A/40/PV.81 General Assembly

I should like to give representatives an outline of the tentative programme of plenary meetings for the next two weeks. On Tuesday and Wednesday, 19 and 20 November, the Assembly will continue its cons~deration of agenda item 34, "Question of Namibia". On Thursday, 21 November, the Assembly will take up agenda items 17 (k), "Confirmation of the appointment of the Secretary-General of the united Nations Conference on Trade and Development", 20, "Return or restitution of cultural property ~~ the countries of origin" and 25, "Co-operation between the United N~tions and the Organization of African Unity". Beginning on Friday, 22 November, the Assembly will consider agenda item 21, "Situation in Central .~erica". On Tuesday, 26 November, the Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 23, "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". On Friday, 29 November, the Assembl"/ will begin its consideration of agenda item 18, "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples". It is, of course, understood that reports of main Committees will be considered as they become available.

I should like to remind representatives that, in accordance with the decision taken at this morning's plenary meeting, the list of speakers in the debate on this item will be closed tomorrow at 12 noon. Mr. GeLDS (Yugoslavia): It was 40 years ago that the United Nations Charter, a vision of a better and more just world, was adopted: After 40 years of efforts to ensure that the strong and the weak, the big and the small might live in a free world and enjoy liberty and independence, the people of Namibia are still in colonial bondage. The United Nations is not a sum total of speeches, but the sum total of our common concern and quest for self-determination and independence, and in this context one of our highest priorities is o~r support of the just struggle of the people of Namibia under the leadership of their sole and authentic representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). In the year of the anniversary of the United Nations, the people of Namibia and the rest of us cannot but note that 40 years have elapsed since the question of Namibia was put on the united Nations agend~. and that it will soon be 20 years since the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for Namibia and terminated the Mandate of South Africa to administer the Territory. (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) After all this, the people of Namibia is still denied its inalienable right to self-determination, national independence and freedom in a united country. The illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa is continuing in direct contravention of united Nations decisions and constitutes an act of aggression against the people of Namibia. The regime in Pretoria is carrying out ruthless repression, terrorizes and exploits the People of Namibia. It also pursues its policy and practice of aparthei~ and racial discrimination in Namibia, flagrantly violating the human rights of the Namibian people. Harassed and terrorizedl the people of Namibia have to abandon their homes and seek shelter in neighbouring States. South Africa has been desperately trying to establish a string of so-called political institutions in Namibia - sham and unrepresentative, everyone of them. The last attempt by Pretoria to install a puppet administration in Windhoek in the form of an -interim governmentof the so-called Multi-Party Conference is another transparent attempt to hoodwink international public opinion. However, as in all previous cases, the international community immediately proclaimed this illegal act of South Africa to be null and void. South Africa and other for~ign economic interests are ruthlessly plunde~ing the human and natural resources of Namibia. This is be~ng done in flagrant violation of the right of the people of Namibia to dispose freely of its natural and economic resources and potential, and it is in direct contravention of Decree No. 1 of the United Nations Council for Namibia. The regime in Pretoria is using Namibian territory as a springboard for its aggression against, and subversion of, independent Afrioan countries, particularly the People IS Republic of Angola. It is a constant threat to the security, (Mr. (;0100, Yugoslavia) sovereignty and territorial integrity of the front-line States. The acquisition of a nuclear-weapon capability by the racist regime of South Africa has added yet another dangerous dimension to an already grave situation in the region and poses a threat to all _nkind. It is quite obvious that SOuth Africa is apt to use anything to quell the liberation struggle of the PeOple of Namibia. It is doing this with impunity, but it is not and cannot be successful. History - particularly modern history - has shown tine and again that a people fighting for self-determination, independence and freedom is invincible. The people of Namibia deserve admiration and support for their determination and p~rseverance in their struggle. For more than 25 years, SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia, headed by President sara Nujoma, has been at the helm of the struggle for .national independence. It has made great sacrifices on the field of battle and demonstrated its resolve to win. At the same time SWAPO has always displayed the full measure of its statesmanship, wisdom and far-sightedness in the political and diplomatic arena, by its readiness to join in seeking political solutions through the United Nations plan for Namibia. International recognition and support for the struggle of the people of Namibia and for SWAPO is the expression of respect for independence and self-determination, as well as for the policy of non-alignment of SWAPO in international affairs. (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) This is a recognition and support best reflected in the participation of SWAPO in the deliberations of the united Nations and other international organizations, as well as in its full-fledged membership in the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The failure to solve the question of Namibia generates a crisis with dangerous global implications. Foreign domination in Namibia, just as anywhere else in the world, constitutes a direct threat to international peace and security. This remains a colonial question of self-determination and independence. Trying to fend off the inevitable decolonization of the Territory, South Africa itself views the Namibian issue in the context of East-West rivalry. However, the longer the occupation of Namibia lasts, the greater are the dangers of drawing this question into bloc confrontation. As in many other cases of the struggle of peoples for freedom around the world, there is no substitute for the role of the United Nations. A just and peaceful solution cannot be achieved outside the framework of the United Nations, which has pointed the way and provided a basis for a solution. The united Nations Plan for Namibia is one of the remarkable achievements of this world Organization. It is based on the principles of the inalienable right of peoples and countries to self-determination, independence and sovereignty. It is to our mind the only basis for a peaceful solution and it must be implemented without delay, without ~ange and without pre-conditions. However, South Africa continues to reject all the decisions of the United Nations and thwarts the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia through ever more numerous stratagems and ploys. First it was the complaint about so-called United 'Nations impartiality; then the objection to the composition of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group, then the electoral system; then the linkage between the independence of Namibia and irrelevant extraneous issues such as the presence of foreign troops in Angola. (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) It is incument upon the United Nations, and the security Council in particular, to cut short the seemingly endless exercise of evasion and defiance of the will of the United Nations by south Africa. It is for them to act promptly and with the necessary vigour .to bring about the implementation of the United Nations Plan. At the Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries held in Luanda, Angola, at the beginning of september this year, the non-aligned countries called upon the Security Council to resume its consideration of the question of Namibia and to give effect to its own resolutions in this regar~. Regrettably, the Secur ity Council has not yet succeeded in removing obstacles standing in the way of the independence of Namibia and in taking all necessary measures to achieve that goal. We believe that no member of this Assemly or of the secur i ty Council should harbour any illusions as to the real nature and intentions of 'the Government in Pretor ia. We believe there should be no more obstacles to the secur ity Council's taking joint and effective action for granting independence to Namibia and for the eradication of apartheid in. southern Africa. The pressure on South Africa should be renewed and intensified and countries should refrain from any contact and co-operation with it. That should include the adoption of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which would in addition to the arms embargo involve the cessation of any aspect of economic, military, political, cultural and scientific co-operation as well as co-operation in the field of sports, with SOuth Africa. All countries should again be called upon to adopt legislative and other action to prevent their State-owned corporations and forbid private corporations from engaging in the exploitation, processing, transport or purchase of the natural resources of Namibia. (Hr. GolOO, Yugoslavia) The Secretary-General of. the United Nations, Hr Perez de Cuellar, has been continually seeking implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia. His efforts merit our full support in the future. The United Nations Council for Namibia, under the presidency of Mr. Paul Lusaka, has initiated and successfully completed numerous actions aimed at implementing the United Nations Plan for Namibia, at the accession of Namibia to independence and at rendering assistance to the people of Namibia and to SWAPO. We feel that the Council should continue to mai."1tain close and effective co-operation with SWAPO. In the present situation the activities of the Council have gained additional importance and the support of all Member States for its activities has thus become even IIlOre necessary. We feel that support should be rendered to the work of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, the United Nations Fund for Namibia, the Nationhood Programme for Namibia and the United Nations Institute for Namibia. Those institutions are carrying out diverse and substantial programmes of assistance for the people of Namibia, especially in the educational and social fields. A few days ago, at the meeting of the Security Council, the question of the impartiality of the United Nations was again raised. The United Nations and. its institutions shou16 be impartially on the side of self-determination, decolonization and independence and, consequently, on the side of the Namibian people and SWAPO. Without SWAPO there can be no solution to the Namibian issue. SWAPO is recognized by the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian People and any attempt to deny that would aIOOunt to an attempt to rob the Namibian people of their leader in the liberation struggle and should be rejected outright. (Mr. Golob ~ Yugoslavia) Let me conclude by saying that Yugoslavia will render its contribution to the eradication of ~partheid and the shameful remnants of colonialism. The people of Namibia and SWAPO enjoy the full and unswerving support of the Government and people of Yugoslavia in their just struggle for liberation. Mr. MORBL (Seychelles): My delegation wishes to congratulate you once again, Sir, on your election as President of the fortieth session of the General Asselllbly. Your vast experience in international diplomacy will be instrumental in guiding our deliberations on the question of Namibia. The people of Nallibia have been subjected to colonial occupation for the past hundred years. As we COrMDemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the people of Namibia continue to be subjected to colonial domination, illegal foreign occupation and the ruthless exploitation of their weal tb and natural resources. This is not acceptable. ~he Republic of Seychelles wishes to reaffirm its solidar i ty with the People of Namibia in their struggle for their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. (Mr. Morel, seychelles) In 1978, after nearly 40 years of hard wot'k, the United Nations security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) which established the means by which the people of Namibia could finally enjoy their long-awaited independence. Unfortunately, the efforts of the United Nations have since then been frustrated by the continued illegal occl1,pation of the territory by the racist regime of SOuth Africa. Instead of co-oparating with the United Nations, the racist regime has engaged in creating futile institutions through which it hopes to thwart the independence of N~~ibia. In a bid further to delay the independence of Namibia, the racist regime, in collaboratien with allies, h~ introduced the concept of linkage, a concept linking the liberation of Namibia to the presence of Cuban forces in Angola. The presence of Cuban forces in Angola is a matter between the sovereign States of Cuba and Angola. It has nothing to do with the struggling people of Namibia. The people of NamibiEl should not be penalized for matters that are totally irrelevant to their demand. It "is not fair to use their independence as a pawn, and to hold them hostage for whom a ransom has to be paid. Linkage makes nonsense of the .notion of sovereignty. How can the United Nations, on the one hand, support Namibia's right to self-determination and independence and deny Angola's, on the other? The recent upsurge of public opinion in many parts of the world for IlDf!=! resolute action against South Africa is a welcome development. My delegation believes that only the eradication of apartheid can lead to a just and lasting solution to the already explosive situation in South Africa. We are of the opinion that one of the most effective ways of dismantling apartheid and consequently paving the way to' the independence of Namibia is by the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions on SOuth Africa. We wish to appeal to those countries that wield influence on South Africa and that have the caPability to make the greatest difference to assume their responsibilities. (Mr. Morel, seychelles) The people of Namibia should not be allowed to continue to wait for their independence while, in the meantime, they are subject to an i,ncrease in violence, widespread sUffering and considerable loss of life. At this historic session of the General Assembly, my delegation once a~ain wishes to call for the innediate and unconditional implementation of resolution 435 (1978) which constitutes the only basis for a peaceful sett1.ement of the Namibia;). question. We also wish to condemn all actions perpetrated to delay the long-awaited independence of Namibia. Mr. HALINEN (Finland): The only agreed basis for internationally recognized independence for Namibia is security Council resolution 435 (1978) to which Finland is firmly committed. Under that resolution, the constitution for an independent Namibia is to be drafted by representatives of the Namibian people chosen by free and fair elections. The Government of Finland considers any action taken by a so-called interim government for Namibia to be without effect and null and void. It is our view that this move by the SOuth Afr ican Government has further complicated the efforts to proceed without delay with the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). All along there has been serious doubts about the commitment of South Africa to that resolution. The international community has been given every indication that the South Afr iean Government is continuing to stifle the wishes of the people of Namibia and to maintain the obstacles to independence. only last week the secur i ty Council was informed by SOuth Afr ica that the issue of an electoral system is now resolved. A logical conclusion is, since all the terms of resolution 435 (1978) have now been met, that the secretary-General can commence implementation of that resolution. Any extraneous question cannot, and shall not, be acceptable as a pre-condition to the implementation. After all, Namibia and the settlement Plan is an issue on the United Nations agenda in its own right. (Mr. Halinen, Finland) At the meeting of the Nordic Foreign Ministers barely a month ago, the Ministers denounced once again SOuth Africa's efforts to delay the independence of Namibia in accordance with security Council resolution 435 (1978). They emphasized that South Afr ica continues to impose its political solutions on Naaibia and has continued its lIilitary attacks also against the neighbouring States. In the coDlJll.mique given by the Ministers from this meeting, a special significance for Finland is the fact that international pressure on the South African Government must be increased and made lIOre effective not only in order to obtain a total abolition of the apar~ system b'lt, as importantly, the independence of Namibia. Finland has a high regard for the United Nations Council for Namibia and is one of its active memb.ers. The Council, as the legal AdJIlinistering Authority for Namibia, has the central role to prepare the independence of Namibia and intensify the process leading to it. A major responsibility of the Council is to give an objective and accuri'i~:!' ~icture of the situation in and around Namibia. We welcome especially tha endeavou~s of the Council, together with the Commissioner's Office,to survey all major natural resources of Namibia on an equal basis, be it in the mining industry, agriculture or fisheries, and to ~xpose these exploiting these resource£: contrary to the interests of the Namibian people. We also welcome the past work of the COtmcil in disseminating information on the question of Namibia. Consequently, the support given to the Namibian cause is today worldwide. At the same time, we express our satisfaction that the Council has commenced this year a pertinent review on its work and pr iorities. We are all concerned at the effectiveness - including c~t-effectivenessof our activities and of the need to get practical and meaningful results. This evaluation should be seen as an ongoing process and as an essential element of the work. Finland's action has been and is motivated solely by a desire to make a constructive and pragmatic contribution to the settlement of the Namibian question. (Mr. RaIinen, Finland) The Finnish initiatives have led to the establishment of the united Nations Institute of Namibia and the Nationhood Pr09ra~ for Namibia.. Therefore, it is only natural that Finland follows those activities closely and is a major contributor to them. The Institute and the Nationhood prograrae, having the most valuable mission to prepare Namibians for iradependence, deserve our full support. Our continuing dedication to the cause of the people of Namibia is manifested also in our annual contributions to the United Nations Fund for Namibia, as well as other respective funds and programmes. I am happy 1:0 announce that w'! expect a substantial increase in our contributions for next year. This also concerns our humanitarian assistance to the South West Africa People's. Organization (SWAPO) and to Namibians both directly and through the United Nations. A few years ago we already declared that independent Namibia will become a major recipient of Finnish technical and economic assistance. (Mr. Halinen, Finlafid) In its recommendations to the General Assembly the Council for Namibia reaffirms its decision that it should proceed to establish its administration in Namibia in 1986. Finland, for its part, reaffirms that it is prepared to participate in the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) and would respond promptly to an eventual request for its services. In June the Security Council reaffirmed the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia in its resolution 566 (1985). The resolution confirmed the unconditional commitment of the international community to the plan. The Council also condemned South Africa for its refusal to abide by the decisions of the Council and warned South Afr ica that sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter would be imposed again~t it if it persisted in its policy of illegal occupation of Namibia. In September South Africa carried out an armed invasion of Angola, apparently in order to frustrate the efforts to implement Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). Finland welcomes the unanimous condemnation in security Council resolution 571 (1985) of this act of aggression against a sovereign country and only a couple of days ago the Security Council endeavoured to detail further and establish international pressure against South Africa. Finland has consistently emphasized the importance of the imposition of effective mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter by the security Council against South Africa. We had hoped that the Security Council would be able to agree on a resolution in that direction, thus giving South Africa a correct and explicit signal. At the same time, the General Assembly in its resolutions should do nothing less than send an effective, unanimous message to South Africa on the early independence of Namibia without further pre-conditions• I wish first, on behalf Mr. NIARE (Mali) (interpretation from French): of the delegation of Mali, to extend to the delegation of Colombia and through it to its people and Government our heart~elt condolences on the catastrophe which has recently s truck that country. We offer them our profound symp:lthy. Once again our Assembly is taking up the debate on the question of Namibia, one of the issues that most endangers the peace and security of southern Africa. This agenda item, as always, givess the delegation of Mali the opportunity to reaffirm the faith of its people and Government in the principle of decolonization as stated in the Charter and to reaffirm that support for the cause of the liberation of peoples and their readiness to contribute to the defence of that cause are unchanged. Thus, in.the name, as always, of the freedom, dignity, equality and solidarity of peoples, which are the basic principles of our Charter, my delegation again speaks on the question now before us. Since the adoption in 1960 of resolution 1514 (XV) and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples more than 80 countries and colonial Territories of Africa, Asia and Latin America have regained their freedom•. The emergence of their peoples on the international scene continues to influence the course and quality of history. Their victorious struggle, supported by the United Nations, has contributed powerfully to the attainment of the ideal of universality of our Organization, which deserves our gratitude for its work in the cause of decoloniza tion. There can be no more eloquent proof of the value of the United Nations system in this area. Given the very impressive number of newly independent States, it might be thought that decolonization had been successfully completed. Despite the ground cov.ered, however, the dependency of peoples remains an item on the agenda of our Organization in the last part of this century. Throughout the world throughout the past 40 years colonial wars and national liberation struggles have continued. (Kr. Niare, Mali) Our Organization must continue its struggle for ~~e restoration and defence of violated human rights and freedoms. These rights are those of the protection of the individual and of political, economic, Gocial and cultural promotion. They imply the condemnation of colonialism and racism. Mali, which has always been concerned about questions relating to foreign domination, human dignity an", the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, is proud of having been a mellber of the Special committee on decolonization since its establishment and of haVing thus IIilde its contribution to the restoration of the rights to peoples as set out in the San Francisco Charter and in the histor ic Declaration of December 1960. My delegation rea~firms emPtatically that the aspirations of a people to self-determination and independence must in no case be frustrated. No administering P~er can be exempted from compliance with the Charter in this area, nor can it be allowed to avoid the legal, political an61 economic obligations established by the Charter as internationally recognized responsibilities. While my delegation appreciates the effort already made by administering Powers in decolonization, it cannot compromise in respect of the right of peoples to self-determination and feels that those Powers must continue to ensure the political, economic and social progtess of the populations of the Territories concerned, in accordance with the commitments arising from the applic:ttion of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. The celebration of the fortieth anniversary of this world Organization must be perceived by all Governments and all peoples not just as a symbol but as the sign of genuine rejection of the continued existence of colonialism and racial discrimination and support for emphasis on the human values which unite us • (Mr. Niare, Mali) Southern Africa remains a hotbed of tension. The situation in Naaibia, which has been before our Assembly for more than 20 years now, worries us because it is still unresolved and, worse, continues· to deteriorate. The illegal occupation of the Territory and South Africa's persistence in its attitude despite the many relevant decisions and resolutions of the United Nations are flagrant violations of the Charter and the basic principles governing international relations and reflect the racist regime's disdain for the international ooltlllUnity. At the same time they are a genuine threat to the peace and security of neighbouring States. The Namibian people, who have been deprived for more than 100 years of the rights which are the essence of a people'S existence and which are enshrined in the Charter, are "demanding the exercise of political power on their own national soil. This claim is completely just and legitimate. South Africa's rejection of this claim, first in 1946, through its refusal to place the Territory under United Nations trusteeship, and subsequently in 1966, 'cl1rough its illegal occupation since the withdrawal of the Mandate, reflects complete contempt for the principle of the equality of peoples and the precepts which underly the establishment of human relations between States. (Hr. Niare, Mali) The blind violence which led ~ that illegal occupation is the same violence which resulted in the massacres of women and children on Namibian soil - the very soil that serves as South Africa's point of departure for unleashing with impunity undeclared and increasingly violent wars against neighbouring States. Mali denounces the acts of aggression against the innocent population of Angola, Botswana, and the action taken to destabilize Lesotho, Zambia, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. with those methods South Africa is trying to realize its hegemonistic aims throughout southern Africa. The delegation of Mali would like to reaffir.m yet again that the application of the relevant United Nations resolutions is the only way to assure a just and lasting solution to th~s problem, and that solution alone can guarantee peace, security and stability in the region. My delegation feels that Pretoria's refusal to apply those resolutions, and particularly Security Council resolution 435 (1978), should have already led long ago to the application of the measures set out in Chapter VII of the Charter. It is the duty of the United Nations and the international community to put an end to the oppression and subjugation of the Namibian people so that it can recover its dignity and freedom. The fate of these millions of men and women is crucial not only for justice and equity, but also for peace and security in that part of the world. My delegation denounces the intensification of the repression in Namibia and the pillaging of Namibia's natural resources. We reaffirm our unswerving support for SWAPO in its heroic national liberation struggle and appeal to all States, specialized agencies of the Un~ted Nations system and non-governmental organizations to increase their support for that organization. My delegation is pleased to note that the far-reaching changes occurring at the present time in (Mr. Niare, Mali) Azania \<Idll favour the actions of SWAPO, and we hope that the establishment last June of the so-called interim Government will not sap the will of the Namibian people to achieve self-determination and independence. Mali repeats its congratulations and its expression of support for the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee on Decolonization which are working untiringly for the liberation of peoples under foreign domination. We unconditionally condemn the arrests, privation and fruptration being experienced by the patriots of those Territories and appeal urgently to the international community for the liberation of the 77 Namibian patriots arrested last August. My delegation is also gratified that the Conference on the intensification of international action for the independence of Namibia was held in New York last September in accordance with resolution 39/50 D of 12 December 1984. That Conference, which drew the attention of the international community to the threat to internati~nal peace and security posed by Pretoria's intransigence also clearly highlighted the obstacles to the independence of Namibia. It served as a point of departure for international public opinion in support of concerted action aimed at &nsuring the implementation. of the united Nations plan. We regret that some states continue to give support and encouragement to the racist regime, and denounce the fallacious pretexts invoked to obstruct Namibia's march towards independence. We venture to hope moreover that the moment has come for the States which have become convinced by the facts of the failure of their policy, to fall into line with the international community, and thus reaffirm their attachment to the ideals of democracy and justice. The Security Council should recall all the decisions and resolutions adopted in 1968 conferring on the United Nations particular responsibility with respect to all matters concerning the Namibian people's aspirations for peace, justice and (ME'. Niare, Mel1ii independence. The impossibility of implementing those decisions and resolutions is one of the main causes of the tension an.d suffer ing in that region. Mali attaches the greatest importance to the solution of the question o~ Namibia and to respect for the right of peoples to self-determination, and continues to support in advance any resolution concerning that question. If the international community gives way before the fallacious pretexts which we invoked against the independence of the Territory and whose only purpose is to perpetuate its occupation, the principles governing international relations such as self-determination of peoples and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, will lose all their ~aning. The international community and the united Nations must assume their responsibilities in order to end the sufferings of the Namibian people and the illegal occupation of their Territory. Mali, which is pleased with the efforts already made to mobilize international public opinion, hopes that Namibia's unconditional independence will be achieved as quickly as possible. Thus our fervent wish for the tr iumph of that martyred people's just cause will be realized. Mr. PRAM NGAC (Viet Nam): Twenty-five years have elapsed since the adoption of the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to col~ial Countries and Peoples. In the process of their struggle African countries one after another gained their in~ependence from colonial domination; yet Namibia, and Namibia alone remains in the grip of the apartheid regime of South Africa as the last colony of the old type on Earth. The untiring struggle that has lasted several decades on both the domestic and international level appears to be futile independence and freedom seem to be out of reach for the people of Namibia to which nature has been so bountiful. The cause of this state of affair:B is beyond any reasonable doubt. The main roadblock to the independence of the Namibian people is the reactionary nature of the apat;.!:!!ili regime. Pretoria is obsessed with the use of force, aimed at suppressing the Namibian people in their just struggle for self-determination end maintaining its illegal occupation of that Territory. The apartheid regime id, on the one hand, speeding up the militarization of puppet forces, turning the Territory into a garrison-StateJ on the other hand, it· uses Namibia as a springboard from which to carry out acts of aggression, destabilization and sabotage against the front-line States. Angola and Mozanbique between them have to bear the brunt of those savage attacks, simply because they d~~e to practice their militant solidarity with the Namibian people's struggle for independence and freedom. The policies pursued so far by Pretoria against neighbouring countries compel the latter to increase expenditure on national defence, which seems to be a real burden O;n their already fragile economies. The apartheid regime of South Africa has not changed, and will never change its colours as time goes by. Yet some western countries have gone so far as to extol South Africa for its recent "decisive" reforms. The truth is that those reforms are only a series of illegal acts aimed at imposing its internal solution at whatever cost. Nothing is more self-evident than the "interim" Government newly born - out of wedlock - of apartheid and imperialism. The birth of that deformed creature is an affront to those who are struggling for an independent and united Namibia, to the entire international community that vigorously condemned it in security Council resolution 566 (1985), adopted in June, 1985. (Mr. Pham Ngac, Viet Nam) Pretoria's neo-colonia1ism practised in Namibia is a product not of strength, but rather of weakness, in an attempt to cope with the Namibian people's struggle, supported worldwide. Their struggle is a great contribution to that of the peoples throughout southern Africa, whose goals are not to reform the apartheid regime but to eradicate it, thus erasing a dirty spot on the face of the world. Why can South Africa act in such an arrcgant and brazen fashion, in defiance of the international community? It is obviously because the regime is supported and assisted by the imperialist and reactionary forces, who have set their eyes on the rich natural resources of Namibia, and who know its strategic importance. AS their interests overlap, the~ want to turn South Africa into the standard-bearer for the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine in the region. Clasping the apartheid regime to their bosom as a strategic ally, they continue to co-operate with it in the military field, including the nuclear field. Billions of united States dollars are invested to help the obnoxious regime economically; political protection is used as a shield in the face of strong international condemnation. The United States and a certain ally in the Security Council have misused their veto power to block draft resolutions that called for mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter against South Africa. Those facts testify that Pretoria and the forces behind it will not eas~ly give independence to Namibia. However, there is no room for manoeuvre and illusion. The linkage of its independence with the presence of the Cuban troops in Angola serves to prolong Pretoria's occupation of Namibia; it also constitutes interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign State. The so-called negotiated solution put forward by Pretoria and its mentors is aimed only at legalizing the notorious regime. The imported mask of peace-loving democracy worn by the apartheid regime has fallen off, and it remains in reality a threat to peace and security, the source of violence and war in the region. (Mr. Pham Ngac, Viet Nam) In the face of this, the peoples of southern Africa have no other way to gain their independence and freedom than to intensify their struggle by all means possible, including the armed struggle. This is an urgent and legitimate need it is also a way that oppressed peoples everywhere are compelled to choose. The overriding task at present of the struggle by the southern African and Namibian peoples and the forces for peace, national independence and social progress all over the world is to fight neo-colonialism in Namibia•. We are pleased to see the growth and political ingenuity of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole, legitimate representative of the Namibian people, which spares no sacrifice in the struqgle for genuine independence. We are equally pleased to note a full realization by the international community - first and foremost, the front-line States - of the nature of the Namibian question and the dark designs of Pretoria and those behind it. All members of the united Nations should facilitate the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) •. The struggle of the Namibian people is not limited to the context of the undaunted struggle of a nation to rid itself of the colonial yoke and achieve national independence and fr~edom; it is a common cause of the front-line States and other African peoples that want to eradicate a constant threat to the independence and sovereignty of southern African countries and to the peace and stability of the region. The struggle falls within the realm of a joint endeavour of progressive mankind to abolish the last stronghold of colonialism in Africa. Together with other peaceand justice-loving peoples throughout the world, Viet Nam strongly condemns the apartheid regime and its supporters for the linkage of Namibia's independence with extraneous issues. We warmly welcome, and fully support, the determination of the front-line states to face any adverse economic consequences that may result from mandatory sanctions against South Africa. It is high time for the most resolute actions in the struggle for Namibia's independence. A century under the colonial yoke is too long; a minute of non-action by the international community means more suffering for the people of the country. Namibia has become the focal point of the struggle of our time. It is a touchstone by which to tell who truly support the oppressed and who take the side of the aggressor and colonialism. In spite of numerous difficulties and ha~dships on the way to independence, the struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, is bound to achieve final victory. That is certain, because to an oppressed people nothing is more precious than independe~ce and freedom. Once imbued with that spirit, closely united, determined to follow an ingenious line, and supported by the peoples of the world, a small country can defeat an enemy many times stronger. The balance of force in the world has changed in favour of peace, national ind~pendence and social progress, thus creating favourable conditions for the Namibian people in their struggle for independence and freedom. This is an irreversible trend of history. Those who choose to go against it are doomed to failure. Mr. WASIUDDIN (Bangladesh): The Assembly at its current session has the historic task of adopting a decisive course of action to usher in the early independence of Namibia, on the basis of the United Nations plan, the only acceptable basis for a final, lasting settlement of the Namibian question. We urge all concerned fully to appreciate that what is at stake in Namibia is a moral issue. It is our common collective responsibility to the Namibian people to help them break free of the yoke of colonial subjugation. The heroic Namibian people have been struggling for their freedom and independence for a long and bitter century. That suffering must end, and end now. (Mr. Wasiuddin, Bangladesh) The current debate on the question of Namibia is taking place at a historic moment. The international coDlllUnity just three weeks ago observed the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. This year also marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The people of Namibia also commemorated this year the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the SOuth west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) - their sole and authentic representative. Regrettably, however, this hour of momentous significance is paradoxically juxtaposed to the unfortunate fact that nearly two decades after the termination of the Mandate by the United Nations, the racist Pretoria regime continues to maintain its illegal presence in Namibia through its abhorrent policies of repression, racism and racial discrimination based on apartheid. My delegation takes this opportunity to reaffirm our total and unstinted support for the valiant people of Namibia in their just and legitimate struggle for freedom and national independence under the leadership of SWAPO. We have before us several reports on this item for our deliberations - namely, the latest report of the secretary-General; the annual report of the United Nations Council for Namibia; the annual report of the Special Committee of 24, and the report of the Fourth Committee. May I take this opportunity to record our deep appreciation to the Secretary-General for his untiring and commendable efforts towards advancing the cause of the Namibian people. The United Nations Council for Namibia, of which Bangladesh is an active member, has made consistent and admirable endeavours during the year in protecting and safeguarding the interests of the Namibian people. The Special Committee also deserves our most sincere appreciation for its valuable contributions. The speakers who have preceded me have already given a vivid account of the situation prevailing in and around Namibia. I should only like to emphasize that (Mr. Wasiuddin, Bangladesh) Namibia for almost two decades has been a unique reponsibility of this world body and we have the historic mandate to protect and safeguard the rights and interests of Namibia until it attains genuine independence. It is a matter of deep regret that nearly seven years after the adoption of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, SOUth Africa continues to maintain its stranglehold over the Territory, and the people of Namibia are still subjected to the worst form of colonial exploitation, with the added brutality and ignominy of apartheid. We fUlly share the perception of the Secretary-General that -the failure to bring Namibia to independence through the United Nations plan is, together with apartheid, a fundamental reas..:>n for the tension and suffering in southern Africa-. (A/40/l, p.14) During the past year the international community has repeatedly expressed its grave concern at the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by the Pretoria regime and called for immediate and concrete action for the early independence of Namibia. The Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries held in New r:,,' ',1 last April comprehensively reviewed the situation in, and relating to, Namibia. It called upon the security Council to act in a decisive manner in fulfilment of the direct responsibility of the United Nations with regard to Namibia, and to take urgent measures to ensure immediate and unconditional implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia. The United· Nations Council for Namibia also arranged a series of plenary meetings in vienna last June and adopted a Declaration and a Programme of Action. Those documents deserve our serious and urgent consideration. In pursuance of the joint initiative of non-aligned and African countries, the security Council met last June and a large number of Foreign Ministers from non-aligned and African countries, including Bangladesh, took part in the debate. The Council once again reviewed the situation comprehensively and adopted resolution 566 (1985), which condemned South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia, reiterated its firm support for the united Nations plan for Namibia and urged all Memer States th~t had not done so to consider taking appropriate voluntary measures against South Africa in certain economic, sports and cultural areas. It may be mentioned here that the Council also met a number of .Jther times and condemned South Africa's repeated acts of aggression against the f~ont-1ine States. The Summit Conference of the Organization of African Unity held in Addis Ababa last July once agai~ reiterated its firm and principled position on the question and called for intensified international effort for the early independence of Namibia. '~;:~bsequently, the non-aligned Foreign Ministers' Conference held in Luanda Cl' the eve of the fortieth session of the General Assembly also reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the people of Namibia to self-determination, national independence and the safeguarding of its territorial integrity, and reiterated the solidarity of the Movement with the just and legitimate struggle of the Namibian people. The Commonwealth Summit held in Nassau, the Bahamas, last month also expressed grave concern at the continued occupation of Namibia by the racist Pretoria regime and adopl.:ed the Conunonwealth Accord on Southern Afr ica. It may be mentioned here that the Summit also took important steps for the isolation of the apartheid regime. During the session cormnemorating the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations a large number of world leaders once again expressed their condemnation of the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, and called for firm and concerted efforts for the early independence of Namibia in accordance with the united Nations plan. (Mr. Wasiuddin, Bangladesh) Here at the United Nation, on the eve of the fortieth session of the General Assembly, we witnessed a public hearing, conducted by an independent panel of ojminent persons, on the activities of the transnational corporations in SOuth Africa and Namibia. The oral and written statements presented to the public hearing provided a caaprehensive and objective overview not only of the activities of the transnational corporations in SOuth Africa and Namibia, but also of their role and impact vis-A-vis the aprtheid system and Namibia. Most importantly, the public hearing put forward a comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at securing the contribution of the transnational corporations in eliminati~g the system of apartheid and in bringing about the independence of Namibia. My delegation wishes to place on record its .appreciation of the contribution of the meubers of the panel, under the leadership of Hr. Malcolm Fraser, and of the participants in the hearing and expresses its hope that MaRber States will take effective steps in relevant and appropriate forums for the early implementation of those recommendations. My delegation also endorses the appeal of the panel to the entire international community to do everything in its power to support the cause of freedom in SOUth Africa and independence for Namibia. OUr current deliberation on the question of Namibia mst take fully into account the express will of the international community for the early independence of Namibia. Namibia has been a unique responsibility of the United Nations for the past two decades. During this period, nearly SO MeBi>er countries have attained independence and joined this world body. Very regrettably, we have not yet been able to secure the independence of Namibia. May I underline here that in the case of Namibia the credibility of the united Nations itself is at stake. We must act collectively and resolutely to usher in the dawn of Namibian independence. (Mr. Wasiuddin, Bangladesh) It is only natural that Bangladesh, which suffered colonial subjugation for nearly two hundred years and paid such a heavy price for its independence, will stand firmly by the side of the oppressed peoples around the world that are waging a just struggle against imperialism, colonialism and racism. we are equally committed to uphold the Charter of the united Nations and the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Based on this firm position of principle, Bangladesh has made every possible effort to advance the cause of Namibian independence~ Time and again we have reiterated our total and unflinching loyalty and support for the people of Namibia in their just and legitimate struggle by every available means for freedom and national independence under the leadership of SWAPO - their true and authentic representative. We condemned the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, in flagrant defiance of United Nations resolutions and decisions. Bangladesh is firmly convinced that the independence of Namibia can and must be achieved on the basis of the united Nations plan for Namibia, as contained in Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), which constitute the only acceptable basis for a final and lasting settlement of the Namibian question, and once again we call for its immediate and unconditional implementation. We have in clear and categorical terms rejected .the persistent and sinister attempts by the racist Pretoria regime to link the independence of Namibia with extraneous or irrelevant issues. The independence of Namibia is a sacred international responsibility and it cannot be held hostage to the resolution of the issues alien to the united Nations plan. Bangladesh commends the leadership of SWAPO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibian people, for extending their f911 co-operation for the implementation of the United Nations plan, including their readiness to sign a cease-fire agreement with the racist regime to facilitate the arrival of the United (Mr. Wasiuddin, Banglades~) Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) which would in turn set in IIOtion the election process in Namibia under the supervision of the United Nations. The racist Pretoria regime, on the other harid, has been obstructing the implementation of the United Nations plan through its continu~d attempts to link the independence of Namibia with extraneous and irrelevant issues. Worse still, of late the regime has intensified its efforts to impose an internal settlement in Namibia by proooting puppet political institutions. Bangladesh has repeatedly condenmed and rejected all these attempts and declared them null and void. The Pretoria regime has also made malicious attempts to undo the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia. Bangladesh firmly believes that walvis Bay, the Penguin and other offs~ore islands are integral parts of Namibia and that the territorial integrity of Namibia must be maintained. We have also strongly denounced the continued illegal exploitation of Namibian uranium and other resources by the South African regime and other foreign economic interests, in violation of the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations General ASsembly, the Security Council and, in particular, Decree No. 1 enacted by the United Nations Council for Namibia. Despite repeated condemnation by the international community, the apartheid regime has continued to use Namibian territory as a springboard for launching armed aggression and acts of destabilization against the front-line states. Such acts have clearly jeopardized regional and international peace and security. We commend the leaders of the front-line States, who in the face of such barbarous acts have shown tremendous restraint and statesmanship. It is in this context that we call once again for the full and effective implementation of the arms embargo imposed against South Africa by Security Council resolution 418 (1977). Bangladesh since its independence has maintained no relations whatsoever with the racist Pretoria regime in any field - diplomatic, political, economic, trade, social, sports or culture, and so on -' and has consistently supported the call of the international community for a comprehensive and mandatory sanction against South Africa as provided for under Chapter VII of the united Nations Charter. It is a matter of pride for Bangladesh to be closely associated with Namibia. We highly value the trust and confidence reposed in us by the international community for assisting and facilitating the work of the United Nations Special Representative in the context of UNTAG. As a member of the United Nations COilncil for Namibia, Bangladesh will continue to make every possible effort for the early independence of Namibia. Within our IOOdest means, we have contributed to the llilited Nations Fund for Namibia and offered training facilities in Bangladesh for Namibian students. We remain ready further to extend our existing close bonds of friendship with the people of Namibia. The current session of the United Nations General Assembly has the historic task of adopting a decisive course of action to usher in the early independence of Namibia on the basis of the United Nations plan - the only acceptable basis for a final and lasting settlement of the Namibian question. We urge all concerned fully to appreciate that what is at stake in Namibia is a IOClral issue. It is our coIllIOC>n and collective responsibility towards the Namibian people to help them to break the yoke of colonial subjugation. The heroic Namibian people have been struggling for their freedom and independence for a long and bitter century. This suffering must end, and end now. If freedom is dear and non-negotiable, which we believe it is, we must live up to our commitment to t.'1is noble and fundamental right by giving decisive support in helping the Namibian people to win thei~ independence. It is not merely a moral obligation that we owe to the Namibian people; indeed, it is an obligation to ourselves. Mr. OUYABIA (Algeria) (interpretation froa. Prench), The year 1985 has been declared by a world desiring grster peace, security and freedOJl as the year in which to praise the triumph of sound values over unbridled violence. The year 1985 coincides also with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries. and Peoples. This Declaratiail strertgthens the Charter, for it reinforces the principle of equality, ~hich is an indispensable prerequisite to the unity of nations;> But for the Naaibian people who have still been excluded frOll this world cOIl1lllUnity that is freely enjoying its well-being, 1985 will be yet one IIOre year in the long-d.rawn march, fraught with sacrifice, towards independence and dignity • After coDDeBlOrating last year the centenary of its heroic resistance to foreign domination, the Nallibian people this year celebrated only the twenty-fifth anniversary of the emergence of the SoUth West Africa People's organization (SWAPO), its sole authentic representative and the leader in a struggle that commands our admiration. Nevertheless, of all the decolalization questions, the question of Namibia, which has been rightly dealt with by the General Assembly, the security Council and the International Court of Justice, seems ready made for a solution. With the illegality of the South African occupation juridically established, the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people solemnly proclaimed, and the representative character of SWAPO duly recognized, everything seemed to indicate that the united Nations would be able to guarantee genuine independence for the Territory and work resolutely towards that end. However, reality obliges yet another session of the General Assenbly once again to deal with the question of Namibia and determine how to speed up the implementation of a decision reaffirmed so firmly and forcefully at previous sessions. Today's consideration of the prevailing situation in Namibia hardly requires that we go over the background to this question which has already been done so frequently. This is so because this Organization - which bears a special responsibility for Namibia - has kept Q close watch on developments, and also because developuents in the question of Namibia this year show a clear pattern, even as they indicate why there is still no settlement. Indeed, events since the thirty-ninth session bear witness to the continuation of four basic factors: the continuation of the war of national liberationJ the international community's strong support for the aims of that war; South Africa's refusal to implement a unanimously supported peace plan; and, finally, our Organization's inability to enforce its decision. While the commitment of the Namibian people in its liberation struggle has become a constant feature of contemporary history, its recent heavy sacrifices in its resistance to domination deserve a profound tribute and bear witness to its unswerving determination to fight for its inalienable rights. Because the Namibian people are waging a just struggle - a struggle which in the final analysis is one for the victory of the ideals of all nations - they enjoy as never before the complete support of the international community in meeting the continuing challenge PQsed by the Pretoria regime. The Organization of African Unity, which was created inter alia to eradicate colonialism throughout that continent which has particularly suffered from it, continues to shoulder its responsibilities towards the Namibian people, through its Liberation Committee. At its twenty-first Summit Meeting of Heads of state or Government, Africa, still a victim of South Africa's lust for power, once again appealed to the international community to enforce its own decisions. For its part, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, which was created to defend the dignity, rights and sovereignty of the third world, which until recently was held in scorn, has stepped up its efforts to help one of its members, the Namibian PeOple, to realize their legitimate aspirations. At the special Ministerial Meeting of its Co-ordinating Bureau in New Delhi this year, and at its eighth Ministerial Meeting in Luanda, the Movement of Non-Aligned countries has once more renewed its appeal for the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). A sophisticated system of racial oppression, an example of colonialist exploitation, and a constant source of tension and aggression, South Africa is glorifying and perpetuating the darkest deeds in history. That is why forces everywhere - except within this Organization - have been mobilized to fight by the use of sanctions this South African machine which in all its actions has replaced law with violence. Thanks to its legitimate struggle and to international support, the Namibian people will inevitably win independence and a place in the concert of nations; meanwhile, martyred Namibia is still experiencing the clash of arms, the moans of the gaoled, the silence of the cemeteries and the bitter taste of bread soaked in the sweat of forced labour which earns royalties for powerful international corporations. The Territory where attempts are made to enslave an entire people - which by its resistance refuses to be subjugated - and where all norms of international behaviour are violated to the extreme, thereby keeping the international community in constant humiliation - Namibia has also been used as a base for the destabilization of independent and sovereign countries. Numerous acts of aggression against the People's Republic of Angola also show Pretoria's scorn for our common will and the principles that unite us. The continuing sacrifices of the front-line countries are proof of the price being paid by those who, on our behalf, are defending the freedom we have declared sacrosanct. The situation continues because the plan for the peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia, contained in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), has still not been implemented. The situation is continuing also because Pretoria is still unjustifiably demanding an unacceptable linkage between the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and the prior witbdrawa1 of Cuban troops from independent Angola, which requested them in exercise of its sovereign right. Lastly, the situation continues because, instead of accepting our common position in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), Pretoria is still engaging in manoeuvres to prevent freedom and, instead of genuine indePendence for Namibia, substitutes a new slIOkescreen to be added to the ignoble constellation of . bantustans. During the ~resent year Pretoria has merely been reframing its attempts to deceive the world by installing a so-called interim Government in Namibia, and each of the occasions chosen to do so has added further weight to the challenge thus made to the international coIllllUnity. From the South African response to the appeal of its lackeys in Namibia, which was made public at the time when the non-aligned countries were meeting as a sign of their solidarity with the people of Namibia last April, to the parody of installing the so-called interim Government on 17 June at the very time when the security Council was discussing the non-implementation of its resolution 435 (1978), and the sending of the message from that puppet authority to the Security Council when it was meeting a f~w days ago to consider the failure to implement its decision, South Africa appears to have chosen deliberately to raise a level of its complete contempt for the whole international community to a new high point. Pretoria's intransigence has also been expressed in its ridiculous request to the security Council last week to revoke the recognition by the united Nations of SWAPO as the sole lei;}itimate representative of the Namibian people. That intransigence has also been demonstrated by the no less ridiculous demand for impartiality addressed to the Security Council on the same occasion. There is no need to recall that the same device was used in 1981 after the failure of the Geneva Conference. There is no need to state that these vain attempts by South Africa to transform itself into the accuser can never change our conviction about who is the sole party standing in the dock, whose repeated offences require nothing less than sanctions. From this time forward we are also obliged to realize that the fact that South Africa still allows itself to attempt to cover up its illegal action by resorting to fantasy is due to the impotence to w~ich the United Nations has been reduced in trying to carry out its urgent task of reacting to this situation. -, (Mr. OUyahia, Algeria) ~he undertaking embodied in resolution 566 (1985) adopted by the security Council this year gave rise to a legitimate expectation of having at last reached the moment of action, but the blocking of the Council last week has meant a continuation of the frustration of the will of the international community, which is still being prevented from effectively discharging the foremost of the tasks entrusted to our Organization, the maintenance of international peace and security, and in pursuance of that aim, the taking of effective collective measures in order to forestall and remove threats to peace and to repress all acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. These regrettable developments are prolonging a situation in which the march of history is halted, and adding to the unhappy list of conclusions deferred, hopes deceived and confidence betrayed. The international community has allowed all the time necessary, has offm:ed all the required opportunities and accepted all the various stages that seemed to be needed for a certain approach to the solution of the problem of decolonizing Namibia, and it is therefore fully justified now in resorting to the more appropriate methods that it has already identified for restoring the internationally legal status of Namibia. It is imperatively necessary that a salutory collective reaction should be organized to induce South Africa to bow to the rule of law. Pretoria's rebellious attitude has been nourished thus far by the indecision of the United Nations, and its aggressiveness has been greatly increased by the impotence of the security Council. The time has come to think ab~'.1t earlier examples of such situations and to remember the tragic consequences of failures by the international community in the recent past in dealing with the global challenges of certain fascist regimes whose principles have been adopted and whose methods have been refined by Pretoria. (Mr. OUyahia, Algeria) The General Assembly, the vigilant guardian of the purposes and principles of the Charter, the authority responsible for the exercise by the Namibian people of their right to self-determination and independence, has a duty, now that it has had an additional proof of Pretoria's intransigence, to reaffirm the illegal character of South Africa's occupation of Namibia and to draw all the necessary political consequences that the ser iousness of the situation .calls for. Today it is called on to stand ever more firmly at the side of the Namibian people; in the near future, at the time of the special session on Namibia which is bein~ ~onvened, and which will also coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the transfer of that Territory to the direct authority of the United Nations, it will have to make use at last of all the means authorized by the practices and principles ~f the United Nations in order to exercise the Mandate with which it has been entrusted by the community of nations. Mr. PBILIPPE (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French); I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the ten member States of the European Economic Community as well as of Spain and Portugal. Our joint position on the question of Namibia has often been stated in the past - on the last occasion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of my country when he spoke here in the general debate•. That position is clear and entirely unambiguous. For us, the immediate implementation, without pre-condition or pretext, of security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) is the only acceptable basis for a peaceful and lasting solution of the Namibian question. The full implementation of the entire settlement plan set out in a resolution adopted more than seven years ago and recalled in subsequent Security Council resolutions must take place without further delay, particularly now tha~ the Sputh West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the Government of the Republic of SOuth Africa have both stated that they would accept its terms. (Mr. Philippe, Luxembourg) Only in this way will the Namibian people be able to forge their own destiny peacefully and determine their future, and thus move forward to internationally recognized independence. The constitution of an independent Namibia should be worked out by a constituent assembly resulting from free and equitable elections under the supervision and control of the united Nations, elections in which the entire Namibian political spectrum will be able to contribute to the creation of the country's future political structures. It is therefore essential that South Africa should refrain from subordinating the application of security Council resolution 435 (1978) to the fulfilment of conditions which are extraneous to the problem, and cease now its illegal occupation of the Territory so that the Namibian people can freely exercise their right to self-determination. I The European Community and its member States will continue their assistance to the member States of the South African Development Co-operation Conference and the United Nations Institute for Namibia. The Ten, together wiL~ Spain and Portugal, have always supported the efforts made by the secretary-General of the United Nations, his Special Representative, the front-line States, the South West Africa People's Organization, the organization of African Unity and the Contact Group in the quest for a just and peaceful solution of the problem of Namibia, a solution which can satisfy its people's desire for peace, freedom and prosperity. So far those efforts have, unfortunately, not been successful. We share the disappointment and bitterness of the African States over this long-lasting impasse. The South African authorities have decided this year to establish a so-called provisional government in Namibia in violation of the explicit provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This resolution does not authorize the South African Governme~t to delegate its responsibilities in the implementation of the settlement plan. It provides for free and just elections, supervised by the United Nations, but rules out the idea of a provisional authority or a constituent assembly established ina context different from that defined in resolution 435 (1978). Th~ purely unilateral South African initiative thus represents a mere manoeuvre aimed at further delaying Namibia's peaceful achipvement of independence as well as circumventing the United Nations and excluding it from the settlement process. It constitutes a challenge to the international community, one which only aggravates and increases the existing difficulties and is no doubt actually aimed at perpetuating the illegal occupation of the Territory. The Ten, Spain and Portugal, consider as null and void the measures taken by Pretoria and categorically reject its unilateral internal settlements. The eventual subsequent decisions by the de facto administering authorities can have no effect on the united Nations plan. We deplore in particular the policy of intimidation and repression pursued by South Af~lca against the inhabitants of the country in the form of arbitrary arrests and detentions as well as the forced conscription of Namibian adults in the occupation army. The scourge of war has sadly again torn the region apart, since South African has, in defiance of international law, resumed its armed incursions into Namibia's neighbours, particularly Angola and Botswana, thus endangering their sovereignty and creating a grave threat to peace and security in the region. We regret in particular that these military raids, which have rightly been condemned by the Security Council, jeopardize the agreement reached by Angola and South Africa in 1984 in Lusaka. This agreement, which gave the outside world hope for an easing of tension and the beginning of a climate of detente and mutual trust between the parties concerned, should have made it po&sible to achieve a military disengagement and a return to stability in southern Angola. Despite the repeated failures and disagreements of the past, the Ten, Spain and Portugal, continue to hope that South Africa will henceforth refrain from acts of aggression of this type. They appeal once again to South Africa to comply with the clear decisions of the entire international community by repealing the constitutional arrangements established this year, putting an end to its illegal occupation and recognizing the inalienable of right of all Namibians to self-determination and. independence.* Mr. Lt Luye (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Eve~ since the founding of the Onite~ ~jations, the General Assembly has been considering the question of Namibia, an important issue in the process of decolonization. Forty years later, when colonialism as a system has disintegrated, the Namibian people are still leading a miserable life under the heel of South African colonialists and racists. with an area of over 820,000 square kilometres and a population of more than 1 million, Namibia remains the largest colony left on this planet. To eliminate various obstacles and accelerate the process of Namibian independence has therefore become the most important and outstanding item on the current agenda for decolonization of the United Nations. On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations and twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on decolonization, a solution to the Namibian question becomes all the mo::e urgent. * Mr. Kiilu (Kenya), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. Li Luye, China) The united Nations General Assembly and the Security Council have adopted a series of resolutions on the question of Namibia and the international community has also put forward many positive propositions. The Chinese delegation wishes to present once aqain its observations on this question. First, the prolonged occupation of Namibia by the South African authorities is totally illegal. Nineteen years ago, the General Assembly adopted a resolution terminating the mandate rule of Namibia by South Africa and assuming for the United Nations direct responsibility over that Territory. Subsequently, the Council for Namibia was set up as the legal administrative authority for Namibia pending its independence. Therefore, we cannot allow the continuation of south Africa's colonial rule of NamibiaJ much less can we tolerate South Africa's wilful aqgression and sabotage against the neighbouring countries by using Namibia' as a springboard. Secondly, according to the United Nations Charter and the Declaration on decolonization, the Namibian people are entitled to their inalienable rights to self-determination and independence. In resistance to the colonial rule and violent suppression by the $outh African authorities, the people in Namibia, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), have waged protracted heroic struggles, inclUding armed struggles, for national independence. Both the United Nations ~nd the Organization of African Unity recognize SWAPO as the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. We should resolutely support and unanimously affirm the just nature of the struggles by the Namibian people and the legitimate status of SWAPO. Thirdly, following repeated consultations with parties concerned, the Secretary-General of the United Nations proposed a programme for a cease-fire, troop withdrawal and elections under the supervision of the United Nations leading to the independence of Namibia, which was approved by Security Council resolution 435 aQopted in 1978. Resolution 435 (1978) has thus become the basis universally Ro~epted by the international community for settling the Namibian question by peaceful means. The implementation of the resolution should not be delayed any further. Fourthly, for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) SWAPO has made great endeavours, displayed tremendous restraint and flexibility and made the necessary concessions. However, while accepting the resolution in words, the South African authorities have in reality placed one obstacle after another to obstruct in whatever way they can the process of Namibian independence. Arbitrarily making Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola as the prerequisite for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) on the one hand, the South African authorities have, on the other hand, intensified their suppression of the patriotic forces in Naro~bia and tried to foster pro-South Africa elements there. Last summer, South Africa went so far as to set up a so-called Winterim governmentWin Namibia, completely casting aside the United N~tions programme. This constitutes another grave challenge to the international community as well as a new obstacle to the struggle of the Namibian people for independence. Fifthly, since the beginning of this year, the international community has continued to render strong support to the independence cause of Namibia. The Organization of African unity (OAU) summit meeting and the meeting of Forei~l Ministers of the Non-Aligned Countries have adopted important resolutions on the question of Namibia, and the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and ~eoples have held special meetings and seminars in support of the just struggle of the Namibian people. Last June, the Security Council adopted resolution 566 (1985), whiCh declared the "interim government" set up by south Africa in Namibia illegal and null and void, demanded the immediace cessation of this illegal action, warned South Africa that failure to comply with that resolution would compel the security Council to consider the adoption of appropriate measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and called on United Nations Member States to take voluntary measures to exert greater pressure on South Africa. We have noted that more and more Governments, parliaments and non-governmental organizations in various reg~ons of the world have condemned or imposed sanctions of different kinds against South Africa. We are also pleased to note that there has been a new upsurge in recent years in the struggle against apartheid of the South African people and in the international arena, which has heavily pounded at the racist rule of the Botha regime in strong support of the Namibian people's struggle for independence. Regrettably, however, a certain big Power that has considerable influence on South Africa continues to pursue "constructive engagement" towards South Africa and a policy of abettment and connivance, and insists on its "linkage n policy, which to a very large extent hinders the adoption by the international community of effective and concerted actions against South Africa. (Mr. Li Luye, China) The South African authorities have persist.ently ignored the strong demand by the international community and have clung obsti.nately to their course by refusing to implement united Nations resolutions on the fmdependence of Namibia. This should in no way be tolerated. In view of such developments, the Chinese delegation holds that the General Assembly should take the following actions: first, strongly condemn the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by the South African authorities, firmly support the struggle for independence waged by the Namibian people under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and render them further moral and material assistance; secondly, strongly condemn the South African authorities for linking Namibian independence with irrelevant issues and demand the immediate and unconditional implementation by them of Security Council resolution 435 (1978); thirdly, strongly condemn the cruel suppression of the Namibian people perpetrated by the South African colonial authorities and demand the immediate release of all imprisoned patriots; fourthly, strongly cortdemn South Africa's invasion and sabotage activities against Angola, Botswana and other neighbouring countries and firmly support the struggle of countries in southern Africa to safeguard their sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity; fifthly, ask the Security Council to take further mandatory sanction measures against South Africa in compliance with Chapter VII of the,united Nations Charter; and sixthly, call on all united Nations Member States to take effective sanction measures against South Africa. On 26 August this year, when the united Nations was ceremoniously commemorating Namibia Day, Premier Zhao Ziyang of the State Council of the People's Republic of China sent a message of support to the Council for Namibia in which he solemnly stated the position of China. He said: "The Chinese Government and people have all along been following the situation in southern Africa with concern. We hope that peace and stability will prevail in southern Africa and demand that the problem of Namibia" independence be resolved in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions as soon as possible. China has all along firmly supported the Namibian people in their just struggle for national independence and has always opposed and condemned the South African authorities' illegal occupation of Namibia and their conspiracies to obstruct its independence. We believe that, with the support of the world's peoples, the just cause of national independence which the Namibian people have long fought for is bound to win the final victory." (A/AC.13l/PV.446, p. 44) Mr. GARBA (Nigeria): About four weeks ago, the international community commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. The unfulfilled hope of the participation of Namibia in its own right as an independent nation in that historic ceremony was a painful reminder of the obstacles which the Pretoria regime has continued to place in the way of the independence of the Territory. The inability of the United Nations to end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa undoubtedly remains an embarrassing challenge and a matter of deep concern to the international community. It undermines the important role which our Organization has played since its inception in the decolonization process, and which it continues to play. That role was underscored by the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in resolution 1514 (XV). I cannot but recall with a sense of history that 1985 also marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of that landmark resolution, which has contributed immeasurably in paving the way for the independence of most of the remaining dependent countries. Unfortunately, the Namibian people continue to be denied the exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination. It is not for want of action that the United Nations has had to live with the agony in Namibia. Nineteen years ago, on 27 OCtober 1966, the General Assembly, through its resolution 2145 (XXI), terminated South Africa'S Mandate over Namibia and assumed direct responsibility for the Territory. Since then the General Assembly and the security Council have taken several decisions aimed at achieving a peaceful resolution of the problem which SOuth Africa has deliberately made intractable. The concerted action of the international community in its untiring e£fo~t in the search for a peaceful and lasting solution of the Namibian question culminated in Security Council resoluti?n 435 (1978), embodying a carefully worked out plan for the independence of Namibia. The adoption of the resolution brought a great sense of relief in the hope that the plan, which both SOuth Africa and the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) found acceptable, would provide a just and enduring solution of the question before this Assembly. (Mr. Garba. Nigeria) My Government finds it intolerable that. seven years after the adoption of the resolution. the independence of Namibia continues to be bedevilled by the in...ransigence of fche racist regime. encouraged and aided by some of its powerful fr iends. What is no longer in doubt is that the apartheid regime is deterJlined to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia. The united Nations must. therefore. be firm in its resolve not to give South Afri(.~ any chance of achieving its nefarious objective to settle the Namibian question on .its own terms. Characteristic of its bad faith and subterfuge. the Pretoria regime has employed one pretext after another to prevent implementation of the united Nations plan. which guaranteed the framework for the establishment of a del'lOcratic society in Namibia based on equality of all races. South Africa cannot and must not be allowed to continue to hold implementation of resolution 435 (1978) hostage to irrelevant issues by its linkage of Namibia's independence ~ the withdrawal of Cuban forces in Angola. It 'is a matter of deep regret that one super-Power and a founding Member of this Organization has sided with the pariah regime in its insistence on this extraneous and unac~ptab1e demand. Indeed. the intern~tional community must not allow south Africa. through its use of the linkage issue. to buy time in order to firmly install a puppet regime in Namibia. One cannot but perceive the linkage of Namibia's independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops in Angola as also a calculated attellpt by SOuth Africa and its powerful ally to obscure the colonial status of Namibia and convert it into a platform for ideological confrontation in the context of Bast-West rivalry. It is essential therefore that the international community should remain alert to this preposterous demand and continue to denounce and reject it. This Organization has no alternative but to ensure that the people of Namibia are able (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) to exercise, at the earliest possible date, their. right to self-determination and independence. The establishment last April of the so-called interim government in Namibia by the Pretoria regime bears out its avowed intention to forestall, at all costs, an internationally acceptable agreement for the independence of Namibia, and to prepare a solid ground for a settlement outside the framework of the United Nations. I wish, therefore, to take this opportunity to reiterate the gratitude of my Government to the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement for the timely decision of its Foreign Ministers taken at their meeting held in New Delhi from 19 to 20 April 1985 to request an urgent meeting of the security Council. The meeting of the Council that followed in June adopted resolution 566 (1985) which inter alia condemned the regime for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia in flagrant defiance of the United Nations, and demanded that it should immediately rescind the establishment of the so-called interim government. The Council also threatened to impose further measures against the racist regime if it failed to implement resolution 566 (1985). On 13 November, the Security Council resumed consideration of this question. It is with deep regret that my delegation notes the inability of the Council to adopt the draft resolution contained in document S/17633 which called for tl\e imposition of mandatory selective sanctions against South Africa due to the vetoes of the United States and the United Kingdom. The massive militarization and repression of the people of Namibia by the racist regime have been stepped up. Moreover, members of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and their sympathizers inside Namibia have become victims of intensified persecution and oppression. It is evident that bhe driving force of Pretoria in establishing the puppet interim government is to deny SWAPO, (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) the authentic representative of the people of Namibia, the chance of assuaing power in a future government in Namibia based on elections supervised by the United Nations. I am convinced that there is a general agreement that SOuth Africa has blatantly defied the decisions of the General Assembly and the security Council on the Namibia question, and has also rendered the western contact group ineffective and helpless through its dilatory tactics. There is no dissenting voice over the need to secure the independence of NaDlibia in accordance with resolution 435 (1978). Let us therefore demonstrate the will to come to grips with the situation in Namibia which increasingly challenges our mo~al and legal responsibility over that Territory. Let no State Member of t-1tis Organization give South Africa any latitUde or accoImlDdation to continue to deterlline the fate of a Territory it has continued to occupy illegally. All of us believe in ;?eace, justice, freedom, equality of all races and indeed we believe in human dignity. We must, therefore, ensure that our belief in them triumphs over the forces of the apartheid regime and a system which has dispossessed the blacks of their fundamental human rights and caused them untold economic depr ivation. It is distressing that any Government that shares the basic values of freedom and justice should draw close to South Africa to. prolong the agony in Namibia. Cons istency in the pursuit of avowed respect for the acceptance of human rights and freedom demands also total commitment to vigorous pursuit, without pre-condition, to bring about a just and free society in Namibia. Let the Security Council assume its full responsibility under the Charter and impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa in accordance with Chapter VII of our Charter. Only concerted pressure of international action by way of canprehensive economic sanctions and ass istance for. the armed struggle can (Hr. Garba, Niger ia) persuade the ruling clique in Pretoria to see the futility of their continued occupation of Namibia. I have earlier refel:red to SNAPO as the authentic representative of the Nallibian people. My delegation heartily pays its leadership and memers a warm tribute for the extraordinary courage and character they have shown in the face of awesome adversity. South Africa should know by now that it cannot break the will of the Namibian people in their determination to be free. Since the Pretor ia regime does not want to live with the United Nations settlement plan, I believe the time has come for those who cherish freedom to accord SWAPO diplomatic, political and material support in their legitimate aspiration to free Namibia from the shackles of the odious. regime in Pretoria. The Nigerian Government, on its part, will continue to assist SWAPO to intensify the armed struggle until Namibia is totally liberated from the illegal occupation of the racist regime. Hr. AL-SABBAGH (Bahrain) (interpretation froll Arabic) : At the outset, I wish, on behalf of the state and PeOple of Bahrain, to express our sincere condolences to the people of Colombia Pl the terrible catastrophe that has befallen their country and our sense of shock at the nullber of victias, the destruction and the pain it left in its· wake. May I place on record our solidarity with the people of Colombia at this tragic time. I thank the President and members of the United Nations Council for Namibia for their unfailing efforts to secure international support for Namibia's independence and an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia by SOuth Africa, which has lasted many decades. The undeclared war waged by the South African authorities against the Namibian people J1Ust end, especially since the General Assemly ended South Africa's Mandate oyer Namibia in 1966 by adopting resolution 2145 (XXI). For that reason, South Africa's occupation of Namibia IIIlSt be regarded as null and void. The international community has condemned south Africa's declared plan to hand over the reigns of power to the Multi-Party Conference and establish an interim government, thus violating security Council resolution 435 (1978). In fact, SOUth Africa does not intend to see the Territory achieve independence. It ls procrastinating and prevaricating, entrenching its occupation in order to plunder the riches of Namibia, which is being done illegally through multinational co-operations. Namibia is being bled of its human and natural resources. SOuth Africa is also carrying out persistent acts of military aggression against its African neighbours, in order to destabilize such States as Angola, Mozambique and Lesotho, and to subjugate them, bringing theln into its orbit economically and even politically. It is the right of the Namibian people to achieve independence, to rid itself of. the colonialism of the racist regime of South Africa. This is partic\uarly true in view :>f the General Assembly's adoption 25 years ago of the Declaration on the (Mr. Al-Sabbagh, Bahrain) Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The Namibian people continues to wage its struggle, under the leadership of the SOuth west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), its sole, legitimate representative. The solution to the question lies in the implementation of security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) on the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. That plan, which is the only basis for solving the problem, was the fruit of very difficult negotiations. Today, more than e~er before, the international coDItIUnity is called upon to take resolute action to end the South African racist regime's practices in Namibia. It is hardly necessary to recall that in resolutions 532 (1983) and 539 (1983) t.'le Security. Council urged South Africa firmly to commit itself to complying with resolution 435 (1978) and co-operating forthwith and fully with the Secretary-General to expedite the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia and organize free elections for that Territory's independence. The Security Council further rejected South Africa's insistence on linking Namibia's independence with extraneous issues, such as the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. This leads me to draw attention to the explosive situation in SOuth Africa. It is my duty to commend and express our appreciation of the report presente6 by the representative of Nigeria, Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid. That report testifies to the killing, torture and other barbaric acts ca~ried out by the SOuth African racist regime, which is today feeling isolated, daily receiving news that it is becoming more and more beleaguered. Resolution 39/72 G must be" implemented. It says that ending racial discrimination and apartheid is a responsibility of the United Nations. South Afr iea is called upon today to show real movement and a sincere intention to end (Hr. Al-Sabbagh, Bahrain) apartheid. The reforms declared by the regime are but an attempt to mislead international public opinion, to gain time and to entrench the racist col~ialist ideology at present practised there. The fact that those measures did not touch the fundamentals of apartheid and white minority rule attest to that. The oppression of the black majority in South Africa and the denial of its human rights run counter to the Charter, which calls for respect for international laws and norms and the promotion of social development. In July this year South Afr ica imposed a state of emergency on its black citizens. Hundreds of innocent people fell victim in that state of emergency, because of the racist measures which deny human rights and the dignity and freedom of man. The security Council has condemned those unjust measures imposed by the South African regime. The Council, which adopted resolution 569 (1985) in July, regards those acts as null and void. It therefore condemned the racist regime and the inhuman practices followed by the South African Government, in defiance of international public opinion. In resolution 566 (1985) the security Council sent a warning to South Afr ica that if it did not co-operate in implementing the resolution the Council would be compelled to take appropriate measures under the Chatter, including Chapter VII, to ensure respect for United Nations resolutions. The imposition of mandatory economic sanctions affecting States and major companies with vital interests in South Africa is essential. It is also essential to urge Member states to take appropriate voluntary measures against South Africa. The implementation of such measures would affect the advanced economy of South Africa and help in the stand against tyranny, the use of force and the acts being perpetrated by that rac;~t regime, which has ended all constructive dialogue, t~ continuance of which would have enabled southern Africa to av!'id the scourge of international struggle, polarization and cold war. (Hr. Al-Sabbagh, Bahrain) Notwithstanding the reluctance of S01lle Western States to impose sanctions, there is international unanimity that sa:l1cti~ns would not be harmful to the various communities in SOuth Africa; indeed, they would help prevent a political, economic and social explosion in that country. The time has C01lle for econoJllic, political and social justice, so that southern Africa as a whole and its PeOples my enjoy security, stability, peace, freedom and justice. That would also ensure the promotion of rapid and peaceful development towards a just society. It seems that the majority, including citizens of all races and coiilliiUnities, have become convinced that condemnation and waiting are ineffective with regard to a regime that practises a racist policy based on the use of the big stick and ~ssesses an arsenal of sophisticated destructive weapons. Change is inevitable on this earth; that is God's law. The just struggle of the peoples of southern Africa is a living example to oppressed peoples, showing that it is possible to overcome frustration and despair. (Mr. Al-Sabbagh, Bahrain) The people of South Africa have reached the stage of political maturity. They IIUst be allowed to decide their own future. They have no need of any self-imposed guardian. It is appropriate to note here the ideological links between the two racist regimes - that of Israel and that of South Africa - and their real talent for inventing new methods of terrorism and torture, spreading hatred and despair and creating faits accomplis. we place our greatest hopes in the ability of this Organization to shoulder its responsibilities, which have now increased in scope and importance and effect on international life. The slogan of the present commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the united Nations is: -The united Nations for a better world-. The Charter is the repository of all the hopes and aspirations of the peoples. The establishment of the united Nations was a great, historic event for mankind. The universality of the United Nations is a significant achievement, which should lead to the prevalence of development, co-operation and equality in the world. The very first paragraph ~f the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that -recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all memers of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world-. (resolution 217 A (111) Hr. WIRlroNO (Indonesia): The General Assembly is considering the question of Namibia against the backdrop of seven years of intolerable delay in securing the independence of Namibia, a delay caused by the persistent refusal by SOuth Africa to implement security Council resolution 435 (1978). Moreover, our debate is taking place following a year of intensified activity and concerted actions by the international colllDunity to contain and reverse the (Mr. Wiryono, Indonesia) rapidly deteriorating course of e~ent8 in ~~d aroa~d Namihia= The ~~ivetsal pressure thus brought to bear on the problem was reflected in, inter alia, the convening of the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of Non-Align~ Countries on Namibia, held in &'3W Delhi in April 1985; the participation of scores of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, including my own, in the security Council meetings last June; the strenuous efforts by the Secretary-General in accordance with the mandate entrusted to him by the Council in resolution 566 (1985); and the series of Security Council meetings held just last week. Notwithstanding all those impo~tant meetings and initiatives, we are today faced ",ith a situation in southern Africa which not only is as critical as before but, in the light of recent developments, portends disastrous ramifications for the future of the entire region. Indeed, that assessment is borne out by the fact that the Security Council has been convened no fewer than nine times this year alone to confront not only the situation in Namibia but also a series of South African actions directed against the oppressed majority in South Africa and the front-line States. The resultant seven Security Council resolutions - namely, 560 (1985) of March, 566 (1985) and 567 (1985) of June, 569 (1985) of August, 511 (1985) and 572 (1985) of s~ptember and 574 (1985) of October - underscore the fact that at the root of the dangerous worsening of the prolonged grave and menacing situation in southern Africa is none other than the system of apartheid in SOuth Africa and colonial domination over Namibia. It is important to note, too, that 1985 is also a year of numerous benchmarks in the history of the Namibian"peop1e's heroic struggle for freedom and independence as well as the international community's efforts to attain Namibia's 1iberationQ A century has passed since the colonial yoke was first imposed on the (Mr. Wiryono, Indonesia) people of Namibia~ 40 years have elapsed since the United Nations became seized of. the question; 2S years have gone by since the initiation of the current phase of the Namibian people's struggle with the establishment of the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), their sole and authentic representative; and nearly 20 years ago the united Nations terminated South Africa's Mandate over the Territory and entrusted it to the Council for Namibia. Those milestones are made all the more significant because they relate to events. that are taking place not only on the fortieth annive.r:sary of the founding of the United Nations but also on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial C~')Untries and Peoples. Hence, there can be no question but that in the plocess of decolonization Namibia represents the greatest tragedy of modern history, as the struggle of the peoples of southern Africa, in Namibia and South Africa, against alien occupation and racist domination are among the longest and b~tterest the world has ever known. Given that history of ceaseless intransigence, prevarication and arrogance on the part of SOuth Africa, the June meetings of the Security Council resulted in the adoption of resolution 566 (1985), which firmly and unambiguously "Strongly warns south Africa that failure to [co-operate fUlly with the Security Council and the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution] would compel the Security Council to meet forthwith to consider the adoption of appropriate measures under the united Nations Charter, including Chapter VII, as additional pressure to ensure SOuth Africa's compliance with the above-mentioned resolution". (security Council resolution 566 (1985), para. 13) In this regard, I should also like to quote from the statement by my Minister for Foreign Affairs before that same series of Security Council meetings last June: (Mr. Wiryono, Indonesia) non-implementation of the United Nations plan, owing to the unceasing manoeuvres and fraudulent schemes of the illegal occupation regime, the international community expects the security COUncil to act resolutely and fii:mly in the immediate implementation of its own unaniJlOusly adopted decisions on Namibia. To equivocate, while SOuth AfriCbl persists in its illegal occupation of the Territory, its repugnant system of apartheid, its brutal repression and exploitation of the Nallibian people &nd its policy of destabilization and aggression against independent African States, will inel1itably entail the 1tI9st dangerous consequences for peace and security in southern Africa and beyond·. (S/PV.2586) As we are all aware, in pursuance of the mandate entrusted to him in resolution 566 (1985) the secretary-General, in his report dated 6 september 1985, stated~ •••• I·must once again report to the security Council that there has been no progress in my recent discussions with the Government of south Africa concerning the implementation of security council resolution 435 (1978)·. (S/17442, para. 12) Be also stated that ·The international colllllUnlty has an inescapable responsibility to make the process of implementing security Council resolution 435 (1978) move forward·. (S/17442, para. 13) (Mr. Wiryono, Indonesia) In the light of the Secretary-General's report, the non-aligned countries took the initiative of requesting the security Council to convene to secure the implementation of the aforemE'.ntioned provisions of the Council ea resolution 566 (1985). It was not surprising to anyone that immediately prior to that meeting South Africa dished up yet another of its concoctions in its communication to the Secretary-General (S/17627) of 12 November 1985, in a delibera~ and transparent attempt to undermine the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). It had the temerity to express the untenable conterltion that the sham -transitional government of national unity" is the legitimate authority in the Territory and that t.he so-called government has opted for an electoral system of proportional representation. This whole canard would be laughable if it were not for the utter arrogance and cynicism that: such a position represents, since the so-called transitional government has been unequivocally declared by the security Council and the General ~sembly to be null and void and therefore in the 'eyes of the interruational community has no legitimacy and haD no authority to take any decision whatsoever with regard to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). The tragic irony is, that l despite all. the foregoing, the security Council, at its meeting last Friday was again prevented from taking effective action by the vetoes of two of its permanent members - States which incidentally did ·not oppose the adoption of resolution 566 (1985). My delegation is mst distressed at the failure of the secudty Council to make good its warcning to SOUth Africa in that resolution. We regard this developnent as a I'IIOst ser ious setback to the expeditious implementation of the Uni ted Nations plan for Namibian independence. Regrettably, it is also yet another instance of the spectacle of every exhortation and appeal, every condemnation and (Mr. Wiryono, Indonesia) .......,.. scorned !1Llld spm:ned by South -",aQ'" Africa. In the meantime the credibility of the United Nations and the sanctity of the Charter itself are being eroded. Moreover, the melllbers of the security Council, having just last month at a special Ministerial meeting unanimously reaffirmed their resolve to enhance the efficacy and functioning of the Council, have by their failure to act called into question the sincerity of those commitments. Given this state of affairs, I should like to conclude by referring to the poignantly rel:evant observations voiced by my Foreign Minister last June, when he said: -The international community has shown enough patience in dealing with South Africa's wilful flouting of the letter and spirit of the united Nations plan. Indeed, flexibility and accommodation by SWAPO and tbe front-line States has been met only by duplicity and prevarication. Indonesia therefore believes that it is time for South Africa's friends to realize that, for its own sake, only the application of strong and effective enforcement measures can bring South Africa to its senses. For the prospect of uncontrollable upheaval and violence can still be averted, but only by compelling South Africa to abandon its present course and to move forward towards the peaceful and genuine. exercise by the Namibian people of their inalienable right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty in a united Namibia as definitively stipulated in the united Nations planS. (S/PV.2586) Mr. SEEREEKISSOON (Mauritius): The United Nations, in 1966, by adopting General Assembly 'resolution 2145 (XXI), terminated the Mandate over Namibia given by the League of Nations to South Africa. In 1970 the Security Council, for the first and only time in its history, requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the eonsequenc~s for States of the continued (Mr. Seereekissoon, Mauritius) presence of SOUth Africa in Namibia. The Court ruled that South Africa was in illegal occupation of Namibia, and said that -the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory-. The finding of the Court has since been approved by the entire international community. In 1978, in resolution 435 (1978), the security Council agreed on a plan for Namibia's independence. The plan was acceptable to south Africa. The international community fondly believed at that time that the situation in Namibia could not get worse and that the framework had been established for a process to bring the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa to a speedy end. Yet, 19 years after the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), 14 years after the advisory opinion of the Court on Namibia and seven years after the passage Qf security Council resolution 435 (1978), the situation has deteriorated and the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa continues. The continued illegal occupation has enlisted few apologists, even among the closest supporters of the P~etoria regime. Attempts, however, have been made to find and provide excuses to postpone its ending. In the light of the claims made by South Afr ica or on its behalf, it is worth recalling that the Mandate entrusted to SOUth Africa by the League of Nations at the end of the First World War was wa sacred trust of civilizationto be performed for the benefit of the people of Namibia. When the Mandate was terminated nearly half a century later, not a single Namibian was known to have graduated from a university. several hundred Namibians, on the other hand, are known to be detained without trial, many of them having been held incommunicado for several years. The so-called civilizing mission of SOuth ;.fdca in Namibia continues to express itself through the creation of secret interrogation centres. the torture of detainees, the "disappearance" of political (Mt. seereekissoon, Mauritius) activi;;~, =i.~!.eter d~!:h!! ~ne !.~ PQlice C!ootody~ and the extrajudicial execution of civilians. The brutality of the repression in Nallibia has been matched by barely disguised conteapt on the part of SOUth Africa for the efforts of the international co-.Jnity to reach an international settleEnt of the question. In 1967 the General Asselllbly, at a special session, decided to set up the united Nations Council for NaMibia to give effect to the concept of united Nations responsibility for Naaibia. SOUth Africa refused even to allow this Council to enter Namibia. The regiE in Pretoria .has used the flillSiest of pretexts fir st to delay then to frustrate coapletely the ~pplication of security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). It will be recalled that the first resolution, adopted unanimously, declared that free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations should be held for the whole of Namibia as one political entity. The second, prePared by five Western countries, subsequently known as the contact group, eaboQied a detailed settlement plan for Namibia. It has not been possible to iI'lplement the plan. In a speech delivered before the Special Committee against Apartheid on 9 October 1984, His Excellency Mr. Claude Cheysson, then Minister of External Relations of France, one of the _mers of the eontact group, explained the ,reason for this failure. ' (Mr. seereekissoon, Mauritius) ! ha'!e t.'le hanaur to quote him: BThe settlement plan, which was adopted unanimously in a precise and realistic manner - another remarkable demonstration of our Organization - is therefore necessarily contested and denounced in Pretoria. The 'contact group' of five countries with experience in international affairs is thus paralysed or, worse, even deflected from its mission in seeking discussions that do not depend on resolution 435 (1978) - and that is why Prance suspended its participation.- In the light of this explanation, it is particularly disturbing to hear the representative of Pretoria - once again - impugn the impartiality of the united Nations on the question of Namibia. It is equally disturbing that SOuth Africa should once again demonstrate that it is more determined than ever to impose an internal settlement in Namibia in defiance of the declared will of the international.community. Let me also add that the allegation that the united Nations is lacking in impartiality sounds strange, coming from the representative of a regime which invented and applies the infamous doctrine of so-called separate development, which excludes .more than 73 per \:ent of its population from the constitutional process, and which has elevated racism into a system of government. The repeated attempts and successive failures of the regime in pretor ia over the years to impose an internal settlement in Namibia has also amply demonstrated that no party but SWAPO has any broad-based support in Namibia. By accapting the fact that SWAPO is the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, the General Assembly is merely recognizing the factual situation in the country. SWAPO has been willing to put to the test of elections the statement that it is the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The regime in pretoria, on the other hand, has shied away from the implications of an international sattlement ~hich would allow ~~e people of Namibia to decide freely (Mr. seereekissoon, Mauritius) now made conditional on issues completely extraneous to Namibia. The presence or otherwise of Cuban troops in Angola is a matter which is exclusively within the province of Angolan sO'lereignty and independence. The reason why the independence of Namibia should be made to depend on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola defies both logic and imagination. The struggle of the people of Namibia is not a new one. At the beginning of this century they survived an Wextermination orderw issued by the administrator of what was then the newly created German South-West Africa. They are now engaged in yet another struggle for diCJ(iity and survival which forms part of Africa's long fight for liberation. It is an insult to the people of Namibia and also to Africa and its martyrs to attempt to portray the Namibians as mere pawns in a global confrontation. The issue in Namibia has never been, and is not, ideological. It concerns morality and principles. Neverttieless, South Afr ica has received support in certain quarters in its attempts to portray its suppression of the Namibian people as an ideological crusade. It has also been comforted in its fixed certainties by the policy of constructive engagement. This year, the fourth of constructive engagement, has been marked by a massive escalation of repression in South Africa itself.' In a stinging rebuke to'the belief that constructive engagement could, in the words o'f its author, usher in wa sustained process of peaceful evolutionary change", South Africa attempted to sabotage the United States-owned refinery in Cabinda, northern Angola. It also unleashed its troops in murderous raids on Botswana and Lesotho. It persists in its policy of destabilizing the neighbouring countries. The fact is that southern Africa has experienced very little of either peace or any kind of evolution, much less peaceful evolution, as a result of constructive engagement. (Mr. Seereekissoon, Mauritius) The question of Namibia remains deadlocked and, in the light of the pretensions of South Africa in insisting on unacceptable pre-conditions which have already been rejected by the international community, is likely to remain so. As the report of the Secretary-General of 6 September 1985 indicates, south Africa continues to refuse to co-operate in facilitating the implementation of the united Nations plan. In the conclusion of the same report, the Secretary-General adds: "this would be the time for the Government of South Africa to display the statesmanship and wisdom that is required in the situation and to provide the opportunity for the people of Namibia to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Security Council". (5/17442, para. 13) There is, understandably, an increasing realization that it is futile to rely on persuasion when dealing with a regime which is not amenable to persuasion. This is no doubt the reason for the groundswe11 of opinion in ~ny'countries and organizations in favour of the application and extension of sanctions against South Africa. The people of Namibia will be free and independent. If South Africa is capable of displaying the wisdom called for, and accepts the implementation of the United Nations plan, the independence of Namibia may still be achieved with its co-operation. Let there be no doubt, however, that whatever path South Africa chooses, it will not be able to prevent Namibia from taking its legitimate place among independent nations. The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m. J