A/37/PV.104 General Assembly

As Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid and a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Nigeria has fol- lowed with keen interest and concern the arduous work of the Council for Namibia, culminating in the report [A/37/24] and the draft resolutions recommended to the Assembly for adoption. My delegation has carefully considered the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/37/23/Rev.JJ, the report of the Fourth Committee [A/37/619], and the report of the Secretary-General [A/37/203 and Rev.I and Add.l-4J on the same issue. 8. My delegation would like to declare unequivocally here that the Government of Nigeria has abided and continues to abide by the provisions of General As- sembly resolutions 36/121 B, of 10 December 1981, and ES-8/2, of 14 September 1981, which call for the effec- tive isolation of the apartheid regime of South Africa politically, economically, militarily and culturally, and for the protection of the natural resources of Namibia. Towards these ends, my Government continues to ban the importation from South Africa or elsewhere of all commodities and products originating in South Africa or in illegally occupied Namibia. In the same vein, I wish to restate that there is no exportation of any kind from Nigeria to South Africa and Namibia. This shall remain so until Namibia is totally independent under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization [SW APO]. Nigeria has no contact of a diplomatic, consular or business nature with South Africa, nor does it allow its nationals, ~ingly or corporately, to do so. We do not allow our airports or seaports to be used ~ven for fuelling by air an~ shippi_ng lines which have flights or other transport )mks with South Africa. We do not accord persons having busi- ness links with South Africa entry visas into Nigeria. 9. In relation to the Namibian question, Nigeria is a front-line State and is actively involved in the pro- motion of a fair solution to the problem. At meetings with the five-member Western contact group, Nigeria's unequivocal stand for genuine independence for Namibia and opposition to apartheid in South Africa has been quite clear. Indeed, our position has been so well elaborated in several forums, including this one, that I need not dwell on its details here. At the United . ··Namibia is today ~me of the most important issues before the Umtcd Nations and we are gratified that the United Nations. i~ its collective wi~d_om. has pronounced itself in support of the lcg1t1mate struggle of the people of Namibia for their freedom. Nigeria remains committed to the struggle of the ~~1mihian peo~le, which it believes to be just and leg1_t1~1a_1e. and will c~ntinue to assist the people of Nam1h1a m every way 1t can to regain their legiti- mate birthright. Nigeria has often declared its total ?PPosition to racism and colonialism, particularly m the continent of Africa. It will continue to maintain this position unflinchingly until Namibia becomes totally free." 10. It is in the light of this that the Nigerian dele- gation remains disturbed by the actions of some States Members of the Organization that in pursuit of short- term economic interests and so-called strategic con- siderations erect all kinds of obstacles in the path of Namibian independence. 11. If the United Nations collectively and sincerely adopted Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and General Assembly resolutions 36/ 121 A and Bin the in- terest of Namibia, why is a certain constellation of States which are all Members of the Organization toiling tirelessly, through their transnational cor- porations, operating in Namibia, to cushion and frustrate the penalizing hardships prescribed by the same United Nations resolutions? The decision of the Board of Governors ofIMF to grant racist South Africa a drawing facility of over $1 billion in November is also in contravention of the spirit and letter of the relevant General Assembly resolution which specifically re- quested IMF to refrain from granting the loan. 12. In a document of the Special Committee, the un- acceptable economic situation that now exists in Na- mibia is described as follows: "South African and other foreign interests based in Canada, France, the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have for years monopolized the commercial sectors of the Namibian economy, principally mining. "The co-operation between South Africa and for- eign economic interests in the mining field has re- sulted in the creation of a narrowly based economy, which is dependent on fluctuating world market prices for unprocessed mineral_s. A~cording to o~e estimate, 73 per cent of the Territory s total output 1s exported ... " ... Furthermore, there is no requirement that any percentage of the profits be reinvested in the Territory for development purposes. Consequently, the bulk of the profits generated by foreign invest- ment are regularly repatriated to foreign share- " ... In 1979 and 1980, the growth rate was minus 7.9 per cent and minus I per cent respectively. "The main victim of the Territory's economic weakness is the African population, which, even during the period of prosperity for whites, was denied a meaningful share in the wealth generated. Thousands of Africans have been thrown out of work ... and thus deprived of even meagre wages. " 1 13. The denial of Namibian independence by South Africa has also been accompanied by repressive and brutal acts against Namibians and SW APO officials and a war of aggression against neighbouring Angola, with the killing and maiming of innocent and helpless citizens. During the past two weeks, South Africa's racist forces invaded Lesotho and Mozambique, in- flicting considerable damage to property and exacting an enormous toll in human life. South Africa draws comfort and encouragement for these murderous acts from its supporters, despite the fact that the latter are Members of the world Organization and party to United Nations resolutions aimed at achieving and promoting Namibia's independence. Why do those States connive with South Africa? Why the extraneous and unrelated linkage between the Cuban force present in Angola-a force that is in that country at Angola's invitation-and the implementation of Security Coun- cil resolution 435 (1978) on Namibia's independence? 14. Nigeria condemns all such activities and reaf- firms its faith in and support for all previous United Nations resolutions, as well as any further resolutions to be adopted by the Assembly in its collective wisdom to ensure the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and implementation of the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self- determination, freedom and independence under SW APO, their authentic and sole representative.

When we debated the question of Namibia in the General Assembly at the thirty-sixth session, my delegation observed, at the 67th meeting, that after a period of stalemate, hopes were again raised that the United Nations plan would finally be implemented. However, having seen those hopes shattered and revived so many times since negotiations started, we warned the Assembly that such hopes, which we naturally shared, were for our part based less on any real facts than on our belief in the urgent need for progress. At the present time, we are still waiting, as we did last year and in years before, to see any real indication that South Africa is committed to the process. Regrettably, there are ominous signs to the contrary. 16. Even if, on the one hand, South Africa claims to be seriously negotiating on the basis of the United Nations plan, it is only too obvious, on the other hand, that it is quick to counter any sign of real progress. South Africa has made clear that it desires to have foreign troops removed from its vicinity. We find it most unfortunate that Pretoria has gained support for this objective as a pre-condition for the implementation of the United Nations plan. 19. Negotiations on the United Nations plan have !low entered their fifth year. Obviousiy, South Africa is m no mood to comply with international ia,': and to make the adaptations the international community has firmly requested of it. As long as it refuses to respect international agreements, or does so only se\ectively, there will be no law, peace and freedom in this area of the world. South Africa's attack on Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, only last week is yet another proof of Pretoria's disregard for the fundamental mternational principles of the non-use of force and respect for the sovereignty of States. 20. Once again, it must be underscored that the realization of the independence of Namibia is a special obligation for the United Nations, a legal obligation !hat cannot be delegated or compromised away. That 1s why the situation, as it stands, is unacceptable. 21. We regret that the Western contact group is m~king no further progress, taking into account that this group has been entrusted with-and has assumed- a particular responsibility for carrying out the negoti- at1~ns that would lead to rapid implementation of the United Nations plan. After the negotiations here last summer, we have again entered a period of stale- ma_te which makes the previous exercise look strangely futile, however much hope we would like to attach to it. 22. It seems to us that the contact group or its mem- bers possess efficient and peaceful means of pres- sure that so far have not been used. We particularly regret that one member of the group, in dealing with South Africa, has so clearly ruled out the use of sanc- tion~, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, since the introduction of mandatory sanctions by the Security Council would be the most 31. The General Assembly is now considering the question of Namibia against the background of nega- tive signs that are rather ominous for a people still under the domination of a foreign Power and subjected to economic, political and racial control. 32. The question of Namibia, it must be repeated, is simple and unambiguous. The Namibian people has a right to self-determination, immediately and without interference. 33. Through its sole legitimate representative, SW APO, the international community has learned of recent manreuvres aimed at placing limits or conditions on the independence of Namibia. 34. Independence having become a widespread and inevitable cause, the occupying Power and its allies have resorted to various subterfuges to impose an internal administration which is an unacceptable substitute for the attributes of genuine sovereignty. These actions by South Africa have already been re- jected by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Nor will they be accepted in the future. 35. My delegation wishes to repeat that the reso- lutions of the United Nations provide the only bases for a settlement of the question of Namibia. Any other proposal or initiative at variance with their provisions will be lacking in validity. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is both balanced and just. Hence, the versions being bandied about to the effect that the United Nations position is aimed at favouring one segment or one group in Namibia, or that it is directed against the legitimate interests of one country or an- other, are unacceptable. The genuine exercise of the sovereign rights of a people can only be of benefit to all Member countries. To believe otherwise is to revert to a colonial mentality. 36. The genuine anti-colonial struggle has, over the years, exposed the many fallacies which have been spread to thwart the just demands of the peop~es of the third world. The events of the past decade m the southern part of Africa have shown that racial minority governments imposed on the vast majority of the popl!- lation cannot last indefinitely. The viability of a multi- racial democratic country has also been proved beyond doubt. These are particularly relevant examples t~at contrast with the inequ<!lity and oppression which exists in South Africa and Namibia and that has led to the desperate hardening of the racist regime's deter- mination to maintain its privileges at any cost. Further proof of this is the toll in h~man ~ife taken during !he recent aggression by Pretona agamst Lesotho, which we unanimously condemn today. 38. The Pretoria regime has publicly assumed the right to maintain the stability of southern Africa. It has sought refuge· in actions similar to those of some of its allies in other parts of the world. The fact that violations of international• law are repeated does not make them acceptable. 39. An ideological line, a specific direction in internal affairs and limits in international relations seem now to be conditions which some wish to place on coun- tries located near military Powers. This cannot be ac- cepted in any circumstances, in any geographical or political area. If these efforts are not reve~sed, t_he future of the countries of the third world will be tn· creasingly threatened with the passing of each day. 40. The countries of the area have firmly rejected all attempts to establish any link or parallel betwe~n the independence of Namibia and any extraneous !ssue. This is just one more attempt to prolong _th~ illegal occupation of Namibia; it is interference m mterna- tional decisions regarding Namibia. 4 I. This linkage is supported by some countries whose relations with South Africa are indispensable for the economic and military policies of the P_r~toria regime. We hope that the almost univers~I ?PP~s1tton to these new conditions placed on Nam1b1an mdepen- dence will make their sponsors give them up once and for all. 42. The Secretary-General, in his valuable report this year on the work of the Organization, stated the fol- lowing: "Concerted diplomatic actio~ is an ess~ntial complement to the implementation of resolutions. I believe that in reviewing one of the greatest pro_b- lems of the United Nations-lack of respect for its decisions by those to whom mey ar: a~dressed- new ways should be considered of brmgu~g to bear the collective influence of the membership on the problem at hand." [See A/37/1, p. 3.] 43. To promote the implementation of our own reso- lutions, we must negotiate, we must take conce~ted action-but within and not outside, the Umted Nations. South Af~ica has constantly violated and ignored the resolutions of the Organization both as regards apartheid and Namibia and as re~ards the_ acts of aggression that it has committed agamst the mde- pendent, sovereign countries of Africa. 44. The Pretoria racist regime has assumed the right to intervene in the affairs of neighbouring States and to promote mercenary action against other S!ates. _It has assumed the right to attack other countnes. dis- regarding the elementary principles of international coexistence which are so necessary for peaceful relations between States. 45 The draft resolutions which are now being con- sidered provide a general framework fo~ action._ They contain clear concepts in regard to the s1tuat1on m and 54. The time has come for South Africa to understand the results of colonial wars waged against oppressed peoples and their national liberation movements and what it means when former colonial Powers try to per- petuate, by old or new means and methods, their domination over colonized peoples. It is high time that the whole world, including South Africa, understood once and for all that, if contemporary society is to make progress, the final elimination of the colonial phenom- enon in all its forms and as soon as possible is essential. 55. The position of my country in support of the heroic national liberation struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SW APO, and of United Nations efforts to fulfil its special responsibilities regarding Namibia has frequently been reaffirmed in the Organization, in both regular and special sessions of the General Assembly and in the Security Council. 56. The message addressed by President Nicolae Ceau~escu to the President of SW APO in 1981 stressed the overriding need'' ... to accelerate, together with the intensification of the struggle of the Namibian people, the efforts of all democratic, anti-imperialist forces and of international public opinion to put an end as soon as possible to South Africa's domination and to ensure the attainment by Namibia of national independence". That position has been explained in Romania's con- tacts with various States in the world in an effort to mobilize international support for the immediate acces- sion to independence of Namibia. 57. As in the past, Romania is convinced that a politi- cal settlement of the problem of Namibia presup- poses that South Africa will totally and effectively respect the fundamental right of the Namibian people alone to decide their fate and to choose their own path to economic and social development, without any foreign interference. 58. As long as South Africa refuses to take that course, the United Nations must intensify action on every level against the Pretoria regime. The gravity of the situation means, that even sanctions must be considered, under the Charter of the United Nations, port an immediate and full withdrawal of~o_uth Afncan troops and administration from Nam1b1a and the transfer of all powers to the people of Na~ibia thro_ugh SW APO, which is recognized by the Umted Nations and the Organization of Africa Unity [OAU] as the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. 71. The situation in southern Africa r7ma_ins tense and fraught with the most serious comphcat10ns. ~he South African regime continues its acts of a~gre~s1on and its subversive activities against sovereign inde- pendent States in southern Africa. 72. Using the territory of Namibia as _a take-offp?int, the South African troops are plundermg the terntory of Angola. This morning, the General Assembly c_on- demned yet another aggression by South Af~1ca, the invasion of Lesotho; and from Mozam_b1que we have news of a further dangerous concentration of South African ar~ed forces on the borders o_f th~t _com~- try. Hence, it is quite clear that the Preto;1a ~eg1me 1s not only an outpost of colonialism a!1d racism m south- ern Africa but also a source of growmg danger to peace •n Africa. 73. South Africa is flouting the many decisions of the United Nations on the granting of independe_nce to Namibia and continuing its policy of dism3:nthng the very basis for a political settlement estabhsh7~ and proposed by Uni_ted Nations d:c!sio_ns. The position of the United Nations on Namibia 1s well known. In decisions of the Security Council, the General As- 74. Sixteen years ago, the General Assembly called on South Africa to free Namibia unconditionally. But the Pretoria regime refused to do that, thus challenging the United Nations. 75. _ Throughout subsequent years, South Africa, relying on support from the Western Powers did everything it could to hamper the process of th~ de- colonization and subsequent liberation of Namibia. 76_. . At the same time, the Western Powers, by not per- m1ttmg the adoption of effective sanctions against South Africa, under Chapter VII of the Charter, con- firmed that they, supposedly, could convince South Africa to grant independence to Namibia by peaceful means. However, despite the adoption by the Security Council_ of its well-known resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) on the granting of independence to Namibia, endless negotiations on implementing those resolu- tions have been dragging on for many years now. So many promises are made, and a kind of playful optimism is expressed, but in fact a settlement is hampered by more and more artificial obstacles. New conditions are placed upon it, and the goal is not to allow Namibia to proceed to independence, but rather to preserve the country under the yoke of colonialism and racism. 77. We all know that, at first, the main obstacle to independence for Namibia was the declared absence of an agreement on how the elections should be carried out. Then, later, the so-called problem of the im- partiality of the United Nations was raised. 78. Recently, after many years of delays and post- ponements, a new condition has appeared: the linkage of a settlement on Namibia with the withdrawal of the Cuban unit from Angola. That unit is there at the request of the Angolan Government and by agreement between Angola and Cuba. This illegal requirement is aimed at an obvious goal: to block a Namibian settle- ment. At the same time, it also covers up the desire to weaken the People's Republic of Angola through these threats against it by the South African aggressors. Clearly, this is gross and inadmissible interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign State of Angola. 79. The African countries and those Members of the United Nations which desire a swift granting of true independence to Namibia are being duly vigilant in this respect. At the recent meeting in Tripoli of the Heads of State and Government of 31 African countries, there was condemnation of the United States and South Africa for their attempts to establish any kind oflinkage or parallelism at all between the independence of Namibia and other, incidental, issues such as-in this 81. We can now see particularly clearly that in carrying out its plundering, neo-colonialist policy towards Namibia, South Africa is still relying on the direct complicity of the United States and a num- ber of other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. The interest of these States in strengthening the Pretoria regime and its continua- tion of the colonial occupation of Namibia is based on economic, military and strategic considerations. 82. South Africa, lording it over Namibia without any curbs or controls at all, is, with the Western monopolies, rapaciously plundering the natural resources of the country, which is rich in rare non- ferrous metals, gold, diamonds and uranium. On the basis of the illegal system of using the indigenous popu- lation as slave labour, this also brings tremendous profit to the transnational corporations. Their return on investment is one of the highest in the world. 83. There are 88 transnational corporations oper- ating in Namibia, of which 35 are based in South Africa, 25 in the United Kingdom, 15 in the United States, 8. in the Federal Republic of Germany, 3 in France and 2 in Canada. It is not mere chance that those are the very countries which are members of the so-called contact group for Namibia. . · 84: In order to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia, South Africa is continuing to rely primarily on foreign sources for its supplies of military equipment and technology. At the same time, the assistance of Western Powers has made it possible, according to information supplied by the United Nations Sec- retariat, to raise the military capability of South Africa by 70 to 90 per cent. Many firms in the United States and other Western countries have established local branches in South Africa, and the arms embargo does not apply to them. 85. A matter of particular concern to the interna- tional community is cc,toperation in the nuclear field between the apartheid regime and the United States and some other Western States, and also Israel. 86. There is no need to talk about the very serious consequences for Africa, and indeed the whole world, of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by South Africa, particularly in the light of the well-known statement by the Pretoria leaders that if necessary they would use all military resources available to them. 87. The people of Namibia continue to suffer from the most ruthless colonial oppression. They are sub- jected to the completely inhuman system of apartheid imposed by the South African authorities. At the present time, South Africa has 100,000 soldiers in Namibia, in addition to police units. That means that there is at least one policeman armed to the teeth for every 10 inhabitants of Namibia, ready to inflict penal- ties on them. 97. The history of Africa's relations with the West has been a history of plunder, exploitation, duplicity and betrayal, a history of double-dealing and double standards, a history of using Africa to achieve West- ern aims and a history of manipulating African issues to further Western interests. Even after 500 years there is no reason to believe that there has been any substan- tive change in the West's intentions. Western actions regarding the issue of genuine independence for Na- mibia and Western support for whatever the racist South African regime wishes to do in southern Africa serve merely to fuel our suspicions and confirm our worst fears. 98. What the apartheid regime of South Africa is today and what the apartheid regime of South Africa does today would be neither probable nor possible without the active encouragement and support of Pre- toria's Western allies and partners. 99. South Africa's designs on the Territory of Na- mibia began a long time ago and will last a long time hence. The game that the South African minority regime has been playing in the last four years on the issue of Namibia's independence is but the con- tinuation of South Africa's original plan for Namibia. As long ago as 1946, the Pretoria regime had wanted to incorporate Namibia into the racist Union of South Africa, whose mandate over the Territory was ter- minated in 1966 mainly because of Pretoria's decision to implement the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission,2 which called for the establishment of separate non-white "homelands" in the Territory on a tribal or ethnic basis and a separate white area, which would have resulted in the partition and disin- tegration of Namibia and its absorption into South Africa. 100. Under the Odendaal Plan, 40 per cent of the Ter- ritory was partitioned into separate bantustans for the majority inhabitants, who make up over 90 per cent of the population; 43 per cent was given, as before, to the white minority settlers; and South African authorites took direct control over the rest. In other words, 60 per cent of the Territory was reserved for the 10 per cent of the minority population or was brought under direct South African administration. The "white area" com- IO~. ~out~ Afri<:a extended to Namibia its apartheid leg1slat1on, mcludmg the Terrorism Act of 1967 and the Internal Security Amendment Act of 1976. Through its proclamation in 1976 of three "homelands"-Ovam- b?land, Kavangoland and East Caprivi-as security districts, South Africa in effect placed 50 per cent of the Namibian population under martial law, while the rest lived in virtual concentration camps. 103. South Africa has violated every norm of inter- national law and has flouted every resolution and con- vention pertaining to the inalienable rights of the p~ople of Namibia. South Africa has consistently v10Iated the Charter of the United Nations which it signed along with 50 other States in 1945. it has dis- regarded Security Council resolution 276 (1970), which ~eclared the South African presence in Namibia Illegal after termination of the mandate. It has ignored the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Jus- tice of 21 June 1971,3 and it has consistently placed obstacles in the way of implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 104. South Africa's creation of the puppet group, the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, similarly has a histor- ical precedent: in 1975, South Africa organized a con- stitutional conference open only to white political parties. 105. We have to admit that the racist regime in Pre- toria has shown the utmost consistency and even pre- dictability in its policies and practices in Namibia. It is the international community which has allowed itself to be duped and manipulated, sometimes through default and sometimes through Western assurances and guarantees. 106. At the eighth emergency special session, on the question of Namibia, held in 1981, the General Assem- bly for the first time called upon all States to impose against South Africa compulsory mandatory sanc- tions in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, in support of international efforts to end the illegal South African occupation of Namibia. It was pointed out at that session that, under the ~harter, the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security is not interpreted as an exclusive prerogative of the Security Council-vide Articles IO, 11, 14 and 24 of the Charter. It was further pointed out that, by its resolution 377 (V), of3 Novem- ber 1950, the General Assembly recognized that failure by the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII of the ·<;barter did not absolve Member States of their obliga- tions nor the Organization of its responsibility under the Charter in matters regarding the maintenance of 112. What now for Namibia? Another sham election and sham independence to be orchestrated by Pretoria? We have seen South Africa flout international reso- lutions and decisions. We have seen the impotence of the international community, so far, to do anything about South Africa's violations. We have seen the un- willingness of some Western nations to ensure South Africa's compliance with United Nations decisions. The racist regime has used stalling tactics to gain time and acquire more arms and territory. The Pretoria regime has time and again created issues, raised them in the course of negotiations and then dropped them, all to give the impression that it has made concessions. I 13. For a while, one such issue was the question of United Nations impartiality. Now, it is the totally un- related issue of the Cuban forces in Angola. Next, South Africa will tie the issue of Walvis Bay or African National Congress activity to the Namibian issue; it has laid the groundwork by the recent massacre in Maseru, Lesotho. In between, of course, it does not hesitate to bring up issues as vital as the type of ~eadgear to ~e worn by United Nations peace-keeping troops m Namibia. J 14. For its part, the Government of the_ Peop_le's Republic of Angola has always ~o-operated ~1th United Nations efforts to expedite the implementation of Secu- rity Council resolution 435 (1978). In fact, one ofthe_last acts of our late beloved leader, Comrade Agostmho Neto, was to put forward the compromise p~opOJa_ls to break the deadlock created by the Pretoria regime. Since then, the President of the Movi~ento Popular de Liberta<;ao de Angola [MP~A]-Par~1do de Trabalho; and President of the People s Republic of Angola, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, has continued to off~r all P?S· sible co-operation on the Namibia issue, m keeping with resolution 435 (1978). We reject any attempt~ to introduce elements which are no part of that ~e~olut1on, a resolution which was accepted by Pretoria m 1978. 115. The Government of Angola rejects any attemp~s to link the issue of the presence of Cuban ~o~ces m Angola with that of the independence of~a"?1b1~. The Cubans are in Angola at the express _mv1tat10n of Angola's sovereign Government and y,,11~ ~epart ac- cording to the terms of the communique issued _on 4 February 1982. The def~n~e needs of Angola are bemg accorded the highest priority by my Governm~nt. ~~ 120. As long as the people of Namibia are under occupation and as long as parts of Angola are under occupation and sovereign Govern~ents are !hre~t~ned with destabilization by the racist Pretona regime, southern Africa will know no peace. As long as south· em Africa is threatened, Africa will know no peace. As long as Africa and Africans are threatened, the ~orld will know no peace. And Namibia's tragedy will be- come the world's tragedy. 121. We salute the courageous people of Na~ibia and their vanguard party, SW APO. We also pay _tribute to all those who are facing South African aggress10n and who are giving up their lives in defending the honour of southern Africa. 122. In the circumstancesi, it is worth remembe~ing that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots. Many such tr:es have taken root in southern Africa and are _growm_g straight and tall. The struggle continues. Victory 1s certain. 123. Mr. TRUCCO (Chile) (interpre~ation fr?m Spanish): In 1966, the General Assembly, m resolu_tton 2145 (XXI), terminated th~ ~andate oft~e Repubhc of South Africa over Namibia and dec1_d~~ that the United Nations should assume respons1b1hty for that Territory. 124. Subsequently, at its fifth special. session,. the General Assembly established the United Na!JOn_s Council for Namibia [resolution 2248 (S-V)], g_r~ntm~ it powers which make ~t the so!e. legal Admm1stenng Authority for the Territory until independence. . 125. My country has bee~ a "?ember _of th~t C_ouncil since its establishment. Chile, in keeping with its un- 127. During these 16 years, we have often seen that talks that were making progress and seemed to be about to lead to a solution have been suddenly interrupted owing to the intransigence of one of the parties. 128. In 1978, when the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978), my country, like many others in the international community, began to believe that a solution was imminent. With all the nations that sup- ported the cause, we have watched with anxiety the course of the negotiations that the contact group has had with the parties. 129. My country firmly believes that there must be a peaceful solution to the question of Namibia and con- siders that the recent report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization should cause us to think about the need to make an additional effort. He said: "In the case of Namibia we now see some signs of the possibility of a solution after many setbacks. Let us hope that this will prove a welcome exception to the general rule. But the lesson is clear-some- thing must be done, and urgently, to strengthen our international institutions and to adopt new and imaginative approaches to the prevention and reso- lution of conflicts. Failure to do so will exacerbate precisely that sense of insecurity ... " [See A/37/ I, p. 2]. 130. The cause of Namibia is the cause of the United Nations. Involved in this and with direct responsibility for it are not only the parties directly concerned, in- cluding, of course, the front-line States, Nigeria and the members of the contact group, but all other States, too. We are all responsible for ensuring that Namibia becomes a sovereign State and a Member of the United Nations as soon as possible. 131. Therefore, we cannot fail to express our per- plexity at the position of those who wish to ~s~ume sole responsibility for the Namibian cause, for this 1s a strug- gle that involves us all. That is why we most emphati- cally reject the well-worn accusation levelled yesterday by the representative of one Latin Am_erican coun!ry against other countries of the same reg10n, suggesting that pacts existed with a country whose policy. and practice of apartheid have been formally and vigor- ously condemned by us. This clumsy ~ttempt at mystification must come to an end, because 1t has been rejected every time it has been made and because it does not contribute to the success of the noble cause that brings us all together here. 137. My delegation believes the answer to t~e first question is ~s _follows: . ~arbarous repression by South Africa inside Namibia; unprecedented eff~rts made by South Africa to internationalize the conflict; and, finally, the support that South ~frica. cont!nues to receive from certain States and foreign pnvate inter- est groups. 138. The policy of repres~io!l, it is cl~imed, is jus- tified by a series of texts-incidentally, illegal ones- such as the Terrorism Act No. 83, of 1967, Procla- mation No. R.17 of 1972, the Sabotage Act and the 139. The Terrorism Act, promulgated in 1967, but retroactive to 1962 so that it could be used against Namibian nationalists held without trial since that time is considered the most Draconian of all the security laws ever promulgated by South Africa. According to Section 6 of the law, and I quote from the records of the Seminar. "Persons may be detafoed without any charges being made and held in secret; thus, no court has the opportunity to decide on whether they are being detained properly or to order their release". 140. Proclamation No. R.17, on the state of emer- gency. prohibits meetings of more than six persons and allows arbitrary arrests and detention without trial. Section 19 of that law permits "the arrest without a warrant of any person suspected of having violated the Proclamation". 141. The Sabotage Act and the Internal Security Act allow preventive detention and banning for an in- definite period "of any person suspected by the Minister of Justice of indulging in activities endangering public order". 142. The deliberate vagueness and imprecision of the provisions of these texts are designed to cover in ad- vance all abuses. Moreover, under the pretext of main- taining a degree of security, South Africa is devoting itself to the total militarization of Namibia. At the present time, there are some 75,000 to 100,000 South African soldiers and foreign mercenaries in Namibia. The entire Territory of Namibia has virtually become a military base. Settlers in rural areas are given military training and are organized into special commando units. 143. It is on the basis of these various measures that South Africa is carrying out in Namibia a policy of barbarous repression and intolerable violations of human rights. To prove this, it is sufficient to quote again from disclosures made at the Seminar on the Military Situation in and relating to Namibia: "Several Namibian nationalists were detained and were the subject of banning orders and several of them were subjected to torture, including sleep deprivation, electric shock, wounds resulting from blows or cigarette burns and hanging by the wrists or ankles." In addition, according to a report by a delegation of the British Council of Churches which visited Namibia in November 1981: "The security forces have instituted an arbitrary reign of terror, against which the local population has not the slightest recourse . . . Soldiers drive their vehicles through the villages, dragging behind them the bodies of those they have killed on the pretext that they were terrorists. The bodies of young men are shown to their relatives and even to school- children." 151. Under these circumstances, we must use all possible means to force South Africa to participate in good faith and without further delay in the complete implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). When I say that we must use all means, we mean all means that can lead to South Africa's complete isolation on the military, economic, sports and cultural levels. In other words, let us adopt comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. We are not asking for sanctions just for the sake of asking for them. We ask for sanctions because we believe that if sanctions were applied by everybody then they c?uld be an effe~ti~e means of ensuring a peaceful solution to the conflict m Namibia. In the absence of such sanctions, the Na- mibian people will have no choice but to continue and step up their armed struggle until final victory: My dele- gation believes that the five member countries of the contact group, as well as the permanent members of the Security Council, have a historic role to play to put an end to South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia. Those countries must agree at last to bring to bear on the Government of Pretoria all the pressure that they can, and that the international community and the Namibian people are entitled to expect of them. 152. In conclusion, my delegation would like to say once again that the Government and people of Togo whole-heartedly support the heroic struggle being waged by the Namibian people for their i_ndependence, under the wise and responsible leadership of SW APO, their sole authentic representative. The Government and people of Togo have faith in the inevitable victory of justice and right in Namibia. 153. My delegation would also like to a~dress to th~ Secretary-General and to the _Unit_ed N~t1ons C'?unc1I for Namibia particularly its intrepid President, Mr. Paul Lu;aka, our congratulations and a word of encouragement for the tireless efforts that they ~~n- tinue to make to ensure independence for Nam1b1a. My delegation, for i_tslar!, is ready to supla,ort any draft resolution and any 1mt1at1ve that could bring closer the day of self-determination and independence for Na- mibia, in the interests of international peace and secu- rity. 154. Mr. PULZ (Czechoslovakia~ (~nterpretation from Russian): The question of ensur!ng independence for Namibia has recently become particularly acute and topical. Since 1966, when the ~eneral Asse~bl,Y adopted resolution 2145 (XXI), end1~g South Afn~a. s mandate over the international Ternt_ory of ~~m1bia and calling for the withdrawal of the 111:gal regime of Pretoria from Namibia, the United Nations has b:en adopting other resolutions confi:ming th~t re~olut1on every year. However, the rulers_ in Pretoria, with com- prehensive support from the main_ member~ of NATO, primarily the United States, continue to disregard _the 16-year-old efforts of variou~ bodies ~f the Umted Nations, including the Security Council: They _con- tinue flagrantly to flout all the rules of international 158. As was indicated this year at the successful 161. At the present time, on the initiative of the Seminar on the Military Situation in and relating to United States and South Africa, a new concept of Namibia. held in Vienna in June, in the six years fol- linkage has been introduced whereby all sorts of issues lowing the adoption of Security Council resolution 385 not related to one another are thrown into the same bag. (1976), the number of South African armed forces in- However, these artificial attempts have been cate- creased more than five times, despite attempts to settle gorically rejected, by those countries with competence the problem in the spirit of resolution 435 (1978). By in this area, as flagrant interference in their internal 1981, the number of troops there was estimated at affairs. It is our firm conviction that the question of the I 00,000, and if we take into account the civilian forces presence of Cuban troops in Angola is a matter covered of various kinds of territorial units, the figure is more by a bilateral agreement between two sovereign States, than 180,000. At the present time, the occupying troops namely, Angola and Cuba. It is not related in anyway to in Namibia are based in 85 to 90 places. Despite Secu- the South African occupation of Namibia. However, rity Council resolution 418 (1977), placing an embargo attempts by the racist regime of South Africa, with the on the delivery of arms, military materiel and equip- help of its ally across the ocean, to sabotage and ment to South Africa, some NATO countries continue prevent a just solution of the Namibian problem are to supply the South African racist army. With the help firmly rejected and condemned, so any attempts to of Western licences, racist South Africa has become settle the matter 6utside the settlement recommended one of the leading weapons producers. Moreover, with by a United Nations decision are doomed to fail. the help of its allies, racist South Africa is becoming a 162_ As indicated in the answer of the Czechoslovak nuclear Power, and this threatens not only the security Government, which appears in the addendum to the of African countries but also peace throughout the report on the question of Namibia submitted by the world. Secretary-General to the thirty-sixth session,5 the 159. There is no doubt that the aggressive policy of Czechoslovak Socialist Republic has always proceeded Pretoria is being helped by the granting of a loan by and will continue to proceed from its policy of prin- IMF. In the economic area, the colonialist racist ciple of support for the struggle against colonialism, system in Namibia has attracted transnational corpo-. racism and apartheid. It is convinced that the complete rations of the Western countries, primarily in the independence of Namibia is an urgent requirement mining industries. There are 88 foreign companies in the world today. To ensure this, it is necessary that openly violating Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the all South African military forces and administrative 163. Czechoslovakia also supports the demand for the transfe~ of pow~rs to SW APO, which is recognized by the Umted Nat10!1s and by the OAU as the sole legiti- mate representative of the people of Namibia. I~. We ~ontinue to hold the view that Security Coun- cil resolution 435 (1978) is an acceptable basis for the settlement of the problem in the interests of the people of Namibia. In this context, we must condemn the efforts made by certain members of the Western con- t~ct group to impose on the people of Namibia a deci- s10~ that would limit their sovereign right to determine their own future and to govern their own country inde- pendently. 165. C~echoslovakia supports the appeal addressed by the eighth emergency special session of the General Assembly to the international community to provide s_upport and assistance to SW APO in its struggle to hberate Namibia. Our country will provide support to SY,: APO and the people of Namibia until they finally tnumph. We shall also support the front-line inde- pendent African States in defending their sovereignty and territorial integrity against acts of aggression from S_outh Africa. In this connection, we feel that the provi- sions of paragraph 12 of General Assembly resolution ES-8/2 are still valid. In it, the General Assembly stro~gly urges the Security Council to impose compre- hensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa, as provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. 166. In conclusion, the Czechoslovak delegation would like to express its great appreciation to the members of the United Nations Council for Namibia, under the competent leadership of its President, Mr. Paul Lusaka, for their efforts to bring closer the ~oment when Namibia, led by SWAPO, will become independent. 1~7. Mr. SOLTYSIEWICZ (Poland): In the long history of United Nations efforts in the field of deco- lonization, there have been few examples of resistance by the forces of colonialism to the liberation of an oppressed people as stubborn as that we are facing in the case of Namibia. 168. For more than 36 years, the United Nations has had the question of Namibia on its agenda, both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. This Pe~ennial problem has been the subject of many reso- lut_1ons and decisions adopted by the United Nations. In spite of those decisions, the racist regime of South Africa persists in its illegal and repressive occupation of the Territory. 169. In the light of recent developments, it must be cl~ar to everyone that the South African regime is neither ready nor willing to agree to the United Nations plan endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 435 0978). But the time has come to put a final end to the South African racist regime in Namibia, in keeping with the United Nations resolutions. 170. The inalienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determination, freedom and national inde- pendence in a united Namibia should be assured by the United Nations, for it is this Organization which in 176. First, it is our considered opinion that the solution of the Namibian problem depends on the implementation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, in particular Security Council reso- lution 435 (1978), which should be implemented uncon- ditionally, without any prevarication, qualification, modification or delay. We reject the manreuvres by certain members of the "contact group" aimed at undermining that resolution. 177. Secondly, we reaffirm our complete solidarity with and full support for SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, and for its struggle to achieve self-determination, freedom and national independence. 178. Thirdly, my delegation responds positively to the overwhelming demand of the international com- munity for the immediate imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions, as provided for under Chap- 179. Fourthly, the mandatory arms embargo imposed by Security Council resolution 418 (1977) should be strictly implemented and expanded, as some Western countries, among them the United States and Israel, are still collaborating with South Africa in the military field. The Seminar on the Military Situation in and relating lo Namibia, held in Vienna in June 1982, revealed that the nuclear capability which South Africa is acquiring in collaboration with tertain Powers be- longing to NATO is even increasing. 180. Fifthly, the continued assistance rendered to the ral:ist Pretoria regime by certain international organ- izations and institutions, in disregard of relevant reso- lutions of the General Assembly. should be stopped. 181. Sixthly, we fully subscribe, as we have always done. to the recommendations regarding Namibia con- tained in the important documents of the OAU, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the United Nation, Council for Namibia. I 82. In the cour-;e of the 36 years during which the Unitrd Nation,; has had to deal with the problem of Namibia, Poland has many times expressed its support for the rnu,;c of the liberation of the people of Namibia, in accordance with their inalienable right to freedom and independence. JIB. Namihia must c;oon find its rightful place as a sovereign St.tic in the community of nations. World ,,pinion will not accept further undue delay on this question. 184. In :ill the international efforts designed to bring about an immediate, final and unconditional solution of the question of Namibia, Poland has always been and will conti11ue to be on the side of SW APO and of all the African States which are fighting for the complete elimination of the vestiges of colonialism and apartheid from their continent. 185. Mr. JAMAL (Qatar) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation would like at the outset to express, in the name of the Government and people of Qatar, our most sincere condolences to the brotherly Yemen.Arab Repuhlic for the great losses it has suf- fered in human lives and material damage as a result of the natural disaster that has afflicted the Yemeni people. I would ask the representative of Yemen to convey those condolences to his Government and the brotherly people of Yemen in this tragic loss. 186. The problem of South West Africa-that is, Namibia-like the problem of Palestine, is perhaps_the clearest indication that recognition by the Umted Nations of the justice of a cause and the right of a pe?- ple to self-determination and natio~al i1_1deJ?endence 1s not enough in itself to ensure that Justice 1s done and that that people achieves its national rights. 187. Despite the fact that the majority of voices, ac- cording to well-established democratic rules, es_sen- tially express public opinion and t_he~efore the will of the community in which tha_t m_aJonty ~as upheld a particular cause, this rule, which 1s an obvious fact and 2248 (S-V) with, inter alia, the authority to admm1ster Namibia until it acceded to independence. 190. Despite all these facts, we are ~ti!I seized of the question of the occupation of Namibia by South Africa and the General Assembly is still adopting reso- lution; in which it reaffirms its previous ones. In a(I probability, this vicious circle will not be brok~n until the Western countries cease their protect10n ~f South Africa and the United States, in particular, 1s convinced to end its "helpful association'_' ~it~. the racist Pretoria regime. This "helpful assoc1at10n. : as Professor Robert I. Rotberg, Professor of Poht1cal Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says, aimed in the first place _a~ encouraging South Africa to withdraw from Nam1b1a, and sec_ond_ly, at urging South Africa to help the West to m~mtam t~e security of the area. However, the result ofth1s associa- tion has been exactly the opposite. The p~oblem ~f Namibia still remains unresolved, and this associ- ation also allows South Africa to intensify its ~nt1:~al security measures and has encouraged it to persist m its intransigence and to obstruct any settlement o~ the problem on the basis _of United _Na~ions resolutions. Two years ago, it claimed that 1t did n?t h~ve con- fidence in the neutrality of the United Nations m supe:- vising the election process that should ~ake place m Namibia but over the last two years it has added another ~ondition, namely, its insistenc~ ~hat as a pre- condition to its withdrawal from Nam1b1a the Cuban troops in Angola must withdraw. 191. It is really surprising that the Pretoria Govern- ment, like the other racist regime-that of Israel-not only disregards the prin~iples o~ the Charte_r of the United Nations and Umted Nat10ns resolution~ but also flouts the ethical principles and nor'!ls of mt~r- national conduct. At a time when it depnves the m- 192. In addition to all this, it is clear that the armed aggression committed against Lesotho and the support of a counter-revolutionary movement opposing the regi_me in Mozambique and the recent warning by South Afnca were followed by an attempt to convince the wo~ld of its desire to resolve the problem of the occu- pat10n of Namibia by engaging in the Cape Verde talks with representatives of Angola just a few hours before the attack against Lesotho. 199. Encouraged by this lack of resolution, South Africa has introduced extraneous issues in the imple- mentation of the Namibian independence plan. It is unjustifiably making its withdrawal from Namibia dependent on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. We share the overwhelming sentiment of the international community that such a linkage is un- warranted and derogatory to Angola's sovereignty and national independence. It is a matter of deep regret that an important member of the Western contact group should be taking a position which gives strength to this untenable demand of South Africa and prolongs its illegal occupation of Namibia. Pakistan rejects all attempts to establish any linkage between the inde- pendence of Namibia and any extraneous issues, or any parallelism of one with the other. 193. All these facts clearly reveal Pretoria's plan, which can be summed up as intending to increase the fears of Angola concerning the consequences of the withdrawal of Cuban troops from its territory. In its attacks against the front-line States, South Africa also aims at providing strong justification for Angola's maintaining the presence of Cuban troops and thus allowing South Africa to insist on its condition that those troops withdraw-in other words, allowing South Africa itself to persist in its illegal occupation of Na- mibia and its plundering of that Territory's resources. 194. The delegation of Qatar cannot but reaffirm its support of all the resolutions of the United Nations, especially Security Council resolutions 385 (1976), 435 (1978) and 439 (1978), which call on the Pretoria regime to end its illegal occupation of Namibia. We strongly urge the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) with- out further delay, as well as action to allow the Na- mibian people to exercise its right to self-determina- tion and national independence, under SWAPO, its sole legitimate representative. 200. What is it that lies at the root of South Africa's obstinacy and brazen defiance of the _will of the inter- national community? The answer is not difficult to find. It is South Africa's confidence that countries whose political, economic and military co-operation it values and needs will not reduce their co-operation in any circumstances. It is a sad fact that, rather than ostracizing South Africa and exerting maximum pres- sure on the racist regime to withdraw from Namibia and to abandon its obnoxious policies of apartheid, certain Western countries continue to do business as usual with it. Given such an indulgent attitude on their part, South Africa feels under no compulsion to bring its position into line with the demands of the United Nations in respect of the independence of Namibia and the elimination of apartheid policies. 195. Before concluding I wish, in the name of the State of Qatar, to thank and to express appreciation to the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Mr. Lusaka, and all the members of the Council for their laudable efforts in the service of the heroic Namibian people. 196. BEGUM AZIZ-UD-DIN (Pakistan): Sixteen years after the General Assembly terminated South Africa's mandate over Namibia, the Namibian tragedy lingers on. In contemptuous defiance of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and in disregard of the Advisory Opinion of the Interna- tional Court of Justice, 3 the racist Pretoria regime con- tinues its illegal occupation of the Territory. In fact, instead of taking practical steps towards liquidating its illegal presence there, South Africa is further tight- ening its colonial stranglehold on Namibia by increased militarization and stepped-up repression. 201. The policy of constructive engagement has not had the desired effect of inducing South Africa to give up its uni~ersally condemne_d pol!ci~s. On .t~e contrary, it has mtens1fied repression w1thm ~am1b1a and is actively engaged in acts of aggression and destabilization against independent African States, some as far away as Seychelles, which was subjected to a mercenary attack last year with the connivance of South Africa. Angola, Mozambique and, now, Lesotho have been the particular target of South Africa's aggres- sive policies. 198. After the Geneva fiasco, it was to be expected that States members of the Western contact group, which were the architects of the United Nations inde- pendence plan for Namibia endorsed in Security Coun- cil resolution 435 (1978), would exert all their influence and power to secure implementation of that plan. Regrettably, while South Africa raised one obstacle after another in the way of Namibia's independence, vacillation characterized the policies and actions of member States of the Western contact group. 203. The position of the United Nations on the ques- tion of Namibia is crystal clear. South Africa is in illegal occupation of Namibia and must withdraw from that Territory without delay. It should implement the United Nations independence plan for Namibia en- dorsed in Security Council resolution 435 ( 1978) with- out modification or qualification, for it remains the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian ques- tion. The Namibian people have the inalienable right to self-determination, freedom and national indepen- dence. So long as Namibia does not become inde- pendent, it remains the direct responsibility of the United Nations. Mr. Jamal (Qarar), Vice-President, took the Chair. 204. The Government of Pakistan has been con- sistently supporting the struggle of the Namibian people under the leadership of SW APO, its sole and authentic representative, to achieve self-determi- nation, freedom and national independence in a united Namihia. As a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Pakistan has been exerting full efforts to expedite the realization of Namibian independence. We remain firmly committed to this noble goal and shall continue to extend all possible moral and material support to the Namibian people in its grim struggle to achieve its inalienable rights. We believe that it is high time the Security Council proceeded with the impo- sition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. 205. The struggle for Namibian freedom is a part of the international struggle against colonialism and racial discrimination. The struggle will continue until these evils are totally eliminated from the world. South Africa cannot succeed in imposing its domination in- definitely against a people determined to regain its fre~- dom and dignity. The International Conference m Support of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence, scheduled _to take plac~ in Paris next year, will, we are sure, give ~ ~trong impetus to the legitimate struggle of the Nam1b1an people.

Sixteen years have passed since the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI), ending South Africa's ~andate over Namibia, and four years haye passed smce the Security Council adopt_ed resolution 435 (1978), con- firming the United Nat10ns _rlan for the _settlement _of the Namibian problem, but 1t must be said that no ~1g- nificant progress has been made towards guaranteeing 207. With the aid of its Western friends, in particular the United States, the racist regime of Pretoria is pur- suing a policy of playing for time with respect to the granting of independence to Namibia and is seeking to undermine the bases of the political settlement ad- vocated in United Nations decisions, which call for the recognition of SW APO as the sole legitimate represen- tative of the Namibian people and promise the full support of the United Nations for that organizati?n in its struggle for national independence. The racist regime of Pretoria has attempted, at the national level, to win recognition for puppet tribal groups, and to equivocate about the kind of voting that should take place, and at the international level, to define !he liberation struggle of the Namibian people as_ commg within the framework of an East-West conflict. The attempts by Washington and Pretoria to link _the granting of independence to Namibia with the with- drawal of the Cuban internationalist forces from Angola are a demonstration of these latest manreuvres. 208. The reasons that have led those in th~ mo,st_ re- actionary Western circles to support t~e rac1~t. regime of Pretoria are above all of an economic, poht1cal a~d strategic order. On the one hand, we are familiar w~th the economic interests of some Western countr~es and their multinational corporations in South Afne:a and Namibia· the Fourth Committee has debated this question at g;eat length. Through the!r _ever-increasing investments, particularly in Nam1b_1a, tho~e cor- porations are unscrupulously pursmng the!r cruel exploitation of the Namibian people and their syste- matic plundering of the natural resources of tha! Ter- ritory-for which the United Nations _h~s a particular responsibility-thus violating the prov1s1ons of Decree No. l for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia. 4 In this connection, an article in the Wa_sh- ington Post of 11 April 1982 revealed thatSout~ Af~ica, in its new effort to strengthen econo~1c lmks with certain Western Powers, some of wh1~h have investments in Namibia, was extending its ~wn financial interests abroad, in particular in the United States and Canada. On the other hand, the _f(!rces of imperialism consider South Africa and Nam1b1a ~o be the spearhead in their struggle agail!st the national liberation movements of southern Afnca and progres- sive African States. In this connection, certain W~stern countries have for years been granting economic and military support to South Africa, in spite of th~ rele- vant resolutions of the United Nations. This has 209. Encouraged by this support, South Africa con- tinues to intervene militarily in other front-line coun- tries, particularly Mozambique and, most recently, Lesotho so as to break Namibian and South African resistance and, at the same time, discourage countries from giving it their support. 210. It goes without saying that, each time, these reprisals cause heavy loss of life among the civilian population and great material damage, thus handicap- ping the future development of countries that have just been freed from the colonial yoke. The Lao People's Democratic Republic vigorously condemns such barbaric acts. 211. Western co-operation with South Africa also extends to the nuclear field, to such an extent that that country may already be in a position to manufacture nuclear weapons. The possession of such weapons by the Pretoria regime would constitute a constant threat to international peace and security. 212. What is still causing concern to the international community is the decision oflMF, despite General As- sembly resolution 37/2, adopted at the current ses- sion, to grant a loan of$ l. l billion to South Africa. That loan will enable it not only to face up to the great domestic economic difficulties resulting from its policy of massive repression in South Africa itself, its illegal occupation of Namibia and its constant acts of aggression against neighbouring African States, but also to increase its military expenditures over the next two years. This will make South Africa even more arrogant and intransigent and will further delay Na- mibia's accession to independence. 213. It is obvious that the colonial policy of oppres- sion, repression and aggression practised by the racist regime of Pretoria in Namibia and with regard to neigh- bouring African States is a serious threat to peace and security not only in that region but also in the world as a whole. The Security Council, which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, must as it has been called upon to do in several General Asse~bly resolutions, adopt comprehensive man- datory sanctions against South Africa, under Chapter VII of the Charter, in order to ma~e it adopt a more reasonable attitude and respect Umted Nations decisions. 214. The question of Namibia, as reaffirmed by the United Nations Council for Namibia, is a problem of decolonization and must be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries _an~ Pt;oples. The Namibian people must freely exercise its ~1ght to self-determination and independence on the basis of the immediate and complete withdrawal of South African troops from Namibian territory, including Walvis Bay. The negotiated settlement of the Namibian problem must be based on Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). 215. For its part, the Lao Peo~le's Democr~tic Republic finds the attempt by the Umted States to lmk the negotiations on the independence of Namibia territorial integrity of Namibia, the merciless exploi- tation of its people, the shameless pillage of its re- sources the militarization of the Territory and its use · as 'a base for perpetrating acts of aggression against the front-line States, particularly Angola, Zam- bia and Botswana, are all crimes which have created an extremely dangerous situation in sout~ern Africa, threatening international peace and security. 220. This defiance and this unacceptable arrogance on the part of a regime which has been banished f~~m the international community casts doubt on the ab1h_ty of the Organization to translate _i~to acts ~nd dee_ds its own unanimously adopted dec1s1ons. This persistent defiance and this arrogance are not only an insult to the entire international community, but they reflect abov~ all the inability of the Security Council and, more speci- fically the political unwillingness of the great Powers to int~rvene promptly and effectively when in~erna- tional peace, stability and security are seriously threatened. 221. However profound and incurable its political blindness and however impressive its military ~rsen:il ofrepression, South Africa would not be so obstinate m those_ among the~ who, through an abusive use of the veto m the S~:unty Council, opposed the adoption of co~crete poht1cal a~d economic measures designed to 1s~l~te South Africa and force it to withdraw from Namibia. 22~. Indeed, we are confused by in the precautions bemg taken by the five Powers in the contact group so as not to irritat~ South Africa by the actions they have ~ndertaken ~o mduce that country to take part in the 1mple_mentat1on of the settlement plan in which it had been involved and to which it had given its agreement. 224: 1:he truth, repeatedly revealed, is that South :4-fnc~ •~ merely. th<: bridgehead of a vast system of 11_npenahst explo1ta!1on in which these Powers par- t1c1patc through thctr firms and their multinational and transnational corporations. This explains the reluc- tance_ of the States members of the contact group to exercise pressure on South Africa. 225. Thus, we can only conclude that the true nature of the problem facing the Namibian people is that it is an imperialist plot. 226. Indeed, the feigned optimism displayed by the States members of the contact group and the publicity that accompanies each of their actions are only a smoke-screen to camouflage their real manreuvres aimed at imposing a neo-colonialist solution o~ Namibia so as to safeguard their political, economic and military interests by co-operating in Pretoria's attempts to bring about international recognition of the puppets that submissively and shamefully serve its interests. 227. By approving South Africa's demand for the granting of constitutional guarantees to the white minority in Namibia, the States members of the contact group are thereby giving their approval to a racist policy aimed at ensuring that the white population will continue to benefit from privileges denied the black population. 228. By deciding to gram a Joan of over $1 billion to South Africa, against the will of the international com- munity as clearly expressed in General Assembly reso- lution A/37/2, the IMF, dominated by the financial Powers, has done nothing less than contribute directly to the financing and strengthening of the apparatus of repression and oppression of the neo-Nazis of Pretoria. That decision by IMF is a defiance of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and of interna- tional morality and an insult to the conscience of the world. It is also an encouragement of the crime of apartheid, an encouragement of crimes against humanity. 229. Linking the departure of Cuban troops from Angola to the decolonization process in Namibia not only represents gross interference in the affairs of two 233. My delegation shares the views expressed by the United Nations Council for Namibia in its report. The relevance and correctness of its conclusions should, if accepted by all and diligently implemented, finally enable the Namibian people to live freely on the regained land of their ancestors. 234. The People's Republic of Benin, its people, its vanguard party, the Benin People• s Revolutionary Party, and its Government will continue to provide the Namibian people and their sole authentic represen- tative, SW APO, with their militant and unswerving support until final victory. 235. We are ready for the revolution; the struggle con- tinues. 236. Mr. ARAPI (Albania): The Namibian question has already been discussed at many regular and spe- cial sessions of the General Assembly. The Security Council has also held a great number of meetings dealing with that problem. It still remains, however, on the agenda of the General Assembly as one of the most disturbing international questions, because the situation in Namibia has not changed and the long- suffering people of Namibia are still denied by the racists of South Africa their national rights to be free and to have their own independent State. 237. Every year, the just and final solution of the Namibian question takes on a more urgent character because the colonial domination of the racists of South Africa over this country not only constitutes a violation of the rights of the Namibian people but also nurtures a dangerous hotbed of diversion and aggres- sion against the front-line African States, as well as against all African peoples. 238. The fierce racist regime of Pretoria, which constitutes the last bastion of the old colonialism in Africa, although condemned and isolated by the world over, still continues stubbornly and with arrogance to apply the barbarous poli~y of apartheid against the Azanian and Namibian peoples. The numerous cruel 240. The cynicism and cruelty, as well as the methods used by the racists of South Africa to suppress the Azanian and Namibian peoples, or to launch aggres- sions and to perpetrate massacres in the territory of other African countries, are identical with the aggressive actions of the Israeli Zionists~ The racist regime of South Africa and the Israeli Zionists, although located at the two extremes of the African continent, have in common their policy, methods and intentions. They have the same master and supporter as well. Their aggressive actions are incited and en- couraged by the same imperialist forces, primarily, by United States imperialism. The close alliance existing between the racists of South Africa and the Israeli Zionists, their all-round co-operation in the eco- nomic, political and military fields, particularly against the African peoples are an integral part of the alliance of those regimes with United States imperialism. 241. No one can doubt, even for a moment, the truth that the Pretoria regime could not continue its domi- nation and suppression in Namibia for so long, nor would it be able to launch aggressions against other African States and arrogantly challenge world public opinion, without the support of the United States and other imperialist Powers. Regardless of their efforts to exonerate themselves, the United States and other imperialist Powers cannot hide their role and responsibility for the occupation of Namibia by the racists of South Africa and for undermining a solution to the Namibian question. 242. United States imperialism and its allies have great neo-colonialist interests in Namibia and in the whole region of southern Africa. Therefore, they want the Pretoria regime to be as strong as possible and to remain in power as long as it can. The natural re- sources and the strategic position of Namibia are the main reason why the imperialist Powers and monop- olies are in this region and why they do not want the Namibian people to achieve their full and real liberation and independence. 243. But the Pretoria regime and its imperialist masters have for years not found it easy to preserve theirposition1n Namibia. The struggle of the Namibian people for liberation and independence has caused them a lot of trouble. The solidarity and support that the African peoples and all the peoples of the world are rendering to them in this struggle are also a heavy blow to the colonialist and neo-colonialist Powers 249. We are convinced that it will be the Namibian people themselves who, in their _r~solute struggle u~der the leadership of their sole leg1t1mate representative, SW APO, will have the final say in the solution of the Namibian question. 251. Mr. SARRE · (Senegal) (interpretation from Frel1(/1J: For more than three decades, the question of Nam1b1a has bee~ regularly considered by the General Assembly, both m regular and special sessions. It has also been the subjec~ of seve_ral international meetings and conferences, m particular the International Conference on Namibia and Human Rights, held in my co~ntry, at Dakar, fn;>m 5 to 8 January 1976, the Inter- national Conference m Solidarity with the Struggle of the People of Namibia, hel~ in Paris from 11 to 13 Sep- tember 1980, and the Nordic Conference on Namibia held in Helsinki from 9 to 11 March 1981, to mentio~ only those. 252._ This_ indicat_es t_he international community's part1cul~r mter~st m this problem which, as we know, affects mternat1onal peace and security. One might even go so far as to say that this interest is equalled only by the persistent stubbornness of South Africa which, despite the relevant resolutions of the Generai Assembly, the Security Council, the OAU · and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and even the Advisory Opinion on this question handed down by the International Court of Justice on 21 June 1971 3 and ? espite !he repeated al?peals and efforts made by the mternall?~al co~mumty, continues illegally to occupy N am1b1an territory, thereby defying the entire international community. 253. Not content merely to perpetuate its illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia South Africa is attempting to maintain its racist and military domi- nation of this Territory with an arsenal of repressive and oppressive laws. 254. This increased defiance has been coupled with repeated attacks against neighbouring States. This is proved by the recent invasion of Lesotho, which the General Assembly has just unreservedly condemned and the Security Council is now considering. By these attacks, South Africa is attempting to destabilize States whose only crime is to stand on the side of justice and law. The racist Pretoria regime is also violating and flying in the face of the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Decla- ration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the most fundamental principles of international morals and peaceful coexistence among peoples. 255. Sixteen years have passed since the General As- sembly decided to place under its direct respon- sibility the management and administration of the Territory of Namibia until it acceded to independence. As Members will recall, under General Assembly resolution 2248 (S-V), of 19 May 1967, that established the United Nations Council for South West Africa -which subsequently became the United Nations Council for Namibia-this independence was scheduled for June 1968 at the very latest. 256. Since that date, which marks a historic turning- point in the process of the decolonization of Namibia, the Namibian people has been waiting to join the community of free and independent nations, in conformity with its legitimate aspirations. 25~. Because of this state of affairs, my delegation believes that the international community is now aware that simple condemnations of the Pretoria regime, like expressions of active solidarity with the Namibian people in its legitimate struggle, under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole legitimate representative, have not yet caused a radical change which would make it possible for Namibia finally to achieve independence. 259. That is why my delegation considers that, in the present situation in southern Africa, the General As- sembly, in addition to ensuring the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), should have recourse to Article 14 of the United Nations Charter, which states that it: "may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations ... ". 260. It is unfortunate that South Africa did not feel it its duty to abide by the provisions of resolution 435 (1978), which endorses a plan for the peaceful set- tlement of the Namibian problem in the drafting of which all the concerned parties participated, and in particular the Pretoria regime, which gave its agree- ment at that time to all the stages of the negotiations. 261. Because of the systematic refusal of the Pretoria regime to implement the provisions of resolution 435 (1978), the contact group of Western countries, whose efforts we appreciate, should demonstrate more firmness towards South Africa, to make it reconsider its policy in the region and accept the consensus of the international community. 262. Any weakness or resignation evinced by the Western countries concerning South Africa could be interpreted by it as constituting understanding or support for its policy and thus could hamper the imple- mentation of any enforcement measures adopted against it. 263. Senegal has supported the initiative of the contact group, whose perseverance we applaud, be- cause we continue to consider that resolution 435 ( 1978) contains the bases for a just and peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem. 264. As the Head of State of Senegal, Mr. Abdou Diouf, said at the eighteenth ordinary session of the Assembly of Heaijs of State and Government ofOAU, held at Nairobi in June 1981: "it is still possible to lead Namibia to independence through a negotiated solu- tion based upon strict and complete implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)". Less than a week ago, he reiterated Senegal's support for the implementation of that resolution. 265. My country feels that the contact group should be given encouragement in its work, but none the less we consider that if the new initiatives achieve no results, the General Assembly should envisage adopting any measures which would isolate South Africa in the international arena, especially since 268. The international community is therefore duty bound, if it indeed wishes to safeguard the credibility of the United Nations, to exert the necessary pressure on the racist South African regime, including the appropriate sanctions, so that Namibia can achieve its independence. 26~. South Africa's defiance has lasted far too long. It 1s necessary, indeed urgent, for the international community to evince more firmness so as to force the minority regime of Pretoria finally to heed the voice of reason. 270. My country, faithful to the principles and pur- poses of the Charter, and desirous of see fog peace-and Justice maintained throughout the world, will, as in the past, give its active support to the cause of Namibia and SW APO. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Senegal had an opportunity to recall this at the 10th meeting. 271. SW APO, the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people, has demonstrated a spirit of initiative and openness, a will to co-operate, a sense of respon- sibility and political maturity in regard to settling the Namibian question. We must admire this. 272. My delegation would like to congratulate the Secretary-General-who has been helped by Mr. Ahti- saari and Mr. Mishra-and the United Nations Council for Namibia, so competently led by Mr. Paul Lusaka, on their tireless efforts to ensure that Namibia will achieve independence and join the international com- munity, and to offer them our encouragement. 273. On 27 October 1982, during the celebration of the Week of Solidarity with the People of Namibia, the Secretary-General6 and the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia6 reiterated to the interna- tional community their firm determination to ensure a just and lasting solution of the question of Namibia. We were most pleased to note that. 274. In conclusion, I should like to reiterate the appeal made here on 29 September 1982 {10th meeting J, by Mr. Moustapha Niasse, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal, to the international community to be more firm towards South Africa to bring it to accept the terms of resolution 435 (1978), the strict implementation of which should finally make it possible for the Namibian people to regain its sovereignty in a united, free and independent Namibia. 275. Miss GORDON (Trinidad and Tobago): In the four years since the Security Council adopted reso- lution 435 (1978), South Africa has unequivocably demonstrated its position with regard to genuine self- 276. With a variety of military, paramilitary and police units deployed in Namibia, South Africa has turned virtually the entire Territory into a huge military garrison, incorporating increasingly larger portions of Namibia into the so-called operational area. It has sought to eradicate SW APO and its military wing, the People's Liberation Army of Namibia, with even more vicious ruthlessness than that with which it seeks to stamp out dissent within its own borders. By forcibly conscripting black Namibians into the ethnic battalions which now form the backbone of the South-West Africa/Namibia Territory Force, the recently formed local branch of the South African Defence Force, and putting them to the task of terrorizing their own people, the regime seeks to destroy any sense of black Namibian identity and unity of purpose against a common oppressor and is creating a legacy of bitterness and suspicion which is corroding the very fabric of Namibian society. South Africa's flagrant disregard of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neigh- bours is unprecedented. My delegation joins the rest of the international community in whole-heartedly con- demning last week's attack on Maseru and extends its sympathy to the Government and people of Lesotho. 277. South Africa's pillage of Namibia's non-renew- able natural resources over the years, its unbridled exploitation of black Namibians as a source of cheap labour, obliged to work in the most inhuman condi- tions for a pittance, anr;i the massive profits and rapid returns on capital investment which have accrued to companies active there have been well documented. We are all too well aware of the appalling despoliation of this once resource-rich, fertile land. It is quite tragic that when Namibia eventually becomes genuinely inde- pendent, its people will have to undo the effects of years of exploitation and neglect so as to build a country with a sound social and economic base. It is a sorry fact that transnational companies based in the very States which designated Namibia, or South West Africa as it then was, a United Nations trust territory have played a vital role in this shameful saga. How ironic it is that in a United Nations trust territory so extreme and pitiful an .example of the evils of colonialism should be found. 278. The overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations have repeatedly urged the impo- sition of full mandatory sanctions against South Africa ~80. South Africa's recent application for a $1.1 bil- h~~ loan from !MF to offset the effects of increased m1ht~ry spending and a drop in export earnings provided an ex~e.llent opportunity to bring pressure to bear on the regime to amend its policies. Instead South Africa's powerful friends ensured speedy approval of _t~e application. Now, just over a month later, the regime has attacked Lesotho in a novel gesture of appreciation to its powerful friends for the support they have given. 281. We note from a report in The New York Times today, 14 December, that the question of Namibia was recently discussed by the two major.Powers. Given the realities of the international situation, it may well be that these exchanges will contribute to resolving the present stalemate. Be that as it may, history has re- peatedly shown that the legitimate struggle of a people for self-determination and independence can be delay~d ~ut seld~~ halt~~- !here will be no peace and stability m Namibia until 1t 1s administered by a freely and fairly elected Government, supported by all sectors or the community. Until this happens, repression, violence and economic decline will continue and increase. ~n unstable Namibia is a threat to the peace and secunty of the whole region, South Africa in- ~luded. If Namibia is allowed to become independent m the near future, the path to social, political and eco- nomic recovery will be an arduous one, but one which it should be possible to achieve with a minimum of up- heaval. If Namibian independence is further delayed, regional tension will inevitably escalate. When inde- pendence eventually comes, as inevitably it must, an internally weak Namibia in a state of economic col- lapse, vulnerable to negative outside influences, will be thrust into the international community, with all the attendant chaos. The choice is ours.

I should like at the outset, on behalf of the State of Bahrain and its permanent mission to the United Nations, to convey to the Government of the Yemen Arab Republic and its permanent mission to the United Nations our sincere condolences and sympathy on the occasion of the tragic loss suffered by the Yemeni people. We hope that they will overcome the hardships resulting from the earthquake. 283. I should like to extend the sincere thanks and praise of my delegation to the United Nations Council for Namibia for its continuous and sincere efforts in the service of the cause of the Namibian people. I hope that the Council will be able to fulfil the mandate entrusted to it by the General Assembly to work for the full and genuine independence of the Namibian people, a peo- ple which has been struggling, under the leadership of its sole legitimate representative, SW APO, to attain its rights and to establish a sovereign independent State on its national soil. Bahrain supports all measures 291. The conscience of the world calls upon the Western States which advocate human rights and their defence, and the defence of man's liberty all over the world, not to expand their economic, commercial and nuclear co-operation with South Africa. We hope that the mining interests of those States will not take precedence over the human rights and the rights to free- dom and self-determination of the Namibian people. Those States are called upon today to assist the people of Namibia to struggle against racial discriminati~n 29_2._ Moreover, Angola, a neighbour State of Na- mibia, ha~ been :epeatedly attacked by the forces of S_ou_th Afn~a,.whtle Mozambique has been subjected to s1m!lar ~gg~e~sion. The recent aggression against Lesotho 1s hvmg proof of South Africa's insistence on persisting in its brutal aggressions against African St~tes, ~ggressions which.have resulted in a dangerous ~conom1c and social situation in those States. It is 1~cumben! upon the Security Gouncil to impose sanc- tions agamst South Africa, in accordance with its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. 293. That being so, we must support the efforts of the Secretary-General and the United Nations Council for Namibia in continuing to seek an internationally acceptable and just solution to this complicated prob- lem. Until the independence of Namibia has been achieved, the United Nations Council for Namibia, "".hich is the legal Administering Authority, must exer- cise the powers assigned to it by the General Assembly for the Nationhood Programme for Namibia and for the preparation of its different stages. 294. States with leverage and influence must exert as much pressure as possible on South Africa to compel _it to withdraw its occupation forces, terminate its imperialist hegemony and contribute to the reconstruc- tion of an independent Namibia. 295. Next year, the International Conference in Sup- port of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Inde- pendence will be held in Paris, and we therefore hope that 1983 will be a favourable year for the solution of the question of Namibia. 296. Mr. MOLi (Uganda): My delegation wishes at the outset to thank the United Nations Council for Namibia, which is the legal Administering Authority for Namibia, for its report, which covers a broad spectrum of the activities of the Council and its assessment of developments in and relating to the question of Na- mibia. Our special admiration and gratitude go to Mr. Paul Lusaka, President of the United Nations Coun~il for Namibia, for the most able leadership he has s1ven to the Council, and to other members of the Council for their vigilance in furthering the just cause of the Namibian people. 297. We also pay tribute to the United Nations Com- missioner for Namibia and to the special representative of the Secretary-General for the valuable work being done by them to hasten the independence of Namibia. 298. We also commend the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the _Decl~ration on the Granting of Independence to Colo- nial Countries and Peoples for the part of its report concerning Namibia [A/37/23/Rev.l, chap. VIII] and for its continued effort to bring an end to colonialism in Namibia. Our special tribute goes to Mr. Frank Abdulah, of Trinidad and Tobago, whose able leader- ship of the Committee has led to freedom for many men a~d women from colonial bondage. We regret that he will soon move to serve his country elsewhere. How- 301. While the international community has been given a number of assurances on the Namibian settle- ment, South Africa is working to impose its internal settlement aimed at perpetuating its illegal occupation of the Territory, through the racist arrangement of replacing its own white surrogate, Mr. Dirk Mudge, with a black puppet, Mr. Kalangula, in a new internal settlement. This framework, aimed at legalizing South Africa's internal settlement in the international Ter- ritory of Namibia, cannot be acceptable to the Organ- ization. 302. Meanwhile, in an attempt to further legalize its internal settlement in the Territory of Namibia, South Africa has unleashed a reign of terror in that Territory. It continues unabated, through its over-built military machinery and puppet instruments in Namibia, to harass and intimidate the Namibian people, in par- ticular the supporters of SW APO and its freedom fighters, with the aim of destroying SW APO, the legitimate representative of the Namibian people. 303. The military build-up within Namibia has not been confined just to the repression of the Namibian people. The records of the Organization are fraught with the condemnation of South Africa's acts of ag- gression against the sovereign States of Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and Bot- swana. 304. Last week, the Mozambique mission to the United Nations drew the attention of the Group of African States to the fact that the racist forces had, on 6 December, invaded the province of Maputo, wounding children and women and causing much destruction. On 9 December, a similar but graver act was repeated in Lesotho, causing the loss of 42 lives. By consolidating its ntilitary presence and stepping up its aggression against the front-line States, the racist 307. The position of Uganda on these developments was clearly stated on J l October 1982 by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in our policy statement, as follows: "We see no justification for any linkage between Namibian independence and the presence of Cuban military personnel in Angola. The former is a clear- cut colonial issue and has been treated as such by the United Nations and by the entire international com- munity. The latter, on the other hand, is a bilateral arrangement, which is by no means unique, between two independent, sovereign States." [25th meeting, para. 27.) In this regard, my Government welcomed and con- tinues to support the communique of the front-line States of 4 September 1982, in which they rejected manreuvres further to deny the people of Namibia their right to self-determination and independence through "linkage". 308. The interest of those of our Members that still advocate endless waiting for the independence of Namibia is clear. The stake in Namibia is as high for them as it is for South Africa. It is their continued sup- port of the racist regime that has increased its in- transigence. 309. The challenge that the United Nations faces to- day with regard to Namibia is grave and fundamental. It strikes at the very principles and objectives upon which the Organization was founded. The United Nations must, therefore, categorically express its readiness to resolve the issue of independence for Namibia. 3 JO. My delegation continues to maintain that t~e problem of Namibi_a remain~ fu~dam~nt~lly a co_lomal issue. To present 1t oth~rw1se 1s to Justify_ the _11Iegal occupation of that Territory and_ the c~mtmuation of atrocities in Namibia and the entire reg10n. 311. We wish to restate here that Security Counc_il resolution 435 (1978) continues to be_ the only ?a.sis for a negotiated settlement of the question of Namibian 313. We also pay a tribute to the Governments of the front-line States for their commitment to the cause of a free and independent Namibia and their determined ef- forts to continue to extend, at a very high cost, politi- cal and material support to the people of Namibia and their national movement, SW APO.

About six weeks ago, on 27 October 1982, we commemorated the Week of Soli- darity with the People of Namibia and their Liberation Movement, SWAPO. 315. Sixteen years have elapsed since the United Nations terminated the mandate of South Africa over Namibia, and yet the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Administering Authority for Na- mibia until independence, has been prevented by the South African regime from carrying out its functions concerning the Territory. 316. Sixteen years have elapsed since the people ?f Namibia, headed by SW APO, their sole and authentic representative, launched their liberation struggle against the anachronistic and cruel racist Pretoria regime. 3)7. For the past 16 years, Namibia has been one of the focal points to which international attention has been directed. The question of Namibia appears year after year on the agenda of the General Assemb!y, and the international community has had occas10n to express its support for the independence. of Namibia and its opposition to the intransigent attitude of the South African regime, which continues to defy all the norms of international law and morality. 318. The struggle of the people of Namibia is not a liberation war in a far-away place, over issues of which we are only vaguely aware. For us in Cyprus, for the Government and people of Cyprus, the liberation struggle of the Namibian people is a reality close to our hearts. We have lived through similar experiences; we have suffered and we are still experiencing similar historical developments. As a former British colony which had to fight for its liberation, we empathize with our Namibian brothers and feel their struggle as our own. 319. Their determination to achieve their freedom and their independence is also ours; th_eir s~crifices ~nd s1:1f- fering in that process, and also their pnde at their achie- vements, are also ours; and their impatience with those international bodies which have the power to pressure 333. The questions of Palestine and Namibia live in the ~onscience of the ~frican and Arab peoples, c_ausmg them constant anxiety. Those peoples will con- tmue to struggle to put an end once and for all to occu- pation, o~p~ession and r~~ression, unleashed against the Palestmian and Namibian peoples by the Pretoria and Tel Aviv regimes. 334_. We ~ave read with interest the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/37/24] and the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples_[A/37/23/Rc\'./], and we would like to express our gratitude for the efforts of Mr. Paul Lusaka, Presi- dent of the United Nations Council for Namibia, and M:. Frank_ Abdulah, Chajrman of the Special Com- mittee, which also deals with the question of Namibia. 335. As stated in the report of the Special Committee [ibid., chap. VIII], the situation in and around Namibia has continued to deteriorate as a result of South Africa's non-compliance with the decisions and reso- !utions_of the United Nations concerning Namibia and, m particular, as a result of the tactics and manreuvres used by South Africa to prolong its illegal occupation of that Territory and to impose an internal settlement on the Namibian people. 336. We agree with the Special Committee on the necessity for the United Nations to shoulder its responsibility for Namibia and to put an end to the in- transigence of South Africa and its prevarications con- cerning the implementation of Security Council reso- lution ·435 (1978). 337. In this regard, measures must be adopted to ensure unconditional compliance by the South African regime with United Nations resolutions, so as to allow the Namibian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination and independence without further delay. The Security Council must take the necessary action to implement its resolutions concerning the full independence of Namibia. 338. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country said in his statement to the General Assembly ori 14 October 1982: "We oppose all imperialist and racialist attempts to obstruct the independence of Namibia by linking it to the withdrawal of the Cuban troops from Angola, because that is a matter of arrangements between two independent States, Angola and Cuba, arrange- ments that are governed by their bilateral relations in that respect." [3 / st meeting, para. 53.] 339. According to press reports, Lesotho was re- cently the victim of brutal aggression by the South African regime. That aggression against the sover- eignty of an independent State Member of the United Nations, that flagrant violation of its territorial inte- grity, are part of the continuous aggression unleashed against the front-line African States, especially Angola and Mozambique. The forces of the racist regime of South Africa still occupy part of Angolan territory and 341. My country, on the basis of its firm belief in the right of peoples to self-determination, has always con- demned the occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa and the continuous plundering of the wealth of that Territory by Western monopolies. We support the efforts of the United Nations to put an end to the occupation of Namibia, and we advocate the imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa. At the same time, we confirm our support for the struggle of the Namibian people under the leader- ship of SW APO, its sole legitimate representative, and once again call upon the Security Council to adopt mea- sures to put an end to the prevarications of the racist regime in South Africa and to enable Namibia to achieve full independence. 342. Mr. WASIUDDIN (Bangladesh): The ques- tion of Namibia-a sad history of broken promises and broken dates and a chronicle of colonial exploitation, racism and racial discrimination based on apartheid-is again before the Assembly. The Assembly has the fol- lowing documents relating to consideration of the question of Namibia: the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/37/24], the report of the Spe- cial Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial . Countries and Peoples [A/37/23/Rev.I, chap. VIII], the report of the Sec- retaryaGeneral [A/37/203 and Rev.I and Add.I to 4] and the report of the Fourth Committee [A/37/619]. 343. Preceding speakers have already referred to these valuable documents in their statements. Permit me to offer our sincere thanks to Mr. Paul Lusaka for his untiring efforts for the independence of Namibia. 344. My delegation's position on the Namib:an ques- tion is firm and unequivocal and is founded on our en- during commitment to support oppressed people throughout the world who are waging just struggles against imperialism, colonialism and racism. It is also backed by our unswerving faith in the Charter of the United Nations and our firm adherence to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colo- nial Countries and Peoples. It is demonstrated in our repeated reaffirmation of the inalienable rights of all peoples to self-determination, freedom and indepen- dence. It is also deeply rooted in our conviction that the process of decolonization is inevitable and that the struggle for liberty and freedom is an inexorable one. On the occasion of the Week of Solidarity with the 34~. The General Assembly adopted the historic reso- lution 2145 (XXI), terminating the mandate of South Afric~ over Namibia and placing the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. 347. The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion of21 June 1971,3 also declared that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was ill~gal and that South Africa was under obligation to withdraw from Namibia. The decision of the General ~ssembly and the Advisory Opinion of the Interna- t10nal Court of Justice clearly outline the juridical status of the Territory. The international community h_as, therefore, the unique responsibility to protect the nghts and interests of the people of Namibia. 348. It is unfortunate that South Africa, in open defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations and the decisions of the International Court of Justice, refuses to recognize the inalienable national rights of the people of Namibia and the United Nations Council for Namibia-the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until its independence. The past history of this Territory is replete with instances of all the ills that characterize the worst form of colonialism, with the added brutality of the repressive regime of apartheid and its institutionalized discrimination. The logical extension of this policy has been the systematic frag- mentation of the Territory along ethnic and racial lines, exemplified by the system of bantustanization. The racist Pretoria regime, at the same time, has massively deployed its armed forces to police the Territory and bolster its repression. Those troops are not only attempting to suppress the struggle for liberation but have also extended their acts of aggression into neigh- bouring countries, thereby threatening international peace and security. Thousands of Namibians engaged in their legitimate struggle for self-determination have been condemned as terrorists and jailed within South Africa and Namibia. Namibia continues to be de- prived of its economic wealth through indiscriminate exploitation of its resources in violation of Decree No. 1 enacted by the United Nations Council for Na- mibia.4 349. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) remains the basis for peaceful transition of the Territory from colonial subjugation to independence. We seek no more than the complete, unconditional and expeditious implementation of that resolution. During the recent

Before I start my statement con- cerning the item before the Assembly, I should like to express to the delegation of the Yemen Arab Republic the deepest condolences of the people and Government of the Syrian Arab Republic on the loss in lives and property suffered by that fraternal country as a result of the recent earthquake. 355. Since the adoption by the Security Council of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), concerning the plan for the independence of Namibia, the negative developments which have accumulated between the failure of the Geneva meeting in January 1981 and the failure of the consultations organized by the Western contact group have highlighted the following facts. 356. First, the racist regime of South Africa intends only to prevaricate to gain time and to obtain a false truce, so as to undermine international solidarity with the Namibian people in their struggle. 357. Second, the racist regime wants to gain time in order to put the finishing touches on the internal settle- ment, which is designed to perpetuate the exploitation of the Namibian people by means of sham structures and a puppet regime and, at the same time, to eliminate the armed resistance of the people of Namibia, under the leadership of SW APO, its sole legitimate represen- tative. 358. Third, the racist Pretoria regime, by the build- up of its military presence in Namibia, the augmenta- tion of its standing military forces and the escalation of its armed aggression against the front-line States, especially Angola, has proved that it is not interested in a peaceful political solution and that it is preparing for a confrontation that will engulf the entire region. The aggression launched by that regime against Mozambique and Lesotho is but the latest proof, if proof be needed, of the aggressive nature of the racist regime and its criminal intentions regarding the African continent and its peoples. 359. Fourth, the consultations organized by the contact group are designed to mislead world public opinion into believing that progress is being made towards a peaceful solution of the conflict in Namibia. 360. Fifth, the intransigence of South Africa and its prevarication concerning the imp_lementation of the plan endorsed in Security Council resolution 435 (1978) also represent a failure for the States members of the contact group, which have been unable to exert enough pressure on the racist regime to compel it to respect international law. 361. Sixth, all the developments and set-backs wit- nessed by the international community lead us t? believe that there is a conspiracy against the ter_m_1- nation of the occupation of the Territory of N am1bia and the restoration to the people of Namibia of full sovereignty over its territory and resources. 362 Seventh it is essential to understand that South Africa could n~ver have been able to defy the will of the international community nor to mock the reso!~- tions of the United Nations were it not for the mil1- 364. Ninth, the Governments of the other Western countries, which claim to support the international efforts to terminate the occupation of Namibia, are simply condemning that illegal occupation and the policy of apartheid verbally, while they spare no effort in every area to enable South Africa to continue its occupation of Namibia and the exploitation and plunder of its wealth, in co-operation with transnational cor- porations and other economic interests. 365. Tenth, the recent decision by IMF-taken as a result of the weighted vote enjoyed by the Western States-to grant the Government of South Africa a loan exceeding $1 billion, in spite of the demand by the over- whelming majority of the General Assembl~ that the loan be refused and in spite of the fact that 1t enables the racist regime to meet the deficit resulting from the increase in its military expenditures, clearly shows the political option of the Western Powers and proves that those Powers have chosen to align themselves with aggression, nurturing the aggressor and pr~tecting it from the wrath of the international community. 366. Eleventh, the attempts to link the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of the Cuban forces from Angola and to make the latter a. P:e-conditi?n are rejected, and we condemn them. This 1s blatant in- tervention in the internal affairs of an independent State and an attempt to use the negotiations on Namibia for strategic gains. 367. Twelfth, the aims of the terrorism practi~ed by South Africa against the peoples of southern Af~1ca and the aims of the terrorism practised by Israel ~ga_mst the Palestinian and other Arab peoples are similar. Those aims fall within the context of world-wide United States strategy, the aim of which is to re-impose im~e- rialist domination and to reap the benefits of the achie- vements of our peoples since they shook off the yoke of colonialism. 368. Thirteenth the international community must in- tensify its struggle against . th.e racist_ ~e~ime in South Africa and against the Z1omst Israel! reg1m~, not only because of the similarity of the racist 1deolog1es of those two regimes and of their methods, nature and aims in their aggression against the African peoples and the Arab peoples of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, but also because the strengthening of military rela- tions between the two racist regimes of Pretoria and Tel Aviv and the nuclear co-operation between them have proved that Israel also poses a threat to the indepen- t~e questions of Palestine and apartheid, remains a disgrace to Western civilization in the twentieth c~~tury. Nevertheless, we still believe that the impo- s1t1on of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, is the last possible peaceful means of exerting pressure on the Pretoria qovernment to compel it to heed the will of the interna- tional community. 371. We strongly call upon all States to take action :-even if the Security Council is unable to do so-to 1mp.ose, collectively and individually, sanctions agamst South Africa and to ostracize it so as to pave the way for its isolation and to compel it to end its illegal occupation of Namibia, its aggression against neigh- bourmg African States and its odious racist policies. 372. We feel that it is extremely important for the Western industrial States and for the interests which contribute to the support of the racist regime to realize that they must not expect to be able to continue their military and economic co-operation with South Africa and their exploitation and plunder of the wealth of Namibia, while at the same time continuing to enjoy normal relations with the African States and the other non-aligned countries. Such continued support-which has been condemned-will inevitably mean that the African countries and all the non-aligned countries will be forced to extend the scope of their confrontation and boycott to include all those who support the racist regime and have relations with it. 3_73. The Syrian Arab Republic reiterates its posi- tion and declares its absolute resolve to support and assist the Namibian people in their struggle, under the leadership of their sole legitimate representative, SW APO, and the struggles of the people of southern Africa against settler colonialism in the region and in support of liberty, independence and equality of rights. We also strongly condemn the continuing and repeated aggression against Angola and the other front- line African States. 374. The Syrian Arab Republic considers itself part of the front line in the confrontation because it feels that the enemy is the same, whether in Tel Aviv or in Pre- toria; the decisive battle is one and the same. 375. Mr. LOULICHKI . (Morocco) (interpretation from French): First of all, on behalf of my delegation 376. It is 16 years ago since the General Assembly put an end to the mandate authorizing South Africa to administer the Territory of Namibia and entrusted the (!n_it_ed Nations Cou!1cil for Namibia with the respon- s!b1hty for safegu~r~mg the interests and defending the rights of the Namibian people until it achieved its inde- pendence. 377. Since then, condemnation of the South African presence in Namibia and its consequences have be- come increasingly unanimous and vigorous in various international bodies. 378. Nevertheless, while comforted by the steadfast conviction with which the United Nations has been supporting Namibia, we remain shocked and revolted by the obstinacy of the South African authorities in perpetuating their stranglehold over the territory and wealth of Namibia and in stifling the legitimate aspirations of our brother Namibian people. 379. The adoption of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), designed to promote a just and lasting settlement of this issue, and the adoption of the transition plan envisaging the organization of free and equitable elections under international super- vision and control, were favourably received by the international community as a whole. 380. However, the response of the Pretoria regime to the wisdom and maturity shown by Africa in agreeing to support the initiative of the contact group on Na- mibia has consisted of reversed decisions,. delaying tactics and false manreuvres. To the responsible atti- tude of the legitimate representatives of the Namibian people in engaging in a negotiated settlement pro- cess, South Africa has responded by increased exploi- tation of the natural wealth of Namibia, even greater militarization of the Territory and a new wave of per- secution, convictions and imprisonment of Namibian freedom fighters. 381. The adverse effects of the present deadlock in the solution of the Namibian problem are not confined solely to Namibian territory. They also affect neigh- bouring African States, which continue to pay the price for their fraternal and act~ve support of the Namibian people. The recent attack against the capital of the Kingdom of Lesotho is further proof of the total dis- regard for United Nations resolutions and of the per- sistent and flagrant violations of international law on the part of the South African regime. 382. In its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971,3 the International Court of Justice emphasized that when a competent body of the United Nations finds that a situation is illegal, this finding cannot remain without consequence. 383. The situation in Namibia is illegal and is a threat to international peace and security. It is for the Secu- rity Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace, to take the necessary coercive measures to compel South Africa to respect international legality. 384. In this connection, it is unfortunate that in spite of the adoption of several United Nations resolutions 385. We are convinced that without this support, which continues in violation of the United Nations Charter, South Africa would not have adopted this atti- tude of disdain and arrogance towards the international consensus. 386. It is high time that a new, sincere and decisive impulse be given to the 1978 peace process in order to free the fraternal Namibian people from the colonial yoke and enable it to join the community of inde- pendent nations. What is at stake is the credibility of the United Nations system, international peace and, lastly, human dignity. 387. As a non-aligned African State, Morocco has constantly given its unconditional support to the fra- ternal people of Namibia, a people whicq continues to be subjected to the domination ofa bloody racist regime and which is waging a heroic struggle to regain its usurped freedom and its sovereignty over its ter- ritory. 388. In his statement before the General Assembly [17th meeting], the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Morocco appealed to the members of the contact group to redouble their efforts to carry out the process which is to lead to the final settlement of the Namibian ques- tion, in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 389. In renewing that appeal, the Moroccan dele- gati9n expresses the hope that the current difficulties can be overcome and that the necessary pressure can be exerted on the Pretoria regime to eliminate this last bastion of colonialism and restore peace in the region, free from interference and foreign intervention. 390. I could not conclude my statement without paying a well-deserved tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia and its President, Mr. Lusaka, for the invaluable role they continue to play in safe- guarding the interests of the Namibian people and in their militant activities to hasten liberation of that fraternal people.

It is a matter of great concern that the situation in Namibia continues to deteriorate as a consequence of the non-compliance by racist South Africa with the relevant resolutions and decisions of the United Nations. The tactics and manreuvres employed by South Africa to perpetuate its illegal domination of that Territory and to impose an internal settlement on the Namibian people has been a constant threat to international peace and security. 392. It is no accident that the growing intransigence of the apartheid regime has coincided with increasing, unprovoked aggression against neighbouring sover- eign States. South Africa has used the T~rritor}'. of Namibia to launch repeated acts of aggression against the front-line States. The recent brutal and unprovoked attack against Lesotho, which resultf:d in the loss of many innocent Jives and the destruction of property, is yet another open violation by South Africa of the 393. The United Nations has a special responsibility for Namibia until the Territory attains self-determi- nation and national independence. We strongly con- demn the brutal repression by South Africa of the Namibian people and its persistent violation of their basic human rights in order to destroy the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia. We also condemn South Africa's illegal exploitation of the natural re- sources of Namibia. South Africa's intensified mili- tary build-up in Namibia is designed to destabilize neighbouring States. My delegation reiterates that any action by the occupying Power to separate any part of Namibia and claim sovereignty over it is illegal and null and void, as repeatedly affirmed by the United Nations, particularly in General Assembly resolutions · S-9/2 and 36/ 121 A and Security Council resolution 432 (1978). 394. Nepal reaffirms its support for the struggle of the Namibian people to put an end to the illegal and oppressive occupation of their country. We also con- firm our full support for the national liberation move- ment of the Namibian people under the leadership of SW APO. We commend SW APO for its stated commit- ment to bring about a peaceful transition in Namibia and for its constructive attitude in the delicate negotiations held thus far. I wish to avail myselfofthis opportunity to express our appreciation to the front- line States, to Nigeria and to the OAU for their commit- ment to the cause of a free and independent Namibia. We also greatly commend the relentless effort being exerted to that end by the United Nations Council for Namibia. 395. In the light of the serious threat to international peace and security posed by South Africa and its per- sistent policy of apartheid and bantustanization, my delegation urges the Security Counc.il to act decisively under the terms of the Charter. 396. Nepal denounces all manreuvres by South Africa to bring about a sham independence in Namibia. The only political solution for Namibia should be one based on the termination of South Africa's illegal occupation, the withdrawal of its armed forces and the exercise by the Namibian people of their right to self-determination and independence within a united Namibia, in accord- ance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). 397. To this end, Nepal reaffirms its belief in the need to hold, without further delay, free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations, in accordance with Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). Resolution 435 (1978) embodies an international consensus and constitutes the only acceptable basis for the transition of Namibia to inde- pendence. My delegation appeals to all States, par- ticularly to the five members of the contact group, to exert the maximum effort in order to implement the United Nations plan for Namibia without delay. 3 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Secu- ' A/36/696/Add.4. • See A/AC.131/PV.389. 1 South West Africa, Second Phase, Judgment, l.C.J. Reports /966, p. 6.