A/41/PV.68 General Assembly

36.  QUESTION OF NAMIBIA' (a) REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL POR NAMIBIA (A/4l/24) (b) REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLmmNTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL OOUNTRIES AND PEOPLES (A/4l/23 (Part V), (Part IX and Corr.l), A/AC.109/870) (c) REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CDNFERENCE FOR THE IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENCE OF NAMIBIA (A/CONF.138/ll and Add.l) (d) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/4l/6l4) (e) REPORT OF THE FOURTH COMMI'l'TEE (A/41/76l) (f) DRAFT RESOLUTIONS (A/4l/24 (Part II and Corr.l), chap. I) The PRESIDENT' I s~ould like to remind representatives that, in accordance with the decision taken at this morning's plenary meeting, the list of speakers in the debate on this item will be closed today at Sp.m. I have the following announcement to make:. As Members will recall, the Assembly is scheduled to hold the election of the members of the International Law Commission on Friday, 14 November, in the morning. In view of the very large number of candidates, the process of counting the ballots is expected to take two to three hours. Under the circumstances, and having regard to the number of speakers wishing to address the Assembly on agenda item 36, I propose that the Assembly resume its consideration of the question of Namibia while the ballots are being counted. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees to that proposal. It was so decided. mankind's march to freedom has been significant. Especially so has been ~ts contribution to the anti-colonial revolution which brought about independence and freedom for many countries and peoples. '!'he question of Namibia, as a question of decolonization an~ foreign occupation, stands out today ~A one of its priority tasks. More than 40 years have elapsed since it was first considered in the United Nations, and twenty years since the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for Namibia and terminated the Mandate of South Africa to administer the Territory. Eight years have passed since the adoption of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. Yet South Africa continues to occupy Namibia, in defiance of the decisions of the United Nations. '!'he people of Namibia still lives in colonial bondage and is bereft of its inalienable rights to self-determination, independence and freedom in a united country. The Pretoria regime is carrying out its policy of apartheid and racial discrimination also in Namibia, denying the black population its basic human rights. It is wreaking terror and carrying out brutal reprisals against the Namibian people. South Africa and other foreign economic interests are plundering the human and natural resources of Namibia. South Africa is stepping up the militarization of Namibia and has introduced compulsory conscription, thus setting Namibians one against another. It is using N~nibian territory as a springboard for its aggression against and subversion of independent African States, Angola in particular. The illegal occupation regime continues its arbitrary imprisonment and detention of leaders, members and supporters of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the killing, torture and murder of innocent Namibians. It is attempting to suppress their liberation struggle by sword and fire, but it is not succeeding, nor for that matter can it ever succeed. Yugoslavia renders full support and assistance to SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of tha people of Namibia. In the past 26 years SWAPO has grown into a powerful liberation movement and political organization, and is committed to the principles and goals of the policy of non-alignment. This has brought it wide international recognition, support and assistance. Under the leadership of its president, Sam Nujoma, SWAPO has displayed a resolve to win independence on the battlefield, as well as a commendable readiness to seek solutions through negotiations on the basis of the United Nations plan for Namibia. The failure to resolve the question of Namibia cannot but lead to a blood-bath, with dangerous consequences for international peace and security. The prolongation of the occupation of Namibia increases the danger of its becoming a pawn in the power game of the big and mighty in their struggle for spheres of influence and domination. The United Nations plan for Namibia is the only internationally accepted basis for a peacefUl solution. With the agreement on an electoral system, the last outstanding issue pertaining to the plan has been resolved, and it is now necessary to proceed to its implementation without any delays, changes or preconditions. There is no longer any justification whatsoever for postponing Namibia's accession to independence, and its linkage to extraneous and irrelevant issues leads in effect to the perpetuation of the illegal rule of South Africa over Namibia. The Security COuncil has the central role in the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia. It must remove all the obstacles, linkage or any others, standing in the way. The conditions have matured for the Security Council's establishment of a time-frame for the implementation of the plan and the determination of the date for the holding of elections in Namibia under the auspices and supervision of the United Nations. A particular responsibility falls to tho~e permanent members of the security Council which have prevented it from taking all the measures at its disposal. The arguments a~ainst the introduction of comprehensive mandatory sanctions un4er Olapter VII of the United Nations Charter have long ceased to convince anybody and they have a hollow ring. Recourse to the right of the veto to prevent the adoption of decisions on the introduction of sanctions is, therefore, tantamount to protection of the aggressor and oppressor and support for the policies of apartheid, colonialism and racial discrimination. The countries that continue to maintain relations and co-operate with the Pretoria regtme should have undersbood by now that that is not the way to compel the racist regime to desist from !E,srtheid and to end its occupation of Namibia. Economic or other interests cannot be more important than the freedom and independence of the peoples in southern Africa. Further exploitation of Namibia's natural resources, including its marine wealth, should be cut short. Further exploitation would be contrary to Decree No. 1 of the united Nations Council f~r Namibia. All countries should prevent their public and private companies from taking part in the exploitation, processing, purchasing or transport of the natural resources of Namibia. Voluntary sanctions against the racist regime, introduced by many countries, are a useful means of putting pressure on that regime. In this context, we welcome the recent decision of the United States Congress. However, all the countries and organizations that have not taken such action so far should extend their sanctions to includG Namibia as well. The international community should refrain from any contacts with, and should never recognize, the puppet administration in Windhoek, installed and controlled by the regime in Pretoria. Of particular importance in the present situation a~e the activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia, headed by Mr. Peter Zuze, representative of . Zambia. '!'he Council's programme of work includes a series of actions for rendering support to the people of Namibia and SWAPO and for contributing to the implementation of the, united Nation~ Plan ~or Namibia. A prominent role in the efforts to implement the united Nations Plan for Namibia is also played by the SecretarY-General of the United Nations, who has shown a great personal commitment to the cause of Namibia. POr its part, Yugoslavia will continue to give full support and assistance to the people of Namibia and its liberation movem~nt, SWAPO. We consider such action to be our obligation within the 07erall effort of the international community towards aChieving the liberation of Namibia and the elimination of colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination. In concluding R¥ statement, I should like to quote from the Special Appeal for the Immediate Independence of Namibia adopted by the Reads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at their recent Summit Conference in Rarare, Zimbabwe. -'!'he time for Namibian independence is long past. To delay it any longer is bmnoral. We therefore appeal to all men and women of goodwill firmly to oppose any delay, for any teason and under any circumstances, of Namibian independence." (A/4l/697, P. 156) Sir John TBOMSON (Un!ted Kingdom). I have the honour to speak on behalf of the 12 member States of the European COmmunity. As members will recall, we set out the position of the Twelve on the question of Namibia in our statement to the fourteenth special session on 18 September. '1'here have, unfortunately, been no major developments since then. In consequence my remarks on this occasion need only be rather brief. It is the view of the Twelve ~hat the illegal occupation of Namibia by South (Sir John Tho_on, United Kingdom) Africa auat be brought to an end without delay. '!'he only acceptable basis for a peaceful and lasting solution to tha problem ilJ the itlplementation, without pre-eonditions or pretext, of security Oouncil resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1918). The settlement plan endorsed by the ,-'&Cond of these resolutions has been accepted both by the Government of South Afric.a and by the South west Africa People's Organization. We firmly believe that the PeOple of Namibia must be peraitted to exercise their right to self-determination through free and fair elections under the supervision and ~trol of the United Nations in accordance with the settlellent plan. It is essential that South Africa should not subordinate the implementation of the settlement plan to the fulfilment of conditions whic~ are extraneous to the independence of the Territory, or ~nconsistent with Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). Unfortunately, the SOuth African Government hQS not yet seen fit to move forward towards the implementation of the settlement plan. It has, on the contrary, chosen to maintain its illegal occupation of Namibia in defiance of international opinion. We urge the South African authorities to reconsider their position and to imple.'Uent the settlement plan without delay. We consider as null and void the establishment by South Africa in 1985 of a so-called interim government in Namibia and categorically reject any unilateral moves by the South African Government to transfer power in Namibia. 'l'bere can be no question of circumventing the United Nations or of somehow excluding it from the settlement process. It is a matter for great concern that over the last 12 months South Africa has continued its armed incursions into Namibia's neighbours, particularly Angola. The.. acts have taken place in defiance of international law and have ~reated a grave dar1ger to peace and security in the region. We once again repeat our strong condemnation of such activities and urge South Africa to desist from them. (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) We forcibly condemn the use of violence by Scuth Africa either against neighbouring States or in the maintenance of its illegal presence in Namibia. . These developments make even more necessary the maintenance of the general and primary duty of the United Nations to promote pea~eful solutions in conformity with the Charter, thus avoiding any encouragement of the use of force. POr many years strenuous efforts have been made by thQ Secretary-General and his Special Representative, the front-line States, the South West Africa People's Organization, the Orgaraization of African Unity and the Contact Group aimed at bringing about a just and peacefUl solution to the Namibian question in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We have consistently supported these efforts. We hope that the Secretary-General will be successful in his endeavours to engage the parties in a renewed dialogue, thus clearing the way for the early implementation of the settlement plan. FOr our part, we will continue to press South Africa to abide ~ the clearly expressed decisions of the international community by withdrawing the conetitutional arrangements put into effect in 1985 and by terminating its illegal occupation of Namibia. Only in this way will Naaibians be allowed to exercise the right to self-determination and independence which is their due. Mr. SARRE (Senegal) (interpretation from French) a Since 1946 the question of Namibia has been on the agenda of every session of the General Assembly and has been considered by it. It was discussed, too, at the fifth and ninth and, mst recently, the fourteenth special sessions and the eighth emergency special session. It has also been the subject of several international meetings and conferences, in particular the International Conference on Namibia and Human Rights, which was held at Dakar, Senegal, in January 1976 and at which my country proposed that every ,ear there should be a week of solidarity with the Namibian people and its national liberation movement, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the World Conference of Solidarity with the Namibian People and the International COnference on Namibia, held at Paris in, respectively, September 1980 and April 1983, the Nordic Conference on Namibia, held in Helsinki ion 198611 and the second Brussels international conference, held this year. In July 1986 the international community met again, in Vienna, to devote its attention to the Ter~itory of Namibia, which racist South Africa continues to occupy illegally. While we can conclude from all those activities in various international forums that the international community has had a constant interest in and concern over the Namibian question, we must recognize that, unfortunately, all these activities also testify to a lack of true political will on the part of titose who bear a special responsibility vis-A-vis Namibia to compel the South African regime to take the course of commn sense and reason. It is, in fact, inadmissible that 20 years after the united Nations decision to terminate South Africa's Mandate over Namibia, eight years after the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of a plan for the settlement of the Namibian question, the Pretoria regime continues stubbornly to swim against the tide of the liberation of peoples and to occupy Namibia illegally. (Mr. Sarr', senegal) In line with its dilatory tactics ~ at which it is a past master - South Africa continues to delay Namibia's accession to independence by persisting, on the . one hand, in attempts to place a problem of decolonization, pure and simple, in the context of an Bast-West conflict - which is completely alien to the ~oblem - and, on the other hand, in attempts to l:lnk Namibia's independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops, whoss assistance the Government of Angola legitimately requested in the framework of a bilateral agreement reached in all sovereignty and in accordance with international law. As everyone knows, both the General Assembly and the Organization of African Unity, as well as the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, have categorically rejected the inclusion of any extraneous element into the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. Indeed, the security Council itself stated unambiguously in its resolution 539 (1983) and, particularly, resolution 566 (1985) that -the independence of Namibia cannot be held hostage to the resolution of issues that are alien to resolution 435 (1978)-. (~urity Oouncil resolution 566 (1985), para. 8) It is hardly necessary to recall that the question of Namibia is, in essence as in substance, strictly a problem of decolonization which must be settled peacefully in the spirit of resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to 0010nia1 Countries and Peoples. But, not satisfied with placing totally irrelevant conditions on the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), and perfectly aware of the futility of its efforts to establish a so-called interim government to administer the Territory, the South African regime is so arrogant as to use Namibia as a base from which to carry out repeated acts of aggression and destabilization against the front-line countries, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity it thereby violates. Similarly, South Africa goes on exerting efforts to perpetuate its racis~ and milita~ domination and to establish the heinous apartheid system on Namibtan territory, through an incredible arsenal of repressive and oppressive laws, thereby creating an explosive situation which undeniably poses a serious threat to international peace and security. Thus, the racist Pretoria r~gime violates and tramples under foot the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Coloniml Countries and Peoples and the most elementary principles of international morality and peaceful coexistence by peoples and natlons. The General Assembly, by terminating South Africa's Mandate over Namibia in 1966, decided to place the management and aaministration of the Territory of Namibia under its direct responsibility until Namibia had acceded to independence, it thereby conferred a special international character on this problem. Since that date, which marked a historic turning point in the process of the decolonization of Namibia, the Namibian people have been waiting to enter the family of free and • independent nations, in ~e~ping with its legitimate aspiration. The United Nations COuncil for Namibia, the legal Administering Authority of the international Territory of Namibia - and my country regards it as an honour and a privilege to be a member of the COuncil - has taken every opportunity, at international conferences, colloquiums, symposiums, round-table discussions and weeks and days of solidarity and joint reflection on the Namibian problem, to emphasize and draw attention to the urgent need for the implementation without delay of the negotiated settlement plan contained in security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). The Secretary-General himself, to whom we pay a tribute, was given a specific undate by the SQOurity CO\llncil in regard to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), but in his contacts he too has come up against the intransigence of . South Africa, which is therefore responsible for the failure of the negotiations and consultations on the implementation of that resolution. Indeed, despite the repeated appeals by tt.e international community, despite the sustained efforts by the Secret&ry-General and the concrete demonstration of ol~n-mindedllesa and an obvious willingness to negotiate given by the leaders of SIWAPO, and despite the repeated warnings by the Security COuncil, South Africa continues obstinately to refuse to co-operate towards the implementation of the settlement plan negotiated by the Security COuncil and continues ill~gally to occupy Namibian territory, thereby d~fying the international Organization which, I must recall again, terminated South Africa's Mandate over Namibia 20 years ago. In Senegal's view, we should again strongly and unequivocally condemn South Africa for its continued U.j.egal occupation of Namibia and for ita stubborn attempt to perpetuate its racist and military domination of that Territory by the installation ther~ of the heinous, inhuman apartheid system, a crime against hwaanity, and the conscription of young Namibians into the South African oppression and repreBBion forces. My country will spare no effort in associating itself with any action capable of speeding up the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) without conditions or changes, so that the sorely tried Namibian people may finally exercise ita inalienable right to self-determination and independence. The implementation of resolution 435 (1978) requires more determination on the part of the internat:onal community, and in particular the permanent members of the Security Council, which the united Nations Charter has entrusted with major responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security and which must increase their pressure on the racist Pr8toria regime in order to force it to grant Namibia independence ~diately and without any pce-eonditions, in the framework of resolution 435 (1978), wt ~b Seneg~\ continues to view as the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem. Faced with a blin4 regime that constantly trampl£s under foot the elementary rules of inteznational law, systematically violates the fundamental principles of human freedom and dignity, shows conte~t for resQlutions ~f the Security Courrnil, whose authority it rejects, and turns ca deaf ear to condemnations by the conscience of mankind, the international community must take this opportunity to adopt concrete measures that could induce Pretoria to put an end to its illegal occupation of Namibia. The application of camprehensive, 1iIAIldatory, agreed economic sanctions under the United Nations Charter, and particularly Chapter VII, is, in my delegation's view, the only valid peacefUl response to the Namibian tragedy. The international community strongly reaffirmed those positions at the international COnference held in Vienna in July and at the special session of the General Assembly on the question of Namibia held in New York in September. Sanctions against South Africa sho",ld be ac:eompanied by a strengthening of international assistance to the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the front-line States. ~e international community should rigorously apply specific measures of that kind to end the untold suffering Qf the Namibian people and the plunder of its resources. It is not proper that - after the United Nations ended South Africa'a Mandate and put the Territory under its own direct responsibility and after the Security Council, the main body charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, unanimously adopted a plan to settle the Namibian question - our universal Organization, and in particular three of its Members to which the Charter gives particular responsibilities, should remain inactive while South Africa continues committing its crimes against Namibia. More than a hundred years of colonization, oppression and arbitrary and bloody repression have not in any way weakened the unshakeable will and courage of the brother people of Namibia and their determination to free themselves of the oppressive colonial yoke of South Africa. Countries and people that still believe in freedom, dignity, human values and human rights have a right and a duty to help the wounded people of Namibia to recover their independence and dignity. I am happy to reaffirm Senegal's support for, and active Bolidarity with, the leaders of SWAPO, the sole and authentic representatives of the Namibian people, in their heroic and legitimate struggle, in which they have shown a spirit of initiative, realism and a sense of responsibility deserving our admiration. In conclusion, on behalf of Mr. Abdou Dlouf, President of the Republic of Senegal, I wish to pay a tribute to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, the secretary- General, for his constant readiness to help and his sustained work for the people of Namibia. I also wish to express to all the members of the United Nations Council for Namibia our appreciation of their devotion to the Namibian cause. May we by our concerted and resolute efforts at long last enable the martyred people of Namibia to see very soon the dawn of freedom and independence" Mr .. FISCBER (Austria) I 'lbe recent special session of the General Assembly and the International COnference for the Immediate I~depend'ance of Namibia, held in July in Vienna, sent a clear message - that the international community regards the question of Namibia as a matter of the highest priority. Independence for Namibia will undoubtedly continue to be a common goal of paramount importance as long as Namibia has not joined the ranks of sovereign and independent nations. Hardly any issue on the agenda of the internationml community commands such a high degree of support as the question of independence for Namibia. In fact, the question should have been solved in a constructive way and deleted from our agenda many years ago. Indeed, the history of the united Nations and the history of Namibia's struggle for independence are inextricably linked. Since 1945 every session of the General Assembly has dealt with the question of Namibia and the sacred trust that the United Nations inherited from the League of Nations. It was through the United Nations that Namibia's right to freedom and independence was firmly established and its legal and political base strengthened. In October 1966 the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable right of the people of South west Africa to self-determination, freedom and independence, terminated South Africa's Mandate, and placed the Territory under the direct responsibility of the united Nations. Finally, in 1918, the Security COuncil, by adopting resolution 435 (1918), spelt out a plan for Namibia's peacefUl transition to independence and majority rule by fair and free ~lectlons under the auoplces of . the United Nations.. To this day that resolution remains the only reasonable and sat~isfactory basis for a just settlement of the question of Namibia. It is a tragedy for the Namibian people, but ic is also one of the major shortcomings of contemporary world politics that eight years later, despite strenuous efforts by the Sec~etary-General, his special Representative, the Security Council, the United Nations COuncil for Namibia and the con~act group, as well as the other initiatives support~ad by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Non-Aligned Movement, Namibia's sovereignty and independence still remain to be achieved. The reason for this intolerable delay is well known, it is South Africa's refusal to comply with the letter and spirit of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Even though all the questions concerning the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia have been resolved, the South African Government is trying to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia. As a consequenoe, this policy of postponement has had to involve putting forward irrelevant and extraneous issues. Austria perceives the linkage to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Angola as a convenience for South Africa, a pretext to obstruct the carrying out of the United Nations plan for Namibia. We feel deep understanding of the justified impatience and indignation of the people of Namibia. In the course of the past hundred years under colonial rule the people of Namibia have had to suffer terribly. Today manifold hardship overshadows the life of the Namibian people, foreign exploitation of the natural resources, unemployment, inadequate education and health services, the militarization of the Territory, human rights violations and repression. The economic and social consequences of South Africa's continued occupation are devastating. This situation will change decisively only when the Namibian people can freely exercise their inalienable right to self-determination. In the meantime the Namibian people must be in a position to count on the solidarity and assistance of the international community. N¥ country's strong commitment to the cause of the Namibian people was recently reaffirmed bY the holding in Austria's capital of the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia. Furthermore, this commitment finds its expression in our contributions to the funds and programmes of the United Nations for Namibia. Austria is well aware of the common responsibility of the international community to advance the settlement of the Namibian question. Over the years the international community has often and patiently sought the co-operation of South Africa in obtaining Namibia's independence. FOr the Austrian Government as well as for many others it is a matter of deep regret that South Africa refuses to open the way for implementation in good faith and by peaceful means of the principles and procedures laid down in Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). By maintaining the same policy of violation of human rights and denial of self-determination t.~.ards the people of Namibia and its population, thereby demonstrating s~ultaneously contemptuous disregard of the basic foundations of the United Nations and the views of an overwhelming majority of the community of nations, the South African GOvernment ia triggering a future escalation of bloodshed in southern Africa. COnfronted with that dangerous situation the international community has concluded that as a last peaceful resort sanctions against South Africa must be imposed now. The urgency of the question of Namibia was especially underlined by the Security COuncil when it adopted resolution 569 (1985). Austria, on its part, did not fail to adopt a set of concrete autonomous national measures in accordance with Security COuncil resolutions 566 (1985) and 569 (1985). This autumn, the Austrian Government passed another decision reSUlting in additional measures in response to the persistent intransigence of the South African GOvernment. Within the past months the Austrian Ped~ral Chancellor and the Federal Minister for FOreign Affairs met leading repcesentatives of the South west Africa 1teople's Organization (SWAPO) on several occasions. In these contacts they gave expression to our appreciation for the positive attitude displayed by SKAPO in the search for a negotiated s~ttlement. Austria furthermore pays tribute to the constructive policy of the front-line States, which despite repeated threats and acts of aggression by Sou~~ Africa never flagged in their commitment to Namibia's independence. Austria believes in the fundamental values which constitute the base of the United Nations Charter. Austria believes in the right to self-determination. Austria believes in the resolution of conflicts by peacefUl means. Therefore, Austria is deeply convinced that the firm determination of the people of Namibia, assisted by the unan~us support of the international community, will finally succeed in releasing the people of Namibia from the yoke of colonialism and racis•• Mr. PARASBAR (India) I Less than two months after the fourteentl& special session, we meet again to discuss the crisis in Namibia. 'Dle thrust of resolution A/S-14/l, adopted at that special session, is explicit. Not one member of this Assembly voted against it. Its signal signifies the singleness of purpose which this Assembly ~as consistently addressed to this question. We reiterate that solidarity today: our solidarity amongst ourselves at the United Nations and our solidarity with a people whose claim to freedom, to self-determination and to an international identity is clearly our responsibility. 'lWenty years ago, when South Africa's Mandate over Namibia was tQzllinated by this Assembly, my delegation had stated. -There may appear to the protagonists of Realpolitik an element of unreality in our trying to deal, year after year, for nearly 20 years, with the problems of apartheid and the remnants of colonialism. The fact re_ins that sooner or later these problems will have to be resolved one way or another. We hope that they will be resolved peacefully, reasonably and rationally. It is because we persist in this hope that it is of vital importance that, year after year, this Organization m~,st make its position abundantly clear. There is no Government on earth Which can remain bDmune for ever from the pressures generated by the world community and the conscience which it embOdies. It is in that hope and that faith that we have persisted and shall continue to persist in lending our support to the cause of the liberation of the peoples of South West Africa •••• Our faith and hope endure. But these 20 years have certainly eroded our hope that the resolution of these problems would be peaceful. Time and the options it affords are both narrowing. The colony created by a cloistered clique continues only because of the concerted and yet clandestine clamour of commerce. Namibia's wealth is pilfered and purloined, quite literally from under its feet. Dlgnity is defied. Discrimination is deified. Self-determination is suborned to schemes of stealth and strategy evolved by those whose business it simply is not. India has consistently expressed its abhorrence of the policies of those who aid, assist and virtually comfort South Africa in return for considerations of trade and finance. The barter of human rights for commercial profit diminishes every value these States stand committed to, nationally or internationally. Realism demands that the United Nations consider only such a programme of action as is within its capacity to implement. It can exhort, plead, condemn and call upon but none of this will redeem its pledge to Namibia if not complemented by the vigour of a determined and unified response to the crisis. Isolation of South Africa from every form of international contact or co-operation is the possibility within our collective means to realize. For too long has the Security Council shrugged off its shoulders the inevitability of mandatory sanctions as the means to the purpose to Which it stands committed. freedom for the people of Namibia, It is incumbent also upon 'the United ~ations unequivocally to call the bluff of the recalcitrant racists that have persistently sought to link Namibia's independence with wholly extraneo~s issues, the most recent example being the claim that it is connected to the request by a sovereign state for external assistance. Given the protracted perfidy of Pretoria, we should not delude ourselves that this is the only obstacle it would place in the way of implementation by the United Nations of Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). But the lie must be nailed. Pretoria's pernicious policies of puppetry and procrastination persist. But even the ventriloquist's dummies can summon voices of their own. The South African regime could not get even its absurd legislature to sanction the domestic powers of terror and intimidation it sought, so it was forced to declare a unilateral state of emergency. The same regime, forced to abandtiID its infamous Terrorism Act at home, continues to wield it as an instrument of terrorism in Namibia. Only a few weeks ago the self-styled Supreme Court of South West Africa struck down the crucial elements of this very Act. Let the gaolers take not even their wardens for granted. Pitiful and pauperised, the politics of Pretoria's perverse and perverted policies can be pulverized by the power and purpose we can prove possible. We must challenge that regime and those that give it sustenance in every forum that is accessible to those that seek justice: the Security COuncil, the International COurt of Justice and the impregnable bar of public opinion in those nations where the views of the governed are known to be at variance with those of them who govern. The harbour light of freedom beckons from Walvis Bay. This grotesque carnival of charade and deceit will soon be over. It would be facile to believe that the independence and integrity of Namibia can be assured without domestic change and reform within South Africa itself. It was brought out at this Assembly's recent discussion on apartheid that the cost of South Africa's aggression against its neighbours is estimated to be at least sus 17 billiun. In the case of one valiant front-line State, Mozambique, aggression has represented a cost in excess of half its total gross domestic product. We should have no illusions about the limitations on Namibia's freedom as long as the apartheid regime remains in power in Pretoria. The incorporation by that regtme of integral parts of Namibia into provinces of South Africa is only desperate dismemberment in anticipation of the inevitable. Let it not be said of Namibia that "freedom" will only be another word for "nothing left to lose". The people of Namibia, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization, have responded to their situation with both courage and foresight. Their acceptance of Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978) is testimony to that. Independence for Namibia is not restricted to the realm of those who dare to • dream. It is a possibility whose potential is inherent in practical and pragmatic political decisions. The Security COuncil made such a decision eight years ago. Will it now show the pragmatism and vision to ensure that that decision is honoured? Mr. DJOUOI (Algeria) (interpretation from French). In an international climate characterized by the proliferation of conflicts and tensions, the problem of Namibia is once again this year a major concern in all international deliberations. From the Vienna Conference, the summit conferences of the Organization of Afrioan unity and of the non-aligned countries has emerged an important movement in favour of immediate independenoe for Namibia two decades after the South African Mandate over this Territory was revoked. If today the Assembly is once again meeting to deal with the situation that still prevails in Namibia it is not because the Namibian people has failed to demonstrate its determination to regain its freedom. Its century-long resistance to foreign occupation and the national liberation struggle, it has carried on for 25 years under the aegis of the South West Af~ica People's Organization (SWAPO), its sole, authentic representative, are already among the most glorious pages of . the history of the liberation movements of peoples. This combat is also an echo of the canbat waged by the PeOple of South Africa to break the chains of the ~partheid system. If the debate on Namibia is being repeated today, it is not because the United Nations has failed to define clearly the nature of this problem, or to use its authority to bring about a settlement and set out measures essential to the solution of the problem. This debate, like all previous debates, is testtmony to the shared indictment for an abuse for which the Pretoria regime bears the main responsibility. In Namibia, the most fundamental human right of PeOples, the right to self- determination, has for too long been violated. In Namibia, the authority of the United Nations faces persistent g~ave challenges. In Namibia, a Territory under the direct responsibility of our Organization, racial and colonial oppression is accompanied by the unbridled plunder of natural resources and the exploitation of a PeOple SUbjected to forced labour, oppression and spoliation at the hands of the occupying regime, with foreign complicity, as is borne out by irrefutable evidence. In Namibia, the irrevocable decision of the Security Council, set out in its resolution 435 (1978), is SUbjected to the claim of -linkage" that has so often been condemned and the institutional manoeuvres that have so often been rejected. At the same time a military-industrial complex is being developed, which reveals clearly the hegemonic designs of the Pretoria regime. Finally, in Namibia, the illegally occupied territory has been converted by South Africa into an additional base for its policy of aggression and destabilization of all of independent South Africa. Certain inevitable conclusions In'Jst be drawn from all this, namely: first, South Africa is unwilling to ~tan end to it~ illegal cx:cupation of Namibia and to accept the uncondition~l implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of the Territory, secondly, in southe~n Africa all the ingredients exist of a real threat to international peace and security, lastly, in the face of Pretoria's attituae, the era of monologue is over and there is no time left for half measures. Clearly identified, Pretoria's ambitions in Namibia require that our corrective action be redoubled and ~riented in several directions. First, we must safeguard the continuance of process to independence of Namibia without deviation or diversion from uhat has been universally accepted, that is, the implementation of Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978), not only by by opposing any attempt to alter this by means of claims involving inappropriate linkages, but also by mobilizing our efforts to thwart the tendency to give credibility to eleventh-hour efforts through the installation of so-called institutions in Namibia. Similarly, the international community must fulfil the imperative that stems from its responsibility in Namibia b¥ giving all possible moral, political and . material su~port to the struggle of the Namibian people under SWAPO's leadership and hastening its success by the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria regime. The security Council, by its hesitation, has allowed the dea~line that it set itself to go by, leaving the field open for repeated infringement of its authority. It sh.,uld now react with the firmness requit'ed by the conduct of the aggressive regime and with the responsibility commensurate with its mission of guaranteeing the maintenance of international peace and security. It is also the duty of our Organization to give its full support to the independent countries of southern Africa that are exposed to a deliberate policy of destabilization and the constant violation of their territorial integrity and sovereignty. We owe a collective debt of effective solidarity to those States Members of our Organization which we must discharge in the general interest. The twenty-second Sumndt of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) stressed the importance of this collective resistance movement. It was appropriately echoed at the eighth summit Conference of non-aligned countries through the e~lItablishment of a Solidarity Fund for Southern Africa. The entire international commnunity must now heed the Karare appeal and use that Fund as a channel for the contributions that must be made to help the southern African States defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and to promote their development in the face of the implications of South African aggression. The United Nations Council for Namibia should be given greater political support by the whole international community and financial and logistical support of our Organization. The Administering Authority for Namibia until its independence is the very embodiment of our rejection of a South African fait accompli in that Territory. Lastly, the United Nations DUst continue and increase its efforts to make the peoples aware of the extent of the injustice in Namibia and the violation of human valuea there. The need for this action is parUcularly evident in the wake of the silence that cloaks the question of Namibia in certain regions. The advisability of this action is best illustrated by the reawakened awareness of the need for unanimous reaction to the challenge of apartheid. Its effectiveness can be seen in the progress already maae in the face of the forces of inertia in the fight against the colonial, racist policy of the Pretoria regime. The entire history of the United Nations is marked by the Organization's efforts b promote Namibia's independence. However, we must. note that that Territory has known only the development of the colonial system and racist repression. The Namibian nation firmly opposes this by its liberation struggle, making the heaviest sacrifices for the triumph of its cause. This means that the Namibian people is entitled to demand of the international community - whose responsibility is particularly committed here and which has placed in the forefront of its objectives the implementation of the peoples' right to self-determination - that justice finally be done. This means also that the Namiban people and all the other peoples of southern Africa could no longer accept any further postponement, in the name of an avowed concern for their plight and despite their claims, of the ap~lication against Pretoria of the provisions of the Charter, including those in Chapter VII. This indicates how much our Organization would gain in authority if it fully shouldered its responsibilities and ensured that this infringement of the law was finally halted and justice restored to southern Africa. Mr. NIARE (Mali) (interpretation from French)a Our Assembly is called upon to consider the question of Namibia, which, although it has been examined at all previous regular sessions 6 has been the object in the space of less than six months of an International Conference and 3 special session of the General Assembly. This clearly demonstrates the importance that the international community attaches to this question. Our present consideration, after the holding of the fourteenth special session, of the invasion and occupation of the Ter~itory of Namibia, which constitutes a denial of principles of international law and a serious threat to peace and security in southern Africa, should be a further reflection of the attaohment of States Members of our Organization to the lasting validity of the noble ideals that presided at the creation of the United Nations, ideals which I need hardly recall here. I will merely reiterate the desire and readiness of my country, Mali, to make its contribution to any action that our Organization may decide to take, in particular with regard to decolonization. This explains why we share the concerns, impatience and frustration of the United Nations and the international ca ..';'lity at the ~ituation prevailing in southern Africa because of the tenacious survival in that region of colonialism, and apartheid and, especially, the continued illegal occupation of Namibia. In respect of Namibla - which we are concerned with here for more than one reason - the delegation of Mali wishes to express its profound indignation at the continued illegal occupation, despite the consensus obtained since the administering Mandate was revoked in 1966 and the adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration on the Granting of Independonce to Colonial Countries and Peoples in resolution 1514 (XV), of December 1960. That occupation undeniably constitutQs a serious challenge to the authority and credibility of the united Nations. The facts of the Namibian question, which have been considered here on repeated occasions as well as in other forums, are sufficiently well known, as are i:he obstacles which have stood in the way of independence. It took South Africa persistent indifference, intransigence and arrogance with regard to the relevant united Nations resolutions calling for the unconditional indel'~~dence of Namibia, and, above all, the canmission of many acts of aggression in Namibia and neighbouring independent States, for the international community as a whole to realize that there was a genuine, tmminent threat to international peace and security. The International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia - which we warmly welcomed - had the merit, inter alia, of, first, having taken stock of the progres~~ &chieved and problems encountered by the international community in its efforts to bring about the independence of that Territory, and, secondly, having iden~ified the measures to be taken to ensure for the Namibian people the speedy exercise of its inalienable right to freedom and independence. It also afforded an opportunity for reiteration of our Organization's clear and coherent position in favour of the search for a peaceful and just solution to the question based on Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). The decisions taken and the statemen~~ made at the Conference again showed the determination of the international community to put an end to colonial occupation and enable the Namibian people to exercise its inalienable right to independence. We believe it is tmportant to speed up the practical implementation of those resolutions. ~ere is no longer any doubt that implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the dismantling of the system of apartheid would make it . possible to establish a just and durable peace in southern Africa. Moreover, my delegation is of the opinion that strict observance of the principles of the United Nations Charter, the universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international covenants on human rights would offer sufficient guarantees for the implementation of resolution 1514 (XV) in that region. Bearing in mind the obdurate refusal of the South African invader and oppressor to enter into a dialogue, the United Nations and the international community must continue to struggle against South Africa and to fight for justice. They must fulfil their task of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. My delegation is pleased to note that the obstacles to the unconditional independence.of Namibia have not weakened our virtually unanimous determination to fight the illegal occupier of that Territory. We take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the pressures exerted by world public opinion in the cause of justice, human dignity and peace. Their support increases the isolation of the racist regime of South Africa day by day. We therefore urge the international community to intensify its pressure and to support sanctions and other appropriate measures taken against the racist Pretoria regime. As is known, the reason for the continued illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia is 'the complicity of powerful, widespread interests which strengthen South Africa's position. That occupation, because it maintains a climate of tension in the region, imposes heavy sacrifices on the front-line States. The need for a vast mobilization in order to establish the principles of international law in southern Africa has become even more urgent as a result of recent events. Are not the sufferings endured by the martyred people of Namibia sufficient to induce certain Member States of our Organization to take a less rigid stand and allow for the completion of the action of national liberation initiated under resolution 1514 (XV)? That resolution, if applied to Namibia, would not only have put an end to a century of colonization but also definitely turned a dark page in the history of that region. '!'he question of the independence of Namibia, because of the dangers it represents, must be posed, today more than ever before, in terms of a universal contribution and highlights the outstanding role of the complex of forces favouring decolonization and the protection and promotion of human rights throughout the world. We must recognize and applaud the role and positive action of the non-governmental organizations and the Non-Aligned Movement. We must also at this time welcome the regional meetings held in the form of seminars arranged by the United Nations Council for Namibia. These meetings have made it possible to mobilize international public opinion, to promote exchanges of information and to assess the critical situation in Namibia and its consequences for international peace and security. The climate of tension prevailing in southern Africa is a major obstacle to the social and economic development of the peoples of the region. Not only does it divert them from the primary tasks of development and progress by compelling them to invest substantial funds in the purchase of weapons but it is also a threat to international peace and security. We should emphasize the nuclear threat represented at present by the racist regime. The successive aggressions of which the peoples and States of the region have been victims are also indicative, in many respects, of the extent of the real risks that they are running_ Acts of state terrorism by the racist regime are proof of its contempt for the principles of coexistence embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. A way to put an end to the Climate of tension must be found without delay. The time has come to apply the comprehensive mandatory sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter with a view to solving southern Africa's problems once and for all. Mali strongly supports all actions aimed at that objective and welcomes the serious breaches in the apartheid system caused by the combined effects of the pressure put by the freedom fighters and the coercive action of the international community. Before concluding, ~ delegation wishes to reaffirm the unwavering support of the people and Government of Mali for the front-line states which, it must be admitted, are in the forefront of Africa's opposition to the colonial occupation of the Territory of Namibia by South Africa, and of resistance to acts of aggression and destabilization manoeuvres in that country. My country reaffirms its support for the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his efforts to secure the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Mali also supports SWAPO and the United Nations Council for Namibia, whose work in arousing the interests of the international canmunity in the status and independence of Namibia's worthy of praise. Mr. OTT (German Democratic RepUblic), Twenty years after South Africa's Mandate over the Territory of Namibia was terminated at the twenty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly and the full responsibilities with respect to the Territory were taken over by our Organization, the end of that chapter in Namibia's colonial history, which has lasted for more than a century, has not yet been reached. Namibia has become a sYmbol not only of the most inhuman forms of Unperialist power politics but also of the unbroken will and strength of a people struggling for its liberation. The problem of Namibia also reflects the efforts made by the United Nations and the entire progressive world public finally to reach a just settlement of the question of Namibia. Republic~ Manifold international actions in 1986bave been ~onducive to the achievement of that goal. OUtstanding events were, without a doubt, the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on the question of Namibia and the VieMa Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, which convincingly emphasized the world-wide demand for a swift settlement of that problem on the basis of the relevant decisions of the United Nations. Such significant forums as the Eighth Summit Meeting of the Non-Aligned COUntries at Karare, the twenty-second session of the Organization of African unity and the high-level meet~ng of the Warsaw Treaty member States showed ways to a political settlement of the conflict in southern Africa, which is today more imperative than ever before. The reg~e in Pretoria seriously endangers international peace and security. It persists in its illegal occupation of Namibia with an army of 100,000 soldiers, supplemented by mercenary gangs hired and paid by Pretoria. That action goes along with the attempt of the occupation reg~e to "namibianize" the conflict. The regime compels Namibians to fight in the so-called territorial forces, thus forcing them to oppress their own people, yet the freedom fighters of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAlO) are labelled as terrorists and held responsible for campaigns of murder which are actually carried out by paramilitary gangs. The inhuman apartheid regime is openly applied also in Namibia. Working conditions, wages and every form of political activity are subject to the laws of apartheid. The natural resources of the country are being systematically plundered by the racists and their allies. In short, this is a case of rampant and typical colonialism, which is condemned both in the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). At the same time, it serves as a starting point for neo-colonialist expansion. The aim of the continued acts of aggression perpetrated by Pretoria against neighbouring sovereign countries is to achieve its hegemonic ambitions in the region and prevent the independent development of the States in the subcontinent. Those States are sUbjected to constant attempts at destabilization and intimidation, because they are giving essential support to the struggle of the peoples in Namibia and South Africa by setting their own example of national independence and freedom, the coexistence on a basis of equality of their population groups and their fruitful co-operation in the interest of the people. The great commitment of almost all States to a setlement of the conflict in southern Africa is an expression of their grave concern over the explosive situation in the region. They demand resolute action aimed at the g~anting of independence to Namibia and at ensuring the peaceful development of all States of the subcontinent. The united Nations possesses, in its Charter, the necessary instrument to achieve that end. Important decisions have been adopted in the past by the General Assembly and the Security Council. They represent a realistic and at the same time the only binding basis for Namibia's attainment of independence. It is clear from the plain facts, however, that the country has not yet made any headway in that direction. The responsibility for this rests with South Africa's obstructionist position and the policies of the small number of imperialist States which are interested in keeping both their strategic positions in the region and the profits that their transnational corporations derive from plundering Namibia's natural and human resources. They give the racists the required support and backing through their collaboration with Pretoria in the political, economic and military fields. Their destructive attitude to the question of Namibia finds its reflection particularly in the stubborn insistence on linkage by South Africa and its closest ally. Two fundamentally different questions are being linked, namely, the decolonization of Namibia and the ensuring of the security and territorial integrity of Angola. This approach constitutes an open violation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the negation of Angol~'s sovereign right to call for the assistance of friendly States for the purpose of self-defence. The internationalist forces which, in full compliance with international law, stand firmly at the side of Angola are to be treated on an equal basis with the racist troops that for years have illegally occupied Namibia and at the same time transformed the country into a base for attacks against the neighbouring People's Republic of Angola. The support given by well-known forces to Pretoria's policies, which are a threat to peace, finds its essential expression in the repeated use of the veto in the Security Council against comprehensive mandatory sanctions, which are probably the only effective means of bringing about a peaceful settlement of the conflict. The representatives of the States Members of the United Nations know very well the different Characteristics of sanctions in international relations. Used as means of political and economic blackmail against the peoples' interests, they act against the norms of the coexistence of nations and against international law, thus contributing to the aggravation of the particular situation. Such sanctions are docme4 to failure from the very outset. In the case of South Africa, however, it is a question of sanctions which are in compliance with international law. They are aimed at ensuring the exercise of the right to self-determination of the peoples of South Africa and Namibia and at the achievement of freedom and justice. Universally observed comprehen~ive sanctions would within a short time force the Pretoria regime to abandon C'leartheid and ccmply with resolution 435 (1978). At the fourteenth special session of the United Nations General Assembly, on the question of Namibia, the Foreign Minister of the German Democratic Republic, Mr. Fischer, pointed out the steps Which, in the view of my country are now required. He said, "It is now imperative to end all obstructionist policies so that the United Nations can fully meet its responsibility for the settlement of the question of Namibia and to discontinue forthwith all collaboration with the apartheid regime as well as aid and support for subversive bandits, it is imperative that the United Nations Security Council impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the racist regime in South Africa, and that it determinedly enforce its decisions, and it is imperative strictly to comply with and verify the sanctions adopted, in particular the arms embargo, and to give all-round support to the front-line States and SWAPO in their just struggle for peace, independence and stability." (A/S-14/PV.5, p. 38) It is well known that the German Democratic RepUblic strongly advocates a free, independent Namibia on the basis of the relevant decisions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). It holds this position at the United Nations, at other international conferences and 1n its bilateral relations • '!'he. people of the German Democratic Republic are well informed by the country's mass media concerning the actual situation in southern Africa. They respond with incr3asing solidarity, which makes it possible to give political and material support to the liberation movements in South Africa and Namibia, as well as to the front-line States. This is clearly illustrated by some of the events of the past year. For instance, a children's village with kindergarten and preschool facilities in the SWAPO camp of Kwanza-Sul in Angola was built jointly with the Finnish Peace Committee. Other examples are the friendship brigades of the Free German Youth Organization in African front-line States, and vocational and other training of hundreds of young Africans from the region, at institutes of higher and technical education in the German Democratic Republic and there are many more. In accordance with the traditions of socialist foreign policy, m¥ country will continue to act in the same way in the future. Mr. BERG (Norway) a I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and my own country, Norway. The Nordic countries are convinced that the settlement plan endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (1978) offers the only internationally acceptable basis for the achievement of independence for Namibia. The modalities for the transition to independence have been agreed. The Namibian people must now be allowed to determine their own future through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations in accordance with the settlement plan. All delaying tactics by the South African Government must be condemned. The Nordic countries reject the attempts by the SOuth African Government to obstruct progress by introducing extraneous issues. Furthermore, we share the deep concern of the international community over the illegal occupation and the use of Namibian territory for launching unprovoked aggression against neighbouring countries, particularly Angola, and the implications this has for international peace and security. South Africa continues to ignore the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and to challenge the will of the international community. The installation of an "interim government" is yet another scheme for consolidating its dominance over Namibia. This is entirely unacceptable to the Nordic countries. Any action taken by the so-called interim government will be considered as null and void ab initio, and we categorically reject any unilateral move by South Africa to transfer power in Namibia. The Namibian people is fighting over basic issues affecting the very nature of their existence, self-determination, independence, human rights and dignity. The time has come for the international community to put the necessary pressure on South Africa in order to speed up the implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978). The Nordic countr!e~ believe that comprehensive mandatory sanctions would be the 1lIO!;')(,; effective instrument to this end. However, we welcome Security COuncil resolution 566 (1985) as a step in the right direction. In accordance with the existing joint Nordic programme of action against South Africa, the Nordic countries will intensify their work to achieve decisions as soon as possible on effective sanctions by the Security Council. Pending such sanctions the Nordic countries have adopted a wide range of unilateral measures against apartheid. Namibia is potentially one of the wealthiest countries on the African continent. The rights of the Namibians to their natural resources, whether mineral or animal, have to be scrupulously respected by all. We share the concern of the international community over the rapid and unjustifiable depletion of the Territory's wealth by foreign interests. We are alarmed by the serious over- fishing off the Namibian coast and expect all the United Nations Member States to show regard for the interests of the people of Namibia and ensure that their marine resources will be used to their benefit. The Nordic Governments remain dueply committed to alleviating the plight of the Namibian people. I should like to reiterate the Nordic countries' unequivocal support for efforts and measures taken by the United Nations to correct the grave injustice to the Namibian people. The Nordic countri~s have made considerable contributions to the various United Nations activities benefiting the Namibian people, such as the United Nations Institute for Namibia in Lusaka, and the Namibia Nationhood Programme. We also give support to the South west Africa People's Organization for the benefit of Namibian refugees, and this assistance will continue as long as it is required. The Nordie countries appeal to all Member States of the United Nations to contribute, or if they are already doing so, to increase their assistance, to these funds and activities. The Nordic countries stand ready to play their part in the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and in assisting the people of Namibia. We have offered to contribute to the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) and have developed a plan for concerted action on development co-operation once Namibia is a free and independent country. The Secretary-General of the United Nations deserves our full support in his endeavours to commence the implementation of the United Nations plan. We look forward to the day when Namibia will take its rightful place in the family of nations. We call upon the international community to contribute effectively to the building of a free, united and independent Namibian nation- State. The Namibian people have suffered long enough. The situation in Namibia h~s reached a most serious stage. Further delay in taking effective action can only adversely affect international peace and security. Mr. EISSA (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic), The international community has been seized of the question of Namibia for two decades now, since the United Nations ended the mandate of South Africa over that territory in October 1966 by the historic General Assembly resolution 2145 (XX1), under which the Orgunization assumed the administration of-the Territory of Namibia. The occupation authorities of racist South Africa since that date have continue to wield control over the people of Namibia. The reg~e h~s systematically plundered the territory, deprived the Namibian people of their political rights, and SUbjected them to racial discrimination in all aspects of life, including education, health car.e, social welfarer emplOYment, and other areas. That administration has continued to violate the political, economic, social and human rights of a whole people through its institutionalized policy of apartheid, while plundering the natural resources of the Territory in collaboration with for~ign monopolies and transnational corporations. Throughout this period, the racist Government of Preto~ia has turned a deaf ear to the resolutions adopted by the international community and has shown nothing but contempt for international public opinion, which has denounced its repressive policies as well as its racist practices and its continued violation of the sovereignty of neighbouring independent African States. Regardless of any condemnation, the Pretoria ~vernment has been able to persist in its aggressive policies and in its illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia because of the continuing aid and support it receives from certain Western countries and from some other Governments. This assistance covers all fields, and includes the political, pUblicity, military and economic aspects. In giving succour to pretoria, good use is being made of the climate of international conflict that has prevailed in the African continent over the last few years. As a result of all this, the racist regime in South Africa has been able to ride roughshod over the wishes of the international community, and over the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly since 1966, and those of the Security Council, in particular resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). The ruling of the International Court of Justice on this issue has met with no better fate. The racist Government of occupation has recently imposed an interim government on the Territory of Namibia with the aim of circumventing the rules of international law, and frustrating the specific plan for the immediate independence of Namibia set out in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The behaviour of the Government of South Africa, which has made a habit of an attitude of stubborn intransigence towards the international community, has much in common with the attitude of the Israeli zionist Government of occupation in Palestine. '.l'hese are only some of the aspects of this similarity. the denial of the legitimate. rights of the Namibian and Palestinian peoples to self-determination and their own independent States, the total dependence by both regimes for their continued existence on the economic, military, political 7nd medi~ support of certain Western countries, the constant threat posed by both regimes to international peace and securitYJ the introduction by both regimes of the dimension of international conflict into Africa and the Middle East, the pursuit by both regimes of policies of armed military aggression against the neighbouring independent States, their repeated threats to the sovereignty of those States, the repeated attempts to destabilize the neighbouring States, threatening their security and overthrowing their Governments - two cases in point being the occupation of parts of Angola by South Africa and the occupation of Lebanese territory by Israel, the creation of puppet regimes through bribery and intimidation, non-recognition of the legitimate representatives of the peoples concerned, the.negation of the will of the peoples and the refusal to recognize their authentic representatives - the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) in the case of Namibia, and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the case of Palestine, the flouting by both regimes of world pUblic opinion and their contempt for the will of the international community, their rejection of all United Nations resolutions and peace initiatives, such as the plan in Security Council resolution 435(1978) on Namibia and the resolution calling for an international peace conference on the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations, and the constant violation by both regimes of human rights in the territories occupied by them - Namibia and Palestine. The delegation of Sudan fully upholds the rights of the Namibian people to self-determination and the establishment of their own independent, united State in all their territory, under the leadership of their sole representative, SWAPO. My delegation therefore considers that the United Nations is the party with the full responsibility for ensuring the complete and Unmediate accession of Namibia to independence, in implementation of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) of 1966. The Organization's responsibility in this respect is shouldered on its behalf by the COuncil for Namibia, which has done a great deal to enlighten world public opinion about the issues raised by South Africa's occupation of Namibia and its persecution of the people of Namibia as they struggle for self-determination and independence. In this respect, my delegation pays a tribute to the Council for Namibia and the General Assembly for their immense efforts, and particularly for the successful conferences held this year at Paris and Vienna in June and .Tuly. We are also encouraged by the decisions and resolutions adopted by both Conferences regarding the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions on South Africa in order to bring about the immediate independence of the Territory of Namibia. In this connection, we would mention the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its very successful special session in New York in September 1986. On the basis of the foregoing remarks, Sudan calls for the following, universal condemnation of the racist Pretoria regime~s illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia, its ruthless repression of the Namibian people, its racist practice$ and its violations of human rights, condemnation of the use of Namibian territory to launch acts of aggression against neighbouring States, condemnation of the racist regime's foisting of an interim government on the Territory of Namibia, condemnation of that regUle's flouting and invalidation of United Nations resolutions calling for peaceful solutions, condemnation of South Africa's policy of linkage between the ~ediate independence of Namibia and withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, condemnation of the continued collaboration by certain Western countries and Israel with South Africa and their support: for South Africa's racist policies. Sudan welcomes the growing awareness by world pUblic opinion of the nature and aims of the practices of the South African regime. We pay a tribute to several European Parliaments for their adoption of resolutions on this matter. We also commend various popular mass organizations in the industrialized western countries for their actions, as well as the United States Congress for its recent action in imposing partial sanctions against the racist regime, we hope that those partial sanctions will soon be made comprehensive and mandatory. Sudan also calls for the tightening of the South African racist regime's isolation because of its apartheid practices, in order to compel it to abandon its repressive polioies completely and concede the immediate, complete accession of Namibia to independence. Mr. DOS SANTOS (Mozambique): Last year the General Assembly commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Delegations will recall that the session commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the coming into being of our Organization offered a unique occasion for deep reflection on the past, the present and the future of the United Nations. In reviewing the past, we noted with great satisfaction that our Organization had played a commendable role in the political, economic and social fields. We were partiCUlarly appreciative of the significant contribution made by the United Nations in the field of decolonization. We were reminded of the fact that since the Organization's inception nearly 100 countries had gained their independence - and my own country was one of them. However, our assessment of the past would have been inaccurate, incomplete and perhaps misleading had we limited ourselves to singling out the successes achieved by our Organization. We also recognized that many and serious had been our shortcomings. In this context, a number of crucial issues were identified as being in the latter category. They remain unresolved. The question of apartheid in South Africa and the colonial occupation of Namibia are two of the most striking examples. Our failure to deal effectively with those issues has had tragic consequences. The people of Namibia continue to be brutalized and massacred. The major!ty of the population in South Africa is being oppressed. Massacres in South Africa have become an every-day occurrence - indeed a ritual. The sovereign and independent States of southern Africa are being sUbjected to constant acts of destabilization, aggression and sabotage. Terrorism and genocide have become the pillars of the domestic and foreign policies of the South African racist regime. It has been 20 years since South Africa's Mandate over Namibia was terminated and the united Nations shouldered direct responsibility for the Territory. TWO decades have elapsed since the illegality of racist South Africa's presence in Namibia was declared in the most unambiguous terms. It has been eight years since the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) on the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. Racist South Africa has failed to comply with those decisions of this community of nations. It has, instead, further escalated its ruthless repression of, and oppression against, the people of Namibia. It has continued its policies and practices that grossly violate human rights and fundamental freedoms. Detention and imprisonment of Namibians has become commonplace. The militarization of the TerritorYt the compulsory military service for ltamibians, forced recruitment and training of Namibians for colonial armies as well as recruitment of mercenaries have all continued unabated. Namibia's territory is being used as a springboard for aggression and subversion against neighbouring countries. Racist South Africa, with the support of its allies, has blocked the implementation of resolutioll'435 (1978) by raising many obstacles. It should be recalled that the linkage theory was conceived and brought into play only after all previous manoeuvres had been defeated. There is a universal consensus that the United Nations plan for Namibia constitutes the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. The question of Namibia is a decolonization issue. Its solution has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Indeed, it is within this framework that the international community and all peace-loving people are working. However, some circles would like us to believe otherwise. We are referring to a tiny minority of States that have deliberately attempted to place the Namibian question outside its real perspective in order to further the purpose of delaying the independence of the Territory. In so doing, they expect to be able to buy time so that racist South Africa may, with their encouragement and support, succeed in establishing a puppet government in Namibia, a government that would guarantee the continued exploitation and plunder of Namibia's resources. The last four or five years have been most revealing in this respect. The world has witnessed a series of attempts by the South Africa regime to install a puppet entity in Namibia. The last of this succession of aborted manoeuvres was the establishment of the so-called interim government. Everyone here carries the memories of the Second World War, the horror of destruction and indiscriminate death and suffering. The Second World War is an event to be remembered, but not to be repeated, in the history of mankind. It is to be remembered not only because of the untold brutalities and suffering it visited upon men and women, but also because it reminds us of the brightest moments of human co-operation and unity. At no other moment in history has the humaneness of man been so outstanding and forthcoming. The victory against nazism and fascism was possible because we were able to transcend artificial barriers, such as the colour of the skin, religion, ideology and so forth. Nazism would have lasted longer had the East and the West not pooled their strength and stood up against it. It is hard to tell what would have been Europe's fate had we not consented to sacrifice and death for the sake of the freedom and liberty of the peoples of that continent. All of us - whites, blacks, religious peoples and.atheists alike - paid a price, a heavy price indeed, for the liberation of Europe. The united Nations is the natural embodiment of the philosophy and spirit of togetherness, brotherhood and unity in the face of common challenges. Colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, racism and all forms of racial discrimination are among the most serious challenges we confront today. The apartheid regime is nazi in inspiration, policies and practices. It is as cruel as nazism. Its philosophy, policies ana practices are as threatening as those of nazism and fascism. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Is not this the time when we should stand up together again and fight against the nazi-fascist beast that apartheid represents, until it is completely destroyed? TOday, unfortunately, when the nazi-fascist beast rears its ugly head in racist South Africa and threatens southern Africa with bloodshed, we witness in utter horror the connivance of those who profess to be the champions of democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We are told that no strong action shQuld be taken against the nazi-fascist regime, because that would harm its victims. We are told that apartheid should be fought against by peaceful means, only to learn in the same breath that even these means are being discouraged. We are told that Namibia cannot be independent as long as Cuban forces remain in Angola. Surprisingly enough, nothing is said abOut the continued presence of racist South African troops inside the territory of Angola. Nothing at all is said about the economic and social consequences of the constant acts of aggression against the front-line States. When the front-line States are attacked, the reaction is merely verbal and ritualistic condemnation and declarations of intent. Baving contributed the blood of our best sons and our rich natural resources in the war against nazism, we Afticans are rightly distressed and disappointed when faced with the complicity of some Member States in the maintenance of the apartheid regime. If t~1ey are unwilling to pay even a symbolic price for the liberation of Namibia and South Africa from the scourge of colonialism and apartheid, they should at least dissociate themselves, in deeds, not only in pious words, from the apartheid regime. This is the least we can expect of them. We refuse to be taught lessons that they themselves have not learned, no, we cannot accept that. Much has been said about the need to eliminate terrorism. As a matter of fact, I address the Assembly just a few hours after a group of respectable members of the Organization adopted, after many days of consultations and discussions, punitive measures against a country that supposedly supports terrorism. Surprisingly enough, South Africa was not on·the agenda of these consultations. Is this not ironical? Who does not know that in South Africa terrorism is the policy of the State? Who does not know that in racist South Africa terrorism is an institutionalized and systematized philosophy of a State? How are we to understand the opposition of those Member States to any course of action against the apartheid regime, while they do not hesitate to adopt sanctions in more dubious, unclear and less threatening circumstances than those occurring in south Africa day by day? Is it hypocrisy? Is it racism? History will reveal the truth. Let. those who side with the apartheid regime know that the process of national liberation in Namibia ia irresistible and irreversible. Namibia will be free and independent no matt.er how many obstacles and dilatory manoeuvres we may have to face. Indeed, the progress of the struggle for national liberation in Namibia and South Africa has reached a very crucial stage. The United Nations and all its Member States are called upon to do their utmost to ensure that the people of Namibia achieve self-determination and independence without further delay. We cannot remain idle in the face of this dangerous situation. We have the moral, political and legal responsibility to enaure that apartheid is completely eradicated and that the people of Namibia can fully exercise their right to self-determination and independence. This task is within our grasp and capabilities. It is a mission we all must accomplish. It is our duty and obligation to guarantee a negotiated settlement of the Namibian question and to ensure that this is achieved here and now. This is feasible and possible because SWAPO has shown flexibility and co-operation. It has displayed tremendous statesmanship. What remains to be done is to exert pressure on South Africa so as to bring it to the negotiating table. It is about time that those States that put their economic interests before everything else, should rid themselves of this short-sightedness, narrow-mindedness and egotism in addressing the question of Namibia and South Africa. Tomorrow bodes ill to those who allow themselves to be enslaved by the selfish present, those who refuse to extend their sight beyond a narrow and short horizon. We would, once again, appeal to them to reconsider their positions. In the long run, an immediate and peacefUl settlement of the question of Namibia may also be in their own interest. As for the international community, the message is not a new one. The international community'has to act more decisively and in a concerted manner to avert the worsening situation in southern Africa. Failure can lead only to- a deflagration of a general conflict of unforeseeable consequences. Governments, organizations and individuals should redouble their efforts in exerting maxtmum pressure on racist South Africa to hand Namibia back to whom it rightly belongs and to abolish with immediate ffect the abominable and abhorrent system of apartheid. Let us all pledge to work together and in an effective way to secure Namibia1s independence. We know what needs to be done. The International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia set specific and concrete proposals for the elimination of the obstacles to the independence of Namibia. It also adopted an international programme of action for securing the immediate implementation of the united Nations plan for the Independence of Namibia. The Eighth Summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries held recently in Barare and the fourteenth special sessiOn of the General Assembly devoted to the question of Namibia gave further guidance on how to accelerate the process leading to Namibia1s independence. So let us act now and act decisively. As I conclude my statement, allow me to pay tribute to SWAPO for the exemplary manner in Which they have represented the Namibian people and defended their dearest and sacred interests. I also salute SWAPO for the diplomatic clarity and wisdom they displayed over the years in search for a just and peacefUl settlement of the Namibian question. On behalf of the PeOple and Government of the people1s RepUblic of Mozambique, I take this occasion to once again register our unconditional support to SWAPO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibian people. We reiterate our strong rejection of linkage, a clear interference in the internal affairs of the People's Republic of Angola, and we demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the murderous racist South African troops from Angola. We demand the immediate cessation of all forms of support to the bandits of UNITA, an instrument of destabilization at the service of racist South Africa and its allies. I wish to put on record our appreciation of the united Nations Secretary- General's untiring efforts a:i.med at finding an immediate and just solution to the question of Namibia within the framework of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We encourage him to pursue these efforts and assure him of the confidence and support of the GOvernment of the People's Republic of Mozambique.