A/40/PV.115 General Assembly

I wish to remind representatives that the debate on agenda item 34 was concluded on Thursday, 21 November 1985. I shall now call upon representatives who wish to introduce the draft resolutions contained in part 11 of the report of the united Nations Council for Namibia (A/40/24). Mr. SINCLAIR (Guyana), Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia: When the Council for Namibia presented its draft resolutions one year ago it was, of course, our fervent hope that that would be the last occasion on which we would be appearing before this Assembly as legal Administering Authority for Namibia until independence. We had allowed ourselves to hope that during the course of this year some concrete, decisive moves would be made towards setting a definite date for Namibia's independence. That, unfortunately, has not been the case, so the Council for Namibia is here once again to present to the General Assembly its draft resolutions on the question of Namibia for the current session. Mine is the honour of introducing draft resolution A in document A/40/24 (Part Il). This draft resolution is the main .political proposal of the United Nations Council for Namibia with regard to the question of Namibia. It is here that we focus on the various aspects of the situation in and in relation to Namibi~. It is in this draft that delegations will see reflected all of the concerns that they themselves articulated in the course of tfie:debate on Namibia, or at any rate the concerns which they themselves feel in relation to Namibia. It is therefore one with which delegations can easily identify. Draft resolution ~ is to some extent a restatement of politi~al positions which it is inevitable to restate while the situation in Namibia continues essentially unchanged. But this draft resolution is not frozen in time. In this document we also address, in a manner consistent with the positions taken by the overwhelming majority of the international community, the situation created by the establishment in Windhoek in June this year of a so-called interim government. We also focus on South Africa's stepped-up aggression against its neighbours, particularly Angola, in which case the international Territory of Namibia is used as the springboard. We also address a special appeal for intensified assistance to the front-line states, which have been rendering such invaluable support to the cause of Namibia's libl!ration. We acknowledge with appreciation the recent meaRures taken by States, non-governmental organizations, various other institutions and parliamentarians and other individuals to exert greater pressure on the Pretoria regime to comply with the decisions of the United Nations on Namibia. In this draft resolution we also signal a renewed determination on the part of the Council to take action to help protect Namibia's natural resources, both onshore and offshore • (Mr. Sinclair, Acting President, United Nations Council for Namibia) These are all positions on which fortunately there e~ists a considerable area of agreement, if not indeed unanimity, among us all. After all, South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and the need to bring an end to it so that the people of that Territory can proceed to independence are not issues which traditionally give rise to much polemics in this RaIl. The Council expects that Member States will - as with similar draft resolutions in the past - give their full and unequivocal support to this draft resolution, confident that in so doing they are taking a stand once again against apartheid domination and exploitation and in support of what is a solemn responsibility of this Organization, and in support of freedom and human dignity, because in the final analysis the question of the independence of Namibia is nothing less than a question of human dignity. I therefore recommend draft resolution A to the consideration of Member States of the Assembly with a request for their full and whole-hearted support for it in its entirety. But I would be less than candid if I were to stop here, if I were to let my colleagues believe that I believe that that is all there is to the matter. That is all t~at there should be, but unfortunately that is not all that there is. Delegations will recall that at the thirty-ninth session of the Assembly there began to be expressed in an active manner concern about what was described as the name-calling aspect of some of our draft resolutions. As far as the Council is concerned, name-calling is not an issue in our draft reSOlutions. We feel that they are about issues much more fundamental and substantive than the calling of names. But, whether we wish it or not, name-calling has been made into an issue and accordingly we thought that we should deal with it. As I stated in the course of my address at the beginning of the debate in this ~ssembly on the question of Namibia, in preparing our draft resolutions the CounGil (Mr. Sinclair, Acting president, United Nations Council for Namibia) was sensitive to the feelings of some delegations with regard to this particular aspect. By a conscious, deliberate act we took these feelings into account and devoted several hours to the search for ways in which we could accommodate them without compromising in what we thought was our duty. In this effort we sought, among other things, to ensure accuracy, to eschew gratuitousness and to remove all reasonable grounds for accusations of hostility ~owards any State. The form of the draft resolutions we present today representR the consensus of the Council at the end of this eKercise. We present them not in a spirit of defiance or confrontation but as a Council that is simply trying in a reasonable way to do its duty in accordance with its mandate and taking account of the sensitivities of others in the process. Draft resolution A does contain names, as all delegations will have seen already, but I ask representatives to look at the relevant paragraphs carefully, to 100k at each name in the conteKt in which it is mentioned and determine for themselves whether we have been accurate or inaccurate, whether we have been gratuitous, and whether we have been hostile to any State in any of our references. We stand by your decisions in this regard. Once again, I have the honour to present draft resolution ~ and to ask the Assembly for its full and whole-hearted support for this draft resolution. Mr. MFULA (Zambia): It is indeed an honour for my delegation, the representatives of a front-line State, to introduce to this Assembly draft resolution B, entitled "Implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)". Tt is my sincere hope that this draft resolution will receive the full support of the Assembly. (Mr. Mfula, Zambia) 01ter the years the international community has been frustrated in its efforts " to implement the United Nations plan for Naml'bl'a. S th Af' I' , ou rlca S lntranslgence, along with the support extended to it by its allies, remains the only obstacle in the way of Namib La n independence. Representatives will recall that the Security Council recently considered the question of Nam..ibia and adopted resolution 566 (19RS) I in which it once again expressed its ind ignat ion at South Afr ica' s refusal to comply with its resolutions, and in particular at the racist regime's insistence on the irrelevant and extraneous issue of linkage, which has obstructed the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1918). In his report to the Security Council in Jlme 1985 the Secretary-General stated that there had been no change in the position of South A.frica in regard to the iS8ue of linkage as a pre-condition of the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), and he went on to state that this position made it impossible to launch the Un! tet'J Nat ions plan for the independence of Namibia. The General Assembly, for:: its part, in its resolution 39/50 B, among othp.r. t.hing8 <temanded the immediate and unconditional implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without qualification or the introduction of the extraneous &n~ irrelevant issues of linkage, parallelislTl and reciprocity insisted upon by r:aciat South Africa and certain Western countries. The draft resolution before the Assembly sets forth principles reiterated by the Assembly and reaffirms that Namibia is the direct responsibility of the United Nations pending its achievement of gen~ine self-determination and natio~a1 independence. In paragraph 10 it strongly condemns and rejects the persistent attempts by South Africa to establish a "linkage" or "parallelism" between the independence of Namibia and any extraneous and irrelevant issues, in particular the presence of Cuban forces in Angola, and emphasizes unequivocally that all such attempts are designed to delay further the decolonization of Namibia and constitute a gross and unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of Angola. The draft further strongly condemns the racist regime for the installation of the so-called interim government in Namibia on 17 June 1985, by declaring that measure null and void, and calls upon the international community to contin~e to refrain from according any recognition of or extending any co-operation to any regime imposed by the illegal South African administration ~pon the Namibian people, in violation of SecLJrity Council resolutions 385 (1976), 435 (l97R) , 439 (1978), 532 (1983) and 566 (1985, and other relevant resolutions of the Council and the General Assembly. The draft also reiterates the fact that the policy of "constructive engagement" has only encouraged racist South Africa to intensify its intransigence, to continue to defy resolutions of the united Nations on the question of Namibia and to carry out systemat.ic acts of military aggression and destabilhation agail'l.st front-line and other States of the reg ion, all of which constitlJte threats to peace and security in southern A·frica. The draft resolution strongly urges the Security Council, to ~iewof the persistent refusal by the racist South ~frican regime to comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations on the question of Namibia and, in the light of the serious threat to international peace and secuci ty posed r.,y (Mr. Mfula, Zambia) South Africa, to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against that country as provided for in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Finally, it calls upon western permanent members of the Security Council to support the imposition by it of enforcement measures in order to ensure South Africa's compliance with the Council's resolutions. The situation on the ground in ~amibia leaves us with no other conclusion than that South Africa is not interested in the settlement of the problem in accordance with the United Nations Plan, hence our only interest in submitting this draft resolution is simply the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (197R), for so long ,'as that resolution remains unimplemented the sUffering of the Namibian people will continue. I sincerely hope that the draft resolution will indeed receive the broadest possible support of the Assembly. I would draw the attention of the Assembly to the oorrigendum in document A/40/24 (Part II)/Corr~l. The new operative paragraph 15 should begin as follows: "strongly condemns the abuse of the veto by two Western permanent members " ... of the Security Council The rest of the paragraph remains as it iR. Mr. ONONAIYE (Nigeria): I have the honour to introduce for the consideration and adoption of the Assembly draft resolution C on the question of Namibia: "Programme of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia". In the discharge of its unique responsihilities as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until independence, and as a major policy-making organ of the United Nations, the United Nations Council· for Namibia has spared no effort to fulfil the mandate entrusted to it by the General Assembly. The programme of work of the Council for 1986 has been prepared with a view to further intensifying ~9ncerted ~nternationa1 action for the speedy independence of Namibia. The Council will persistently mobilize international support for measures aimed at securing the withdrawal of the illegal South African administration from Namibia in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. The Council will counter the policies of South Africa manifested by its stubborn refusal to end its occupation of Namibia, its denial to the Namibian people of their inalienable ,fight to self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia and its aggression against the people of the Territory, characterized by its ruthless oppression of the people of Namibia and its increased military presence in the Territory. In particular, the Council will ensure non-recognition of any administration or entity installed at Nindhoek not ensuing from free e,lections in Namibia, conducted under the supervision and control of the United Nations, as well as counter-attempts to establish a "linkage" or "parallelism" between the independence of Namibia and extraneous and irrelevant issues. The programme envisages that the Council will continue to represent Namibia and protect the interests of the Namibian people in the international arena - in conferences, intergovernmental organizations and meetings of spAcialized agencies and non-governmental organizations. It will also continue to consult with Governments and seek their support for efforts of the United Nations designed to bring about a settlement of the question of Namibia. The Council will consider the activities of foreign economic interests operating in Namibia, with a view to terminating the exploitation of the natural and human resources of the Territory. The Council will continue to draw the attention of States, the specialized agencies and private corporations to Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, enacted by the Council in 1974, and in this regard will consider legal action in the domestic courts of States. (Mr. Ononaiye, Nigeria) The Council will prepare and publish reports on the political, economic, military, legal and social situation in and relating to Namibia, as well as a report on contacts between Member states and South Afr.ica. For the purpose of further mobilizing the support of international public opinion and obtaining information on developments concerning Namibia, the Coullcil will carry out hearings and seminars and participate in organizing an international conference for the immediate independence of Namibia to be held in Western Europe in 1986. In implementing its programme of work, as well as in any matter of interest to the Namibian people, the Council will continue its close co-operation and consultation with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole, authentic representative of the people of Namibia. It will also continue to co-operate with the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on the question of Namibia. The Council ia convinced that its programme of activities for next year, contained in draft resolution C will contribute to the efforts of the United Nations to bring an end to South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia through full implementation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). Mr. YOSSIPHOV (Bulgaria): 'It is indeed a great honour for me to introduce, on behalf of the Permanent Representative of BUlgaria, draft resolution 0 on the question of Namibia, entitled "Dissemination of information and mohilization of international opinion in support of Namibia", contained in document A/40/24 (Part II). Recognizing the importance of pUblicity and the dissemination of information as instruments to further the objectives of the United Nations in the fulfilment of itA mandate over Namibia, draft resolution 0 proposes, inter alia, to intensify liberation being waged by the people of Namibia under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), their sole, authentic representative. In pursuit of that goal, the General Assembly by the terms of this draft resolution would request the United Nations Council for Namibia, in implementation of its campaign in support of the struggle of the Namibian people for independence, to continue to consider ways and means of increasing the diSSemination of information relating to Namibia and intensifying the international campaign for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory Sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The draft resolution contains a request to the Secretary-General to ensure that the Secretariat's Department of Public Information (OPt) in all its activities on dissemination of information on the situation in and around Namibia follows the policy guidelines laid down by the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia and that it assists the Council as a matter of priority in the implementation of its programme of dissemination of information. Over the years it has become overwhelmingly evident that the United Nations political commitment to bringing Namibia to independence, its pronouncements in support of the right of the Namibian people to self-determination, freedom and independence, and its condemnation of South Afr ica' s bnlta1, racist and colonial occupation of Namibia have to be matched by decisive action if results are to be obtained. As is made abundantly clear in the report of the united Nations Council f.or Namibia to this. fortieth session of the General Assembly, South A.fr ica has shown no sign of complying with the decisions of this body. Moreover, the racists are continuing South Africa's illegal occupation of the Territory, expandiog its militarization of Namibia.and consequently its aggressive colonial war against the (Mr. Yossiphov, Bulgaria) Namibian people, as well as the destabilization campaign against neighbourinq States, from the territory of Namibia. 1n view of the grave situation in and relating to Namibia, the United Nations can do no less than intensify the international campaign in support of the cause of Namibia and denounce all acts of collaboration with the South African racists in the political, economic, diplomatic, military, nuclear, cultural, sports and oth~r fields, as reflected in the draft resolution. Thus the Council will be requested to undertake various activities, in particular in the context of the twentieth anniversary of the launching of the armed strugqle of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian people, and of the termination of the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia, which took place two decades ago. Furthermore, recognizing the important role of non-qovernmental organizations, the General Assembly would call upon the United ~ations Council for Namibia to enlist their support in its efforts to mobilize international public opinion in support of the liberation struggle of the Namibian people. Under the draft resolution, the Assembly would also request the Council to organize in 1986, at the conclusion of the International Conference on Namibia to be held in Western Europe, a workshop for non-governmental organizations, parliamentarians, trade unionists, academicians and media representatives concerned with the question of Namibia with a view to working out implementation of the relevant decisions of the Conference. Mobili7.ation of international public opinion through the dissemination of information on Namibia represents an important aspect of the efforts of the United Nations to bring about the independence of Namibia. In spite of the long years of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and the upsurge of interest in and attention being given to the situation in South Africa as a whole, the public at (Mr. Yossiphov, Bulgaria) large has not yet had any access to information on Namibia. The media in certain countries either do not publici~e information on Namibia or publici~e information that is biased and distorted. It is therefore imperative that the position of the United Nations with regard to Namibia be given appropriate publicity in order to educate and form public opinion, especially in those countries where governmental policy has with deeds en~ouraged South Africa's defiance. Dissemination of information on Namihia would thus be a means for bringing pressure on Pretoria and its allies to comply with the will of the people of Namibia and with the resolutions of the United Nations demanding the immediate withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and the Territory's independence without further delay which reflect the expressed wish and will of the international community. Mr. BNBON (Venezuela) (interpretation from Spanish); I have the honour to introduce draft resolution E relating to the question of Namibia, entitled ·United Nations FOod for Namibia-. The Fund for 'Namibia was established 1.n 1971, when South Afr ica' s Mandate to admin ister the Terri tory was ended. In assuming direc t respens ibility for Namibia until independence, the United Nations undertook the solemn obligation to assist the people of Narnib ia in its s teu9gle foe independence and there fore to provide the necessary material assistance until it achieved that end. A.t the outset, the sphere of the assistance activities under the Pund for Namibia was somewhat limited, but as the struggle for liberation was intensified, there was an increas Ing need for ass istance, and since the end of the 1970s, the Fund has included the following three accounts; the General Account, which provides for educational, social and medical assistance to Namibians; the Nationhood Progr anne foe Namibia Account, "'hich prov ides assistance for a comprehensive development programme covering the period both before and after independence~ and Institute for 'Namibia Account, "'hich provides financial resources for the traininq and research activities of the united Nations Institute for Namibia in Lusalta, Zambia. Therefore, the magnitude and scope of assistance acthrities under the Fund for Namibia have been expanded over the years. I am happy to inform the Assembly that the implementation of the activities financed by the Fund are progressing satis factor ily and that the level of activities of the proqrarnmes and proj~cts has increased drastically compared wi~ the two previous years. A.t present, OVer 1,200 Namib ian students have been enrolled in a number of training programmes, in the academic, vocational and technical fields. As a result of the high level of implementation of these (Mr. Pabon, Venezuela) pr~9rammes, all available resources under the Fund have been fully committed. In fact, the financial situation for the current year is such that a number of new projects could not be taken up, and requests for fellowships by Namibians have had ~o be refused because of the lack of funds. In this connection, i~ i9 to be noted th,t, as in past years, it is necessary to subsidize the Fund for Namibia from the regular United Nations bUdget. Therefore, this draft resolution provides for the allocation of Sl.5 million. However, most of the activities under the Fund for Namibia are being financed through voluntary contributions from Governments and intergovernmental and non-qovern~ntal organizations, as well as by individuals. I wish to emphasize the urgen t need for trlese donor s to increase the ir con tr ibu tions to the Fund. In this amnection, I should like to draw particular attention to the field attachment programme which was establiShed earlier this year in response to a request by the General Assemblv, which provides practical on-the-job exper ience for Namibian students who have finished their training. For this programme to be effective, additional financial resources are required to expand its activities. Wi th increased contr ibutions to the Fund for Namibia and by the effective use of other available resources, the United Nations Council for Namibia will be in a better position to alleviate the plight of Namibians who have fled from the oppressive system of ap!rtheid and help them to prepare for the monumental task of reconstructing and administering their country after independence. In conClusion, I should lhe to conanend dr aft resolution E for un an imous adoption by the ~ssentlly. Hr. MYO!. ('!'ur key) (interpretation from French): I have the honour to recommend to this ~sgembly for adoption draft resolution F, in relation to the special session of the General Assembly on the question of Namib ia in document A/40/24 (Part 11). (Mr. Akyol, Turkey) As meroers know, 1986 will mark the twentie th ann iversary of the historic decision of the General Msembly taken in 1966 to end South i\frica's Mandate over Namibia and to assume direct responsibility for that Territory. The fact that after all these years, notwithstandinq the tireless efforts of the United Nations to ensure Namib ia 's independence, Sou th Africa con tinues its illegal occupa tion of the Territory and to subject it to growing military infiltration is a source of grave concern to the international community. The Namibian people remains the victim of brutal oppression and repression imposed on it by the regime of terror established by south Africa in Namibia. Thousands of Namibians are still forced to flee the terrorists to escape the yoke of colonialism. Foreign economic interests systematically plunder Namibia's natural resources to the detriment of its people. During the course of this yeae l we have been pleased to note the justifiable world condemnation of South African policy. world public opinion, in condemning apartheid, has also drawn attention to the flagrant injustice of the situation prevailing in Namibia. In the circumstances the General Assembly is under an obligation, not only for political but also for moral reasons, to convene a special session t:o consider the question of Namibia, because of the responsibility assumed by the Organization for the Territory and the persistent defiance of SOUth Africa, as well as the Organization's obligation to define its plan of action to end the illegal occupa tion of Namib ia and to permit the Namib ian people finally to exercise its inalienable right to self-detecminatlon, freedom and independence. That is why the General ASSembly in this recommendation would decide to convene a special seasion on the question of Namibia before the forty-first (Mr. A~yol, Turkel) session of the General Assembly, at a date to be decided on by the Secretary-General in consultation with the United Nations Council for Namibia. I am sure that the international community will take the opportunity once more on that solemn occasion to express its indignation at the fact that resolution 435 (1978) has so far remained a dead letter, and to work out a strategy to achieve forthwith the objective of almost all of the Members of this Organization, that is, the immediate independence of Namibia.

I now call on representatives wishing to explain their vote before the vote on the six draft resolutions in document A/40/24 (part 11) and addenda 1 and 2. May I remind Members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, these statements will be limited to 10 minutes and should be made by representatives from their seats. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their votes after all the votes have been ta~en. ~r. PHILIPPE (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French): It is my honour, on behalf of the 10 States members of the European Community, Spain and Portug~t, to speak to the draft resolutions now before the Assembly. Our common attitude to the question of Namibia was expressed again this y~Ar. It le clear and totally unambiguous. For us, the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence must be exercised through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations, in keeping with the provisions of the settlement plan set forth in Security COltn~i1 resolution 435 (1978), one with which both the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) have expressed their agreement. We cannot accept delay in the implementation of that plan because of considerations extraneous to the settlement process. However, the Ten, Spain and Portugal are obliged to note that, unfortunately, the draft resolutions on the question of Namibia contain elements that make unanimous approval by the General Assembly impossible. Thus, we cannot agree to lend our support to armed struggle as a means of bringing Namibia to independence, in spite of the impatience and frustration felt by the Namibian people owing to South ~frica's continuing and illegal occupation. The United Nations has a primary duty to promote peaceful solutions and not to encourage the use of forc~. Furthermore, the constitution of an independent Namibia must be worked out by a constituent assembly resulting from elections in which all political groups in Namibia are'able to participate, and none of those groups should therefore be designated in advance as the sole, authentic representative of the population. Once again, we regret that the draft resolutions do not properly reflect efforts we have always supportert, like those of the Secretary-General, to find a just and peaceful solution to the question of ~amibia. (Mr. Philippe, Luxembourg) The Ten, Spain and Portugal reject any arbitrary and selective attack against States Members or groups of countries. Our commitment to the principle of universality of the United Nations and to respect for the division of competence among the main bodies of the Organization remains unchanged. The Security Council alone is authorized to take decisions binding upon States Member.s. We deplore the fact that controversial elements continue to be introduced into draft resolutions. Such practice risks dividing the General Assembly rather than mobilizing the international community in pursuit of the common goal. It seems to us that such a practice can scarcely promote the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people. Finally, we would recall our concerns at the financial implications of some of the draft resolutions now before us. A more careful scrutiny of the programme of work of the Council for Namibia would have made it possible to reduce the financial implications without thereby impairing the attainment of the goals we seek. We appeal to the Council to 'make the necessary economies in the programme budget and to avoid spending more than the funds appropriated. The Ten, Spain and Portugal, in spite of these reservations, remain firmly committed to the independence of Namibia. They will continue to lend their support to efforts aimed at implementing the United Nations settlement plan, which is the only universally accepted framework for a peaceful transition towards establishing that country's future political structures. Count York von WARTENBURG (Federal Republic of Germany): The "position of the Federal Republic of Germany on the question of Namibia is ~ell known. There has been no change in that position. ~s we have repeatedly stated - and most recently on 15 November 1985 during the last Security Council meeting on Namibia - Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is: (Count York von Wartenburg, Federal Republic of Germany) "the indispensable basis for a settlement of the Namibia question. In our view it is the only basis on which Namibia can acquire internationally recognized independence. According to that resolution, the constitution of an independent Namibia must be elaborated solely by a constituent assembly convened as a result of free and fair elections under united Nations supervision." (S/PV.2628, p. 22) That is our position. It ~as been underlined by the statement of the Ambassador of Luxembourg just now. ~s a member of the contact group, the Federal Republic of Germany will, as in recent years, abstain in the votes on all draft resolutions before us concerning the question of Namibia. As has been pointed out on corresponding occasions in recent years, such abstention is motivated by procedural reasons. As a member of the contact group the Federal Republic of Germany might be involved in negotiations on the implementation of the Western settl~ment plan adopted by the Security Council in Iq7S. In order not to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations in any way, the Federal Republic of Germany must refrain from associating with the draft resolutions before the General Assembly in either a positive or a negative way. For that reason, my delegation will abstain in the voti~g. Fr~n~e is fully alive Mr. STASI (France) (interpretation from French): to the situation in southern 4fcica, and in Namibia in particular, ann it inten~~ to continue to work to promote that Territory's independence according to th~ modalities set forth in Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). My country believes that those resolutions must be implemented without any pre-conditions of any kind. Everyone here knows the reasons that led up to France's suspension of its active particlp~tion in the contact group in December of (Mr. Stasi, France) 19R3. It sought thereby to mark its firm commitment to Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Accordingly, the Government of my country denounced the decision by the South African authorities to establish an interim government in Namibia and made it clear that it considered the effects of that decision null and void. Similarly, when it voted last June in favour of Security Co~ncil resolution 566 (1985) my country sought to demonstrate its commitment to measures that would prevail upon the South ~frican Government to terminate its illegal occupation of ~amibia. t~st year my delegation noted with interest the platform proposed by the President of the People's Republic of Angol~. Little progress seems to have been made since then, whereas tension in the region has dangerously increased. Today, as was emph,~sized by the Secretary-General in his letter of 26 November, we note that, agreement on the electoral system having now been achieved, any pending questions with regard to the United Nations Plan for Namibia are resolved. We are therefore justified i~ demanding with increased insistence for the implementation of that Plan. PBnding that settlement, France intends to abide by a position that will enable it in due course to contribute to the final outcome of the independe~ce process in Namibia. For that reason, my delegation will abstain, in principle, in the voting on the six draft resolutions now before the General Assembly. Mr. HALINEN (Finland): On behalf of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, I have the honour to make the follow explanation of vote with regard to the resolutions on the question of N~mibia. As has been stated on numerous occasions, the Nordic countries hold the view that security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the only internationally acceptable basis for the achievement of independence for Namibia. The Namibian people must be permitted to determine as soon as possible their own future through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations in accordance with the ~aid resolution. All attempts to introduce extraneous issues or other delaying tactics must be condemned, including the establishment of the so-called interim administration in Namibia. The Nordic countries favour increased international pressure on South Africa in order to speed up the implementation of the Namibia plan. we therefore welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 566 (1985) as a step in the right direction. we think that the security Council should consider without further delay further effective measures, including mandatory sanctions. We appeal in particular to those countries that have the means to exert pressure on South Africa. As we thus support the main thrust of the draft resolutions presented to us, we regret that we are not in a position to vote in favour of all of them. The reason for this is that some of them contain a number of elements that cause us difficulties of principle. I shall now outline these difficulties in general terms. First, we cannot accept formulations that imply endorsement by the United Nations of the use of armed struggle or call for material or military assistance to such a struggle. One of the basic principles of this Organization is to promote peaceful solutions of conflicts. Secondly, we deplore the inappropriate and arbitrary singling out of individual countries or groups of countries as responsible for the policies pursued to maintain the international consensus necessary to bring about effective concerted action against South Africa in this matter. Thirdly, we share the view that all parties enjoying support in Namibia should be allowed to take part in the political process leading to the independence of Namibia and to the establishment of a Government through free and fa ir elections. The South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), in our opinion, is to be regarded as such a party and it is fundamental that SWAPO should be made part of any solution to the Namibia question. We have, however, reservations concerning ! for,.ol. Hons willch coold pre j odIco the ontcome of the poli tlcal process ...nt loned above. Fourthly, owing to the str lct adherence of the Nordic countr iea to the provisions of the Charter, we must also generally reserve our position with regard to formulations which fail to take into account that only the security Council can adopt decisions binding on Member States and that the permanent metrbers of the Secur ity Council must be alll'Yt!led to exercise their right of veto. Fi fthly, the efficiency of the United Nations funds and programmes for Namibia are, of course, of great concern to us as major donoes to those funds and programmes. So are the activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We therefore regret that the review of the Council's functions and priorities initiated within the Council is not SUfficiently reflected in the programme of worlc for 1986. The money and the manpower at the estimated level could, in our view, be used in a still more effective manner. The Nordic countries firmly hope that the future recommendations of the Council for Namibia will be changed accordingly, thereby making it possible for our long-standing support for the Namibian people to find expression in only pOsitive votes. Mr. FELOM.J\N (Unl ted Stat~s of Amer lea) t Be fore addressing the mer its of the draft r:e'solutions under consideration, I would like briefly to review the policy of the United States of America on this question of Namibia. The United States belhlles that the only bae is for a just and pe,aceful settlement in 'Nal'llib la is seourity Council resolution 435 (l978). Thus, we hav~ engaged in talks with the parties involved and we are continuing this dialogue in the hope of moving matters as rapidly as possible to a solution. We deploce the escalation of violence in the area. The military trac'k. can only lead to greater instability, greater suffering and qreatethardship foe people'who wish only to live in pEl8ce, inde~ndence and security. There is an urgent need for all the parties to demonstrate that they are ser iOU8 about reach ing diplomatic solutions to the conn lcts in the region. The unl ted Std tes Government has tried hard to demonstra te at the highest levels our continuing cOlDI'Qitment to achieving the independence of Namibia in the shortest possible time in accordance "'ith Security Council resol\Jtion 435 (1978). President Reagan has underscored the fact that this is a major goal of his Administration. We hope that, with the continued co-op·eration of our friends and partners in and outside the I:'&910n t this goal can be aahie"ed, and speedily. Because of ollr Mmer Ship in the contact group and the aens! tive nature of our involvement i.n this effort, we have consistently held the view that it would be inappropr late for the Un i ted S'ta tes delega t ion to take a pes i t ion on the subs tance of the draft resolutions befOre us. We shall therefore abstain on these draft resolLltionB again this year. HaVing said this, hQl;ilever, I lllust also point out that: it II' unfortunat.e that tbe draft resolutions on the Situation in Namibia re,sulting from the illegal occupation of the Tarr itory by SOuth ~frica and on the implementa ticn of secur i ty Council resolution 435 (1978) contain numerous instances of name-eallinq. As I believe all delegations in this Hall know, the United States feels very strongly that these direct, hostile and unjustified references to the United States are contr ary to basic Gener al Assembly pr inci ples of civil i ty, fa irness and, abol1e all, factual accuracy. Such language is detrimental to the common goal~ of our Organization, formed as it was to prorote peace and greater understanding among nations despite their differences. I repeat, "to promote peace and greater understanding among nations despite their differences". Some delegations have asked us how we can oppose phraseology like "strongly condemns the abuse of the veto by two Western permanent ment>ers of the Security Council on 15 November 1985" (A/40/24 (Part II)/Add.l). Is it not a fact, they say, that your country cast a veto in the security council on that date? Yes, it is a fact. We remain convinced, however, for reasons we have outlined in detail on numerous occasions in this building and elsewhere, that the imposition of mandatory eCOnomic sanctions against South Africa will not lead us to the goal we seek: the peaceful resolution of the problems besetting the region. In any case, the right to veto a draft r,esolution is enshrined in the united Nations Charter. Every permanent ment>er of the security Council has at one time or another exercised this right. Yet now my country and another are being singled out for er iticLsm for exercising that same right. It goes without saying that we will vote against retaining this gratuitously objectionable language in the two instances where it occurs. We hope that others will join with us. (Mr. Feldman, United States) We sh",ll also vote against retaining language that "Welcomes and endorses the world-wide and justified condemnation of the policy of constructive engagement ••• " AS we had occasion to remark in this forum a few days ago, the policies we have pursued have contributed to the limited improvements that have so far been effected in the lives of oppressed South Africans. Further, one thing is certain: resolutions that harden the positions of one or other side to a dispute can do absolutely nothing to bring about negotiations. On the contrary, they are likely to ma~e negotiation still more difficult. The language that: "Welcomes the universal and categorical rejection of 'linkage' advanced by the United Statp.s ••• " (A/40/24 (Part TT), p. 8) is also unacceptable because it is incorrect. ~he United States asserts no theory of linkage on this issue. The United States has no pre-conditions for agreement on Namibian independence. South Africa has made it clear that it believes that the departure of Cuban troops is necessary in order to create a climate of security that would permit implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). It is South Africa that has asserted the linkage. But in these circumstances the United States has said it believes that it will not be possible to reach agreement on the implementation of Security COllnci1 resolution 435 (1978) unless all of the parties' fundamental concerns, including security concerns, are addressed. Any objective observer of events in the region, we believe, inevitably would arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, my delegation will oppose retaining the language associating the United States with linkage. We are opposed as well to language that singles out the United States for collaboration with South Africa. The United States does not support the apartheid POlicies of South Africa; we denounce them. We do not support south Africa's . illegal occupation of Namibia; we are attempting to end it. As everyone here knows, many states throughout the world continue to co-operate with South Africa, especially in matters of tra~e. Finally, because we oppose name-calling as a matter of principle, we also oppose the singling out of Israel. I should add that my Government strongly belie~es that the holding of both the special session and an international conference on Namibia at a time of world-wide and United Nations fiscal and budgetary restraint imposes much difficulty. In conclusion, I would say that my Government would have wished for draft resolutions that would encourage rather than discourage peaceful negotiated solutions. For the reasons I have olttlined earlier, the United States will abstain on these draft resolutions. Mr. LEGWAILA (Botswana): As a southern African country unshakeably dedicated to the total liberation of our region, we shall - to say the obvious - vote affirmatively for all the draft resolutions under consideration, even if, for reasons too well known to necessitate any rep~tition, we are enjoined to treat with anxious circumspection any paragraphs in all these draft resolutions \"hlch seek the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against a South Africa whose . economic fate is, tragically, too closely linked with our own. We therefore must declare, as we have done in the pas.t on several occasions, our inahility to participate in any meaningful way in the imposition of comprehensive economic Sanctions against South ~frica. aut, because we firmly believe that sanctions are an instrument of peaceful change, we are not in any way averse to their i~ositlon against a South Africa that has become too murderous to be gently persuaded into abandoning the dangerous courSe on which it has set itself. , Mr. MEESMAN (Netherlands): My delegation fully subscribed to the statement on the draft resolutions before us made by the Ambassador of Luxembourg on behalf of the 10 Member states of the European Community, as well as Spain and Portugal. Today, almost 20 years after the General Assembly terminated South ~frica's Mandate over Namibia, South Africa continues its illegal occupation of that Territory in defiance of the authority of the United Nations and the unanimous opinion of the international community. Unfortunately, the actions of the South African Government this year have only reinforced widespread doubts as to its willingness to arrive at an internationally acceptable solution. My Government, for its part, will continue to support all efforts aimed at the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan approved by Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without further delay or pre-conditions and the establishment of an independent and sovereign State of Namibia. The adoption of Security Council resolution 566 (1985) in June of this year demonstrated the extent to which the international community is united on the main issues concerning the question of Namibia. Yet the existence of that fundamental consensus could not be gleaned from the draft resolutions before us. Over the years there has been a tendency for the draft resolutions presented to this 1\ssembly to become more and more divorced from the reality of this universal agreement on principles. This regrettable development is reflected in a number of ways. For one thing, some of those texts have become forbiddingly long and, as a result, virtually inaccessible. The overriding concern in all our deliberations should be to serve the interests of the Namibian people by co-ordinating international efforts aimed at securing Namibia's independence at the earliest possible date in a way capable of attracting unanimous support. Contrary to this Self-evident principle, the drafters of the resolutions have intentionally included many elements which stir up controversy and sidetrack this body into acrimonious and sterile exchanges at the expense of energies better invested in the pursuance of our real goal. the United States has requested a separate vote. Furthermore, we are bound under the Charter to seek solutions to international disputes by peaceful means. Therefore, the Netherlands must dissociate itself from , the endorsement of the concept of armed struggle. Also, my delegation believes that the policy of selective mandatory sanctions against South Africa will b~ more effective in furthering our purposes than the total isolation of South Africa, which would inevitably inflict great suffering on the country's entire popUlation and on neighbouring States. In the view of the Netherlands Government, the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) is a significant political force in Namibia and an important participant in the process of the negotiations which must lead to Namibia's independence. We also feel, however, that it is inappropriate to characterize that organization as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people because thereby we prejudge the outcome of the fair and free elections to be held under United Nations auspices in implementation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (197R). In addition, my country opposes any attempts at politicizing the specialized agencies and interfering with their autonomy. The same remark applies to wordings which are incompatible with the principle of universality or fail to respect the division of competences of the United Nations bodies laid down in the Charter. These considerations lead my delegation to an abstention on draft resolution A and on draft resolution 0, concerning the dissemination of information. similarly, the Netherlands will abstain on draft resolution B, concerning the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). My Government shares the internation~l concern at the delays in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and firmly supports the demand that the Namibian people be enabled to exercise their legitimate right to self-determination in accordance with that resolution. In our opinion, that should not prevent the parties concerned from seeking a common understanding on issues relevant to the stability of the region as a whole with a view to the day when the implementation of the Namibian independence plan will be put into effect. The Netherlands Government strongly feels that, as a first requisite for the creation of an atmosphere more conducive to that end, South Africa must put a halt to its persistent violations of Angola's territorial integrity and sovereignty, in compliance with, most recently, security Council resolutions 571 (1985) and 577 (1985). Although the Netherlands will vote in favour of draft resolutions C and F, we harbour certain reservations concerning the programme of work of the United Nations Council for Namib ia. For instance, we question the need for the Council to enjoy the same rights and pr ivileges in international organizations as are reserved for States. In that connection, we note that the number of anticipated missions of the Council to various international meetings has been raised from 40 in 1985 to 50 in 1986. A similar tendency is to be observed in the fact that next year's programme of work provides for a number of extensively serv~ced seminars, an international conference in Western Europe to be attended by the full membership of the Council, and a special session of the General Assembly on the question of Namibia. As it seems safe to predict that those me~tings cover the same terrain over and over again, one is hard pressed to find a justification for the lavish expenditure on What amounts to a repetitive multiplication of United Nations activities concerning Namibia. We therefore call on the Council for Namibia to show more respect for considerations of budgetary restraint in the future programming of its activities. Mr. DELFOSSE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): A.t its fortieth session tbe General Assembly devoted one of its longest debates to the question of ~mibia. Successive speakers, unfortunately, have been compelled one after the other to speak in negative terms on this item. A member of the United Nations l Council for Namibia, Belgium too deplores the unjustified persistence of South Africa's occupation of Namibia almost 20 years after that Territory was made the direct responsibility of this Organization. By joining all the other countries me/li.)ers of the Council for Namibia in the consensus adoption of the Council's annual report, my country was seeking first and foremost to reaffirm its position regarding that situation and its sympathy with those who are its victims. However, as the Permanent Representative of Luxembourq has just done on behalf of the European Community, my delega tion feels obliged to recall a nUnOer of abiding pr inciples of its international pol icy, on the bas is of which it has reservations on the draft resolutions before us. My delegation "'ill vote in favour of draft resolution C, on the proqrall'llle of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia, althougb it must recall the reservations bebind its abstention in the vote in the Fifth COlMlittee on the financial implications of the draft resolution. Likewise, my country will vote in favour of draft resolution E, on the United Nations Fund for Namibia, and my delegation will vote in favour also of draft resolution F, on the special session of the General Assembly on the question of Namibia. My delegation will abstain in the votes on draft resolutions A, Band 0, respectively concerning the situation in Namibia, the implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978), and the dissemination of information on Namibia. Our reasons for those three abstentions are identical wi th those we have stated before) indeed, most of the language that presented difficulties for us in the past has been re ta ined • In draft resolution A, for example, my country cannot agree with paragraphs calling for support for armed struggle or for breaking off all relations with South Africa, or casting aspersions on the actions of some countries because they dif{er fr om the major i ty appr oach. In keeping with that steadfast position, my delegation will vote against retention of the wording whose deletion has been requested by the united States delegation. Nor can my country endorse the description of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) as the "sole authentic representative of the Namibian people". That is incompatible with the principles of the Belgian political system and with our basic approach to any dellOcratic structure. But it is certainly not our intention to challenge the distinguished role played for years by SWAPO in the Namibian people's struggle for independence. In draft resolution B, my delegation regrets the individual condemnations of certain countries and the criticism of the Western members of the Security Council. We insist once again on the need for scrupUlous respect for the powers which are proper to that organ. Wi th regard to dr aft resolution D, on the dissemination of informa tion, my delega tion believes that the size of the proposed inforrna tion programme is questionable. Nor can we support some of the ideas to be improperly transmitted through a mObilization campaign, which in itself is just and necessary. Yet I repeat that my country shares the bitterness felt by the Namibian people and the front-line States at the prevarication of the South African Government and its consequent continued illegal occupation of Namibia. Belgium stresses that the question of Namibia must be resolved without further ado on the basis of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We are convinced that settlement of this issue of decolonization would diminish tension in the region and thus bring about overall progress in the situation in southern Africa. We therefore stress the need for an urgent solution of the problem. Sir John THOMSON (United Kingdom): My delegation has a profound and genuine interest in Namibia. Rhetoric apart, there is precious little to dispute among the members of this General A$sembly, since all are agreed that Namibia should be brought to internationally accepted independence at the earliest possible time. Q.lr interest lies in the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. In order to sustain its role in relation to that plan, the United Kingdom, together with its four partners in the contact group, has traditionally declined to take a position of substance on the draft resolutions on this subject presented to the General Assembly. My delegation will accordingly abstain in the votes on all those draft resolutions. However, there are three observations I am bound to make. First, I must underline what the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg has said on behalf of the member States of the European Community about the arbitrary and unjustifiable language of these draft resolutions. Draft resolutions presented be the General Assembly should not engage in selective name-calling. Above all, they should not wilfully and deliberately distort the truth. We regret that the commendable attempts of certain members of the Council for Namibia to establish a degree of objectivity and balance in these draft resolutions were overridden. We join a very large number of delegations in deploring the Council's decision to SUbmit extreme and unbalanced texts. The adoption of such texts can only bring discredit upon the United Nations and diminish its standing with the public. My delegation will therefore vote against specific phrases and paragraphs in the draft resolutions. Secondly, as the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg has also indicated, we are concerned at the continuing extravagance of the Council for Namibia. We are appreciative of the firm action taken by parties outside the Council, as a result of which the Council was persuaded to scale down the huge additional demands it originally proposed to make in the coming year upon the United Nations budg~t. ~evertheless, the Council for Namibia is proposing a further increase in expenditure in 1986. In operative paragraph 20 of draft resolution C, the Council proposes that an international conference on Namibia should be held in Western Europe in 1986. The estimated cost is $1,382,600. In draft resolution F, the Council calls for a special session of the General Assembly. The estimated cost is $769,600. Thus, given that the forty-first session of the General Assembly will again hold it~ customary three-day plenary debate on Namibia, the United Nations will in effect be convening and funding three international conferences on Namibia within a few months. The same speeches will be delivered, almost word for word, by the same people; and the same resolutions or declarations, almost word for word, will be adopted. This is another deplorable instance of the United Nations holding up gilded mirrors to reflect its own image. We are not here to emulate the Palace of Versailles. The annual contributions to the United Nations budget of 40 Member States will be entirely spent on three unnecessary conferences next year. That is a sobering thought. These $3 million should have been used, not on costly and repp.titive extravaganzas, but to help those in need. Thirdly, I cannot emphasize too strongly my Government's commitment to Security Council resolution 435 (1978), and our support for all efforts genuinely intended to secure its immediate implementation. The lon~ delay in bringing about the independence of Namibia has distressed our friends in Africa. It has caused no less distress to us. As one of the authors of the United Nations settlement plan, the united Kingdom has the greatest possible interest in its enactment. We have left the South African Government in no shadow of doubt as to the urgency we attach to this; and we shall continue to work with our African and western partners to achieve Namibian independence. Mr. AKANGA (Togo) (interpretation from French): My country strongly, unreservedly and clearly condemns the policy of South Africa in Namibia. That is why my delegation wil vote in favour of all the draft resolutions on the question of Namibia contained in document A/40/24, part 11. My delegation will however abstain on the separate votes'on paragraphs 24, 25 and 46 of the operative part of draft resolution A and on the sixth preambular paragraph of draft resolution B., Our abstention is in keeping with our well known position which refuses selectively to condemn certain countries in draft resolutions because many other countries co-operate with South Africa and maintain all kinds of relations with that country, especially on the question of NamiotR. Under no circumstances does our abstention in any way minimize our commitment to the Namibian people and to its authentic, legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), as borne out by the statement made by my delegation on 20 November 1985 before this Assembly. Mr. SVOBODA (Canada): My delegation would like to make clear that its intention to abstain on the draft resolutions concerning Namibia, and O~r non-participation in the debate in this Assembly, are purely procedural, due to Canada's membership in the contact group. As we have stated, however, in the Security Council on two occasions this year, and indeed in the statement made by Canada's Secretary of state for External Affairs here on 25 September, we view South Africa's continued refusal to set a date to implement the United Nations plan as a wilful breach of good faith and of the assurances given to ourselves, the other members of the contact group and to the United Nations itself. Canada, for one, has stated clearly that this behaviour, if continued, would contribute to the widening gap in our bilateral relationship with South Africa. However, we believe that the contact group may Rtill have a role to play during the actual implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978), as well as a role in bcinging about an agreement to set a date to implement the United Nations settlement plan. C6nada therefore, whil~ continuing to be frustrated by the contact group's inactivity and senSe of immobility, would not wish to prejudge the outcome of any negotiations concerning the implementation of that Security Council resolution by our votes on these draft resolutions before us. We continue to be grieved that the people of Namibia are still denied their internationally recognized independence after more than a century of colonial rule. Such contempt on the part of South Africa and its continued denial of justice cannot be tolerated by the international community. The community of nations must therefore continue to press South ~frica to change its offensive policy. We join with other delegations in looking forward to the day when Namibia will be free and will join the ranks of our membership. Our abstentions do not in any way indicate what would be the Canadian position were we not a member of the contact group. Naturally, following from what I have just said, we strongly support the immediate and long-overd~e independence of Namibia and appropriate measures, as well as resources, both to prepare the Namibians for the self-management of their country and to campaign internationally for such independence. None the less, I do wish to record that we take strong objection to certain phraseology, particularly the unnecessary and ~nhelpful name-calling seen in many paragraphs of the draft resolutions brought before us today. We are furthermore very concerned at the high expenses associated with the various programmes and proposals for major meetings, conferences and travel set out in certain of the draft resolutic:>ns befdre us today. In Canada I sview, only one country needs to be persuaded that Narnibiashould be free, and free immediately. That is South Africa. No amount of'·what has been or will be said in the various gatherings J~oposed is likely to have any impact significantly greater upon those who manipulate Namibia from Pretoria than meetings of the Security Council or of this Assembly in its regular sessions. Were that to be the case, Namibia would have been free long ago. , Canada believes it important to ensure that funds obtained by the United Natibns Council for Namibia from the regular budget be used in an effective ann efficient manner. We have more fully registered our position on the financial implications of the draft resolutions before us in the Fifth Committee. Mr. ROWE (Australia): Australia is totally committed to the goal of early independence for Namibia in accordance with the United Nations plan set out in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We have worked assiduously in the General Assembly, the Security Council and as a member of the Council for Namibia in pursuit of this goal. We regret that the independence of Namibia has been prevented because of the refusal of the South African Government to abide by its undertakings and to implement the United Nations plan. There should be no doubt in the minds of anybody who has followed the proceedings in the General Assembly over the last three months, and in the Security Council throughout 1985, of the commitment of the entire international community to independence for Namibia. My delegation regrets therefore that the draft resolutions before us will not allow us, nor many other delegations in this Assembly, to join in sending to the south African Government the clear and unambiguous message that its policies in relation to Namibia are completely