A/40/PV.86 General Assembly
I should like to draw the
attention of the Assembly to the f.act that we were unable to begin this meeting
until 10.55 a.m. owing to the lack of a quorum. Consequently, I inform
representatives that, given the large number of speakers still waiting to make
their statements on the question of Namibia, the conclusion of the debate on this
question will be the first item at this afternoon's meeting.
I should appreciate it if representatives would make an effort to bear this
problem in mind and make sure that one representative of each delegation is present
when the meeting is due to beqin so that we can start on time.
Mr. MAREKA (Lesotho): Mr. President, permit me at the very outset to
express through you and the delegation of Colombia my delegation's sympathies and
condolences to the Colombian Government and people, as well as to the members of
of bereaved families following the tragic loss of life and destruction of property
in the aftermath of the volcano disaster. The mourning and untold misery that the
survivors and people of Colombia as a whole are experiencing at the present time
and must be shared by all of us and we sincerely believe that their tears will be
wiped away by Almighty God. May the souls of the thousands that have passed away
rest in peace.
The consideration of item 34, the question of Namibia, for more than the
fortieth time in this very hall is a sad reminder of how humanity can be cruel,
brutal and inhuman to humanity. It is difficult for us to comprehend, let alone
imagine, how the entire world community can continue to talk for over 40 years
about how the racist white minority Government of South Africa is brutalizing its
people in South Africa and in Namibia while somehow South Africa gets away with
it. How can over a billion p:~9le represented here by over 150 countries become so
impotent and powerless agains~ a mere two to four million race .supremacists. Why
is it that this minority is able to hold the whole world community to ransom?
Indeed, for how long are we 10ing to stand on this podium, in the Sec~rity Council
and in other world forums crying out in one voice without tangible results.
For the past few days my delegation has been pondering what it is that could
be said to this Assembly, which we have not said before, but which could help us
out of the present stalemate. The answer is that we have said it all. Speaker
after speaker has rehashed the whole story from the League of Nations to the united
Nations and its actions through the Security Council, the International Court of
Justice and indeed, the General Assembly as well. Not only was the Mandate of
South Africa over Namibia terminated in 1966 by this Assembly in resolution
2145 (XXI), but we even formed the United Nations Council for Namibia as the
legitimate caretaker Government of that Territory. We are all agreed that the
Council has done a magnificent job under its very able Acting President, Ambassador
Sinclair of Guyana, and the report before us speaks for itself. In 1978, the
Security council unanimously adopted resolution 435 (1978), which many believed was
a milestone, the b~ginning of an end. The Secretary-GeneralIs report to the
Security Council in document S/17442, the events in the Security Council on Friday
15 November 1~~5, and the latest developments in Namibia brought about and
perpetrated by South Africa show beyond doubt that Namibians and their Territory
are "'ci:.r from li.beration through legal and internationally accepted norms and
pt.l{ tices. We do not even know whether even resolution 435 (1978) is still rf'!CJarded
by some Powers as the only basis for an acceptable solution.
What is ironic and disheartening about this situation is that all Members of
this organization say one thing, namely, that South Africa's illegal occupation of
Namibia must cease and the people of that country must be granted their right to
self-determination, sovereignty and independence. The question then is why there
is no movement, and why is it that we continue to speak out time and again without
end until we are red, blue, grey or black in the face.
The answer to this paradoxical question is aimple. ~hose of us who are
powerless have only one weapon, and that is to speak out against injustice and
inhumanity, and we will continue to do so until those who are in control hear us.
On the other hand, there are those who have power, whose chorus in response to our
cries amounts to mere verbal utterances, because they refuse to live up to their
historical responsibility and put an end to what has been described as unjust,
inhuman and barbaric. It is these mighty and the powerful who are determined to
frustrate the aspirations and yearnings not only of the Namibians, but of the world
(Mr. Makeka, Lesotho)
community as a whole. They perceive the continuation of apartheid oppression in
Namibia as the best guarantee of their economic and strategic interests. Their
material interests far outweigh their interest in the betterment and emancipation
from slavery and apartheid oppression of a human being called a Namibian.
It is an undeniable fact that it is this United Nations which has spearheaded
and heralded the freedom of the majority of nations sitting here from colonialism
and ushered them into political independence and statehood. We commend the
architects of the historic 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples, which was adopted by this General Assembly. Were
we justified in celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of this Declaration a few
days ago? My answer is unfortunately no, because that anniversary was a grim
reminder to us that Namibia was still toiling under the yoke of the worst form of
colonial and foreiqn oppression, which allows racism and apartheid free rein. We
must have all been moved, when Comrade Toivo ja Toivo narrated to us the reign of
terror being perpetrated by South Africa against the Namibian people. The tragic
situation of Namibia is that, unlike other colonies, Namibia was handed over to
South Africa by this very Organization, and yet this very Organization is seemingly
unable to undo what we all believe was a tragic mistake on the part of those who
took the original decision. Indeed, one can say that the decision to grant South
Africa a mandate to administer Namibia must be declared an unpardonable sin,
because South Africa was already racist in outlook and practice.
As I have already said, I shall refrain from going over what I and many others
have said before, but allow me to ask myself one question: what woulo I think if I
were a Namibian? What answer could I find to this paradoxical question of Why us?
Who would blame me if I were to find no answer except that the mighty and the
powerful are doing this to me because of the colour of my skin. For if the colour
of our skins were to be reversed I cannot imagine that we would be in this R~ll,
(Mr. Makeka, Lesotho)
talking as we are now. The liberation of the oppressed white majority in Namibia
from occupation by a black minority Government of South Africa would not be
conditioned to extraneous issues such as the removal of Cuban forces from Angola.
The mighty and the powerful would not even wait for a united Nations force to be
set up to intervene. They would have long marched in and we would be talking
history of a fait accompli. Oh, yes, that would have been termed intolerable,
barbaric and not one of us would sleep a single night without decisive action being
taken.
In the circumstances, what options do the people of Namibia have, and what
options do we, a powerless international community, have. We are told that South
Africa must be persuaded to get out of Namibia and allow implementation of
resolution 435 (1978). The question is who is going to persuade South Africa,
because persuasion has failed for over 40 years: the Big Five have failed and have
dispersed, and even the United States, with its constructive engagement policy has
not moved South Africa an inch. On the contrary, South Africa has entrenched its
domination over the Territory, because it never, from the very outset, intended to
leave the Territory anyway, but has succeeded in getting the United States to focus
its attention on Angola.
(Mr. Makeka, Lesotho)
These days we hear about support for pro-Western forces in Angola and the
removal of a Marxist Government there. Who are these pro-Western forces who may
get $27 million or even $300 million to topple the legitimate Government of
Angola? Those are the rebel forces who for over 10 years have been trained and
supported, financially, militarily and otherwise, by the racist Government of South
Africa. Thus we see a clear plan whereby South Africa is being encouraged and
supported to reverse history and to recolonize and enslave neighbouring African
countries. The white man is once again embarking on a mission of civilizing the
African and saving him from himself - a sinister attitude and insulting to us,
because it is assumed that we take certain stands because somebody else must have
told us to do so. We are not for sale and we resent and reject those attitudes
with contempt.
In these circumstances, the Namibians, under the heroic leadership of the
South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), have no alternative but to
intenstfy their armed struggle. How can we view SWAPO other than as being the sole
and authentic representative of the Namibians, because Namibians know no other
enemy than that of the oppressive occupying forces? It is a pity that we the
members of the international community can only on the one hand continue to voice
our concern and hope that it will one day fall on the willing ears of the mighty
and powerful, while on the other hand we continue to give SWAPO all the material
and diplomatic assistance within our means.
I cannot conclude my remm.:ks without appealing to this tJody, partiCUlarly to
the mighty and powerful, to see reason and realize that their interests will be
better served by an independent and sovereign tlamibia. OUr concern is that SOuth
Africa's arrogant bullying is not confined to its territory and the Territory of
Namibia. We in the region live in constant fear, and indeed we are constantly
attacked and threatened by our powerful neighbour. The only sin we have committed
is to be black neighbours and on the receiving end of the wrath of apartheid. We
know as a fact that South Africa has put in place a contingency plan under which we
would all be ~nished if effective international action was taken not only to end
South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, but to abolish the abhorrent system
of apartheid in South Afr ica itself. Apparently we may be spared the punishment if
we were to stand up and say apartheid and occupation of Namibia is a good thing.
What is ironical is that even before such effective measures are taken, and we saw
on Friday that they are very unlikely to be taken, South Africa is going ahead to
implement its contingency plan of sanctions bit hy bit. It is clear, therefore,
that unless meIIbers of this Organization tre.:lt the explosive situation unfolding in
southern Africa with the seriousness it deserves, ver.y soon we will be talking not
only about the illegal occupation of Namibia and apartheid policies of South
Africa, but the list will keep growing.
Mr. PIMENTEL (Dominican Republic) (interpretation from Spanish):
Mr. President, because this is the first time that it is my honour to address this
Assembly, I wish to congratulate you on behalf of my delegation and on fT!IJ own
behalf. There is no doubt that because of your great experience and ability, the
work whicrl you are guiding so ably will conclude very successfully for the benefit
of all of us and for the benefit of the Organization.
Allow me before turning to the subject before the General Assembly today, the
question of Namibia, to refer briefly to an equally painful situation for us.
Consistent with the long-standing sympat.'lies of the Dominican people, my delegation
wishes to express our deep sense of mourn ing in the wake of the terrible tragedy
which has struck the sister Republic of Colollt>ia, following the eruption of the
volcano, Nevada del Ruiz in Manizales, an event which has distressed the entire
wor ld.
(Mr. Makeka, Lesotho)
we know that in every Colombian there is a spirit of love and a desire to build and
we are sure that the area that has been affected by this tragedy, that country will
arise from its ashes like the phoenix.
The sim,\1ltaneous colllDerooration of the fortieth anniversary of the founding of
the United N.1tions and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was not as splendid as
it could have been because some states Ment>ers persist in their domination and
exploitation of territories fighting for self-determination and independence. The
situation in Namibia is a particularly painful example of this. Namibia is a
special source of pain to us because there we see colonialism in its roost brutal
form.
In the sermon based on the theme "a voice crying in the wilderness" delivered
by Brother Anton de Montesinos in 1511, which was the first demonstration in the
New WOrld, in favour of the freedom and equality of human beings, the international
community heard that message for the first time. Today that message could be
passed on to those who are illegally occupying Namibia and in their own territory
maintaining the odious syste::; of apartheid and discriminating against the majority
of the population. Montesinos s3id~
"By what right have you waged those terrible wars against people living
in peace and tranquillity, in which so many of them have been consumed by
death and destruction? Why have you oppressed them and exploited them, not
caring about the hardship or sickness caused by the excessive labour imposed
upon them? In truth, you have worked them to death in order to extract their
gold day by day."
Each and every resolution of the Security Council is imbued with the spirit of
the message underlying that sermon and it is a cause for concern that the
resolutions have remained ineffective. The preservation of the prestige of the
(Mr. Pimentel, Dominican Republic)
world Organization depends on balance and effectiveness, but it is also determined
by unconditional compliance with the decisions of its bodies. FOr that reason my
delegation reaffirms its unswerving support for security Council resolution
435 (1978), which continues to be the only acceptable basis for the peaceful
settlement of the conflict in Namibia.
We are particularly grateful for the hard work done by the United Nations
Council for Namibia. We are also grateful to the South West Africa People's
Organization (SWAPO) for its heroic, just struggle for a sovereign, independent
Namibia. we must redouble our efforts to achieve for Namibia one of the primary
objectives of the free peoples of the world; complete independence based on its
own development and self-determination. At the same time, we must work harder to
eradicate apartheid and all forms of discrimination from the face of the Earth.
(Mr. Pimentel, Dominican Republic)
Mr. CHARLES (Haiti) (interpretation from French): Haiti's position on
the question of Namibia is quite clear. It stems from our constant natural
commitment to peoples throughout the world struggling to free themselves from
foreign domination, colonialism, racism and apartheid. Our position is all the
firmer because it coincides with the purposes and principles of the Charter, a
basic element of which is the right of peoples to self-determination and
independence.
Therefore, the question that we are considering seems to us to be very
simple. It concerns the restoration to a people of its fundamental inalienable
right to freedom, independence and justice, a task to which our Assembly has
devoted itself. Having revoked South Africa's Mandate in 1966, and having tried to
end a century of colonial oppression and exploitation of the courageous Namibian
people, the United Nations has assumed a legal responsibilty for nearly 20 years -
20 years of constant efforts to find a negotiated political solution. They have
been thwarted by the arrogance, intransigence and stubbornness of Pretoria, which
is determined to continue its illegal occupation of the international Territory of
Namibia at all costs.
The General Assembly and the Security Council have adopted many
recommendations and decisions, but, regrettably, they have not been implemented.
It should be recalled that despite four years of patient, arduous and exhaustive
negotiations the racist regime still persists in its obstinate refusal to
co-operate with the united Nations in the implementation of security Council
resolution 435 (1978) containing a plan for the settlement of the Namibian question
accepted by everyone as the only basis for a genuine, peaceful solution. In that
persistence, the regime has used all sorts of manoeuvres, each as fraudulent and
unacceptable as the rest.
To its contempt for united Nations resolutions the regime has added its
intensification of repression and its plunder of Namibia's natural resources, with
the complicity of foreign economic interests, which therefore bear a share of the
responsibility for the perpetuation of that unjust, criminal system, characterized
by the use of terror and violence, elevated to State policy.
Today Namibia is a vast armed camp, where there is on~ soldier for every
12 adult inhabitants. The Territory is virtually under martial law, which allows
the killing of innocent civilians, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and so
on to maintain the status quo.
At the same time, Pretoria is giving free rein to its hegemonistic designs
throughout southern Africa, increasing its acts of aggression, often carried out
from Namibian territory, against neighbouring States, particularly the People's
Republic of Angola, Botswana and Mozambique. It is also, through a policy of
systematic destabilization, attacking their efforts to achieve economic
development. It goes without saying that that outrageous policy, pursued with
impunity, in violation of international law and the Charter, is a serious threat to
international peace and security.
In those circumstances, it is essential that the Organization, and
particularly the Security Council, reassert their authority and responsibility with
regard to Namibia. For that to be possible, the two permanent members of the
Security Council that have often used their veto to prevent the adoption of
mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa - they dia lt again very
recently - must give up their policy of so-called constructive engagement, whose
effects so far have been particularly damaging for the black populations of Namibia
and South Africa. There is no doubt that the application of that policy, springing
above all from their desire to preserve their economic interests, among other
(Mr. Charles, Haiti)
things, makes them as guilty as the racist regime of all the crimes that are
characteristic of the occupation of Namibia and the apartheid system in South
Africa. That is also true of all those who, because of the profit motive or for
some other reason, have knowingly become the allies of Pretoria. That is clear
from the report of the Special Committee of 24 on the activities of foreign
economic interests that are impeding the implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. *
The countries collaborating with Pretoria are well aware that they cannot,
without being untrue to themselves, continue to ignore the following values and
objectives: the right to self-determination, the elimination of racism in all its
forms, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms for all and so on. They must
also realize that they must firmly stand by the international community and the
Namibian people, under the leadership of their sole legitimate representative, the
South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), in their struggle, which has now
entered a deci -'ve stage. More than ever before, everyone's total commitment is
needed to resolve the situation, which offends the moral conscience of mankind,
threatens international peace and security and undermines the credibility of the
United Nations.
The time has passed for procrastination, half-measures and warnings that are
not followed up. Rather, it is time for decisive action, so ardently desired by
the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world. We believe that such action
should take the following forms: first, adequate material support for SWAPO to
*Mr. Agius (Malta), Vice-President, took ~~e Chair.
{Hr. Charles, Haiti)
allow it to continue its wrmed struggle in the best possible conditions~ secondly,
str ict implementation of measures already adopted - notably, the eDlbargo on arms
and oil for SOuth Africa; and, thirdly, the adoption of comprehensive, mandatory
sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, in accordance with security Council
resolution 566 (1985).
(Mr. Charles, Haiti)
We remain convinced that a combination of those measures would, if
scrupulously implemented, bring about a considerable change in the elements of the
problem of Namibia. Similarly, we reject the argument of the defenders of Pretoria
that sanctions would be ineffective, and we do so for the following reasons.
First, if the sanctions are as ineffective as they claim, why are they so adamant
in their use of the veto, even at the risk of displeasing world pUblic opinion,
when sanctions are clearly required by the circumstances? Secondly, why do they
resort unhesitatingly to sanctions whenever they are defending their own
interests? Thicdly, in regard to the negative effects of sanctions on the black
population, how can they possibly claim to understand African interests better than
the Africans themselves? The truth of the matter is that this is another case of
duplicity that can produce a fait accompli.
Experience has proved that the Pretoria regime is unli~ely to updergo a
magical change of heart. We are more convinced today than ever before that only
increased mobilization of the international community in support of the struggle of
the Namibian people will finally create the conditions required to induce Pretoria
to end its illegal occupation and enable the Namibian people to enjoy its
legitimate rights to self-determination, freedom and independence.
That, indeed, is the purpose of the draft resolutions put forward by the
United Nations Council for Namibia. We welcome those draft resolutions and my
delegation will fully support them.
Mr. YANE (Botswana): As the United Nations celebrates its fortieth
anniversary it still finds itself confronted with the case of Namibia, which has
been its ward for the past 39 years. When we reflect upon the efforts that have
been exerted over the yea~s in an attempt to secure independence for the Territory
of Namibia, we cannot help but feel frustrated by our failure to resolve what has
become the most intractable decolonization question of our times.
The General Assembly terminated South Africa's Mandate over Namibia some
19 years ago and, following that action, it was the expectation of the world
community that South Africa would withdraw from the Territory and that the United
Nations Council for Namibia, which was established a year later as its legal
Administering Authority, would perform the simple task of guiding the Territory to
independence. The events that followed are too well known to all of us here to
merit repetition. South Africa still maintains, to this day, its illegal
occupation of Namibia in defiance of numerous resolutions of the General Assembly
and the Security Council, and indeed in defiance of international public opinion.
Over the years, we have witnessed the deliberate transformation of Namibia
into a satellite appendage of apartheid South Africa. We have witnessed the most
vulqar brutalization of the people of ~amibia, in the form of torture,
incarceration without trial, murder and other practices that should boqgle the
minds of all those who claim to belonq to the civiliz~d world. We have witnessed
the systematic plunder of the resources of the Territory despite the enactment in
1974 of Decree No. 1, which was endorsed by this Assembly as an instrument that
would ensure that the people of Namibia were not robbed of their wealth. We have
witnessed the regular use of Namibian territory as a launching pad for South
Africa's acts of aqgression against independent states in the southern African
reqion. We have also witnessed all sorts of manoeuvres being employed by the
racist South African regime in order to perpetuate its illegal occupation of
Namibia.
(Mr. Yane, Botswana)
The sum total of what we have witnessed in relation to the question of Namibia
should raise one paramount question in our minds: If the world was prepared to act
in uniflon against the threat of nazism, why should we find ourselves impotent in
the case of apartheid? Th2 answer to that question is in the custody of South
Africa's friends, who refuse to accept the fact that the liberation of a people
should take precedence over their economic interests. To them we say: the blood
of innocent Namibians that drips from the hands of those who are in power in South
Africa drips from their hands as well. There can be no excuse for being party to
the actions of a regime that has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it
is totally evil.
When Security Council resolution 435 (1978) was adopted some seven years ago
it qave us all the hope - which proved to be false - that at last there was some
movement towards the resolution of the question of Namibia. That was so because
the plan that accompanied it was the brain-child of South Africa's closest and
powerful friends. Today the plan remains unimplemented despite the fact that it
has been accepted all round as the only viable instrument for the peaceful
resolution of the Namibian question.
What is ironic is that all impediments to its implementation are attributable
to the attitude of some members of the very group that spearheaded its evolution.
The linkage of the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola to the resolution of the
question of Namibia is clearly a red herring that has been introduced for the sole
purpose of frustrating efforts to bring independence to Namibia. The claims that
the United Nations cannot act impartially in dealing with the case of Namibia are
far-fetched and should also be dismissed with the contempt they ~eserve.
In the long and arduous struqgle for the independence of Namibin, it is
fitting that we should pay a tribute to the South West Africa People's Organization
(Mr. Yane, Botswana)
(SWAPO) for the statesmanship its leadership has demonstrated at various meetings
which have been held in an effort to resolve this question. The fact that: at
times, they have even bent over backwards to accommodate South Africa's demands
bears testimony to this. SWAPO has offered on numerous occasions to sign a
cease-fire agreement with South Africa in an effort to facilitate the
implementation of the United Nations plan. It has offered to co-operate fully in
this effort.
(Mr. Yane, Botswana)
The role of the security Council is central to this issue. It is therefore
with profound disappointment tilat we view its continued failure to take effective
action against South Africa. The position that some members of the Council have
adopted whenever firm action is called for has emboldened the regime to ignore the
United Nations; it has emboldened it to speak with arrogance before the Council and
to act very much as it likes, to the extent of dictating what the Council can and
cannot do. To be blunt, the performance of the Council wi th regard to the case of
Namibia calls in question the high regard and confidence it enjoys from the Member
States of thh. Organization. Its inaction will go dow.n as the biggest blot on the
history of our time.
Now that, as we understand, South Africa has decided on the electoral system
it prefers, pressure must be brought to bear on that Government to ensure that
Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is implemented without delay or variation.
The people of Namibia are not demanding the impossible. They simply want their
independence, to live in dignity in their own country ana to det.ermine their own
destiny. That is not an unreasonable demand by any stretch of imagination. South
Africa has no right to deny them what is rightfully theirs.
The fate of Namibia and of South Africa itself is intertwined with that of the
whole of the southern African sub-region. The longer the independence of Namibia
is delayed the more are chances for peace and security in the whole sub-region
compromised. It is imperative that those who have the power to influence events in
our area act before the whole sub-region is plunged into total chaos.
The Council for Namibia, which was designated by this Assembly as the legal
Administering Authority for the Territory, has done a commendable job considering
the obstacles with which it has been confronted over the years. Thanks to its
dedica tion and resourcefulness, the world community is now more enlightened about
(Mr. Yane p Botswana)
the cause of Namibia than it was before its creation. We hope it will not be long
before the Council assumes its rightful place inside the Territory to perform the
final tasks connected with its mandate.
Our special thanks go to the President of the Council, Ambassador Paul Lusaka
of Zanbia and the Acting President, Anbassador Sinclair of Guyana, for their
indomitable spirit of dedication to the work of the Council and to the cause of
Namibia •.
Mr. BWAKIRA (Burundi) (interpretation from French): Firstly, on behalf
of my delegation, may I convey to the Colonbian delegation our profound sympathy
and condolences in connection with the volcanic catastrophe which has plunged the
Colonbian n8tioo into mourning •
Like the entire international community, the Government of Burundi is
concerned over the deteriorating situation throughout southern Africa. The root
cause of this is the system of apartheid, which is a source of instability,
repeated acts of aggression, permanent tension and conflict in the region.
Within SOuth Africa itself, while Nelson Mandela and other nationalists have
been unjustly languishing in prison for a quarter of a century, the deterioration
in the situation is reflected in the state of emergency which was imposed by the
minority and racist regime of Pretoria, and which was followed by the mass arrest,
arbitrary detention, torture and massacre of the black population.
Despite the wave of violence and brutality which it has experienced, the SOuth
African people, mobilized in support of the African National Congress (ANC), is
organizing and developing national resistance. It has learned its lesson fran the
events of the past: apar theid is not capable of being reformed or adapted tOl the
present day.
(Mr. Yane, Botswana)
In the front-line countries of soui:hern Africa, Pretoria continues to pursue
independent States in the region. The murderous air raids by the apartheid regime
on neighbouring countries, and particularly Botswana, Lesotho and Angola, are
bitt~r illustrations of that.
In Namibia, the creation of a puppet interim GovernEnt in windhoek on 17 June
is a further masquerade, yet another affront to the international community and, at
the same time, a delaying tactic on the part of the racist regime to prevent the
implementation of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions which call for
Namibia's accession to independence.
The question of Namibia has been on the agenda of the General Assembly since
1946. It has been dealt with at special sessions of the General Asserrbly,
international conferences, talks and seminars. Countless decisions have been taken
by the international community in an attempt to find a solution to it in keeping
with international law. I should like to refer to some of these decisions to
illustrate the contempt shown by the Pretoria regime for the United Nations.
The opinion of the International Court of Justice, handed down on 21 June 1971
in connection with South Africa's occupation of Namibia, is unequivocal, and states:
"the continued presence of SOuth Afe iea in Namibia being illegal, South Afr ica
is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia i~ediately
and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory".
The Opinion of the Court thus confirmed resolution 2145 (XXI), adopted in
1966, in which the General Assembly ended South Africa's Mandate over Namibia, as
well as that of the Security Council which, in 1969, called for the immediate
withdrawal of the South African administration from the Territory. The Unit~d
Nations bears direct responsibility for the decolonization of Namibia because
(Nr. Bwakira, Burundi)
after SOUth Africa's Mandate ovel: Namibia was wi thdrawn, the General Assenbly in
1;67 set up the United Nations Council for Namibia 00 administeL t.'1e Territory.
South Africa, in defiance of the United Nations decision, refused to allow the
United Nations Council for Namibia to enter Namibia. In view of this categorical
refusal by SOUth Africa to comply with the decisions of the international
comnunity, the security Council in January 1976, adopted resolution 385, which once
again demanded that South Africa withdraw its illegal administration and called for
free elections under United Nations supervision and control. Simila~ly, the
security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978), which defines an internationally
acceptable formula for Namibia's accession to independence.
My Government has always supported and will continue to support the Uni ted
Nations plan for the independence of Namibia set out in security Council resolution
435 (1978). My delegation condemns South Africa for its obstruction of the
implementation of that resolution for its illegal presence in Namibia, for its
installation of a so-called interim Government in Namibia, as well as for its
unbridled plundering of Namibia's natural resources.
(Mr. Bwakira, Burundi)
As specific facts confirm, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia
has made it possible for the racist regime to gain control of all the natural
resources of that Territory, in direct collusion with foreign economic, financial
and other interests. The exploitation of those resources, which for several years
has been carried out by South Africa and a number of transnational corporations, is
taking on increasingly disquieting dimensions. The international community should
put an end to this systematic plunder of the wealth of Namibia which is being
pursued in violation of Decree No. 1 of the United Nations Council for Namibia, in
the context of the protection of the natural resources of Namibia, as well as other
pertinent resolutions of the United Nations.
These economic operations would not have been very successful without the
military umbrella which serves as protection for the acts of plunder carried out by
transnational corporations with the co-operation of the racist regime of South
Africa, which day by dCly is stepping up the militarization of Namibia.
A number of units of South African troops have been deployed in various parts
of the Namibian territory. Apart from the units from Pretoria, South Africa has
had to strengthen i~~ military presence in Namibia by recruiting mercenaries from
foreign countries. It has been using them not only to carry out acts of repression
within the country but alse for commando operations and aggressive missions against
the front-line states.
This year we are commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations
and, far from being a token gesture, this provides an opportunity for Member states
to reaffirm their commitment to the aims and purposes of the Charter. We are also
celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Unfortunately, despite the
progress which has been made by the united Nations in the field of decolonization,
Namibia continues to be the last stronghold of colonialism in its most extreme form
(Mr. Bwakira, Burundi)
Despite its continued efforts, patiently pursued, to speed up the process of
the decolonization of Namibia, the international community is encountering the
thinly disguised scorn of the apartheid regime. That regime constantly thwarts the
implementation of the resolutions of the security Council and the General Assembly.
In June the security Council, after a lengthy debate, adopted resolution
566 (1985), which condemned South Africa for the way it has been obstructing the
implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and for its installation of a so-called
interim government in Windhoek, which the international community has refused to
recognize as having any legitimacy. In the same resolution the security Council
urged Member States of the Organization that had not yet done so to consider taking
appropriate voluntary measures against South Africa.
We should like to pay a tribute to those States and organizations which have
acted in conformity with the security Council resolution, thus contributing to
dismantling the system of apartheid.
As indicated by the recent report of the secretary-General on ~~e question of
Namibia, no progress has yet been made in implementing the plan for the
independence of Namibia. My delegation greatly values the efforts made by the
secretary-General to bring about the implementation of security Council resolution
435 (1978).
While the South West Afr ica People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole authentic
representative of the Namibian people, is demonstrating moderation and restraint
and co-operating with the united Nations in order to find a political solution,
South Africa is pursuing its policy of obstructionism and sabotage of the plan for
the decolonization of Namibian.
The attitude taken by South Africa in the recent debate on the question of
Namibia in the security Council, which took place from 13 to 15 November, remained
negative. It was an affront to the Security Council by the racist regime to have
government made known its choice of an electoral System. SOuth Africa is still
pressing its demand that the independence of Namibia continue to be conditional
upon the wi thdra~al of Cuban forces from Angola. Th'e Government of Burundi has
rejected and continues to reject categorically any linkage between the two matters,
which are quite separate.
My delegation regrets that the draft resolution which was before the security
Council a few days ago' at the conclusion of 'its debate on the question of Namibia
was not adopted, since it would have made it possible to put an end to the
obstruction by South Africa of the implementation of resolution 435 (1978).
Any reluctance shown by the security Council to force the Pretoria regime to
implement the plan for the independence of Namibia has a heartening effect on that
regime and encourages it in its illegal activities in Namibia. The authority of
the security Council and the credibility of the United Nations are at stake.
We cannot remain indifferent to the deterioration of the political, economic
and social situation in Namibia. For that reason, the Meeting of Foreign Ministers
of the Non-Aligned Countr ies held in Luanda from 4 to 8 September 1985 requested
the security Council to meet once again to consider the question of Namibia, and
reiterated its appeal for the adoption of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against
racist South Africa pursuant to the- provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter. Although the security Council did not accede to the request of the
non-aligned countries, it did identify the sanctions that should be adopted as a
matter of urgency.
Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions are necessary because the actions of
South Africa in southern Africa generally and in Namibia in particular are a grave
threat to peace in that region and to international peace and security.
My delegation is convinced that if appropriate action is not taken as a matter
of urgency to force SOuth Africa to withdraw from Namibia, Pretoria may well take
the international community unawares and confront it with a fait accompli by
unilaterally proclaimin'i the independence of Namibia South African style. Such an
eventuality must be forestalled. We have reached a stage now at which there can be
no alternative to comprehensive mandatory sanctions. The internationally community
should meet the challenge placed before it with unparalleled effrontery by the
apartheid regime. Its action should b' clJlllensurate with the seriousness of the
situation in southern Africa. Such action, we are quite convinced, would
contribute to speeding up the implementation of Security Council resolution
435 (1978).
In parallel with that action the people of Namibia should continue and,
indeed, intensify their liberation struggle. In this connection, we wish first to
pay a tribute to those countries that have given their unconditional support to
SWAPO. Today it is more than ever necessary that their support should not only
continue but be stepped up to make it possible for the Namibian people to regain
their rights, under the aegis of their sole, authentic representative, SWAPO.
We are likewise persuaded that, thanks to the mobilization of world public
opinion against apartheid and its crimes and to the legitimate struggle of the
South African and Namibian peoples, the liberation of the Namibian people is
inevitablp.. It is the duty of the international community to support the efforts
of the Secretary-General to find a solution to the Namibia tragedy. The United
Nations Council for Namibia, of which my country is honoured to be a member, has
spared no effort to draw the attention of Governments, and governmental and
non-governmental organizations to ~he cause of the Namibian people. Its activities
will continue in the future, under the very skilful leadership of its Acting
President, Mr. Noel Sinclair of Guyana.
The meeting rose at 12.50 p.m.