A/38/PV.75 General Assembly

The International Conference in Support of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence was held in Paris from 25 to 29 April 1983. Subsequently, in May, the Security Council agreed to devote a series of meetings to the question of Namibia and adopted resolution 532 (1983), in which, interalia, it entrusted the Secretary-Gen- eral with certain tasks in connection with this problem, which is of such concern to the international community. 2. In fulfilment of his mandate, the Secretary-General visited South Africa, Namibia and Angola in August 1983 in order to hold talks which would at last make possible the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia endorsed by the Security Coun- cil in its resolution 435 (1978). In his report to the Security Council, I the SecretaryQGeneral reported on the progress made in his talks with the Government of South Africa and on how virtually all the issues that remained out- standing relating to the implementation of Security Coun- cil resolution 435 (1978) had been resolved. 3. Later, in October, the Security Council, in its reso- lution 539 (1983), requested the Secretary-General to pro- duce a further report on the situation, to be submitted not lat\. r than 31 December this year. 4. That those four events of extraordinary importance occurred in the course of the year demonstrates the great concern felt by the international community regarding the Namibian cause. 5. When, 17 years ago, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI), which put an end to the Mandate that the League of Nations had given South Africa to administer Namibia, it never imagined that implementa- tion of that resolution might be delayed almost indefi- nitely, in open opposition to the wishes and commit~ent of the vast majority ofthe States Members of the Umted Nations. 6. In many decisions, adopted both by the Security Council and by the General Assembly, the international community has invariably reiterated its determination to bring about the independence of Namibia as soon as possible and wi.thout any conditions additional to those NEW YORK already expressed, The International Court of Justice has endorsed that position. 7. The United Nations Council for Namibia, of which my country is a member, was established by the General Assembly pursuant to its resolution 2248 (S-V) as the legal Administering Authority of Namibia until its independ- ence. This is perhaps the most reliable proof that the United Nations rejects the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. We must shoulder our responsibility which is none other than to guide Namibia towards inde- pendence as quickly as possible and by peaceful means. 8. In this connection, we support the effort being made by the Western contact group to arrive at a solution of this situation. None the less, we believe that those efforts must be redoubled in order to avoid a dangerous sense of frustration and distrust in the international commu- nity. We also understand how rightly impatient the front- line States and Nigeria are in seeking prompt and effective solutions to a problem which has already existed far too long. 9. Chile, which has been fighting for the cause of Namibia both in the Assembly and in the Security Coun- cil, in the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and in the United Nations Council for Namibia itself, has been advocating a peaceful solution to this problem. 10. In this respect, we are pleased with the initiative taken by the Secretary-General with all the parties directly concerned. Last year, in his report on the work of the Organization,2 he called upon us to reflect on the need for additional efforts, since after many failures, at last the possibility of success was discernible. It is possible today for us to say that the international community is really beginning to see, by means of the steps taken by the Secretary-General, that seeking independence for Namibia is not Utopian. The cause of Namibia is the cause of the entire United Nations; we all have our share the responsibility and we have all pledged to advance it. 11. This is why we reject the extreme position of those who attempt to use Namibia as a forum for the discus- sion of disputes between East and West. We also reject once again, most energetically, the clumsy and unfounded accusation irresponsibly levelled against certain States of the southern tip of Latin America, to the effect that they have formed imaginary pacts with a country whose policy and practice ofapartheidthey have openly fought against. With the common aim of bringing about an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia, we must unite our efforts and co-operate in the task of the Secretary-General and not weaken with gratuitous insults and demagogic prac- tices the interest shown and the progress he has achieved. 12. Chile, as a country that has always promoted and supported the principle of the peaceful settlement of dis- putes through the methods recognized in international law and supported by the Charter of the United Nations, believes that no effort should be spared towards the achievement of a 'prompt solution to the question of Namibia, without any delaying or distracting tactics, in freedom fighters of Namibia, who, under the leadershIp of their sole legitimate representative, SWAPO, are w~g­ ing a glorious struggle for national liberation ~nd ma~mg any sacrifice to gain the status of free .men I~ a u~I~ed homeland, including Walvis Bay. That tn~'-!te, m addltI<;)fi to being irrefutable proof of the uncondItional commIt- ment of the people of Cape Verde to ~he cause. of.our Namibian brothers in their struggle agamst explOItation, repression and racism, is also our recognition, ~ mem~ers of the international community, of those herOIc, valIant 79. These important meetings have kept the international community continuously seized of the situation in Namibia throughout the year. It would, therefore, be superfluous to repeat at this juncture the plethora of South Africa's detestable policies and practices in Namibia or in the entire region of southern Africa. Nor should it be neces- sary to recall the volumes of resolutions and decisions that have been adopted by United Nations bodies over the course of more than two decades. Rather, I will focus attention on the actions that the Assembly should con- sider to reinforce this year's international efforts to compel the racist Pretoria regime to heed the decisions of the Organization. 80. The final documents of the International Confer- ence in Support of the Struggle of the Nan .bian People for Independence, including the Paris Declaration and the Programme of Action on Namibia,8 fully a;.ld com- prehensively detail the insidious array of measures and policies instituted by the Pretoria regime to perpetuate its illegal control and domination of Namibia. Among the important findings was that South Africa's colonial occupation and exploitation of Namibia, its attempts to impose fraudulent constitutional and political schemes, its policies of internal repression and external aggression, including stepped-up attacks against the front-line States and SWAPO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibian peopl~, have reached such levels that greater hostilities, which would pose a grave threat to peace and security, may break out in the region. To meet this chal- lenge, the Conference urged the immediate imposition by the Security Council of comprehensive mandatory sanc- tions against South Africa. In addition, it reaffirmed the United Nations plan for Namibia as the only universally acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question, expressed its full support for the Secretary- General's efforts to achieve implementation of the plan urgently and firmly rejected all attempts by certain quar- ters to establish any linkage between the independence of Namibia and extraneous issues. 81. I would like to recall that the Indonesian delegation to the International Conference in Paris stressed the imperative need' for all States, including South Africa's friends, to cease and desist from all policies and actions which serve to strengthen Pretoria's stranglehold over Namibia. This would necessarily include rejecting as totally unacceptable attempts to interject questions unre- questi~,n of the decolonization and independence of Namibia would be nothing short of a violation of the sacred principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international law. Indeed, if the inter- national community were to countenance such a conten- tion, it would be sanctioning a denial of a sovereign right to one Government in return for independence for a colonial people. My delegation is of the firm view that such an anomaly could never be accepted by the Organ- ization as it would establish a dangerous precedent whereby a State or group of States, or even the interna- tional community, could justify an infringement of such a basic sovereign right. 89. By adopting resolution 539 (1983), the Security Council has put South Africa on notice that it can no longer count upon dilatory manoeuvres to delay further the implementation of the United Nations plan. My dele- gation also believes that this resolution squarely places the Security Council in an unambiguous position, for if the Secretary-General's further report, to be issued shortly, continues to reflect South Africa's insistence on linking extraneous issues to Namibian independence, the Council will be obliged to act forcefully and adopt con- crete measures. There is no question but that inaction by the Council will only hasten the advent of a conflagration of unprecedented proportions in southern Africa. These are the stark choices that the Security Council will have to face in the ensuing weeks and the Assembly should do all that it can to ensure the implementation not only of resolution 539 (1983) but also of the United Nations plan for independence of Namibia itself. It should be apparent to all that time is perilously short for achieving independence for Namibia through a peaceful process. Thus, we must act now, as any further delay could irre- parably undermine the terms of the United Nations plan and thereby plunge the region of southern Africa into a cataclysmic upheaval beyond anyone's control. 90. Mr. ALBORNOZ (Ecuador) (interpretation from Spanish): The subject of Namibia is of direct relevance to Ecuador because it involves fundamental aspects of legal coexistence in our time, such as respect for the tenets of the Charter and the resolutions, decisions and declara- tions of the organs of the international system, as well as the solidarity that my country has always maintained with our brothers from Africa in the course ofindepend- ent life and development. 91. That is why Ecuador takes this opportunity to reaf- firm its solidarity with the Namibian people and to reject the rebellious position of the Government of South Africa, which has disregarded the resolutions and appeals of the General Assembly and the Security Council-above all, Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which we consider provides the most appropriate framework for a peaceful, internationally acceptable solution to the problem-and has ignored the advisory opinion of the International 140. The truth, however, is that between 1978 and 1983 there has been no progress whatsoever in the situation of Namibia, except on paper. Quite the contrary, the problem. 226. We cannot conceal our concern about what appears to be the obvious inability of the Security Council to decide upon more firm action which would force South Africa to abide by Council resolutions. However, there is another fact which is more serious and from every standpoint even more bizarre. I am referring to the letter of 31 October 1983 sent to the Secretary-General b:, the South African representative to the United Nations. 13 This incorporates the statement made by Mr. Botha, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information of the Pretoria regime, who depe~dent on Namibian uranium for their own energy supplIes. 263. It should be recalled that these activities are ilIega" under international law, for the United Nations ended South Africa's Mandate over Namibia in 1966. There- fore, one can understand the reasons why the West seeks 338. The whole world knows that the United States and the other participants in the so-called Western contact group are primarily concerned with maintaining their political, strategic and economic interests in southern Africa, and so they use all possible means to support the racist Pretoria regime. At the United Nations, they pro- tect South Africa by opposing the imposition against it of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Char- ter. They violate the Security Council's arms embargo against South Africa, and the transnational corporations of those countries shamelessly plunder the natural wealth of Namibia and profit from the sweat and tears of the Namibian people. According to a working paper prepared by the Secretariat for the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Dec- laration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,3 there are in Namibia 90 transnational corporations, the majority of which belong to the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa. South African and Western transnational cor- porations dominate the key sector of the Namibian econ- omy, the mining industry, which yields almost two thirds of all Namibia's exports and about half of the State income. According to the most conservative figures, the net income of foreign monopolies constitutes 45 per cent of the gross national product (GNP) of Namibia, while 36 per cent of the GNP is exported in the form of profits, dividends and taxes. The native inhabitants of Namibia, who make up more than 90 per cent of the population, receive less than 10 per cent of the GNP. 339. Especially ominous is the nuclear co-operation of Western countries and Israel with South Africa. As the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/38/24] emphasizes, the development of South Africa's nuclear potential has been considerably enhanced and accelerated by collaboration extended to the apartheid regime by such countries as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Switzerland. This collabora- tion has taken various forms, including assistance in the extraction and processing of Namibian uranium, the supply of nuclear equipment. transfers of technology and so on. 340. The direct interest of the imperialist circles of the Western Powers-precisely those Powers which make up the Western contact group-in the further exploitation of natural and human resources of Namibia, and the military, political and strategic interests of the member countries of NATO, are the main obstacles to the achieve- ment of self-determination and independence by the Namibian people. This is the explanation for the manoeu- vres of the Western group of five in this matter of a political settlement in Namibia. Those manoeuvres are aimed at imposing on Namibia a neo-colonialist future. It is precisely to achieve those purposes that the so-called linkage of a settlement in Namibia with the question of the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola was dreamed HIt is quite obvious to us that if the unholy alliance of Washington and Pretoria is going to be allowed to get away with this despicable chicanery, Namibia's hopes for independence will once again have been dashed for many more years to come." 22 342. The Byelorussian SSR decisively condemns the continued occupation of Namibia by the racist Pretoria regime and confirms its full support for SWAPO as the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR advocates the imme- diate granting of independence to Namibia, on the basis of implementation of all the United Nations decisions on this question, including Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The Byelorussian SSR supports the demands of the African countries that the Security Council impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria regime, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We vigorously reject the attempts to link the problem of Namibia's independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, or to any other matter. We regard such attempts as being based on a desire to maintain colonialism in southerJ) Africa. 343. The Byelorussian SSR advocates the strengthening of the United Nations role in a Namibian settlement, by ensuring effective control by the Security Council-yes, by the Security Council, not by any other group of States -over all aspects of Namibia's achievement of genuine independence. 344. In conclusion, my delegation notes the great and useful work done by the United Nations Council for Namibia in defending the interests of the Namibian peo- ple. We express our gratitude to the representative of Zambia, Mr. Lusaka, for his skilful guidance of the work of the Council. 345. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR will sup- port the draft resolutions recommended by the United Nations Council for Namibia in its report because the measures proposed therein are geared to the rapid achieve- ment of freedom and independence by the people of Namibia. 346. Mr. Bassy CAMARA (Guinea) (interpretation from French): The independence of Namibia has again sovereignt~" ;~ ~ ~agrant violation of the principles and ideals of the O:'ganization and an attack on international morality. 358. Colonialism in a continent which has freed itself almost entirely from this odious phenomenon constitutes tocl1iy an unfortunate political aberration, because it threntens peace, se<.=urity and stability in the region. 359. Despite the efforts that have been exerted by the United Nations Council for Namibia to persuade South Africa to rc~ognize United Nations authority over the international Territory of Namibia, the Government of Pretoria has refused to withdraw from that Territory, thereby making impossible a process leading to self- determination for the people of that Territory. 360. Despite the adoption by both the Security Coun· cil and the General Assembly of a succession of reso- lutions relating to the independence of Namibia, South Africa, encouraged by the endless arguments adduced by some Powers which still believe that the colonial regime will continue to exist, continues to adopt and step up illegal military and administrative measures designed to strengthen its presence in Namibia. 361. While noting with satisfaction the praiseworthy efforts of the Secretary-General to promote a speedy and final settlement of this situation, my delegation still has some doubts regarding the genuine desire of Pretoria to leave Namibia. 362. In truth, the feeling is growing, because of the delaying tactics of South Africa and its allies, that the negotiations which are taking place are becoming more bogged down day by day and year by year. The Govern- ment of South Africa is creating, on the flimsiest pretexts, all sorts of obstacles to protect its own bterests and, above all, to prevent the negotiations from being success- ful, thus indicating its refusal to withdraw from Namibian territory. The interference of some Powers and their attempts to establish solutions in keeping with their own NOTES