A/41/PV.67 General Assembly

May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to take note of the report of the Fourth Committee in document A/41/761, concerning the hearings of organizations? It was so decided.

I should like to propose that the list of speakers on this item be closed today at 5 p.m. May I take it that there is no objection to that proposal? It was so decided.

I would request representatives who wish to participate in the debate to inscribe their names on the list of speakers as soon as possible. I now call on the Rapporteur of the Speci~l Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Mr. Ahmad Farouk Arnouss of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to introduce parts V and IX of the Special Committee's report. Mr. ARNOUSS (Syrian Arab Republic), Rapporteur of the Special Coramittee on the situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Special Committee of 24): As the Rapporteur of ths Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting )f Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, I have the honour to introduce to the General Assembly the chapter of the report of the Special Committee in document A/41/23 (parts V and IX) covering its work during the year on the question of Namibia. The report, which relates to item 36 of the agenda, is submitted pursuant to operative paragraph 12 of General Assembly resolution 40/57 of 2 December 1985 - on the implementation of the Declaration - by which the General Assembly requested the Special Committee to continue to seek suitable means for the immediate and full implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in all Territories that had not yet attained independence and, in particular, to formulate specific proposals for the elimination of the remaining manifestations of colonialism. In continuing to perform these tasks in relation to the question of Namibia, the Special Committee took into consideration the various relevant resolutions of the General Assembly concerning this question, in particular resolution 40/97, as well as the relatod decisions of the Security Council and the United Nations Council for Namibia. As will be noted from the report, the Special Committee once again examined indepth developments relating to the question of Namibia with the participation of representatives of the Council for Namibia and of the South West Africa People's Organization. (Nr. Arnouss, Papporteur, Special CO_ittee of 24) As is reflected 1n paragraph 13 of the present repcSrt, the special COllll1ttee, deeply conscious of the fact that 1986 marked the ~wentieth anniversary of the termination of the Mandate of SOUth Africa over Namibia, strongly condemed the continued illegal occupation of Naraibia by the racist minority regime of SOuth Africa, in blatant defiance of resolutions and decisions of the General Assenj)ly and the Security Council. The Committee reaffirmed t!l:J inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence in a united Namibia, in accordance with the Charter and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). It also reaffirmed the legitimacy of the freedom stru9g1e of the Namibian people by all means at their disposal to achieve tbat right. The Coalittee CAtegorically rejected an& denounced all manoeuvres by SOUth Africa to bring about a shn independence in Namibia through fraudulent constitutional and political schemes designed to perpetuate its colonial dONination in Nallibia, and it oondeanec1 the puppet Rllti-party Conference as the latest in a series of political stratageM through which Pretoria has atempted to impose Cl n~olonial settle-ent in Ha.ibia. Tbe COmMittee called upon all States to deny any recognition to the so-called interim government or to any illegal entity that the Pretoria regiE IMy inpose upon the r-qamibian people. The Committee also reiterated that any political solution to the Namibian situation must be based on the in&ediate and unconditional termination of SOuth Africa's illegal occupation of the Territory, the withdrawal of ita armed forces and the free and unfettered exercise by the Namibian people of their right to self-determination and independer.ce in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). It reaffirmed that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) remained the only acceptable basis for a peac~ful settlement of the Namibia~ question, and rejected the persistent attempts by South Africa to establish a s~alled linkage or parallelism between the independence of Namibia and any extraneous and irrelevant issues. In re&ffirming that the national liberation movement of Namibia, the SOu~ West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), was the sole and authentic representative of the Nallibian people, the Committee stronqly condemned SOuth Africa's persistent and systematic attempts to undermine, discredit and destroy SWAPO and its members and supporters through arbitrary arrests, torture, intimidation and terror. The Comftdttee strongly condemned South Africa for its military ~uild-up in Namibia, particularly its persistent acts of aggression and subversion against the neighbouring States, its illegal use of Namibian territory to perpetrate such acts of aggression, its proclamation'Qf a so-called security zone, its forced recruitment of Namibians for tribal armies and its use of mercenaries. It further condemned the continued military, nuclear and intelligence collaboration between South Africa and certain western and other countries, which constitutes a violation of the arms embargo imposed against South Africa by the Security Council in its resolution 418 (1977) of 4 November 1977. The Committee urged the Security Council to adopt further measures to widen the scope of its resolution 418 (1977) in order to make it more effective and comprehensive. The Committee deplored the continuing collaboration of certaifi Western and other countries with the racist regime of South Africa in the political, economic, military and nuclear fields, and reiterated its conviction that such collaboration undermined international solidarity against the apartheid regime and helped to perpetuate that regime's illegal occupation of Namibia. The Committee condemned and rejected the policy of so-called constructive engagement, which had further emboldened the apartheid regime to intensify its repression of the peoples of South Africa and Namibia. In reaffirming that the natural resources of Namibia, including marine resources, were the inviolable and uncontestable heritage of the Namibian people, the Committee strongly condemned South Africa and other foreign economic interests for their illegal exploitation of such resources, in disregard of United Nations resolutions and decisions, and demanded that such exploitation cease forthwith. (Hr. Arnouss, Rapporteur, Special Committee of 24) Finally, the Committee strongly recommended that the security Council, which has been prevented from effectively discharging its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security in the region by the opposition of certain western permanent members, should respond ptMiJitively to the overwhelming demand of the international community by imposing for.thwith comprehensive mandatory , sanctions against South Africa under the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter. On behalf of the Special Committee, I commend the report for the serious attention of the General Assembly.

I now call on the Acting Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Mr. Oscar Oraroas Oliv8 of Cuba. Mr. OMMAS OLIVl\ (Cuba), Acting Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Special Committee of 24) (interpretation from Spanish)i For the second time in two months the General Assembly is meeting specifically to consider one of the most crucial issues facing mankind today - the question of Namibia. It ~s a matter of great regret that we continue to be confronted with the same grim reality: the continued illegal occupation of the Territory for whose administration the United Nations long ago assumed direct responsibility. The prospects of an acceptable solution appear to be as remote as ever, while the situation prevailing in the region continues to pose a great threat to international peace and security. (!lr. Orallas Olive, Acting Chairman, SPecial CollUl1ttee of 24) As an overwhelllling majority of Member $tates pointed out during the fourteenth special session and in the general debate at the beginning of the current session, this dangerous situation is solely attributable to the racist' regime of SOUth Africa, which, supported by its allies, continues to show its defiance through its policies and its acts and to demonstrate its obvious conte.pt for the United Nations by trying to delay Namibia's independence as II!IUch as it can. It is also clear that the Pretoria regime, while pretending to participate in negotiations in good faith, has all along manipulated and deceived the world co.-unity in order to prevent the implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978) and to consolidate its 111egal hold over the Territory of Nallibia. According to recent reports, the racist regime in Pretoria has &dopted new zea"ures to entrench its illegal presence in Namibia by strengthening the puppet, surrogate regime it has established there. If there were a!ly cioubt w1ltatsoever about the dupl:l.city of the racist authorities of South Africa, it should now be patently obvious to everyone that SOuth Africa has no intention of implementing security Council resolution 435 (1978), a resolution which hae received the full support of the international community. The racist regime's open defiance of the true aspirations of the Namiblan people and its blatant disregard of the will of the international community should and must be brought to an end. The continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and seriously threatens international peace and security. FOrty years of continuous effort by the community of nations to bring about an independent, democratic Namibia and an end to apartheid in south Africa by the exercise of reason through negotiations has failed to produce the desired results. South Africa's defiant attitude to the united Nations has become even more callous and contemptuous and its flagrant disregard of world public opinion is today greater than ever. The United Natilons Council for Namibia has, throughout the past year, given careful consideration to every aspect of this question. The Special Committee of 24, within the context of the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countt'\es and Peoples, has also carried out a serious, thorough review of the situation in Namibia. In a decision adopted in August this year, the Special Committee firmly reiterated a series of fundamental objectives and the underlying principles for the liberation of the people of Namibia from over 100 years of colonial oppression. This was dealt with in detail at the outset of this debate by the Rapporteur of the Special Committee, my collflague and friend Mr. Ahmad Farouk Arnouss of the Syria., Arab Republic, therefore, 1 wish merely to emphasize the fact that the entire crisis situation in southern Africa, is caused by the inhuman, criminal schemes and sUbterfuges of the Pretoria regime aimed at gaining control over the region through acts of aggression, destabilization and political and economic domination. (Mr. Ora!ll88 Oliva, h:ting Chai~.!!, Special Co_!ttee of 24) South Africa persists in its blatant attempt to intimidate and demoralize its opponents beyond its borders and to stifle and decimate those within SOuth Africa and Namibia. It persists also in its relentless attempts to achieve and maintain the economic and political subjugation of its neighbours and to exercise control over their policies and even their development. These unceasing overt and covert acts of military, political and economic aggression have inflicted severe economic damage on neighbouring countries, thus further aggravating the already explosive situation in southern Africa. It is against this background that the Special Committee has once again reiterated its call for the immediate application of measures under Chapter VII of the Charter, increased assistance to the people of Namibia and their sole, authentic representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), and the provision of the maximm assistance possible to the member Governments of the South~rn African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC) in their efforts to pr~~te regional economic co-operation and development and to reduce their economic dependence on the Pretoria regime. On behalf of the Special Committee, I wish to reiterate my confident hope that this appeal will be met with a positive response from all Member states. We, the members of the international colll11llnity, have the means to solve the problem of the illegal occupation of Namibia. All that is required of us is that we sWIlJIDn the will to tackle the problem squarely and persevere in the only course open to us - support for the people whose future we have taken into our hands and whose cause we should be betraying if we hesitated any further to bring full and effective pressure to bear on its oppressors. I wish to pay a special tribute to the Governments of the front-line States for their steadfast support for and commitment to the cause of a free and independent Namibia and their determined efforts to bring about the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). A well-deserved tribute goes also to the leadership of the sole, authentic ~epresentativeof the Namibian people, SWAPO, for its consistently statesmanlike spirit in working out an internationally acceptable solution that. will guide Namibia to its long-awaited independence. The special Committee will continue within the bounds of its m3ndate to extend all possible assistance in the achievement of that goal. I should like, on behalf of the Special Committee, to acknowledge with appreciation the important work being done by the United Nations Council for Namibia in the fulfilment of the mandate entrusted to it. The role of the Council as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until independence cannot be over-emphasized. At the present stage of the struggle of the Namibian people it is essential that the Council be given the maximum co-operation of all Member States so that it can continue W discharge its responsibilities with ever greater effectiveness. In conclusion, we wish to express our deep conviction that no matter how difficult the circumstances or how great the obstacles, Namibia will be independent.

I call on the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Mr. Peter Zuze of Zambia, who wishes to introduce the report of the Council (A/4~24). Hr. ZUZE (Zali'lbia), President of the United Nations Council for Namibia: The wheel has gone right round and we are back at the point where the General Assembly is once again attempting to recycle the question of Namibia. Over the past year we have !leen a new confidence in Sooth Africa, demonstrated in the blatant delaying tactics it employs in the Namiblan negotiations and in the oggressive action in Angola, MOzambique and other neighbouring States. Since the United Nations ended the SOuth African Mandate ov~r Namibia and the Secu,rity Council adopted resolution 435 (197a), the Western world has been predicting that independence for Namibia is just around the corner. The press regulacly reports what it calls progress. Meanwhile, in defiance of Decree No. 1, the natural resources of Namibia - uranium, diamonds, fish - are being exploited. It is a gloomy picture. Whether we look at a bantustan polic:y that determines that there shall not be one black South Africa, at a law and order programme with the highest number. of hangings in the world - not counting people like Nen Aggett, who are held to have hang-4'~ ~;hemselves in prison - at the SOuth African nuclear capability, at the dpparent ·].ndifference of a world that will impose sanctions on Poland, on the USSR because of Afghanistan or on Nicaragua, but will say that sanctions agdinst South Africa are impractical because of Western investments - indeed, wherever we look - it is a gloomy picture. Namibia is a land of sunshine. It should be a land o~ laughter. There is land enough, good will enough, for all. Yet the final obstacle to the elimination of a philosophy which believes that merit can be assessed in colour terms remains. I believe we are JOOving into the last phase of conflict between those that support and sustain an ideology which denies these things and those that reject those views. There is an old saying that' if one wants to sell one's goods one must put them in the shop window. What the world outside South Africa wants is independence for Namibia. But have we put this issue ar far to t~~ front of the window as we should? Let us consider the followin~facts: 95 per cent African and Coloured ruled by 5 per cent white, infant mortality per 1,000 live births: 178 for Africans, 28 for whitesJ life expectancy, 32 for African, 57 for whitesJ income distribution: annual income: SUS 190 for blacks, SUS 3,7~O for whites. Here ~re some more facts. In 1946 South Africa refusad to recognize the United Nations as the successor to the League of Nations. In 1966, 20 years after that, the united Nations ended South Africa's Mandate and ordered South Africa to withdraw, to hand back the Mandate to the united Nations. In 1985, almost 20 years after the world community ordered the end of the Mandate, South Africa is still there. In other words, almost 40 years after the League of Nations ceased to exist, South Africa still operates its Mandate. Here then is a classic case of a country defying the world and the instructions of the elected world body. This is straightforward annexation and theft on a scale unmatched in the modern world. Yet, this defiant, thieving country dares to put up bargaining conditions, as if it had legally and morally acquired possessions with which to bargain. The united Nations has intervened before in a military role, in Korea, the Middle East, Nigeria and Katanga. What prevents the United Nations from removing the defiant thieves from Namibia? We know the answer: the public relations machine, has without a sign of a blush tola the world that South Africa is in Namibia because it is mandated to care for itJ because its stewardship prevents factional disorderJ because the world needs precious minerals which only South Africa and multinationals have the capacity and technology to mineJ because it is providing a communist-free zone, and so on•..Not ~~l~ has this,public relations success gained acceptance of the claim that in illegal .QCcupation an~ ~ontinued theft they are entitled to demand the linkage condition, but, in the absence of an .' , . eaually successful opposing public relations exercise, their case is somehow believed. The establishment of new mines has been illegal since the United Nations revoked the Mandate in 1966. Yet Rossing has been developed since then. 1 could go on, but in summary 1 want to repeat that here is an international scandal excused in the cause of profit and supply and demand; here is theft on a monumental scale; here is a nation illegally occupied; here is a people denied advancement and justice; here is a pawn in the southern African game of chess - all at the expense of the underprivileged and unrepresented people of Namibia. Until the world knows of the greatest piracy of the twentieth centur1, Security Council resolution 435 (1918) is likely to be just a joke and South Africa will - perhaps on behalf of the nations sympathetic to it - continue to win the game of negotiations. In the coming year we intend as a Council to continue to co-operate with non-governmental organizations and support groups in promoting the Namibian cause and raising awareness of the Namibian question. In our efforts to ensure implementation of Secu~ity Council resolution 435 (1918), we are aware that the role of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is central and crucial. I wish in this respect to commend Mr. Perez de Cuel1ar for his tireless efforts aimed at ending the plight of the Na~llbian people so that they too can exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and independence. May I also on behalf of the united Nations'Council for Namibia express our deep appreciation to the Member States of this body for "their unfailing interest in the search for a solution to the continued South African illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia. In closing, I sh()uld like to express the hope of the Council for Namibia that this session will be the occasion for a renewed and C<l>ncerted effort by the international community finally to overcome the artificial barriers to NamibiaMs independence. The united Nations provides a framework for States to set aside their differences and join together in pursuit of a common goal. Now is the time to exploit that po~Bibility to the fullest.

In accordance with Gelneral Assembly resolution 31/152 of 20 December 1976, I now call on the Observer of the South Wast Africa People's Organization. Mr. GURlRAB (South West Africa I?eople's OrgN'lb~tion (SWAPO»: It is a great honour for me once again to address this au~ust Assembly on behalf of the oppressed but struggling Namibian people and its sole authentic representative, the south west Africa People's Organ. Jation (SWAPO) of Namibia. Two mnths ago Ambassador Choudhury presided over a successful special session on Namibia. His well-known political wisdom and diplomatic skill greatly contributed to that success. The statements made then from this rostrum by so many Mini~ters and Heads of delegation and the resolution which was finally adopted pointed to one thing: that Pretoria's continued illegal occupation of Namibia, in defiance and violation of United Nations resolutions and decisions and its stubborn refusal to respect the determination of the Namibian people to achieve s~2f-determinationand national independence can no longer be tolerated and, indeed, must be terminated. Despite our detractors and collaborators with the illegal apartheid regime, that was the clear message of that historic session, which was convened to consider the question of Namibia 20 years after the General Assembly's termination of racist south Africa's Mandate and the assumption by the United Nations of direct responsibility for our country. The sad reminder to the international community conUnues to be the fact that Namibia is not only not yet free but a130 that our people continue to be subjected to untold suffering at the hands of the neo-Nazi Botha regime that is noted for the most brutal and vicious methods of repression in the world. When we addressed the special session, SWAPO drew the international community's attention to the fast-deteriorating situation in southern Africa as the racist regime continuously increases its genocidal campaign against the oppressed majority in South Africa and Namibia and its military aggression against and destabilization of independent African States in the region. Pretoria's State terrorism and military intervention have since been further escalated and reached dangerous proportions. Indeed, the consequences of that situation are becoming too ghastly to contemplate. In this context, the fraternal people of the People's Republic of Mozanilique have lost one of their most illustrious sons in the tragic and u~timely death of their President, Comrade Samora Moises Machel. SWAPO holds the Botha regime responsible for the dastardly act of assassinating our revered comrade-in-arms in the common struggle against imperialism, foreign domination and apartheid. The untimely death of President Machel has robbed southern Africa of a courageous and dedicated freedom fighter and statesman whose exemplary qualities will nevertheless continue to inspire us in carrying forward the unfinished tasks of liberating ourselves and consolidating independence. We are angry and vengeful. To assassinate the Head of State of a country is not merely a hostile act, more precisely, it is aiso a declaration of war against that country. Comrade Machel was a product of the Revolution and he died in the pursuit of the objectives of that ReVolution. He was brutally assassinated by the enemy, but the Revolution lives on in the hearts and minds of the children of Mozambique and of all champions of human liberty everywhere who must now pick up the gun and carry on the struggle until the final victory. Let me use this opporsunity to pay tribute to the celebrated life of selfless service and lasting accomplishments for which Comrade Machel will for ever be remembered. In this connection, we express our warm solidarity with the fraternal people of Mozambique, the Party, FRELIMO and its Government, under the leadership of Comrade Joaquim Chissano whom we wholehearted congratulate as President of the People's Republic of Mozambique. At this very moment the racist regime is engaged in vicious warmongering, unceasing threats, renewed military operations and repression in the region. That is why we say the threat to international peace and security posed by those criminal and fascist actions of the racist regime is now more alarming than ever before. The world rose up in oonc~rt during the Second WOrld War and many thousands of Africans joined in against Nazi GermanYJ no effort was spared to defeat Hitler. Now, we are asking the international conmunity to join us so as to defeat the neo-Nazis in Pretoria. Let me now draw the Assembly's attention to the situation prevailing in Namiba. First of all, I should like to reiterate that there is continuing duplicity between Washington and Pretoria in an attempt to obscure and delete the question of Namibia from the iaternational agenda. Those who doubt the validity of tha\; statement need only look at the various declarations made by highly placed officials of the United States of America who conveniently refrain from even mentioning the name RNamibiaR• At various international gatherings - for example, during the last special session on Namibia - Washington has spent a lot of time bUllying delegations into voting with the United States of America in support of its shameful policies of Rconstructive engagementand RlinkageR• (Mr. Guritab, SWAPO) That is being done in pursuit of Washington's objective of preventing Namibia's independence and also of ensuring the flow, through our country, of military and financial assistance to the armed bandits of UNITA, which is nothing more than an auxiliary unit of the racist army. In other words, both Washington and Pretoria are doing everything possible today to have the world accept their twisted logic, which is motivated by intervention, State-sponsored terrorism and greed, without regard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola or the right to self-determination and independence of the Namibian people. In the meantime, the Namibian people must live in a state of perpetual nightmare as they continue to ask themselves the following questions: At what price shall we finally liberate Namibia? Does the world really care about our fate? Should we continue to keep faith in the international community? Is the United Nations at all aware of the extent of our suffering? How best can we tell the world about ou: sacrifices? Is it at all worth reminding the United Nations about its unique responsibility to our country? Those are the burning questions of a people who have already endured a long and bitter struggle and the eternal politics of postponement, a people whose daily existence is controlled by the trigger-happy occupation army and police forces along with the other murderous armed gangs hired by Pretoria to kill, maim and destroy, a people who see their loved ones brutally murdered in cold blood and others disappearing, never to be heard of again. Our people are living through the painful experience of seeing mothers and daughters being raped in front of the whole community and their homes and limited means of livelihood going up in smoke as Pretoria's murder squads continue ruthlessly to perpetrate death, destruction and darkness throughout the country. (Mr. Gurirab, SWAPO) Indeed that is what life is like for our people in Namibia. Pretoria has maintained a state of emergency for the past 14 years now. Martial law was decreed eight years ago, and virtually the whole country has been divided into so-called security zones and numerQUS other repressive measures have been imposed in the faRhion of a fascist State. It is under such fascist laws that the regime is maintaining a colonial army of more than 100,000 troops, mercenaries and hired murderers, who daily commit heinous crimes of unparalleled magnitude. Alid yet, all we are demanding is our freedom and to be masters of our own destiny. Suffice it to give a few additional examples of the countless atrocities committed against our people. In June this year, a 13-year-old boy was roasted over a fire by SOuth African soldiers in northern Namibia because he did not know the whereabouts of SWAPO freedom fighters. A 15-year-old boy had his face badly burned when the South African soldiers held his face to the hot exhaust pipe of their military vehicle in northern Namibia. In August, racist South Africa's President Botha unceremoniously stopped the trial of four white South African soldiers charged with the murder of a Namibian worker. In September, a group of-SOuth African soldiers raped two women, one nine months pregnant and the other seven months pregnant, in the north of the country. Many reports have been prepared by church leaders and local communities in Namibia on the wanton killings by the agents of Koevoet and other murder squads. One could go on and on and on ad infinitum, cataloguing the various atrocities of the Boers and their agents. The anguish of our people about fascism in our country and the daily terror by the Pretoria regime was recently brought to light in the local court in Windhoek by (Mr •.Gurir ~b, SWAPO) the church lead~ship in Namibia, represer~ted by Bishop James Kauluma of the Anglican Church, Bishop K1QOpas Dumeni of the Evangelical, Lutheran Chur~h, and Bishop BQniface Haushiku of the Roman Catholic Church, challenging the existing martial law and the dusk-to-dawn curfew imposed by the illegal regime. It gave these church leaders an opportunity to expose the ongoing brutal tyranny and pervasive violence, particul.arly in northern Namibia. The bishops cited the following cases among others. SOuth African soldiers frequently attack whoever might be found walking at night, looking for emergency medical help or with serious injuries, trying to reach hospitals. People are being shot inside their homes by SOuth African soldiers roaming around during curfew hours, denied their privacy as South African soldiers indiscr iminately storm into their bedrooms at any time of the day or night, snatching away innocent people who are suspected of being SWAPO supporters, and prevented during the cold winters from building a fire to keep warm or to cook their meals at night. Children are dying of childhood diseases at night because mothers are boo afraid to break the curfew. Recently, throughout the night of 8 OCtober, So~th African soldiers ransacked an entire village in northern Namibia at gunpoint and tortu~ed eight children between the ages of 14 and 16 as well as a priest, father Iyall'bo. They also stole money, vehicles and other property. As can be seen,the victims of racist South Africa's daily atrocities in Namibia are the common People, children, pregnant women, the old, the sick, church people - indeed the innocent civilian population. These are the victims of the crimes that racist SOuth Africa sought to cover up by the creation last year of so-called security zones, reinforcing the already existing news and information black-out being perpetuated by prohibiting foreign media representatives from (Hr. Gurirab, SWAPO) entering Namibia anc! throolgh ".he ruthless meth()ds of barassing local journalists. It must be said that P~etoria'8 fril1:nf3s fully participate in this conspiracy of silence. Tbe _jor western Powers, their transnational co~porations Md the powerful western media would r~ther turn a blind eye to th~ 8ufferings of our people.. because their only preoccupation is to continue plundering our diamonds, uranium and other strategic minerals and raw _terials. How could they possibly justify their shameful complicity with the neo-naa!s in Pretoria and still shed crocodile tears about the suffering of the black people of southern Africa? (Mr. Gurirab, SWAPO) . >~. The militarization of Namibia by racist SOuth Africa is a real threat, and we muSt recognbe the serious danger that it re~resents. Namibia is not only regarded as Pretoria's shooting range~ with our people as the targets. Namibia is also used as a springboard from which to launch armed aggression against the front-line States, particularly the i»eople's Republic of Angola. This danger has increased with the decision of the united States to use the UNI'i'A bandits as a conduit for giving military support to the racist regime of South Africa and deploy their combined military arsenal from there against Angola. If anything, the odds that we have faced during a century of anti-colonial struggle, being subjected to repression and ruthless exploitation by international imperialism, have steeled us in our conviction and determination as self-liberators. We remain resolved to do everything necessary in order to break those bloody chains of colonial bondage. Our struggle has been long and bitter. Many of our compatriots have made the supreme sacrifice, and many more will; others have been maimed; and indeed a great de~l of destruction has been wrought upon our land by the racists and their collaborators, the vicious agent~ of international capital. In 1982 the Reagan Administration introduced the linkage pre-condition into the Namibian problem. It has given an additional pretext to Pretoria and created the pr imary stumbling block to our freedom. That means that Washington is preventing Namibia's independence until, it continues to insist, Cuban troops leave Angola. The time is long past for Washington's trusted friends and others who might be able to reason with it, to dissuade the Administration from insisting on linkage, so that the Namibian people will be enabled finally to participate in democratic, free and fair elections. But let me state here in no uncertain terms that we shall further intensify the struggle on all the fronts of combat, no matter the cost. The year 1986, Year (Mr. Gur i~b, SWAPO) of General Mobilization and Decisive Action for Final Victory, so designated by the Central Committee of SWAPO, has seen courageous and determined action by the masses of our people against the racist enemy and its agents in our country. Under the vanguard leadership of SWAPO, the Namibian people have effectively frustrated Pretor.ia's fr.audulent, neo-colonial schemea around its latest so-called interim Government. The Namibian workers, peasants, WOlDen, the youth and students, progressive intellectuals and the churoh community are all united in their demand for a speedy end to racist South Africa's illegal occupation and for the immediate and unconditional implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978). These continue to be thei, demands at the continuing mass rallies and demonstrations that have taken place during this year across the length and breadth of Namibia. The combatants of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia, SWAPO's military wing, with the full support of the popular masses of our people, have elevated the armed struggle to the level of having the racist regime reluctantly admit that it will never be able to defeat the people's army. Pretoria has thrown into Namibia all its sophisticated military might in terms of manpower and weaponry but it has failed to achieve its dirty aims and in fact has suffered humiliating defeats on the battlefield, reSUlting in sizeable losses in both men and material at a tremendous cost to the enemy. We once again extend our heartfelt thanks to those Governments, organizations and peoples all over the world that have continued to give us political and material, inclUding military, support as well as moral support in our just struggle. We call upon Member states of the United Nations tQ complement our efforts by acting in unison and decisively and to impos~ comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria regime. We express our appreciation to those Governments that have moved in that direction; indeed a great deal needs to be done to exert real pressure on Pretoria. (Mr. Gurirab, SWAPO) To the apologists of the apartheid regime, we say the writing Ol~ the wall is clear; so it is high time to be counted on the right side, the side of the suffering people of Namibit'. No amount of repression and collaboration will deter us from achieving our goal: genuine freedom and national independence. Speaking of apologists, I wish to place on record the fact that it was an abominable act of betrayal ana an insult to the conscience of humanity for the Chirac Government to have allowed the racist Boths, who is a living embodiment of nazism and a practitioner of State terrorism in southern Africa, to enter Francea This condemnable act can only serve further to reveal the extent of the cynicism of those who, while pretending to decry the heinous crimes committed by naziam in Europe, are at the same time today giving succour and sustenance to the neo-Nazi regime in Pretoria. Botha had no right to be there, and certainly he was ~ot entitled to the reception accorded him by the French authorities. Botha and his cohorts were partly responsible for the genocide and devastation during the Second World War. Millions of Africans at home .and abroad fought and died to save Europe. We have just heard a statement of support by the Acting Chairman of the Special Committee of 24, Mr. Oraroas 01iva, and we have had the report of the Rapporteur of the same Committee on its indispensable work, and we once again urge that Committee to continue its commendable activities. We also heard an important statement by the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Mr. Zuze, Permanent Representative of Zambia to the united Nl1tions, whose recent election SWAPO warmly welcomes. Mr. Zuze brings to ~~is new post renowned wisdom, broad knowledge and experience as a seasoned diplomat, sensitivity and, above all, high integrity and discipline as a soldier, hailing as he does from Zambia, a front-line State which has made numerous sacrifices in its firm support for the liberation struggle in southern Africa. (Mr. Gurirab, SWAPO) we could never have had a better choice at this crucial jun~~ure of the ~,iberation struggle of the peoples of South Africa and Namibia. We would like to assure him of OWAPO's full support and co~peration in his work at the helm of the Council, which SWAPO has always regarded as a paft.ner in the common struggle to bring about the liberation of Namibia. The United Nations Council for Namibia has submitted its annual report to the General Assembly, containing the draft recommendations and programme of work of the Council for 1987. It is SWAPO's con9idered view that t~e report and the recommendations before the Assembly are a result of meticulous work and close consultations. It is, therefore, a minimum which should enjoy the overwhelming support of the representatives gathered here. We accordingly appeal for suppor~ for those recommendations and the Council's programme of work which are aimed at bringing nearer the long delayed independence of Namibia. We know that there will be those represented here who will stop at nothing in their support for the racist Pretoria regime. They will decry what they call name-calling. They will complain about r .. strong a lc::aguage and so on. On this, we would like to say that we have been too patient for too long. The proof of that is more than a century of brutal repression and the repeated betrayal of a sacred trust as well as the unjustifiable inaction by the international community and the duplicity of Pretoria's friends who continue to cast vetoes in the Security Council. We do not mention names for the sake of doing so, but simply to point out facts, lest we ourselves are labelled accomplices in our own repression. Those who are tired of the mentioning of names and of strong language should remove such concerns by ensuring the immediate withdrawal of Pretoria's illegal administration and its more than 100,000 troops from Namibia. To do otherwise or not to do anything at all is scandalous. This is the time for action. What we demand is the immediate independence of Namibia, now. (Mr. Gurirab, SWAPO) Needless to say, at this juncture, that the front-line States would require a comprehensive programme of assistance from the world comnunity to enable them to strengthen their defence capabilities and to help them also to be able to withstand tne effects of the comprehensive mandatory sanctions to be imposed against the racist P~etoria regime. It gives me great pleasure personally and especially on behalf of SWAPO Central Committee to congratulate the united Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, upon his well-deserved reappointment and also to reiterate to him our sincere appreciation for his tireless efforts to hasten Namibia's independe~ce through the speedy and unconditional implementation of security Counoil r.esolution 435 (1978). Before I ~7-'~~iclude, I should like to express SWAPO's firm solidarity with and support for, the fraternal and courageous people of South Africa, led by their ~anguard movement, the African National Congress of South Africa, and to reassure them that we s,~and shoulder to shoulder with them as they continue further to destabilize the apartheid regime by making the apartheid system unworkable and the country ungovernable. In the same vein, we express our solidarity with and support for the people of Palestine, led by their sole and legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization. SWAPO supports all the genuine efforts aimed at finding a comprehensive, lasting and just peace settlement in the Middle East. This means to us that the people of Palestine will have the unfettered opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination leading to the establishment of an independent State in occupied Palestine. Similarly, we express our full support for the people of western Sahara and the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic. In this connection, we support the efforts of the Secretary-General to try to bring (Mr. Gurirab, SWAPO) together the parties to the conflict so as to work out the practical modalities for the settlement of that conflict. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the POLISARIO Pronto Similarly, we strongly support the demands for the right to self-determination and the achievement of national independence of the struggling peoples of Puerto Rico, East Timor and New Caledonia as well as all PeOples fighting in the world against imperialism, domination, neo-colonialism, racism, oppression and exploitation. The struggle continues. Victory is certain. Mr. VALENCIA JARAMILLO (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish) : To engage in a new general debate on Namibia might at first sight appear to be a sterile exercise; but a close look at its true meaning leads us inevitably to conclusions that must be boldly faced. It is not a matter of presenting once again to the General Assembly a litany of grievances, of which all its members are well aware; nor is it a matter of repeating a canticle of phrases filled with commonplaces. The purpose of these meetings is to breathe life into international solidarity with the cause of thP. Namibian people and to translate that solidarity into action. Namibia is a problem with a solution. Namibia is the direct responsibility of the United Nations and, consequently, of each one of its Members. The Organization as a whole has been seeking an appropriate way of settling the problem and has found one. There is a plan accepted by all, but as yet unimplemented because of obstacles that are sufficiently well known. (Mr. Valencia Jaramillo, Colombia) Developments in southern Afric& are proceeding at a quickened pace. The political tension thei:e is so great now that it seems almost unbearable. The front-line States are sUffering constant attacks and violations with courage and dignity. The stability of the entire region is in danger and there is a consequent threat to international peace and security. We are all only too well aware of that background, and from it we draw the logical conclusions: the immediate independence of Namibia is imperative and the inhuman, despicable apartheid regime must disappear from the face of the earth. To fulfil those objectives is both a joint and an individual obligation. Compliance with the mandate flowing from that responsibility is the task in which all of us are engaged. In the General Assembly we must renew the commitment to spare no effort to speed up the emancipation of the oppressed people of Namibia, which has been inexcusably delayed. Colonbia, a menber of the United Nations Council for Namibia since its establishment, expresses again its commitment to lending all possible assistance to ensure that Namibia promptly accedes to independence in national unity and with its territorial integrity intact - that is, including Walvis Bay and all the offshore islands that form part of its territory. Similarly, we express our full support for the activities of the Secretary-General, whose efforts and dedication to the Namibian cause leave no room for doubt. My country once again expresses its concern with the defence of the Territory's natural resources, which are the heritage of its people and an indisputable base for the stable development of its economy after independence. In that respect, we state again our satiRfaction at the decision adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia, in exercise of the rights conferred upon it by the (Mr. Valencia Jaramillo, Colombia) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to proclaim, at the appropriate time, an exclusive economic zone for the Territory with an external limit of 200 miles from the coastline. The protection and safeguarding of Namibia's immense marine resources will be vital to its future. Colonbia condemns the inhuman, despicable of apartheid and rejects SOuth Africa's unilateral attempts to settle the Namibian question, as well as all measures that could affect the survival of Namibia's people in an independent Namibia. We also condemn the repression of the pe(Jple of Namibia and join in the worldwide demand that an immediate end be put to the illegal occupation of the Territory and that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) be applied without delay or pre-conditions. At the same time, my country voices its respect and admiration for the courageous and selfless struggle of the front-line States and condemns the attacks of which they are the victims. The attention of the whole world, represented in ~le General Assembly, is focused once again on Namibia. This year various international forums have dedicated their work exclusively to that cause. I refer here to the Valleta Seminar, the International Conference at Vienna and the fourteenth special session of the General Assembly. Other forums - for instance, the Organization of African Unity and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries - have made that cause the pr incipal item on their agendas. Various public and private quarters in a large number of countries continue to take different kinds of measures to promote energetic action which, although primarily directed to the elimination of the indescribable apartheid system, could at the same time be channelled to the immediate achievement of Namibia's independence. That mighty international movement must be converted into an (Mr. Val~ncia Jaramillo, Colombia) overwhelming force that will lead without delay to Namibia's in~ependence and to peace in southern Africa. It is equally necessary to abandon all attempts to place the question of Namibia in the context ot the East-West conflict. The problem of Namibia i~ a problem of decolonization and, as such, it must be solved in the framework of the United Nations. Hence, it is urgent, indeed imperative, that all the relevant bodies of the world Organization engage in a detailed assessment of the situation and exhaust all the peaceful means available to them to oblige the Pretoria regime immediately and unconditionally to comply with the will of the international community as expressed in security Council resolution 435 (1918). The United Nations cannot allow South Africa to abuse its patience. The General Assembly must rise to its responsibilities. And the international cOlllRl1nity, committed to the cause of justice and human dignity, has the unavoidable duty of promptly making Namibia's independence a fact. Mr. MORAGA (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation is speaking on this solemn occasion in the General Assembly of this Organization because, basically, it wishes to reaffirm by its presence and its voice Chile's consistent position in favour of the cause of the Namibian people. A short time ago at the International Conference for the Immediate ILldependence of Namibia, held in Vienna, and an even shorter time ago at the fourteenth special session of the General Assembly, devoted to the question of Namibia, our representatives expressed disillusionment - shared by many nations - at Naibia's present situation, and especially its illegal occupation. (Mr. Moraga p Chile) We want a free and independent Namibia, a Namibia able to decide its own future, where the goal for which the United Nations Council for Namibia was created, and which was so long deferred, will at last be achieved. We want a Namibia whose inhabitants have full freedom to choose, who under the guidance of the ~nited Nations, shall govern them and what their form of government is to be. There is a legal anomaly in the present situation of the Territory. The International Court of Justice has already given a stern ruling on the matter, and the whole international community has already made a virtual routine of its complaints about this iniquitous situation, entrenched and aggravated by the passage of time. The self-determination of peoples, the principle ~t stake in this question, obviously has a political element that must adapt and accommodate the content and timing of its applicatiotl. But it also has an anthr.opological element, which is not to be used exclusively to support the argument of any particular sector, but should weighed scientifically, disregarding circumstances that may distort it. I am certainly putting forward no new idea when I say that Namibia is also a victim of the political game of the double standard, as we have said before. ! repeat it now, because we are concerned about developments in the region and about the current situation's unpredictable implications for peace. Chile recognizes the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). Chile also supports the various resolutions the Assembly and the Security Council have adopted on this important issue. Chile caldemns the illegal occupation of the international Ter.ritory of Namibia, and advocates respect for the territorial integrity and national unity of the Terr i tory • (Mr•.Moraga, Chile) The Republic of Chile has repeatedly recognized that Namibia's natural resources are the national heritage of its people. My country also condemns the application of the apartheid policy in the Namibia, as well as the measures aimed at bantustanization. The Security Council plan seems to us to deserve the broadest support. We regard it as the only feasible way of seeking a peaceful solution to the problem of Namibia and, generally, of undertaking any effort or initiative designed to bring about a peaceful, negotiated solution to the problem. Hypocrisy should never be confused with any of the virtues that make up honesty. That applies both to the actions of individuals and to the decisions of States. We have become used to a kind of political surrealism in which truths are lies and lies are accepted as true, by force of repetition. Thus in this Organization there are countries that attack weaker countries, undertake a militarily invasion and subjugate them ideologically, but the outside world is told that the victim issued a cordial invitation, seeking the protection of its attackers. In the past that methOd has been used to justify unjust wars, imposed settlements and a whole series of arbitrary actions that clearly demonstrate that the international community is still very immature and that political will is far greater when it comes to the self-interest of each State than when it is a question of those values that are repeatedly affirmed officially with tedious insistence. In the question before us we are attempting to carry out a task of decolonization, while the world can observe the consolidation of veritable ideological colonies where the political will of the metropolitan Power dismisses out of hand the feelings of whole nations which are still suffering arbitrary partition, the relocation of populations 9 the destruction of languages and cultures (Mr. Mol'aga, Chile) or the persecution of racial or religious groups which are prevented from leaving or from moving freely within Certain territories. There are a numer of wolves in sheep's clothing that bitterly deplore and condemn the present situation in Namibia. They are trying to show methodically and with an impression of complying with the rules, that their world view is such that they see others applying policies that prevent Namibia's achievement of independence or support its present illegal occupiers. Those same wolves, who are known to all, are plundering the natural resources belonging to the Namibian people, and preventing and delaying with countless manoevres the implementation of what is decreed by the rules of i~ternational law that should regulate and protect both the resources and the entitlement to them. An international society that claims to act on the basis of principles in which it dOes not believe and subordinates them to political considerations and economic interests distorts the purposes of the Organization and makes its work more sterile than productive. Thus only the fact that it serves as a centre for world dialogue saves the Organization from being discredited. There can be no rest with regard to the question before us, and Chile will continue to follow its unchanging policy. The Namibian cause involves such obvious questions of justice that we cannot hesitate for a moment in persisting, and moreover, this is a cause involving a clear principle of fellow-feeling and Chile cannot stand aside. We firmly believe that Namibia's hour is drawing ever nearer, and on behalf of Chile I express our resolute intention to struggle on its behalf. Mr. "MUDENGE (Zimbabwe): OUr debate on this long-standing question concerning the dignity and freedom of an entire people takes place against the backdrop of the twentieth anniversary, last month, of the Assembly's termination of SOuth Africa's mandate over Namibia and its assumption of direct responsibility for bringing that Territory and its people to genuine and unfettered independence. The series of events and political machinations that have culminated in the tragedy that is Namibia today are a IIlatter of public record, and constitute grouna that has been well-covered in the past - most recently during the fourteenth special session, on the question of Namibia, held in this Hall in Septelllber. It is not my intention, therefore, to retrace those events in any great detail at this point. SUffice it to say, that 20 years on, and notwithstanding all our efforts here as well as in several other international forums Namibia remains an occupied land, its people oppressed and terrorized by a brutal, racist regime which stubbornly, and in gross violation of countless General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, refuses to withdraw its illegal administration or its armed forces therefrom. On the contrary, over the years, the apartheid regime has intensified its grip upon Namibia and its people, plundering and robbing the riches of the land and brutalizing its inhabitants, wilfully and deliberately denying them their right to freedom and sovereign independence. The adoption by the Security Council, in 1978, of resolution 435, the independence plan for Namibia and, more important, the acceptance of that plan by both SCuth West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the Pretoria regime, gave us hope that a solution was finally at hand and that Namibia would soon join the international community as a free and independent nation. But it was not to be; and indeed, it is still not so. Notwithstanding the fact that the United Nations plan for Namibia still exists and still enjoys the full support of the overwhelming majority of the international community, which recognizes it as the only viable method of bringing Namibia to genuine independece; and notwithstanding the fact that our secretary-General confirmed that, "all outstanding issues relevant to the United Nations plan had already been resolved" , (A/S-14/PV.1, p. 12) and proposed to the South Africans that, "we now proceed to establish the earliest possible date for the implementation of the resolution", the plan embodied in that resolution remains unimplemented. Time and again we have analyzed this situation and have agreed that the prime reason for our lack of progress on this and on the other crucial issues affecting southern Africa is the continuing existence of the abhorrent apartheid system and the desperate and dangerous lengths ~~ which the Pretoria regime is prepared to go in order to defend and sustain that system. Indeed, we have agreed that apartheid is the common denominator, the root cause of all the major problems facing our troubled southern African regionJ this is, of course, quite correct. None of us will be safe in that region until or unless the evil of apartheid is exorcised from our midst. But apartheid does not exist in a void. It survives only because it is allowed to do so. With so many forces ranged against it, moral, political, economic and even military, both from within and without its borders, it is doubtful whether the apartheid regim€ could have survived this long without powerful external assistance and succour. That sustenance is provided in the form of what we know today as constructive engagement - Washington's policy - or do they now call it a tactic of quiet diplomacy with Pretoria? As a policy, or whatever they choose to call it from time to time, it was based on the misguided and erroneous assumption that notwithstanding the years of contemptuous defiance of international opinion engendered by its domestic and regional policies, the South African regime would actually be more amenable and would respond more positively to a softer approach. Constructive engagement advocated persuasion through dialogue rather than obligation through isolation and political and economic pressure. Five years later that ill-eonceived policy lies in ruinsJ it is a complete shambles, and none of its objectives have been achievedJ apartheid thrives, and its practitioners are arrogant thanks to the support they receive from Washington; tension in southern Africa, which constructive ungagement was supposed to reduce, has never been so. high, and the past five years have seen more direct and indirect aggression by South Africa against its neighbours than at any time before the emergence of this so-called quiet diplomacy. Of most relevance to us here today, Namibia is probably further from independence now than at any time prior to ~e emergence of constructive engagement and more particularly, prior to the emergence of the discredited and totally misguided concept of linkage, itself an illegitimate child of constructive engagement. Of course, the open and active support of the current United states Administration for the UNITA bandits operating against the legitimate Governmefit of Angola, all under the umrella of this quiet diplomacy, has merely exacerbated an already tense regional situation and has caused the prospect of Namibian independence to recede even farther into the far distance. The South Africans say they will not leave Namibia until the Cuban forces leave Angola. But the South Africans and the Amer ican are supplying the UNITA criminal bandits with funds and advanced weaponry with which to oppose and eventually overthrow the legitimate Angolan Government. This threat ensures that those Cuban internationalist forces must and will remain in Angola. It is a Catch-22 situation, but one engendered by apartheid and constructive engagement working in tandem; working to further destabilize an already unstable region; working to subvert the already-agreed-upon united Nations plan for Namibia, and working to subordinate the real issues at stake here, namely, the freedom and independence of the Namibian people, to the extraneous and totally irrelevant question of East-West rivalry. For years now, as we have sought through the Security Council to take action against Pretoria because of its refusal to comply with the United Nations demand (Mr. Mudenge, Zimbabwe) that it should withdraw from Namibia and allow the Namibians their freedom and independence, we have again come up against constructive engagement, this time in the form of a continual United States and United Kingdom veto of any resolution seeking to impose comprehensive and mandatory 'economic sanctions against the racist regime - pressure which could and indeed would hasten the demise of apartheid and bring about the dawning of a new era of peace and freedom in Namibia. Given the circumstances and given the frustration we all feel, it is not surprising that, while the Beads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries at their eighth summit in Barare earlier this year "strongly condemed the racist South African regime for its continued illegal, colonial and brutal occupation of Namibia" (A/41/697, annex, p. 52, para. 88) while they emphasized "the legitimacy of the Namibian people's stru9g1e for self-determination by all available means, including armed struggle", (para. 89) and while they reaffirmed "their abiding support" for SWAPO as the "sole, authentic and legitimate representative" (Ibid) of the people of Namibia, they criticized the United Kingdom and the United States for abusing their veto power in the Security Council, accused the United States Government of "gross interference in the internal affairs of Angola" and declared that the United States had become "an obstacle to be removed rather than a mediator and an honest broker in the negotiating process leading to the speedy implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435 (1978)". But: to quote the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe when he addressed the fourteenth special session of the General Assembly on the Question of Namibia "NOtwithstanding those sentiments so deeply and passionately expressed by , ; . '.~ the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries, it is clear to .~ . . all concerned that the prime obstacle to the resolution of the entire Namibian issue remains the Pretoria ~egime itself and indeed the continuing existence of the apartheid doctrine in south Africa." (A!S-14!PV.2, p. 12) Given the intransigence of the apartheid regime and the insensitivity of those who support it and those who will not allow any meaningful action to be taken against it in the Security Council, what carl we do to combat apartheid and to help the people of Namibia to achieve their long-overdue freedom? The Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries studied this question at their eighth summit and, basically, approached the issue on two different, but interrelated levels. With regard to the internal dimension, the Beads of State or Government appealed to "the international community to render" increased "all-round ••• political and diplomatic", military, financial and material support to the legitimate and heroic armed ·struggle being waged by SWAPO", (A!411697, annex, p. 155, para. (vi» They also called for contributions to the Solidarity Fund for Namibia "in order to enhance SWAPO's capacity to wage the national liberation struggle". As for the external dimension, the Heads of State or Government determined that international awareness of the plight of the Namibian people mst be heightened, and therefore resolved that: First, the international media should be urged to expose their plight as often and as widely as possible, and; Secondly, that all meITber States of the Non-Aligned Movemell~, and all other countries, should: IItake up the issue of Namibia in all international forums as well as in their bilateral relations with the united States Administration, in order to impress upon it the need to abandon its 'linkage' policy' and to co-operate fully forthwith with the united Nations secretary-General in the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435 of 1978,· (A/4!/697, p. 155, para. (H)) We are now taking up this issue with the United States here, in the highest international forum of them all. The Heads of State or Government also dwelt for some time on the question of economic sanctions against the racist regime. Addressing themselves to the reality of the American and British veto of mandatory sanction measures in the Security Council, the Heads of State or Government: "appe<,.!led to [both these countries], which have thus far prevented the Council from acting effectively, tp reconsider the ir pos!tions in the light of the grave situation in southern Africa and the accumulated evidence of the past 20 years, which irrefutably points to comprehensive and mandatory sanctions as the most effective peaceful means of forcing South Africa to terminate its illegal occupation in Namibia.· (A/4l/697, p. 57, para. 103) Since the Harare summit Conference, there have been some encouraging signs that progress in this field is slowly beginning to be made; the States menbers of the European Community have agreed to impose a small package of minimal sanctions; the Commonwealth is moving inexorably towards the imposition of its own version of sanctions, and the United states Congress, overturning a Presidential "constructive engagement" veto, has succeeded in imposing j"ts own package of sanctions against apartheid. We welcome these diverse initiatives, the more so when they represent the popular will in the countries concerned. What is needed now is a united, concerted and co-ordinated action plan within the United Nations framework. South Africa must be confronted by the solid phalanx of a resolute international comnunity. Only thus will it realize that a new spirit, a new commitment, indeed, a new political will, exists in the world to fight apartheid. Or, as the Americans would put it, in their colourful colloquial speech, SOuth Africa will thodn realize that this is "a new ball game". Nothing else will do. We need effective mandatory sanctions. And to be effective these sanctions must L.ot only be comprehensive and mandatory but also global and universal in nature. In the apartheid debate we were told time and again that the time was not yet ripe for the imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa because mandatory sanctions would lead to confrontation and the aggravation of the situation. These arguments would be laughable if their consequences were not so tragic. With over 100,000 people dead, 1 million made homeless, millions starving or naked~ and over £100 billion lost to the independent countries surrounding SOUth Africa since 1980, how can we talk of the situation as not being ripe? How many more Presidents, like President Machel, must be killed before the situation becomes (Mr. Mudenge, Zimbabwe) ripe for the imposition of mandatory sanctions? Are there no better excuses to hide the selfish interests behind this argument? When will the situation be ripe? When a million people are dead? When, indeed, if ever? South Africa is desperate. It can strike again, and soon, perhaps against Mozambique, perhaps the seychelles, perhaps any of the nearby islands, because it desperately needs their ports for its sanction-busting activities. It will certainly strike again against Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana, because it wants to keep them as weak, destabilized hostages. When will the time be ripe to impose mandatory sanctions? Will it be when all these independent States are in the clutches of Pretoria? When, we ask, will the consciences dulled by self interest be roused by this outrage? In the debate on apartheid earlier this week, I had occasion to appeal to France not to send mixed or confusing signals to Pretoria. I referred to the bandit savimbi's visit to Paris. I must record my delegation's dismay at the visit of P. W. Botha to France this week. Such a visit confers respectability on the apartheid leader. To his followers the visit shows that France accepts the high priest of apartheid and by, extension, apartheid itself. We appeal to the French Government and its proud people not to besmirch their nation's noble heritage through such association. Let our actions match our words. Finally, I want to turn to another, very serious matter - which is also a red herring - concerning an aspect of the resolutions before us, namely, the so-called name-calling in some of the paragraphs. The dictionary is very clear on what -name-callingmeans. Name-calling is, according to my small dictionary: -The use of offensive names, especially to win an argument or induce rejection or condemnation without objective consideration of the facts.- (Mr. Mudenge, Zimbabwe) I have gone over these resolutions very carefully indeed to find evidence of name-calling, as defined above, of any country in this chamber. My exhaustive search has not yielde~ a single instance where this is the case. What I have encountered is the reference to certain countries, including my own, by name for the purpose of identification. I submit that that should not be confused with "name-calling". When paragraph 28 of dr.aft resolution A "appeals to the United States Administration to desist from this policy" of "constructive engagement", this is not name calling but mentioning a name for the purpose of identification. Elsewhere the resolutions "call upon" or Rrequest" this or that country. I have commented on this aspect of the draft resolutions because a degree of confusion seems to have been deliberately fostered in our discussion of this subject. Calling upon, reauesting or appealing to Allah or Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever name one uses, is found in many religions. If man can appeal to God by name, is it improper to appeal to or call upon the United States and Britain by name to stop shielding South Africa with their vetoes? We are not insulting any country when we identify it by its chosen name or when we associate it with its own chosen policies. No. I therefore hope that this time all Member countries will be pround to be referred to by their names and to be associated with their ~hosen ¥ policies. I can promise Members that I shall not be moving that Zimbabwe be removed from any of the references in the resolutions. I should now like to conclude my contribution to this debate by QUoting the last paragraph of the special appeal of the Eighth Summit Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement for the "Immediate Independence of Namibia": (Mr. !olldenge, Zimbabwe) -The time for Namibian independence is long past. To delay it any longer is illlllOral. We therefore appeal to all men and women of goodwill firmly to oppose any delay, for any reason and under any circumstances, of Namibian independence.- (A/41/697, annex, P. 156) 1 hope that those amongst us who until now have been responsible for delaying the freeing of an entire people will heed that appeal and act acoordingly. Finally, 1 have the pleasure of congratulating the Council for Namibia for producing a comprehensive and lucid report and a most exhaustive set of . resolutions, contained in document A/4l/24 (Parts I and Il). Equally, I wish to thank the Secretary-General for his perseverance and dedication in the search for a solution to the Namibian problem. We admire his commitment and urge him to continue to exert all his efforts in this noble cause. Mr. ~YAMA (Congo) (interpretation from French): As a result of south Africa's persistent refusal to abide by the relevant United Nations decisions and recommendations, the General Assembly once again finds itself obliged to retain on its agenda the question of Namibia. Africa could well have been spared this situation, in which it 'oees the efforts it is devoting to its development and to finding a solution to its sceio-economic problems thwarted by a completely anachronistic issue. The international community, in particular the United Nations, would also have stood to gain by not having to face a crisis which is bringing southern Africa daily closer to the fatal stage of destabilization. What is this situation we are facing? Above all we see a South African Government locked into its antiquated certainties and determined to represent and champion the supreme values and interests of the Western Christian world. The result of this -mission-, which racist SOuth Africa has made its religion, is that (Mr. Gayama, Congo) Namibia is having to suffer a regime dedicated to Pretoria, in the form of the internal administration established in Windhoek with the kind assistance of South Africa. That country, for some strange reason, links the domestic situation of neighbouring countries with its own hallucinations, in particular the division of the world between "good" people, on the one hand - to which South Africa of course belongs - who have the right to deal with Africa and the AfricansJ and "bad" people, on the other hand - a category in which Pretoria puts the opponents of its regime. Thus Pretoria regards the destabilization of neighbouring countries as its first duty, in order to preserve the system of apartheid and to maintain its influence in Namibia. Recently Mozambique experienced the effects of that policy of diversion when the Pretoria regime, in violation of the bilateral agreements of Nkornati, began to spread terror in that country through RENAMO mercenaries, causing the death of Samora Machel, to whose memory we wish once again to pay a tribute. In Angola the colonialist and South African racist regime has for long treated UNITA as a faithful ally, and used it as a favourite pretext for making a bargaining chip of Namibia's independence in exchange for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. But there is in fact a far more fundamental question which is being obscured by the concerns of the racist colonialist regime about ita survival: the question of the regime's very existence and the relation of its policies with peace in southern Africa. If South Africa really wanted to become part of its environment, we all know that there is only one solution: the dismantling of apartheid and Namibia's accession to independence, which are the conditions for any kind of peace and security in southern Africa. South Africa is clearly trying to gain time and to benefit from the confusion . it is encouraging in the interests of the minority it represents, when it makes great efforts to look outside its own frontiers for the causes of the constant tension found today in the subregion. Having established that fact, we can go on to consider the second part of the Namibian problem, which really concerns only the conditions for the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) on the United Nations settlement plan. Here, too, we are faced with a situation in which the South African argument that there is a "linkage" between the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the consideration of elements extraneous to the problem has won support from certain western Governments - and by no means the least important of them. For nearly six years now the western contact group, initiator of the negotiations which led to the adoption by the Security Council of its resolution 435 (1978), has more or less bowed before the dubious policy of "constructive engagement", whose linchpin remains collaboration at any price with South Africa. To date this policy, which is deliberately designed to confuse causes and effects of the situation and seeks to place the executioner and his victims on an equal footing, has resulted only in the strengthening of South Africa's false assumptions with all the resulting tragedies - and a type of systematic disparagement of the positions and actions of the liberation movements, such as SWAPO, which are the authentic representatives of their people. At a time when throughout the whole world there is a virtually unanimous call for immediate and unconditional independence for Namibia, we urge those among the Powers concerned by the continuation of the status quo to speak out and take a definite stand on the implementation of the united Nations settlement plan. The (Hr. Gala_, Congo) iIIplementation of resolution 435 (1978), as we all know, depends only on the choice of an appropriate electoral system to guarantee the smoth running of the process of self-determination for the Namibian PeOple. we have no right to disappoint the expectations of the Naaibian people, since to do so could only mean unspeakable sUfferings for that PeOple. Por, as was reaffirmed at the present session of the General Assembly by His Excellency Mr. Denis Sassou-Nguesso, President of the People's RePUblic of the Congo and Acting President of the Organization of African Unity (OAU): -The problem is essentially one of decolonization and nothing else ••• [and] there can be no room for. any sort of diversionary tactics.- (A/41/PV.17, P. 21) In its stubbornness and arrogance it is clear that SOuth Africa is benefiting from powerful complicity within certain countries. Sufficient proof is provided by the visits organized in western Europe for Jonas Savimbi, Pretoria's ally, and Mr. Botha, the South African Prime Minister. In this regard, President sassou-Nguesso and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of the Congo, Mr. Antoine Ndinga-oba, have both expressed Africa's indignation and concern about those Visits. (Mr. Gayana, Congo) President Sassou-Ngusso in fact stated during the opening of the session"of the National Assembly of the Peoplt),~'s Republic of Congo, which took place a few days ago at Brazzaville, that the visit which Mr. Batha was to make to Europe on the occasion of the commemoration of 11 November was untimely and that it represented, if nothing else, an unfriendly act directed towards Africa. Indeed, as a symbol of freedo~, the date of 11 November d~d not deserve to be placed under such dishonourable auspices, which has reduced its dgnifi~ance. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Congo made a similar statement in paris last week. These facts clearly prove the extent to which the South African position still benefits from open and a~tive support and that Pretoria intends to make use of it to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia and strengthen its policy of apartheid through all kinds of manoeuvres. Aware of the real dangers of such diversionary tactics, which have for a long time characterized our consideration of the problem of Namibia, the twenty-second Summit Conference of the Beads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity and the Eighth Conference of Beads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries have once again requested the Security Council of the United Nations to meet as soon as possible to adopt comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. That was the stand also taken in September this year by the fourteenth special session of the General Assembly, on the question of Namibia, which, moreover, referred to the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, held in Paris from 16 to 20 June, as well as to the conclusions of the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, held in Vienna in July of this year. This convergence of views of international public opinion is not fortuitious nor is it a malicious plot against SOuth Africa. The Pretoria Government knows the extent to which the United Nations has until now avoided engaging in direct confrontation with it, even though that was likely to result in some loss of credibility for the international organization. For example, it is now 20 years since the General Assembly ended South Africa's Mandate over Namibia and established the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal authority for the Territory. However, SOuth Africa continues openly to defy the relevant decisions of the United Nations and thereby shows that it is even willing to go as far as to endanger peace and international security. Such a danger already exists in southern Africa. The front-line countries often experience it daily. It would be irresponsible on our part just to wait for it to spread internationally. As the body charged with the maintenance of peace and international security, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to devote all due attention to this problem, particulary in the present circumstances. The Security Council must draw the appropriate lesson9 from the disastrous experience of the relations which, for better or worse, the United Nations has atteq>ted to maintain with South Africa to induce ~t to behave in a way consistent with the norms of international law and the conventions on human rights. If there were a choice other than the imposition of sanctions we would definitely have advocated it. Moreover, it is not for lack of advocating the use of all possible diplomatic means that we are in the present situation. The 1970 Lusaka Manifesto was a hand extended from free Africa to SOuth Africa, an invitation to dialogue and to a peaceful settlement of the dispute, one which has pitted the rest of the continent of Africa against the South African regime. south Africa did not even deign to reply. On the contrary, SOuth Africa continues to cling to its illusions of a bygone era. But freedom and international security are of far greater value than the well-being of a racist and colonialist minority. That is why we reaffirm that the independence of Namibia constitutes more than ever a crucial stage towards the rule of fraternity, justice and peace in southern Africa and throughout the world. The meeting rose at 12.45 p.m.