rmd its re- sources. 191. Furthermore, my delegation shares the concern of all peace-loving countries at the worsening situation in southern Africa, which seriously threatens international peace and security. It strongly condemns the aggressive acts committed by South Africa against the front-line States, including Angola. It gravely deplores the con- tinued defiance by Pretoria of the United Nations and the international community in their efforts to find a peaceful solution in Namibia. It continues to condemn in no uncer- tain terms the apartheid policy and shameful behaviour of South Africa, which violates all civilized norms and basic rules of international law. It resolutely rejects each and every design and pretension of South Africa to regain a stranglehold on NamIbia and to stille die fegitimate aspI-- rations of the Namibian people. The world community must, therefore, continue to exert every kind of pressure on South Africa in trying to arrest the deteriorating situa- tion, which could lead to a conflagration engulfing a large part of the African continent. That is why my dele- gation deeply regrets the fact that the Pretoria authorities have felt encouraged by their sympathizers, especially at the recent Security Council meetings, to pursue their law- less and reckless adventure with impunity. 192. Thailand wishes strongly to urge the Western con- tact group to redouble its efforts to bring about the un- conditional implementation in good faith of the United Nations plan on the basis of resolution 435 (1978). If a peaceful solution on the basis agreed upon by all parties is further delayed, then the alternative of an intensified armed struggle, under the recognized leadership of SWAPO, will gain credibility as the only viable solution. 193. Finally, my delegation wishes to pay an especially warm tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia for its dedicated efforts in discharging its responsibilities as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia and to its President, Mr. Paul Lusaka, for his inspired leadership in this regard. 194. Hr. BAYONA (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): In beginning my statement I wish to convey to the dele- gation of the sister Republic of Colombia our deepest condolences on the passing of Mr. Juan Arango. 195. My delegation has asked to speak to refer to the always painful problem afflicting the people of Namibia and to the support that its struggle for independence de- mands of the international community. 196. It would never be repetitive to condemn the prac- tice of apartheid which oppresses the Namibian people. 197. Peru. a country in which a multiracial society lives in harmony, joins in the international condemnation of the unjust oppression by the Pretoria regime of the Namibian people. We wish to express in the Assembly our uncondi- tional support for the self-determination of the Namibian people, for its inalienable right to independence and re- spect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as for its natural resources. 198. My country will always show solidarity with those struggling in the cause of freedom. This is proclaimed in 199. Peru, as a non-aligned country, fully identifies with the principles and objectives of the movement and therefore promotes respect for the self-determinatioJl of peoples and for the removal of all vestiges of colonialism. 200. This support, based on principIi given by' my country finds inspiration in the moral force and the pri- mary role of non-alignment in the quest for viable alter- natives for a definitive solution of this problem. In this context, Peru ~as supported and continues to support in the United Nations and in the non-aligned movement the efforts made by the international community to ensure that Namibia achieves independence. We consider that Se- curity Council resolution 435 (1978) provides a basic the- oretical and institutional framework and that its imple- mentation should receive early attention. 201. We should recall the visit to Lima during May this year of the consultative mission of the United Nations Council for Namibia. At that time Peru expressed its con- demnation of the illegal occupation :>f Namibia by South Africa in open defiance of the United Nations resolutions and of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971. 1' The South African regime must withdraw its administration from Namibia so that that Ter- ritory may accede to independence, and its territorial in- tegrity, which encompasses Walvis Bay, must be main- tained. 202. We wish to express our conviction that the cessa- tion of Namibia's occupation will be speeded up if coun- tries which have influence on South Africa bring effective pressure. to bear on it. In this context we also emphasize the role played by SWAPO, recognized by the United Nations as the sole legitimate representative of the Nami- bian people. 203. On this occasion, we wish to reiterate that Namibia is under the direct and special responsibility of the United Nations until it attains genuine self-determination and full independence has been granted to the people of the Terri- tory; and we reaffirm our support for the United Nations Council for Namibia as the only legal Administering Au- thority for Namibia until independence. We support its participation as a full member in specialized agencies and in international conferences organized by the United Na- tions. 204. I wish to conclude this statement by repeating the conviction of the Government of Peru that achievement of social justice in full respect for the fundamental rights of the individual is one of the most cherished aspirations of mankind. We therefore express our solidarity with the oppressed people of Namibia.

I wish on behalf of my delegation and on my own behalf to express our deepest condolences to the delegation of Colombia for the sudden and tragic death of Mr. Juan Arango of Colombia, who passed away today. 206. During this session, the United Natio.ns has wit- nessed with great pride and satisfaction the accession to independence and admission to the family of nations of the newly independent States of Vanuatu, Belize and Antigua and Barbuda. 208. Towards the close of 1980, the General Assembly witnessed an unprecedented international effort aimed at a peaceful transition to independence of the Territory of Namibia. In keeping with the direct responsibility that it had assumed for Namibia, the United Nations provided the leadership for that effort, which explored every ave- nue that might lead to an early implementatian of the United Nations resolutions. The hopes and expectations of the international community were so high that the sched- uled debate on the question of Namibia had to be postponed until the Geneva pre-implementation meeting was held, since it was argued that debate prior to the talks would provide South Africa with an excuse for delaying the settlement. As it turned out, South Africa needed no excuse from the General Assembly. Its determination to wreck the talks soon became evident when it decided uni- laterally to 'break them off in order to continue with its illegal occupation of the Territory. 209. As a result of the failure of the Geneva talks, a global consensus emerged, which called for the imposi- tion of sanctions by the Security Council on South Africa ~nder Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, In order to compel the racist regime to comply with the United Nations plan for Namibia. 210. It will be recalled that the Security Council there- fore considered the question of Namibia from 21 to 30 April 198F as a result of that consensus. However, despite the will of the international community in favour of imposing sanctions on South Africa, as clearly shown by the attendance of no less than 19 foreign ministers from four continents, the Council failed to act in confor- mity with its mandate and to impos.e sanctions on South Africa. Its failure was due to the triple veto cast by its three Western permanent members. 211.. As my delegation warned in the Security Council on 30 April,8 the vetoes against sanctions on South Africa only served to pve n~w confidenc~ to the racis! regime and thus strengthened its determination to continue its il- legal occupation of the Territory, to flout United Nations resolutions, to pursue its aggressive policies against neighbouring States and to step up repression in the Terri- tory of Namibia itself. 212. However, in vetoing the measures that were pro- posed in the Security Council, the three Western countries pleaded for more time and patience. They argued that, together with other members of the five Western coun- tries, they would apply their own means of pressure to compel South Africa to implement the United Nations plan for Namibia. 213. The developments in and around Namibia clearly deteriorated after the veto. The racist regime of South Afr rica stepped up its machinery of oppression in the Terri- tory. South Africa continued to pursue a policy of ruthless oppression and brutal repression, constantly increasing the arrests, detention and torture of the Namibian people, par- ticularly the members of SWAPO, for the sole purpose of wiping it out. Meanwhile, South Africa also continued its international manoeuvres aimed at gaining international recognition for the illegitimate puppet groups which it had installed in Namibia through an illegal internal settle- ment to facilitate its continued hold over the Territory. 214. South Africa has also intensified its military oc- cupation of the Territory and is using the Territory as a spring-board for launching constant armed attacks against neighbouring countries. In this regard, my delegation viv- ~dly r~calls tha~ the recent full-scale invasion of Angola, InvolVIng maSSIve deployment of troops and mercenaries and sophisticated military hardware, is but the most dra- matic illu~tration of South Africa's policy of destabilizing the front-hne States. The nature and the scale of this inva- sion marked a new and more ominous stage in the con- flict in southern Africa. 215. The purpose of South Africa's new policy towards ~he front-line States is well known. As my Minister stated iut:ing the general debate of this session: "It is clear that a major objective of the Pretoria re- gime is to create a Lebanon situation in southern Af- rica. In this sinister scheme, South Africa would play the role of Israel; the puppet renegade Jonas Savimbi would play the role of Major Saad Haddad; and the southern part of Angola would become the new south Lebanon. This scheme would provide a free hunting ground for the South Africans, a buffer zone from which they could permanently undermine the political a~d econo~ic stability of ~ngola. It would also pro- VIde a corrIdor through whIch the racist forces could attempt to destroy SWAPO militants and Namibian ref- ugees in generaL"[l4th meeting, para. 261.] 216. To mention but a few other illegal acts by the South African regime, it has also taken measures to un- dermine the territorial integrity of Namibia by annexing Walvis Bay and claiming sovereignty over the off-shore islands of Namibia. These acts have been rejected and declared illegal, null and void by the General Assembly. The racist regime has also persisted in the plunder of Namibia's natural resources in collusion with other for- eign economic interests in violation of the resolutions of the Assembly and Decree No. I for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia.4 217. The developments in the Territory of Namibia are disturbing and call for special attention by the Assembly. The racist regime of South Africa has not only. created a situation of total confrontation between itself and the ~amibian people, led by their sole authentic representa- tive, SWAPO, and supported by the United Nations, but has also committed a manifest breach of international peace and security. 218. In seeking a final solution to the question of Namibia, my delegation wishes to reiterate its position that the solution can only be realized through the imple- mentation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which is a compromise document produced by the West- ern contact group and accepted by the parties to the con- flict as the basis for a peaceful settlement in Namibia. 219.. My delegation, therefore, reiterates its position that the fIve Western countries bear collective responsibility for the continued suffering of the people of Namibia. They have a moral and political obligation to compel 221. My delegation also commends the front-line States which, against formidable odds, have maintained a stead- fast commitment to the cause of justice and freedom in southern Africa. 222. I wish also, on behalf of the Uganda delegation, to pay a tribute to the Secretary-General, the President of the United Nations Council f0r Namibia and the Special Rep- resentative of the Secretary-General for Namibia and members of the Council for Namibia for their tireless efforts in support of Namibian independence. 223. FinaIIy, my delegation wishes to reiterate its un- flinching support of and total solidarity with the strug- gling people of Namibia le.d by SWAPO, their sole au- thentic representative. It is our earnest hope that whatever the means, the cause of justice and freedom wiII triumph over the forces of oppression and exploitation. The day of victory is not far.

My delegation is happy to join other delegations that have paid a tribute to the work of the United Nations Council for Namibia and its President, Mr. Lusaka. We thank them for the great efforts that they have made in discharging the noble mandate entrusted to them by the United Nations. However, it is deeply regret- table that those efforts have been met with the stubborn resistance of ilie- racist Pretoria regime, which persists in occupying Namibia, in persecuting its people and in de- priving them of their right to self-determination and na- tional independence. 225. The situation reflects the very essence of the policy of racism practised by the white minority regime in South Africa. Extermination, genocide and terrorism are com- mon practices and the policy of apartheid is applied in a most barbarous manner against the militant people of Namibia, who are endeavouring to throw off the shackles of colonialism. 226. The situation is now clear. The racist Pretoria regime would not be able to continue its PQlicies without the constant political, economic and -iniIitary- support which it receives from the Western imperialist countries. That support has also taken the form of the use of the . triple veto in the Security Council, thus preventing the Council from taking a decision to impose sanctions against the racist regime in South Africa, in addition to the military, technological and scientific support and sup- port given in the nuclear weapons field. This support, in which the Zionist entity, a regime which is parallel to the racist South African regime, participates, encourages the Pretoria regime to continue its occupation of Namibia and to perpetrate crimes and attacks against neighbouring Af- rican countries, the most recent of which were the attacks against Angola and the occupation of part of its territory. The imperialist countries are trying through that support to South Africa to continue to plunder the resources of Namibia and to carry out their policy against the libera- tion movements of Africa. They are also trying to place obstacles in the way of the ambition of Africa to advance 228. The United Nations and all freedom- and peace- loving countries have had to intensify their efforts to help the people of Namibia, who are bravely struggling against colonial domination in order to achieve their national in- dependence and to live in freedom. 229. Armed struggle has demonstrated its validity in history. It is the only adequate way of eliminating colonial domination and regaining national independence. The re- sponsibility of the United Nations means that it support the front-line States, which have to deal with the attacks carried out on their borders by the racist regime·. 230. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, since its independence, has always condemned the occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa. We have always condemned the plundering being carried out by the Western countries and multinational corporations. We have always condemned the support given to the Pretoria regime by the imperialist States and their collaboration with the Zionist entity. We have always supported the efforts of the United Nations to put an end to the occupa- tion of Namibia, as we support binding sanctions against the racist regime. We have always stood shoulder to shoulder with the Namibian people and we wiII continue our support for their armed struggle, through their legiti- mate authentic representative, SWAPO, until their final triumph and the achievement of their national indepen- dence.

I would like, first of all, to associate myself with previous speakers to offer our condolences to the brother Govern- ment of Colombia on the death of Mr. Arango. 232. The problem of the Namibian people has had the attention of the international community and of the Gen- eral Assembly for many years. Since the beginning of this year we have witnessed many international activities intended to support the cause of Namibia and of its peo- ple struggling for freedom, self-determination and the· complete liberation of its territory. The Co-ordinating Bu- reau of Non-Aligned Countries held an extraordinary min- isterial meeting at Algiers last April, and the participants concluded that the illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa constituted a danger to in- ternational peace and security and appealed to the interna- tional community to fulfil its responsibility by taking steps to eliminate the threat to which that region is sub- jected by the racist practices of South Africa. 233. The General Assembly has discussed the Namibian question at the eighth emergency special session, which debated this very grave question only a few days before the beginning of the thirty-sixth session. The debate at the emergency special session demonstrated that the over- whelming majority of the international community sup- ports the just struggle of the Namibian people and desires to see that people achieve its full independence under the 234. Iraq and the Arab nation as a whole-which suffer from the presence of the Zionist entity, which has usurped the rights of the Palestinian people-having already suf- fe:t"ed from colonialism for a very long period of their history, join the Namibians in their just and legitimate fight for freedom, independence and sovereignty. Our country wishes to draw attention to the dangers of the multinational and transnational corporations which are supported by the imperialist countries and are doing ev- erything they can to prevent the attainment of indepen- dence and freedom by the people of Namibia. Iraq, to- gether with all the other Arab countries that are members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has decided to take steps to prevent any deliveries of pe- troleum to South Africa and to impose an embargo against the racist Pretoria regime. 235. The principal problem which the eighth emergency special session faced was that of deciding how to impose a comprehensive embargo against South Africa, in confor- mity with Chapter VII of the Charter. My delegation is of the view that such an embargo would be the most effec- tive means of exerting pressure on the racist regime of Pretoria so as to compel it to respect the decisions of the international community. In view of the fact that the Se- curity Council has failed to impose such an embargo owing to the position of the United States, the General Assembly should, now more than ever, take the necessary steps against the South African regime in order to support the Namibian people in its struggle fQr freedom and inde- pendence. 236. It is no secret that the central problem is the illegal milit~ occupation of Namibia by the South African re- gime. Such a state of affairs is unlawful, inhuman and inequitable and runs counter to the principles of the United Nations and of the international community. How- ever, that occupation persists, although 10 years have elapsed since the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion of 21 June 1971. 1 This is a sufficient motive for -armed· struggle against the regime of South Africa. 237. The legit~macy of the struggle of Namibia for inde- pendence under the leadership of SWAPO has been sup- ported by several resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. SWAPO has taken a legitimate position, whereas South Africa has adopted one that is not legitimate. This is the outcome of the advisory opin- ion of the International Court of Justice, which ruled that the continued presesce of the South African regime in Namibia is illegal and that it must withdraw immediately, from Namibia. That is why the States Members of the United Nations should recognize the illegal nature of the presence of South Africa in Namibia and refrain from dealings with that'·country in any form. 238. The South African regime constitutes_ ~he most ab- ject form of radal discrimination and apartheid, standing . against the progress of mankind and threatening peace and justice in the world. This represents an exceptional exam- 239. The United Nations must mobilize world opinion in order to prevent South Africa from setting up military bases in Namibia. It must put an end to the repression and terror practised by the racist regime against neigh- bouring African countries, such as Angola, which was subjected to a brutal military invasion by the racist regime of Pretoria in the very recent past and suffered great human and material damage. The Organization should also- put a stop to acts of repression and threats and at- tacks against Botswana, Mozambique ~md Zambia. 240. The ever more numerous arbitrary measures adopted by the racist regime of South Africa against the people of Namibia and the obstinacy of the Pretoria Gov- ernment in occupying that Territory illegally constitute a threat to peace and security in the region and throughout the world. 241. In conclusion, I should like to express our appre- ciation of the efforts of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We appeal once again to the international com- munity to lend its support to the heroic people of NaP1ibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, the sole au- thentic representative of the people of Namibia, in its struggle for freedom, self-determination and the complete liberation of its Territory.

We have just learned of the deatb of our friend and col- league, Mr. Juan Arango, represen.tative of Colombia. This has caused us great sadness. To his family, his Gov- ernment and his delegation, the Thnisian delegation ad- dresses its most profound condolences and its deepest sympathy. 243. As we take up once again the question of Namibia, which constitutes one of the main challenges to the au- thority, dignity and presti~e of the Organization, the Gen- eral Assembly again expresses the interest that it has con=- stantIy shown in finding a rapid solution to this problem in accordance with the legitimate aspirations of the brother people of Namibia. In so doing it responds to the deeply felt concern of the international community as a whole over the obstacles raised by South Africa in the road to decolonization enshrined in the Charter of the llnited Na- tions and the resolutions and declarations of the Organiza- tion. In so doing it also emphasizes that the world will not relax its attention when a matter of freedom and jus- tice is at stake, and that the Organization cannot indefi- nitely live with a situation in which lawlessness becomes the rule or fait accompli becomes the law. 244. The Organization has constantly focused on this problem, as it must. After many ups and downs during which tension and hope alternated, the Security Council finally, in 1978, managed to adopt a settlement plan for Namibia, based mainly on the proposals made by five 246. These attitudes and statements of the Government of South Africa strengthened the views of those who had always doubted that it really intended to accept the imple- mentation of the United Nations settlement plan. 247. The intransigence shown by the Pretoria leaders at the Geneva pre-implementation meeting confirmed our fears about the sincerity of South Africa and its desire to see the United Nations peace plan succeed. 248. Pretoria's delaying tactics, its increasingly open re- course to force to perpetuate the exploitation of the Nami- bian people, its continuing defiance of the United Na- tions, particularly the authority of the Security Council, and its policy of aggression against neighbouring States co~stitute a serious threat to peace and security, not only in Africa but throughout the world. 249. This is why the Security Council, whose authority has frequently been challenged by South Africa, met from 21 to 30 April lasf at the request of Africa to consider strong and effe~tive measures to ensure the i!Jlplementa- tion of its settlement plan. Unfortunately, the Council failed in its attempt to fulfil its responsibilities in the face of Pretoria's arrogance. 250. In response to the uncertainty and the frustration engendered by the Geneva meeting and the veto in the Security Council, the international community convened last September the eighth emergency special session. It did this to indicate that the legendary patience of the Namibian people was reaching its limits, that resolution 435 (1978) remained the only basis for a negotiated set- tlement of the Namibian problem and that its implementa- tion must be immediate and unconditional, without reser- vation or amendment of any kind. 251. Unfortunately, today once again we are seeing de- laying tactics and discussions whose real content and out- come we cannot really see. Yet the question is a clear and simple one. It is quite simply a question of enabling the Namibian people to exercise, within the proper time- frame, its right to self-determination and independence. 252. Today it is undeniable that an equitable and lasting settlement of the Namibian problem is not and cannot be conceivable without the full and direct agreement of SWAPO. SWAPO, it should be recalled, has demonstrated political maturity and realism which the world has seen. 253. At this critical stage urgent and effective action is essential. We continue to believe that only concerted, strong and well-organized international action can make South Africa conform to legality and to fhe resolutions of the United Nations. To this end South Africa must be deprived of the means of carrying out its policy and of the support which it uses to maintain its attitude of de- 255. In the absence of tangible results, what means will be left to the people of Namibia and to SWAPO in order to regain their freedom and their independence save those of despair and disenchantment? 256. Thnisia for its part would like to reaffirm its s.oli- darity with the Namibian people, under the guidance of its authentic representative SWAPO, in their courageous struggle. We assure them that we shall continue to give them our support until the advent of a free and united Namibia. 257. We should like also to express our gratitude and our encouragement to the United Nations Council for Namibia and its President for the outstanding work in support of the Namibian cause. 258. We have two options: either the five Western coun- tries, which fulfilled a tremendous respon~ibility in the preparation and adoption of the settlement plan, now be- gin to exercise their influence and oblige South Africa to respect international legality; or else the Security Council, cmd this time unanimously, will have to take the steps incumbent upon it under the Charter. 259. The Organization has accepted a clear mandate and precise obligations with regard to the Namibian people. The present session offers us an opportunity to reaffirm those principles and to live up to those commitments, for it is in playing our role fully in this last phase that we shaIl fulfil the principles of the Chartel and the hopes placed in us by the human race as a whole. This is also an opportunity for the parties concerned and for all coun- tries which cherish peace and justice to explore together, here or elsewhere, every possible path that could lead us out of the impasse we have obviously reached. Nothing must be overlooked when what is at stake is the fate of a people and its legitimate aspirations to freedom and jus- tice, and the principles and ideals of the Charter, which must in all circumstances guide our actions.

On behalf of the· Angolan delegation, and on my own behalf, I should like to extend our most heartfelt condolences to the Govern- ment of Colombia and its delegatuon on the tragic loss of Mr. Juan Arango. 261 . Is the international community about to. be duped again? Will the delaying tactics of the racist South Af- rican regime again bear fruit? Will the military adventur- ism of the Pretoria regime continue in an attempt to create instability in southern Africa? Will the sovereign indepen- dent States of the region be forced to face wave ·upon wave of South African acts of aggression and anned inva- sions? WiII those Who profess to practise democ;racy and who preach egalitarianism and social justice continue to support an apartheid structure that not only imposes the worst excesses of racism and racial discrimination upon the majority inhabitants within its borders, but has consis- tently introduced these excesses into a Territory under the 262. At this juncture we have nothing to add, except to enumerate the dangers posed to southern Africa by Pre- toria's obdurate refusal to co-operate with the United Na- tions in bringing about genuine independence for the peo- ple of Namibia in keeping with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Since the eighth emergency special session, on Namibia, held in September, Pretoria has sought to give the impression of acceptance of the United Nations plan. But this is a familiar tactic. Many times before we have heard the same theme. Each time, at each round, South Africa brings up newly fabricated and newly created issues, accompanied by fresh examples of the vio- lence, murder and State terrorism that it sponsors in southern Africa. Meanwhile, it continues to increase and strengthen its military presence in Namibia, beef up its installations and its military bases in Namibia and estab- lish de facto situations in Windhoek, so that the interna- tional authorities are forced to deal with a series of faits accomplis. 263. My delegation has a pertinent question: would sim- ilar tactics and strategies have been accepted and accom- modated as the Pretoria tactics and strategies have been had the authors and perpetrators been anyone other than that racist regime? Would certain Western administrations have shown the same spirit had it not involved their part- ner and ally, South Africa? On what basis has South Africa been made a favoured ally? We find it hard to believe and difficult to accept that, in 1981, there are nations and Governments that can support a regime and a structure and a system based on racism, racial discrimina- tion, murder, slavery, expansionism· and defiance of inter- national law. 264. There are 50 African countries. Western imperialist policy sees one of those countries as its friend and ally. Certain Western Governments are ready to support the isolated, notorious ami unaccepted Pretoria regime on the issue of Namibian independence against the combined position of the rest of the African continent. This is in- deed a grave situation, and tragic as well, because it shows so clearly what many of us are reluctant to accept, namely, that certain Western administrations are as cav- alier in their attitude to the wishes of the international community as is the Pretoria regime. 265. My delegation has a few more questions: Can South Africa's natural resources and the route around the Cape of Good Hope, both presumably offered in the serv- ice of Western interests, balance what the rest of Africa can offer in the service of international co-operation and collaboration? How long can the whole African continent wait upon the whim and the caprice of the Pretoria re- gime, and how long will Africa tolerate the support given to that racist regime? 266. These are questions addressed not only to others, but to ourselves as well. The commitment of the Govern- ment of the People's Republic of Angola to the cause of Namibian independence, the support given to SWAPO, the liberation movement of the Namibian people, and the efforts of the Angolan President, Jose Eduardo do~ San- tos, and the Central Committee of the MPLA-Workers' 267. And what has this netted Angola? A series of de- structive and devastating raids and invasions by the racist So.uth African troops, who are still in occupation of parts of southern Angola in defiance of countless United Na- tions resolutions. I regret to say that punitive or even cor- rective action against South Africa has been blocked in the Security Council by the greatest supporter of South Africa's apartheid structure. 268. My delegation does not wish to prejudge the out- come of the most recent initiative of the five Western countries, to which the front-line States, Nigeria and SWAPO have responded. Suffice it to say that 'm the basis of the evidence before us, based on Preta. ~u"s be- haviour over the past five years, during which it has thwarted every United Nations effort to work towards Namibian independence, and on the continued presence of racist troops inside Angolan territory, our cynicism and our right to reserve judgement are understandable. 269. Even if we allow ourselves to forget the past-a difficult proposition, because the Cassinga massacre in which more than 900 persons were killed by the racist troops will never be forgotten by anyone in southern Af- rica-what of the present? Today, we learned of the cal- lous murder of more than 112 Namibian freedom-fighters in the past two weeks, coincident with this debate. What use are debates, discussion and resolutions when the inter- national community cannot prevent the killing of Nami- bians and Angolans, when it cannot prevent acts of armed aggression by the Pretoria regime against the independent States of southern Africa and when it cannot punish the perpetrator? . 270. The people of Namibia, led by SWAPO, want in- dependence for Namibia and peace and stability in south- ern Africa. Those who support SWAPO and the people of Namibia also want peace in that particular region. But peace is not merely the absence of war. The peace we seek is a just and lasting peace free of destabilization at- tempts, free of racism~ free of neo-imperialist posturing, free of military adventurism. We want and need peace to allow us to get on with the urgent tasks of economic and social reconstruction that are so vital to our region. In- stead of this, much of our national energy goes towards defending ourselves against the racist murderers. And this is true not only of Angola, but of other southern African States as well. 271. The immediate future should give an answer to our questions. Will it allay our fears or fulfil our hopes? Will it confirm our suspicions and- kiU our plans'? filo matter which of the two comes to pass, in so far as the inten- tions of the racist regime are concerned our support for SWAPO and the cause of Namibian independence will re- main firm. Historic justice will pre\ail, and the Namibian people will write their own chapter in the history of southern Africa. 272. Until final victory f'Jr the Namibian people, the struggle continues, and victory is certain.

Allow me first to express my heartfelt condolences to the 275. The arrogance of South Africa totally disregards the numerous resolutions adopted by the General Assem- bly and the Security Council during the 35 years that the Namibian question has been before the Organization. It is pertinent to recall some of those resolutions in order bet- ter to understand the behaviour of some of the parties concerned. 276. In 1971, the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion, J found South Africa's presence in Namibia to be illegal and stated that South Africa was under obligation to withdraw from that Territory. 277. The Security Council endorsed the conclusions of the International Court of Justice in its resolution 301 (1971). Yet South Africa has continued to exercise its au- thority over the Territory of Namibia, disregarding the Council's decision and stepping up its oppression of the Namibian people. 278. On 30 January 1976, by its resolution 385 (1976), the Security Council condemned the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and its policy of bantustaniza- tion. The Council declared that it was necessary that free elections be organized under the supervision and control of the United Nations. Those elections were to be held throughout Namibia as a single political entity. It was in the light of that decision that South Africa made haste to organize its own sham elections. 279. On 27 July 1978 the Security Council in resolution 431 (1978) took note of the proposal for a settlement of the question of Namibia contained in the Secretary-Gen- eral's report and requested him to make recommendations on its implementation as soon as possible. 280. On 29 September 1978 the Security Council adopted, in its resolution 435 (1978), the plan proposed by the five Western Powers of the contact group for Namibia's independence. We should recall the terms of that resolution, which in my Government's view is the sole basis for negotiations: first, the signing of a cease- fire agreement; secondly, the establishment of a demi- litarized zone; thirdly, the deployment of UNTAG; and, finally, free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. 281. On 13 November 1978 the Security Council, in its resolution 439 (1978), declared null au.d void the elections held in Namibia by South Africa in its quest for an inter- nal settlement of the Namibian question. It demanded that 282. In January 1981, at Geneva, a pre-implementation meeting was held in connection with resolution 435 (1978). SWAPO, the authentic representative of the Nami- bian people, declared itself prepared to sign a cease-fire agreement and to set a date for the organization of elec- tions in Namibia. At Geneva South Africa declared that it was premature to speak of the implementation of resolu- tion 435 (1978). 283. That position of South Africa unequivocally" dem- onstrates that country's rejection of any negotiated solu- tion and its determination to maintain its domination over Namibian territory. 284. That position, which is not new, explains why SWAPO has resorted to armed struggle. Indeed, the Namibian people has taken up arms because no other means remains to free itself of the tyrannical and illegal trusteeship of South Africa. The history of political ideas from ancient times to the present is full of examples that support this action. No people, however peace-loving it may be, can tolerate indefinitely the grip of tyranny, es- pecially when it is exercised by another people, without one day rising in revolt. However, SWAPO, in deciding to resort to armed struggle, did not close the door to dla- logue. Proof of this is that SWAPO attended the Geneva meeting with the finn determination to facilitate the im- plementation of resolution 435 (1978). 285. After the failure at Geneva, the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly was resumed and devoted essen- tially to Narr.ibia. That was followed by a series of Se- curity Council meetings at the request of African States to adopt measures to compel South Africa to accept the im- plementation of the United Nations plan without delay. 286. The decision of the African States to call for the adoption by the Security Council of comprehensive man- datory sanctions was based on the relevant ~solutions that I have" cited, namely, resolution 385 (1976) and 439 (1978). Indet.n, resolution 385 (1976) of 30 January 1976 set the date 0; 31 August 1976 for its implementation. After that date the Security Council reserved the right to consider appropriate measures against South Africa in ac- cordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Resolu- tion 439 (1978) of 13 NovembeF 1978 is even more ex- plicit. It declared void Pretoria's so-called elections and ordered South Africa to co-operate with the Security Council and the Secretary-General in the implementation of resolutions 431 (1978) and 435 (1978). If South Africa refused to comply, the Council would meet to take steps under Chapter VII of the Charter. 287. We know what occurred. By making use of their right of veto three permanent mellJ.bers of the Security Council prevented it from fulfilling its duty to comply with the will of "the overwhelming majority of the interna- tional community. That is why it is easy to understand why the Council for Namibia recalls that historic develop- ment in the preamble to draft resolution A. which it rec- ommends for adoption by the General Assembly [A/36/24, para. 708]. 289. In view of South Africa's persistent refusal to rec- ognize the authority of the United Nations and implement its resolutions, in view of the failures of attempts to nego- tiate, in view of the acts of aggression, in view of the arbitrary arrests and the creation of puppet groups, the international community must face the facts: South Africa is not prepared voluntarily to leave Namibia. It must therefore be compelled to do so by armed struggle and by mandatory sanctions. 290. The Namibian people very soon realized that armed struggle was necessary to liberate its territory. Un- der the leadership of its spearhead movement, SWAPO, it has been carrying on a merciless struggle to free itself from the colonial domination of the racist regime of South Africa. That struggle against the occupying Pmver, con- sidered legitimate in certain periods and und.er other skies, thrcugh some freak of fate is now being con- demned by those very States that used it in the past for their own liberation. 291. The struggle being waged by SWAPO in Namibia is a' just one; it is rooted in the nature of man-in that freedom which is so dear to human beings for their own development. 292. The Namibian people aspires only to its indepen- dence to guarantee peace in the region. The indefinite prolongation of the war in Namibia depends essentially on the will of certain countries which, on behalf of certain unavowed interests, do not wish to exert the necessary pressure on South Africa; quite the contrary, they con- tinue to aid it. 293. This war, which is viewed with some apprehen- sion, can be brought to a halt at any time the Powers concerned wish to do so. They have the might; they have the means, even though goodwill cannot suppress the de- termination of the multinationals to remain on the scene in order to exploit the wealth of Namibia. 294. It is noteworthy that the position of two of the per- manent members of the Securitv Council that have exer- cised their right of veto changed when it came to con- !l~I!!n..ing the intervention of South African armed forces in AngOla from Namibia. Indeed, at the urgent meeting of the Security Council held on 31 August 1981,10 one of the two permanent members voted affirmatively and the other abstained in the voting" on a resolution whiCh severely condemned South Africa's military intervention in An- gola. 295. At the 4th meeting of the eighth emergency special session, the head of the delegation of Togo stated: ". . . Togo has been following with great interest, and admiration the wholly novel and constructive' approach which the Government of one of those mem- ber countries of the contact group has adopted in con- nection with the question of Namibia and co-operation with South Africa since the April meeting of the Security Council. My delegation hopes that that con- structive attitude will be maintained and built upon and, especially, that it will be followed by the Govern- ments of the other member countries of the contaCt group ...." 297. The meeting at Geneva is proof of this. It is only natural, therefore, that the African States, while appreciat- ing the efforts of the contact group, should remain some- what cau~ious about the results of the actions of the group and about its proposals. My delegation would express the hope that a conference will promptly be convened to de- termine the means of implementing Security Council res- olution 435 (1978) for the complete ind.;pendence of Namibia, including Walvis Bay. 298. In this regard, my delegation wishes to quote from the statement made during the general debate by Mr. Akakpo-Ahianyo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Re- public of Togo: "We dare hope that the present Administration and the great American people will join forces and associate themselves with the inevitable process of the indepen- dence of Namibia, as advocated in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). In so doing, the great America of President Reagan would strengthen the friendship be- tween .the United States and the whole of Africa, as the United Kingdom succeeded in doing under Margaret Thatcher's party at the time of Zimbabwe's accession to independence." [33rd meeting, para. l/4]. 299. In conclusion, my delegation wishes to reiterate here the complete support of the Government and people of .Togo, under the leadership General Gnassingbe Eyadema, President-Founder of the Rassemblement du peuple togolais and President of the Republic, for the he- roic struggle waged by the Namibian people for its inde- pendence, under the able leadership of SWAPO, its sole authentic representative. 300. My delegation also wishes once again to convey to the United Nations Council for Namibia, and especially to Mr. Lusaka, our congratulations on their tireless efforts to promote the advent of..an independent Namibia. It is to be hoped that that independence will come soon. and in any case by 1982, in order to banish the spectre of rival- ries in the region, the consequences of which could prove tragic for all mankind.

In order to give the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee time to consider the financial implications of the draft resolutions before the Assembly relating to the question of Namibia, the voting on them will take place at a later date, to be announced.

My delegation, in its bereave- ment, wishes to express sincere thanks for the con- dolences on the death of our Ambassador, Mr. Juan Arango. 303. We also thank the" delegations of Angola, Congo, Iraq, Peru, Thailand, Togo, Thnisia, Uganda, Yemen and Zaire, and other friendly delegations that have expressed sympathy on this sad occasion. We shall transmit' these condolences to the family of the deceased Amb~ssador. NarES I 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.CJ. Reports 1971, p. 16. 2 See A/CONE 107/8. 7 Ibi..l.. Thirty-sixth Year, 2267th to 2277lh meetings. I Ibid., 2277th meeting. 9 Movimento Popular de Libertar;ao de Angola.