A/38/PV.77 General Assembly

Seventeen years have pa~sed sh.~ce, on 27 October 1966, the General Assembly aaopted res- olution 2145 (XXI), terminating South Africa's Mandate over Namibia. The Security Council, in its resolution 264 (1969), confirmed that resolution by recognizing that the General Assembly had terminated the Mandate and call- ing upon the Pretoria regime to withdraw its administra- tion immediately from the Territory. The racist regime ignored that General Assembly resolut~on and refused to comply with the Security Council resolution. It has con- tinued to challenge the international community. Five years ago, the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978), endorsing the United Nations plan for the inde- pendence of Namibia. At that time, the majority of the countries of the world felt some optimism about Namib- ia's attaining its independence, on the basis of the fact that the United Nations plan was established by the West- ern contact group, made up of five States which had all maintained close and friendly relations with the South African racist regime. Consequently, they were supposed to be able to exert pressure on South Africa to ensure its compliance with the international community's will. But the experience of the past five years has dashed the hopes of the vast majority of the Members of the Organization, because, despite all the efforts exerted by the international community and despite the Secretary- General's initiatives, the racist regime in South Africa continues to cling to its illegal administration of Namibia and does everything to hamper the implementation of the United Nations plan. 2. What has clearly emerged from the strenuous negoti- ations of the past five years is that South Africa uses those negotiations only to gain time and conceal its vicious plans, since it has continually created fallacious justifi- cations and pretexts for delaying the independence of Namibia. From the outset, it accused the United Nations of being biased. Then it proposed an unusual electoral system. Thereafter it asked for prior agreement on the constitutional principles. When it appeared to it that all these questions could be solved or agreed upon, it chose NEW YORK to introduce a new point which had no relation whatso- ever to the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia or to Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This was the linkage of the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. This has been declared intervention in the internal affairs of A ngola' and has been rejected by the international community. 3. It is quite clear from these manoeuvres that the racist regime is trying to g,ain time in a desperate attempt to circumvent the South West Africa People's Organization [SWAPO), the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia, and consolidate the internal settlement. Its recent creation of a so-called State Council in Namibia fans within this framework. It aims thereby to establish a puppet Government in Namihia which would serve its interests and the interests of the. mperialist forces which have encouraged it in this policy and given it the assistance which has enabled it to continue to challenge the will of the international community and to occupy Namibia, and even to go beyond that and occupy part of the territory of Angola, while also continuing its attacks on the front- line States. 4. The majority of the countries of the world have long been aware of the objectives of the racist regime of South Africa and of the Il'ethods of procrastination and pre- varication which are adopted by that regime with a view to prolonging its occupation of Namibia and imposing a puppet Government on the Namibian people. Never- theless, some Western States consistently oppose any measure which the Security Council attempts to take under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to force the racist regime to comply with United Nations resolutions and withdraw from Namibia. 5. It is evident that the Western contact group is not serious in its commitment to assist the United Nations in achieving a solution of the problem of Namibia. It has not so far put any significant pressure on South Africa and has not taken any action that would indicate con- cern for the independence of Namibia. On the contrary, its members continue to encourage their companies to increase their investlPents in Namibia and South Africa, in spite of the numerous resolutions of the United Nations calling for the cessation of all transactions with the apart- heid regime. 6. As indicated in a report of the Secretary-General to the Commission on Transnational Corporations, there are 90 transnational corporations with interests in companies it. Namibia, of which 35 are British, 26 South African, 19 American, 3 West German, 3 Canadian, 1 French and another Swedish.! The existence in Namibia of these companies is a clear encouragement of the racist regime, in its v~~jous policy and its occupation of Namibia. The PretoT .:: ~gime has been able, because of the assistance it has l ....:=eived from Western companies and financial institutions, to develop its military capabilities, maintain its authority in South Africa and its illegal occupation of Namibia and part of the territory of Angola, and even step up its attacks against neighbouring States. The State Department's recent authorization of the provision " ••• y t ;h~ per capita income in 1980 was approxi- mately ~ ~ ..000, while the corresponding figure for all blacks, including both wage earners and subsistence workers, was about R 125, a ratio of 24 to 1. For blacks living on reserves and in 'homelands', the per capita figure was estimated to be considerably less". Furthermore, the tranSI7ational corporations continue to expel black workers or discharge them from their jobs if they demand an improvement in wages. 9. The apartheid regime receives financial support from the banks and financial institutions of the Western coun- tries. The loans they gave to this regime in the period from early 1979 to mid-1982 amounted to $2,756 million, which covered the annual military expendL 'Ies of South Africa and Namibia. 10. In the military field, in spite of the great lapse of time since the adoption of Security Council resolution 418 (1977), which placed an embargo on the supply of arms to South Africa, the embargo has not been strictly imple- mented and the racist regime has been able to acquire massive quantities of weapons, with the complicity of the Zionist entity and some Western countries. The racist regime, because of the assistance it has received from those countries, or some ofthem, has been able to develop its military industry and has become self-sufficient in most military equipment. Consp,quently, it has been able to continue its occupation of Namibia and to step up its barbaric acts of aggression against neighbouring ~l.Jun­ tries, violating their sovereignty and attempting to desta- bilize them, using both its regular forces and bands of mercenaries recruited for the purpose. 11. Reliable reports indicate that South Africa main- tains more than 100,000 soldiers in Namibia, distributed over 40 military bases. The report of the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/38/24] states that 2,000 to 3,000 mercenaries, most of them from the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Chile and Israel, participate in the mili- tary actions undertaken by South Africa in the campaigns th~ presence of the Cuban forces in Angola will not constitute any source of frustration or threat to South Africa's security. 16. The international community is facing a flagrant challenge by the racist regime of Pretoria. The time has come for the Security Council to live up to the promise it made five years ago in adopting resolution 439 (1978), ~n which it warned the Pretoria regime that failure to co- operate in implementing Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) would: " ... compel the Security Council to meet forthwith to initiate appropriate actions under the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof, so as to ensure South Africa~s compliance with the afore- mentioned resoluticms". 17. The situation in Namibia is continuing to worsen. Oppression, suppression, detentions and assassinations continue to be a da51y practice of the racist regime against 29. The South African Government is thus referring to the United States support of the concept of linkage. Like an overwhelming number of countries, however, Sweden has characterized the link as an alien issue, which should not be used as an excuse to block Namibia's independence in accordance with resolution 435 (1978). The hollowness of the South African argument is demonstrated by the fact that South Africa did not raise the presence of Cuban troops in Angola as an issue related to the situation in Namibia when the United Nations plan was first agreed upon by all parties five years ago. 30. When it comes to a withdrawal of foreign forces from independent States in southern Africa, it is obvious to us that the primary question concerns the withdrawal of South African troops illegally occupying southern Angola. This would lead to a general reduction oftension in the area and reduce the risk of making it an area of East-West competition. 31. What we have learned from the long-drawn-out negotiating process regarding the question of Namibia is that the link between resolution 435 (1978) and its implementation cannot be found in Angola, but must be looked for in South Africa itself. South African intran- sigence is a challenge not only to the people of Namibia, to SWAPO as a leading force in its struggle for inde- pendence, and to the neighbouring countries in southern Africa, but also to the Organization, underscored by the special responsibility the United Nations has legally assumed for the Territory of Namibia and its people. 32. The true nature of the South African challenge was made unmistakably clear in the statement on Security Council resolution 539 (1983) on Namibia that was made by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on 29 October 1983 and transmitted to the Secretary-General.7 33. To deal with this challenge to Namibia's independ- ence" my Government would suggest once more that the Security Council consider, without further delay, taking effective measures, including sanctions, against South Africa as a means to bring the long-drawn-out implemen- tation negotiations to an end. 34. At the same time, the Security Council should also consider, in order to weaken the South African war efforts in Namibia and the neighbouring States, measures Ito make the existing mandatory arms embargo against South Africa more effective, and to widen its scope to include, 67. Thus, once ag8.in the members of the international community are addressing the General Assembly in sup- port of the inalienable rights of the people of the Territory to self-determination and independence, and to condemn the illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa. Once again we are speaking to express our full support of the much-tormented people of Namibia who, under the leadership of their sole and authentic representative, SWAPO, are struggling for freedom and in defence of dignity and lofty ideals. 68. The continuation of the occupation of Namibia by South Africa, contrary to repeated General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, represents an affront to humanity and cannot but weigh heavily on ourconscience, because the Namibian people are not simply denied their inalienable right to self-determination and independence; they are at the same time being subjected to a most abhor- rent form of discrimination, that of institutionalized racism. ~he implementation of the relevant United Nations reso- lutions and particularly the United Nations plan for the settlement of the Namibian question? 93. Jamaica believes that it is imperative that no initia- tive that can be used to intensify and exert pressure on the racist Pretoria regime should be neglected. In this regard, we believe that the international community, through the United Nations and its specialized agencies and governmental and non-governmental organizations, must remain mobilized to isolate further the racist Pre- toria regime as long as it pursues its criminal apartheid policies and remains defiant of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct. 94. We must, in this context, also recognize the funda- mental role and responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, particularly the five members of the Western contact group, in bringing the requisite pres- sure to bear to compel South Africa to live up to its international obligations. 95. Continuing efforts must be made to reinforce the arms embargo already imposed by the Security Council, as well as to intensify the oil embargo against South Africa. 96. Equally, the international community should con- tinue to provide the necessary financial and material support to SWAPO in its legitimate struggle for national liberation. 97. The international community should also strive to strengthen the hand of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative in their continuing endeavours to achieve the speedy decolonization of Namibia. 98. The prolonged and tragic agony of the Namibian people has touched the conscience of mankind every- where. Their sense of frustration and outrage is also acutely felt in my own country, whic~ closely followed their struggles even before the granting of our own inde- pendence in 1962. In addressing ourselves to the Namib- ian question, we are thus able to do so from a deep sense of national commitment and identification with their legitimate aspirations for freedom and independence. 99. I wish, in conclusion, to reaffirm Jamaica's support for SWAPO and to commend the statesmanship and dedication it has displayed in the difficult struggle to achieve the national aspirations of its people. We equally reaffirm our support for the United Nations Council for Namibia, which, under the capable and dynamic leader- ship of Mr. Lusaka, has fulfilled with distinction the mandate entrusted to it. 100. Mr. TOMASZEWSKI (Poland): Over 17 years have elapsed since South Africa's Mandate over Namibia was terminated [see resolution 2145 (XXI)], but, unfor- tunately, we are still facing the same serious problems ~·ity Council resolutions, as well as the advisory opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice. lo How- ever, we should not come here merely to reaffirm our support for and solidarity with a people fighting fiercely to bring about better days of freedom and justice; we should go beyond this by giving the Secretary-General a broader mandate which will make possible the speedy implementation ofthe plan for Namibia's independence. We should also call for more decisive action on the part of the five countries of the contact group, which have the power to persuade South Africa, and induce them to make timely and effective use of that power. 139. Mr. ZARIF (Afghanistan): Every year at this time, the General Assembly takes up an issue which is its most direct responsibility-the achievement of independence by Namibia. In the course of the debates on the issue, the detailed reports of the United Nations Council for Namibia are considered; the reports of the Secretary- General are examined; statements are made by Member States; and, at the end of every debate, half a dozen resolutions are adopted. 140. The story keeps repeating itself year after year, with the addition of a few reports of the regional and international solidarity meetings and conferences which are held between sessions of the Assembly. Yet no real, tangible steps can be taken to bring closer the Namibians' attainment of independence. 141. The colonial administration and the armed forces of the apartheid regime still remain in Namibia; extensive political, economic and military assistance from imperi- alist countries continues to be rendered to the apartheid regime; oppression and suppression of the Namibian people continue unabated; and depletion of Namibia's natural resources by capitalist multinational monopolies continues to drain Namibia of whatever is still left in that unfortunate land. What causes great concern is that the international community seems to have no foreseeable chance ofputting an end to the shameful and deplorable situation in Namibia. 142. This year's exercise in the Assembly does not seem much different from last year's, and the result might very well be the adoption of a few more resolutions along the lines of those adopted before, which will most probably suffer the same fate. But one may wonder when the time will come for real and effective action to eliminate one ofthe last and most embarrassing vestiges of colonialism on the African continent. 143. Obviously, the key party responsible for the con- tinuation of the present situation in Namibia is the abhor- rent regime of South Africa, which, relying on the use of force and repression within Namibia and criminal armed aggression and acts of intimidation against the front-line States, is out to perpetuate its colonial hold on Namibia. However, that could not mislead the interna- tional community into ignoring some detrimental factors 145. In circumstances where every effort is needed to isolate South Africa and to force it to abide by United Nations resolutions, the decision by the International Monetary Fund in November 1982 to grant special draw- ing rights of over $1 billion to the apartheid regime can only be condemned in the strongest possible terms. That decision, which was adopted under open United States pressure, is particularly deplorable when the requests of a large number of developing countries for much smaller loans have been rejected by the same institution. 146. In the mean time, the plundering by the capitalist monopolies of Namibia's rich natural resources con- tinues, in complete defiance of Decree No. 1 for the Pro- tection of the Natural Resources of Namibia,2 enacted on 27 September 1974 by the United Nations Council for Namibia. 147. Faced with the stubborn refusal of the apartheid regime to abide by United Nations resolutions, the Secu- rity Council adopted resolutions 418 (1977) on 4 Novem- ber 1977 and 473 (1980) on 13 June 1980 on military sanctions agaim:t South Africa. Thanks to the continued covert military collaboration with the apartheid regime by the United States, some of its imperialist allies and the Zionist regime of Israel, those resolutions have"lost virtually all their effectiveness in forcing the Pretoria regime to heed the calls of the international community. 148. Ever-increasing information is surfacing in the int~rnationalmedia that reveals close military and intel- ligence links between the South African racist regime, on the one hand, and some Western countries, in particular the United States and the Zionist entity, on the other. What is of the greatest concern, not only for the African nations but also for all peace-loving nations in the world, is the collaboration with the South African racists in the nuclear field. Acquisition by South Africa of a nuclear capability will undoubtedly give rise to consequences that will seriously jeopardize peace and security throughout the world. 149. Throughout the years, the South African regime and its imperialist supporters, particularly the United States, have been trying to explain the colonial issue of Namibia within the context of East-West confrontation, and have therefore attempted to tie the solution of the Namibian question to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. The international community has given a strong rebuff to that pretext. it is our belief that the question of Namibia is one of decolonization and self- determination, the final solution of which should not and cannot be tied to any other extraneous issues. 150. Theverdictoftheinternationalcommunityhas been unequivocal. By resolutions 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966 and 2248 (S-V) of 19 May 1967, the General Assem- bly terminated South Africa's Mandate over Namibia and assumed direct responsibility for the Territory. By the same resolutions, the General Assembly entrusted the United Nations Council for Namibia with the adminis- tration of the Territory. 151. To engage the United Nations in an exhaustive and perpetual diplomatic process, the racist regime of South Africa has repeatedly resorted to delaying tactics. The 169. The Peruvian Constitution provides absolute guar- antees of the rights and freedoms of the individual and opposes any form of discrimination, whether on the basis of race, religion or political creed. The institutionalization of racial discrimination in Namibia and South Africa must thus be condemned by my country. There is no valid reason for the minorities in those countries to continue to oppress the majority, to which the Territory has belonged from time immemorial. 170. There is no reason to prolong the illegal occupa- tion of the Territory of Namibia. This is why we are pleased to note the position adopted by the States mem- bers of the Western contact group in dissociating them- selves from any South African demands not specified in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). "!"his attitude is entirely supported by my delegation an\.! we hope that this position will also be adopted by other We~terncoun- tries, so that real pressure will be exerted that will lead to the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. 171. Similarly, my delegation reiterates its appreciation of the objectivity and diligence shown by the Secretary- General in dealing with the question before us. 172. This year we are commemorating the two-hun- dredth anniversary of the birth of the great American liberator, Sim6n Bolivar. He lived and fought for the cause of freedom and to restore the dignity and value of the human being. A Peruvian writer said of him, inter alia, that "With the passage of the centuries his glory will grow, as grow the shadows after the sun sets". 173. We hope that the light of the liberating spirit of the life and work of Bolivar will inspire the international community as it seeks justice for the people of Namibia. 174. Mr. DESKER (Singapore): Year after year, numer- ous resolutions, declarations and programmes of action relating to the question of Namibia have been adopted by the General Assembly with support from the over- whelming majority of the membership of the United Nations. However, the people of Nflmibia remain under the illegal occupation of South Africa. The question may therefore be asked, "What is the purpose of yet another debate on Namibia?" 175. The answer is that no State, whether big or small, powerful or weak, isolated or internationally accepted, th~ Namibian people. 180. My delegation supports the struggle of the people of Namibia to liberate themselves from South African colonialism and racism. We welcome the leading role played by SWAPO as the authentic representative of the Namibian people in their efforts to secure freedom and 'independence fOi their country. We recognize the legiti- macy of the struggle of the people of Namibia by all the means at their disposal to end the illegal occupation of their Territory by South Africa. We call upon the inter- national community to continue its support for the people of Namibia, and urge the redoubling of efforts aimed at ensuring that, on the attainment of its independence, Namibia has a pool of highly qualified, trained and edu- cated Namibians. 181. We regard the ~mposition by South Africa of its policy of apartheid in Namibia as morally repugnant and contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations. We call for an.immediate end to the racist prac- tices of the South African authorities in Namibia. 182. The delegation of Singapore deeply regrets the continued lack of co-operation by South Africa, which has prevented the implementation of Security Coun- cil resolution 435 (1978). We believe that this resolution,

The General Assembly is once again dealing with the question of Namibia, and doing so 37 years after the item first appeared on its agenda and 17 years after the Assem- bly, by its resolution 2145 (XXI), terminated the Mandate of South Africa over that Territory. 186. In spite of certain hypocritical statements and professions of good faith, the outcome of this debate cannot be subject to any doubt-an unambiguous debate, in which once again a unanimous General Assembly will endorse the concerns expressed by the United Nations Council for Namibia and by the Secretary-General-both, in their respective reports, attempted to reflect the feel- ings of frustration and indignation of the international community in the face of the persistence and intolerable defiance of the Pretoria racists. 187. The Assembly will unanimously condemn South Africa for its illegal occupation of Namibian territory; it will solemnly proclaim its unreserved support for the fight of the Namibian people under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole authentic representative. 188. It will unanimously condemn the stepping-up of barbaric repression, the policy of "bantustanization" and efforts to disrupt the national unity and territorial integ- rity of Namibia. 189. It will unanimously condemn the ruthless exploi- tation of the Namibian people, the shameless plundering of its resources, the militarization of its territory and its use as a base for committing acts of aggression against the front-line States, particularly Angola and Zambia. 190. It will unanimously reaffirm its loyalty to and support for the United Nations plan laid down in Security Council resohltions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) as a uni- versally accepted basis for a settlement of the Namibian problem, a settlement which is to guarantee the Namibian people the exercise of its most inalienable rights to inde- pendence and international sovereignty. up with yet another pretext from its inexhaustible bag of criminal tricks and devious strategies. Thus, by August of last year, the apartheid regime's stratagem was then being articulated in terms of what has been called linkage. Pretoria was insisting, as it still continues to do, on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola as a pre-con- dition for its co-operation in the implementation of the United Nation'..> plan. 328. "Linkage", "parallelism" or "reciprocity", as it is now called by Pretoria and its allies, was condemned and rejected early in 1982 by the front-line States and, subsequently, by the General Assembly at its thirty-sev- enth session, by the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, meeting at New Delhi in March 1983, by the International Confer- ence in Support of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence, held in Paris in April of this year, by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU at its nineteenth ordinary session, held at Addis Ababa in June of this year, and, more recently, on 28 October by the Security Council in its resolution 539 (1983). 329. The international community has also condemned and rejected linkage because it is a blatant interference in the internal and external affairs of Angola and Cuba, sovereign States Members ofthis Organization. The inter- national community has demanded, and must continue te demand, instead, that South Africa co-operate immedi- ately with the Secretary-Generalin his efforts to launch the United Nations plan, in accordance with resolution 532 (1983). 330. The international community must also call upon South Africa's allies, especially those countries with influ- ence on the occupation regime, to warn the Pretoria rulers that they cannot continue to defy and flout the decisions of the Assembly, the Security Council and other inter- national bodies, with impunity. The Fascists in Pretoria must be told in very clear language that the Charter of th<:: United Nations prescribes methods, measures and remedies to be taken by the international community whenever international peace and security are threatened or breached. Soon the international community will have no other choice but to invoke such measures as are pro- vided under Chapter VII of the Charter. 331. We have pointed out elsewhere that the interna- tional community cannot accept, or even tolerate, the cheek and arrogance of the illegal Pretoria regime which seeks to shift the responsibility for the delaying of Namib- ia's freedom on to Angola, a country which has been a victim of that regime's own continuous naked aggression since 1975. In fact, it was in response to that regime's acts of brutal aggression that Angola requested Cuban assist.ance in defending its territorial integrity. We con- demn in the strongest terms that regime's aggression against Angola, part of whose territory its forces have been occupying continuously since August 1981. We also struggl~ to bring the Territory to independence. 348. In the first instance, it is important that we remem- ber the basic fact that South Africa, after all, is still occupying the Territory of Namr-:'ia illegally. We have often proceeded in the search for a solution, especially in the last two years, as if our call for the independence of Namibia were an aberration in itself which required the blessings of South Africa to make it legal. Nothing can be further from the truth. South Africa's occupation of Namibia is as illegal as was the Nazi occupation of Poland or France almost 50 years ago, and we ought to negotiate or fight for Namibian independence from the position of our combined moral and physical strength. History has never documented the eradication of brutal and intransigent occupation forces like that of the racist regime through the policy of constructive engagement. A firm opposition in principle and actions has always been necessary to restore normalcy. 349. Secondly, we must remember that our insistence on South Africa bringing the Territory to independence now is supported by advisory opinions of the Interna- tional Court of Justice as well as llumerous resolutions of the Security Council and the Gene:al Assembly. These legal norms are therefore the real basis for our principles of freedom, independence and equity for Namibia and not the plea for the racist regime's unilateral show of mercy towards Namibians. Some of the methods being sold to us completely overshadow the legality of the Namibian cause and we should be careful to what extent we pursue them. 350. Thirdly, it is important that we remember that every action that South Africa has taken with respect to Namibia has been designed to assert sovereignty illegaliy over the Territory rather than to yield it. The racist regime has in the past 40 years proposed Namibia's incorporation into South Africa; it has argued that the Mandate of the League of Nations had expired; it has disagreed with the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice; it has sought to divorce Walvis Bay from the rest of the Territory; and it has attacked Angola militarily to assert its claim over Namibia. It should be clear even to the politically naive, therefore, that the racist Preto- ria regime will not relinquish Namibia and its natural resources voluntarily. 351. FourtWy, we should never lose sight ofthe fact that Namibia and Namibians are an international responsi- bility which we should not shirk. Our negotiations should be within the framework of discharging that obligation and not of humouring a regime that has been adjl,~dged the perpetrator of crimes against humanity. 352. These basic facts have beenrecounted bytheGhana delegation to remind us ad that we are straying too far from what is legitimate and promising for the decoloni- zation of Namibia. It is precisely because of the pursuit of these innovative options, all of which are calcu!ated to placate the politically delinquent member ofthe inter- national community, that we fail to register progress. We bear a responsibility towards the Territory because we are Members of an international Organization whose Charter forbids subjugation, exploitation and aggression. Our resources for fighting such political and social injustice 365. The so-called linkage is indeed outside the scope of resolution 435 (1978). My delegation concurs with the view expressed by the Secretary-General in paragraph 25 of his report to the Security Council,S where he states: "This difficulty can only be dealt with in its own con- text by those directly concerned acting within their sovereign rights, and, above all, by a determined effort by all concerned to reduce the tensions and contentious issues and to put an end to conflict in the area as a whole." 366. As recently as 28 October 1983, the Security Coun- cil rejected the so-called linkage by adopting resolu- tion 539 (1983). Swaziland therefore categorically rejects this attempt to link the independence of Namibia to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. 367. My delegation wishes to take this opportunity to express its sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Sec- retary-General for his courageous efforts undertaken in compliance with Security Council resolutions 435 (1978), 439 (1978) and 532 (1983) and to pay a special tribute to him for his report. In this report, my delegation notes the following particular points. First, the Secretary-Gen- eral has affirmed that it has been possible to resolve some outstanding problems, such as selection of the electoral system and the question of UNTAG and its composition. Secondly, my delegation is extremely concerned at South Afrk~,'s attempt to continue to set pre-conditions for the rapid implementation of resolution 435 (1978). Thirdly, my delegation deeply regrets that it was not possible to obtain a ceade-fire commitment from the South African Government, in spite of the willingness of SWAPO to sign a cease-fire agreement with South Africa, as a nec- essary requirement for holding elections in Namibia in order to establish the constituent Assembly in an atmos- phere of peace and tranquillity. 368. I should be remiss if I did not refer to the front- line States and Nigeria. The work done by these African States deserves our praise. The negotiations on the ques- tion of Namibia are difficult and time-consuming. The progress made so far would not have been possible if it had not been for the time and money spent by the front- line States and Nigeria. These African States have not failed to go wherever meetings on Namibia were held, and this they have done in spite of their meagre economic resources and the time that must be taken from their own domestic affairs. There is still a lot to be done before Namibia attains its independence. Hence my delegation would like to encourage these States to carry their good work to its logical conclusion. 369. In conclusion, I should like to extend the thanks of my delegation to Mr. Paul Lusaka, of Zambia, and to the United Nations Council for Namibia for the report we have before JS [A/38/24), which is brilliant, and for the good work done so far. NOTES I See E/C.1O/1983/1O/Add.1. 20fficial Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 24 (A/35/24), vol. I, annex 11. 3See A/AC.I09/744, para. 10. 10Legal Consequencesfor States ofthe Continued Presence ofSouth Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council R~olution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.e.J. Reports, 1971, p. 16.