A/38/PV.74 General Assembly

The United Nations continues to face a serious deadlock over the issue of Namibia's indeI?endence. South Africa, controlled by a regime which has httle regard for international law, public opinion or ~uJ'!lan rights, has imposed a reign of terror upon the mdIgenous population of Namibia. That regime, which has been universally condemned for its racist policies in South Africa, has extended the instruments of apartheid and "bantustanization" to suppress Namibians as well. The natural wealth and resources of Namibia are being wantonly exploited, despite Decree No. 1 for the Protec- tion of the Natural Resources of Namibia,1 enacted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974. 2. The United Nations has tried to free the international Territory of Namibia from South Africa, in accord- ance with Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) and with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. However, South Africa has placed hurdle after hurdle on the path leading towards Namibia's independence. 3. The Secretary-General, in his report to the Security Council,2 following his visit to South Africa, Namibia and Angola in August 1983, informed us ef the position of the South African Government that the only issue that stands in the way of Namibia's independence is the pres- ence of Cuban troops in Angola. The Secretary-General has termed this so-called linkage unacceptable. My dele- gation, along with the rest of the members of the Move- ment of Non-Aligned Countries and other countries, has always considered linkage to be absurd and totally irrel- evant to the issue at hand. This is further demonstrated by the fact that such linkage was not seen at the time when Security Council resolution 435 (1978) was formulated. We suspect that South Africa and its supporters, having no other excuse to continue to deny Namibia its inde- pendence. have now brought in this extraneous matter of • Resumed from the 72nd meeting. NEW YORK Cuban troops, however ridiculous and irrational it may seem. My delegation believes that the decision of whether to retain the Cuban troops on the territory of Angola or to send them out is a matter to be dealt with by Angola and that it should have nothing to do with Namibia's independence. 4. The annual debates that we hold here in the General Assembly, though they may sound repetitious, are very important. They keep international opinion informed of the atrocities being committed by the Pretoria regime and give us a specific opportunity to seek help in our contin- uing search for a just and lasting solution. This applies also to the debates in the Security Council, where, as we have seen, crucial decisions have been reached. 5. The objectives of the international community are clear, and decisions as to what has to be done have'been taken both by the SecurityCouncil and the General Assem- bly. The question now is: How do we go about imple- menting these decisions, in particular Security Council resolution 435 (1978)? 6. The South West Africa People's Organization [SWAPO], the sole and legitimate represent.itive of the Namibian people, has managed to put up a degree of heroic resistance. However, in the face of South Africa's enormous military might, built on the resources generated from exploiting the natural wealth of South Africa and Namibia, SWAPO's brave freedom struggle cannot alone win the battle. Additional support must come from impos- ing appropriate sanctions on South Africa under Chap- ter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. This requires the support of all the permanent members of the Security Council, which so far has not been forthcoming in every case. There must also be adequate moral and economic pressures on South Africa by those Western countries that still maintain ties with the Pretoria regime. Unless such pressures are brought to bear upon Pretoria, no verbal plea or condemnation will make it budge sufficiently from its present position. My delegation hopes that all the countries that are in a position to do so will extend their co-operation to enable Namibia to attain its independence without any further delay. 7.' Mr. KORHONEN (Finland): Five years have gone by since the adoption of the United Nations plan for Namibia, as endorsed in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), a plan which was arrived at after years of pains- taking negotiations and agreed to by all parties. This year tl.e Security Council has felt the need to reaffirm the plan in its resolutions 532 (1983) and 539 (1983). Namibia is not free. On the contrary, we still face an impasse owung to the introduction of issues extraneous to the United Nations plan. 8. The report ofthe United Nations Council for Namibia [A/38/24], under the able guidance of Mr. Lusaka, of Zambia, gives U3 a graphic description of the Namibia situation. \1\. hile South Africa cJntinues its illegal occu- pation of Namibia, tension has escalated in the region because of South Africa's repeated attacks against its neighbours. Its actions show that policies of internal repression breed external aggression. Violence is further 17. The Political Declaration of the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Coun- tries, held at New Delhi from 7 to 12 March 1983 [see A/38/132 and Corr.l and 2s annex, sect. 1], reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self- determination and national independence in' a united Namibia, including Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and other adjacent offshore islands. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their solidarity with the Namibian people and support for their heroic struggle, by all means at their disposal, including armed struggle, waged under the leadership of SWAPO, their sole authentic and legit- imate representative. They pledged to render increased material, financial, military, political, humanitarian, diplomatic and moral assistance to SWAPO for the inten- sification of the struggle on all fronts. They denounced the illegal exploitationofthe natural resources ofNamibia, stressing that such exploitation under the protection of the occupying Power constituted a serious violation of the Charter ofthe United Nations and an obstacle to the political independence of Namibia. 18. With regard to diplomatic efforts aimed at a settle- ment of the Namibian question, the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries expressed their deep concern that Namibia's independence continued to be obstructed by the intran.:dgence and persistent refusal of the racist regime of South Africa to comply with the ~ema~ds the independence of Namibia with growing Imp!ltIence. Consequently, the racist regime of South AfrIca must terminate its illegal occupation of the Terri- tory. There is no reason to delay the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), because all out- standing issues were agreed upon during the visit of the Secretary-General to South Africa. That country should announce its choice of electoral system in the process of implementation. 32. T.he rejection of t~e li~lkage.issue by the Security CouncIl should be a serIOUS warmng to Pretoria not to fabricate any more pre-conditions for the independence of Namibia. As has been pointed out many times in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, the pres- ence of Cuban military personnel in Angola is a matter within the internal jurisdiction of the Government Df Ang~l~ and cannot be linked to the independence of NamIbIa. As the representative of Angola pointed out in the Security Council: "In 1975, even as our late President, Mr. Agostinho Neto, was announcing independence to a jubilant civil- ian crowd in Luanda, South African guns could be heard not too far from our capital. It was in response to the South African militar~ irvasion of the People's Republic of Angola within hours of our birth as an independent Angola that we invited . . . our Cuban friends to assist us in fighting this fresh onslaught of imperialism." 7 33. South Africa has constituted a threat to Angola from the very beginning of its independence. There have b.een South African soldiers in the territory of Angola smce that time. There have been no Angolan military forces in the territory of South Africa at any time. How can South Africa pretend to be threatened? But Angola and the other front-line States have been invaded by the military forces of the racist regime many times. They have been threatened since their accession to independence, and they have the right to defend themselves. Their right to self-defence cannot be linked to the independence of Namibia. .. 34. The independence of Namibia is a question ofdecol- onization, which is one of the most important issues before the United Nations. The impediments to the pro- cess of decolonization are discussed year after year by the General Assembly. The racist regime of South Africa is among the impediments mentioned on different occa- sions by representatives of Member States. In this debate on the question of Namibia, the intransigent policy of the apartheid regime is once again highlighted. 35. Since Security Council resolution 539 (1983) was adopted by 14 affirmative votes, with one abstention, all of us have been waiting for some kind of constructive approach from the Government of South Africa. How- ever, on 29 October the racist regime once again rejected a resolution of the United Nations. The communication sent to the Secretary-General reads, inter alia, as follows: "What is important, however, is that no settlement plan can be implemented unless a firm agreement is reached on Cuban withdrawal from Angola." 8 This was I" Iple: They could use the!r economic le'ferage to change e attItude of South AfrIca and to make it respect the :solutions of the United Nations and the will of the international community. 38. The time is approaching when it will be unavoidable for the United Nations to consider seriously comprehen- sive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. My delegation believes that this should be the next step by the Security Council if the racist regime continues to ~isregar.d its latest re~olution. We once again urge the m~er~atIona!comml.!'mty not to let South Africa get away WIth ItS defIant polIcy. . 39. I take this opportunity to reaffirm the position of my delegation in full support of the struggle of the Namibian people for independence under the leadership ofSW~O, its sole and legitimate representative. Nobody has the fight to deny the people of Namibia its right to self-determination and sovereignty over its territory. The people of Namibia has the right to fight against the racist ~ccuP¥ing Power, using all. the means at its disposal, ~ncludmg armed struggle. In ItS struggle for independence It can count upon the solidarity and active support of the people and Government of the Hungarian People's Republic. 40. Mr. RASON (Madagascar) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, first of all, on behalf of the delegation of Madagascar, I should like to express our thanks to the President and the members of the United Nations Council for Namibia for the comprehensive and full report they have submitted to the General Assembly [A/38/24] and to convey to them our appreciation for their contribution to strengthening the support of the international community for the struggle of the Namibian people. 41. . We should also like to take this opportunity to pay a tnbute to the Secretary-General and to the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia for the constant efforts both have made and are still making in order to bring about, as quickly as possible, the liberation of a people which has already suffered too much and to establish international legitimacy and justice. ' 42. We welcome the participation of the delegation of SWAPO in our debate. The statement by the Secretary for Foreign Relations, Mr. Mueshihange [72nd meeting] bears witness to the responsible attitude of the leader~ s~ruggleof the Namibian people for independence. Sou!h Africa still to this day occupies large tracts of land III southern Angola. 80. These criminal acts of the South African authorities are inseparable from the connivance and support of a certain super-Power. This super-Power pursues a pohcy of so-called constructive engagement and is expanding its relations with South Africa in numerous fields, thus further inflating the arrogance of the reactionary South African authorities. 81. For the past year or so, the internati?nal commU1~ity has been making new efforts towards the Implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the early realization of the independence of Namibia. Last April, the International Conference in Support of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence was held in Paris with the participation of representatives from over 100 countries. The Conference adopted the Paris Decla- ration and Programme of Action on Namibia.lI In addi- tion both the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Gov'ernment of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi last March, and the nineteenth ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of t~e Organization of African Unity [OAU], held at AddIs Ababa last June, placed the question of Namibia as an important item on their agendas and adopted relevant documents [see A/38/132 and Corr.l and 2, annex, sect. I, andA/38/312, respectively]. The Security.Coun- cil met twice-in May and October 1983-to reVIew the Namibian question, and adopted resolutions 532 (1983) and 539 (1983). Particularly noteworthy is the fact that resolution 539 (1983) explicitly condemns South Africa "for its obstruction of the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)", rejects "South Africa's insistence on linking the independence of Namibia to irrel- evant and extraneous issues as incompatible with resolu- tion 435 (1978)" and decides "to consider the adoption of (interpretat~on from Russian): Th~ question of th~ grant- ing of true mdepender.ce to NamIbIa, currently Illegally 109. My delegation believes that if South Africa con- tinues to delay Namibia's independence by resorting to delaying tactics and tricks, the Security Council should contemplate the adoption of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against it, to make it respect the relevant United Nations resolutions. Have we already forgotten that the General Assembly declared 1982 International Year of Mobilization for Sanctions against South Africa? We hope that during this year the international community will make every possible effort to ensure that the Secu- rity Council adopts comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa, under Chapter VII of the Charter or the United Nations. We have for too long tolerated South Africa's defiant attitude. It is time to act effec- tively; it is now or never. 110. Meanwhile, my delegation believes that the General Assembly should take measures to ensure that, first, South Africa stops applying a policy of ruthless aggres- sion and brutal repression, taking the form of assassina- tions, arrests and acts of torture against Namibians, and in particular the leaders and members of SWAPO; secondly, that South Africa stops strengthening its mili- tary presence on Namibian territory and using Namibia as a springboard for its acts of aggression against the neighbouring countries, particularly Angola; and thirdly, that South Africastops its plunder ofthe natural resources of Namibia, in collusion with other foreign economic interests and in defiance of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, I adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974. 111. In conclusion, my delegation takes this opportunity to reiterate the support of the Government and people of Togo for the valiant people of Namibi~, under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole and authentic represent- ative, in its heroic struggle for an independent Namibia. We renew our warm congratulations to the Secretary- General for his constant, tireless efforts to facilitate Namibia's accession to independence within the frame- work of Security Council resolution 435 (1978).

During 1983, the United Nations held several meetings to discuss and adopt resolutions on the question ofNamibia, which proves the urgent nature ofthe problem and the international community's great concern about it. In these various forums, the delegation of Viet Nam has stated the position of its country and made its modest contribution. Two weeks ago [61st meeting] our delegation spoke on agenda item 32, concerning the whole question of the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa, which constitute a crime against human- ityand against peace. Therefore, my statement today will be confined to Namibia's right to self-determination-or, rather, to certain aspects of the problem which seem to us to be of priority concern. 116. It must be emphasized that such a war, by its own internal logic, will inevitably escalate, with unforeseeable risks of its extension and intensification. One precedent that is worth thinking about is the Viet Nam war, also a war of repression, which escalated and escalated and, as everyone knows, became a war of aggression, involving the ~nost sophisticated weapons and horrible crimes com- mitted by the aggressors. As Namibia is the object of collective colonialism by Western imperialism, there is an even greater risk that the war of repression in that country will escalate, because of the adventm~rtic policy ,:)f the current United States Administration and Preto- ria's execution ofthat policywithout theslightest ...cruples. The brutal and immoral use of force by the biggest impe- rialist Power against a little country 10,000 times smaller and less populated, as in the recent invasion of Grenada, will lead all the peoples of the world, including the people of Namibia, never again to believe declarations of respect for law and for the Charter of the United Nations made by the ringleader of imperialism and its allies, or their protestations of good will and of respect for United Nations resolutions. 117. The danger of a more brutal and wider war is becoming more real, but that in no way means that the imperialists will have the last word. Namibia's fight for freedom, under the direction of SWAPO, already has a solid basis-not in other countries, as Pretoria claims, but within the people of Namibia themselves. In today's world, the people taking part in such a struggl'~j with hearts and minds united, is invincible. 118. Faced with this war of repression by Pretoria, the people of Namibia has mobilized all its forces, and it is now using all the means at its disposal, including armed struggle, to attain its right to self-determination. This is a sensible, legitimate and legal action which no one can deny or challenge. 119. The struggle of the people of Namibia is also a direct blow at the loathsome policy of apartheid. It is fraternal assistance to the South African people and direct and effective assistance to the front-line States, which are exposed to international imperialism's policy of neo- colonial reconquest. It is also an outstanding contribution to the maintenance of peace and security in the region. The solidarity of the peoples and States of southern Africa in this struggle is logical; it is an imperative of life, in perfect harmony with international law and morality. 120. It was in this spirit that the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Coun- tries, held at New Delhi from 7 to 12 March 1983, stated that it "cornmended the activities of SWAPO, in partic- ular of the People's Liberation Army of Namfbia, its military wing, in their struggle against the illegal admin- istration in Namibia ..." [see A/38/132 and Corr.1 and 2, annex, sect. I, para. 41]. nationa~ organizations associated with the United Nations to render increased material assistance to the oppressed people of Namibia and to SWAPO ..." and to take action to mobilize "Governments and public opinion in support of the liberation struggle of the Namibian people . . ." .12 125. As South Africa encounters increasingly serious difficulties in maintaining its old colonial system, along with its war of repression, it will perfidiously escalate its so-called neo-colonialist reforms as well. The people of Namibia, devoting all their energy to facing the war of repression, are, under the leadership of SWAPO, working vigilantly to strengthen their national unity, thwarting Pretoria in all its subterfuges, and persevering along the road that they freely chose towards true independence, avoiding the imperialist pitfall of neo-colonialism. 126. The New Delhi Conference was right to denounce all so-called constitutional and political schemes through which South Africa has fraudulently attempted to per- petuate its colonial domination in Namibia and to urge all States " ....ot to recognize any entity installed in Namibia through.::,· .internal, settlement or any other form of rlirect adnunistration in contravention of United Nations resolutions" [ibid., para. 50]. 127. The international community would do well to state its views as clearly and concisely on this aspect of the problem, by expressing its determination to give effect, in the fullest way, to the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and also to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and its determination s~ould be implemented forthwith and unconditionally, WIthout any change or amendment. 129. During the recent debates in the Security Council, many delegations were right to question the effectiveness and, indeed, the value of the Western contact group. Three years have elapsed since the pre-implementation meeting held at Geneva in JaxllUary 1981. Despite the reasonable and. flexible approach taken by SWAPO, the contact group is still in a deadlock because South Africa has continued to create one obstacle after another. After its arrogant demand that it impose long-term guidelines m the future independent State of Namibia, Pretoria has now moved on to raising extraneous issues thr: have nothing to do with Namibian independence. In pankular, it is linkinr the cessation of its illegal occupation of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Ang~la, a linkage which one delegation quite rightly descnbed as totally ridiculous, illogical, illegal, illegiti- mate and unfair. 130. The International Conference in Support of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence, held in Paris last April, firmly rejected "the (;;,dinued attempts by the United States and the South African regime to obstruct the implementation of reSt· "tion 435 (1978) and to establish any linkage or pan.ildism between the independence of Namibia and extraneous and irrelevant issues, in particular the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola ...".13 There is hardly any need for me to point out here that the presence of Cubal' troops in Angola is based on an agreement between t\\O sovereign States, and that this magnanimous and noMe contribution by Cuba to Ango- lan defence was greatly appreciated at the Fifth Confer- ence of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo in August 1976. Very recently, the Secretary-Generai and the Security Council quite clearly rejected this linkage which was so improperly established by the United States ~:.ld South Africa. 131. While international public opinion has welcomed the statement by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs dissociating France from this not very inspiring attempt, we nevertheless regret that the attitude of other members of the Western contact group remains, to say the least, ambiguous, and we are particularly outraged that the United States should continue to defend the indefensible position of South Africa, which is the reason for the current deadlock. International opinion expects the Secu- rity Council, at its next meeting and on the basis of the report of the Secretary-General,2 to take adequate force- ful measures to eliminate this obstacle which was artifi- cially created to postpone independence for Namibia. 132. Whatever one's views on the value of the contact group, the Vietnamese delegation shares the view of many delegations that the role of the United Nations, and primarily the Security Council, in the solution of the problem of Namibia should be strengthened. It is high time for the United Nations, and primarily the Security Council, to take direct and permanent responsibility for the task of granting independence to Namibia. The Secu- rity Council as a whole, with all its permanent members, should have a decisive voice in this, and should put any end to manoeuvering and not let itself be replaced by the 156. Is there any need to say that the evolution of the problem of Namibia is familiar to us all? This year, once again, we are repeating what we have said in previous years without the slightest glimmer of hope that this struggling African nation might soon reach true inde- pendence. The international community will continue to condemn thr Ulegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and its plundering of the natural resources of that Territory. The meeting rose at 1.35 p.m. NOTES 5Ibid., (-ara. 25. 61bid., Thirty-eighth Year, 2481st meeting. 7Ibid., 2482nd meeting. SIbid., Thirty-eighth Year, Supplement for October, November and December 1983, document 8/16106. 9Uniiio Nacional para a Independencia Total de Angola. 108ee Report of the International Conference in Support of the Struggle ofthe Namibian Peoplefor Independence, Paris, 25-29 April 1983 (A/CONF.120/13), para. 193.