A/41/PV.69 General Assembly

36.  QUESTION OF NAMIBIA: (a) REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS ax7~cIL FOR NAmmA (~/41/24) (b) REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SITUATION WITH REGARD l’Q THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COMNIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES (A/41/23 (Part V), (Part IX and Corr.l), A/AC.109/870) (c) REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL aONFBRBNCE FOR THE IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENCE OF NAMIBIA (A/CONF.138/11 and Add.l) (d) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/41/614) (e) REPORT OF THE FOURTH COMMITTEE (A/4l/761) (f) DRAFT RESOLUTIONS (A/41/24 (Part II and Corr.l), chap. I) Mr. ALZAMORA (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish) : This year there have been more significant events in the long struggle for Namibia’s independence than there have been for many years. There is a growing understanding of the real problem among those who play a decisive role on the international political scene. These manifestations of support for Namibia’s cause and the repudiation of the continued illegal occupation of the Territory have joined forces at this time when apar theid is in its death throes. What many sceptics regarded as just an illusion a few months ago has now become a fact: the sanctions that have been called for against the racist Pretoria regime are being increasingly applied, and the results of these wise measures will soon be felt. While we are aware that the road ahead is long, we now know that the thrust of history is leading to a final victory in the not-too-distant future. The Vienna Conference in July this year, consolidating the achievements of previous meetings, drew up an outstanding programme of action, in the form of complementary and support measures designed to force South Africa to abandon its *tubborn position. The World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, held in Paris, was a remarkable milestone in the campaign in which we who have a clear and firm commitment to Namibia have engaged, and it achieved consensus on the part of the participants - which means the great majority of the international Crganization. We have also witnessed in other settings the development of thinking through a Careful analysis of the facts in South Africa , and we have seen the choice made to co-operate in the elimination of the hateful system of apartheid. I refer sPecifically to the efforts and co-ordination by some members of the Commonwealth that are profoundly identified with the Namibian cause, primarily through the establishment of a group of eminent persons, whose valuable report clearly describes the abhorrent nature of apartheid. The fact that the group was not able to complete its work is attributable to the foreseeable lack of political will On the part of the racist rigime; it constitutes serious provocation. The mini-summit of the Commonwealth countries, which was held in response to the universal appeal for sanctions against South Africa, did not fully attain its objectives, but nevertheless achieved a major political result because it demarcated positions and responsibilities. In the European Economic Community, there is an increasing number of members who endorse the demands of the irreversible thrust of history that the people of Namibia attain their independence soon. Moreover, the adoption of sanctions by the United State8 Congress is a reflection of the turn taken in that country’s domestic politics. That should be positively reflected in that country's obligationa as a permanent member Of the Security Council. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, aware that the present situation can be decisive for ensuring progress in the process of Namibia's independence, has adopted highly important decisions in this respect. Non-alignment involves a historic commitment to Namibia's cause. Its very reason for existence is linked to the struggle to eliminate all vestiges of colonialism. For that reason, and in keeping with the principles guiding its foreign policy, Peru fully endorses the strategy for action adopted at the eighth summit conference of the Movement. We must repeat the appeal to all the non-aligned countries and the international community as a whole to bring to bear all the necessary pressure, including the imposition of sanctions, to eliminate all the obstacles that have so far hampered the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We must step up our assistance to and solidarity and co-operation with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. Peru maintains diplomatic relations with SWAP0 and is prepared to broaden those relations within the context of global action by the non-aligned countries to offer firm support to the struggle of the Namibian people. We must continue to promote the broadest possible awareness, both by the Western Governments and by their peoples and public opinion, in order to widen the anti-apartheid front and support for the independence of Namibia. We must clearly and firmly denounce the so-called policy of linkage, which is merely an attempt to perpetuate South Africa's illegal domination of Namibia. The Government of Peru recalls, in this connection, the special appeal. of the Eighth Summit Conference of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries for the immediate independence of Namibia. Since that appeal constitutes a universal aspiration, we urge all States to show renewed political will in order to make possible the / implementation Of the resolutions calling for the immediate and total independence / of Namibia, as well as the elimination of recourse to the veto in the Security ! , council. The recent visit by a representative group of foreign ministers of 1 non-aligned countries, including Peru, to various Western countries to promote the enhancement of this political will was promising, and we look forward to responses in keeping with the inevitable tide of history. We are now commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of SWAP0 and the twentieth anniversary of the beginning of its struggle. Peru therefore takes this opportunity to express again its solidarity with and commitment to a cause which, though it is above all that of the people of Namibia, who are the victims of oppression, is none the less a universal cause, a cause of all peoples. We know that final victory is near, that it is inevitable. We salute SWAP0 and express our full faith in its victory, with the brotherly warmth of our common cause. Mr. MACIEL (Brazil) : I take this opportunity to summarize the central elements of the Brazilian position in regard to the question of Namibia, which have been expounded on many ‘previous occasions, most recently during the fourteenth special session last September g First, all outstanding issues pertaining to the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) have been resolved, as reported by the Secretary-general in November 1985, when he indicated that agreement had been reached on the electoral system. Brazil, in consequence, condemns and rejects all attempts by South Africa to delay’ Namibian independence and to link it to irrelevant and extraneous issues incompatible with resolution 435 (1978) l Secondly, South Africa haa no legal rights over the Territory of Namibia, and the delaying tactics it adopts confirm Pretoria’s contempt for the principles of the Charter and for the accepted norms of international conduct. The notion of 1 inkage is totally unacceptable, as are the illegal political schemes imposed in Namibia by the racist colonial Power. Thirdly, after placing the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations 20 years ago, the General Assembly undertook to ensure Namibia’s Prompt aCCW3SiOn to self-determination and independence. The International Court of Justice, in 1971, confirmed that Member states “are under obligation tc recognize the illegality [and invalidity] of south Africa’s [continued] presence in Namibia”. (Advisory Opinion, I.C. J. Reports 1971, p. 58) FourtW, military aggression by South African forces against the front-line States, in particular Angola, have increased tensions and endangered peace, Last May President Jose Sarney of Brazil called for the urgent “cessation not only of the acts of aggression committed by south Africa against Angola, but also of all forma of assistance to the irregular forces that destabilise that countrya. (Mr. P@Ciel, Brazil) The south West Africa People’s Organization (SWAW) and the front-line States deserve increased support and assistance to overcome the economic difficulties posed by the constant acts of violence, and Brazil has taken measures in’ this respect. Fifthly, Brazil fully shares the view that the Security Council should exercise its authority in regard to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and other resolutions, acting decisively against South Africa in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII. We regret that the Council has been prevented from adopting more stringent enforcement measures. It is clear that the combination of pressure and persuasion and the so-called peaceful forces of change have not been effective. Brazil therefore expects the Security Council to act unanimously in fulfilment of its historic responsibility. These five central points are extensively explained in the full text of my statement, which is being distributed to all delegations. Mr. AL-SABBAGH (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic): Twenty years ago the United Nations terminated South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory of Namibia and established the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legitimate Administering Authority of the Territory until it achieves independence. Therefore, the United Nations bears a special legal responsibility for Namibia’s independence. Since then the Security Council and the General Assembly have adopted a number of resolutions calling upon South Africa to end its illegal occupation Of Namibia and grant the people of Namibia the right to self-determination and independence. The most important of those resolutions is Security Council resolution 435 (1978) I which provides the right basis for Namibia’s independence. The international community has asserted the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people and its courageous resistance under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAEO) to achieve the independence of a united Namibia. The occupation of Namibia ir a flagrant challenge to the principle8 of self -determination and of the iquality of pcroPle@. At its Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Governmetnt, held in Narare in September 1986, the NOXFAligned Wovement demanded the granting of indepcmdence and self-determination to the Territory and called for the imposition on the South African regime by the Security Counail of comprehensive mandatory aanctiona under Chapter VII of the Charter. In thirr aonnection I should also mention the srorld Conference on Sanctions againrt Racist South Africa, held in Paria in June, which called for the imporition of compreheneive mandatory sanctions to put an end to the Policy of apartheid and force the apartheid rigim to heed the will of the United Nations and respect international law. I cannot fail to mention, either, the International Conferenoe for the Imdiate Independence of Namibia, held in Vienna in July 1986. The Namibian people ha# been struggling for over 100 years to achieve its freedom and independence. That struggle is now being waged under the leaderrhip Of SWAKl, which the international oolaunity has acknauledged ar the 8018, authentic representative of the Namibian pcrogle, in accordance with the right of all people8 to self-determination and indepsndenae in acoordance with the provisions of the Charter . We reaffirm today our total oondermation of South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia, assert the need to end its aggressive rac’ist Policy and condemn ite policy of terrorism and intimidation. SeCUrity COUnCil rerolution 435 (1978) laid down the United Nationa plan for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. The plan requires that the Naribim people aohieve its full independent and be given the opportunity to use ite natural resources and ridlea, whioh ate now being flagrantly plundered by South (Mr. Al-Sabbagh, Bahrain) Afrioa and trausuatiohal corpotatiom. The failure to iapleaaant that plan can be attributed to South Afrioa’s refural to abide by international obligations. Not satisfied with its aggression against the Nanibiau people, South Africa has launched repeated acts of aggression against its African neighbours, destabilising their security and violating their territorial integrity. This has jhopardited independence and increased tension in those States. Peace-loving PsaPles call for M end to colonioation and raaial discrimination in Namibia and for the granting to the Nmibian People of its full political rights. South Africa should immediately withdraw its forces from Namibia and cease to use it as a base from which to launch acte of aggression against its neighbours. We support the international comaunity’s efforts to end the apartheild r&im, and the settlement of the Namibian problem under United Nations .auspices. The independence of Namibia should not be linked t0 any such extraneous factors as the withdrawal of the Cuban forces from Angola. We pay a tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia for the Constructive role it is playing to ensure the attainment of independence by Namibia. Western States, with their political and economic influence and their strong links with South Africa, could play a more important role in forcing the south African rdgime to take the steps necessary to bring about the independence of Namibia by the imposition of economic, trade, financial and other sanctions. The international community should make concerted efforts to end forthwith the illegal Occupation of Namibia and the policy of apartheid in South Africa. We should translate our words into action and bring about independence for the Namibian people, as well as for the heroic people of Palestine. In 1986 the people ‘8 struggle against the apartheid system was stepped up in South Africa and Namibia, and the emergency laws failed to put an end to that heroic national struggle. Majority rule should be established in southern Africa and a political dialogue should be started to put an end to the bloodshed. The Government of the State of Bahrain supports the immediate independence of the Territory of Namibia on the basis of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the efforts of the Secretary-General to achieve a peaceful settlement to that problem. Miss AL-MULLA (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic) : Since the earliest debates in the General Assembly the question of Namibia has been on the agenda Of the United Nations. Special sessions have been held to consider the question, the most recent being the fourteenth special session, held in September of this year- In spite of the fact that 20 years have passed since the adoption of resolution 2145 (XXI), which terminated South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia, the question of (Miss Al-Mulla, Kuwait) the independence of Namibia is still outstanding because of the manoeuvres prevarications of the minority Government of South Africa. Prom our experience of Israeli occupation and expansionism, we fully realise the meaning of the imposition of an entity on the peoples of a region. There are so many similarities between the two racist regimes in South Africa and occupied Palestine that perhaps these are the reasons for their alliance. We condemn the increased co-operation between Tel-Aviv and Ptetor ia and we warn the international community of the grave consequences of the military co-operation between those two dgimee, particularly when this is in connection with developing technical experience in the field of nuclear weapons. When- the Security Council adopted the plan for the independence of Namibia in 1 1978, the international community hoped that it would be implemented. However, in spite of the fact that eight years have passed since the adoption of that resolution by the Security Council, Namibia hae still not achieved independence, not only because of the prevarications and manoeuvrea of South Africa but also because of the direct and indirect support provided by some Western countries* In 1978 we expressed our appreciation of the role played by the five countries members of the Western contact group, in the context of the Security Council, in making possible the adoption of resolution 435 (1978), in spite of the challenges they faced. We now see that some of the countries members of that group have adopted policies contrary to the noble objective for which they worked - namely, the independence of Namibia. The international community condemns such policies I not simply for the sake of denunciation or condemnation, but because they produce no results, as demonstrated by the paasage of time. Indeed, they have proved completely useless and have not contributed to any efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement . (Miss Al-Mulla, Kuwait) If the policy of constructive engagement adopted by the united States is criticised, it ie because it has encouraged the racist rdgima to obstruct a of the region. If settlement and to pursue an arbitrary policy against the peoples we refer to the position adopted by the permanent members of the Security Council, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, it is because they have vetoed the relevant draft resolutions submitted to the Council. In this Assembly and in other forums we face an attempt to prevent the overwhelming majority of Member States from stating the true facts , but are there any other parties that veto such draft resolutions and that advocate the policy of constructive engagement? where does the answer to that question lie? world, which pride8 itself on its civilization, do to provide a What must this life of freedom for the Namibian people7 Let us look at the practioal optiona. There is the option of armed struggle, which is supported by my country, Kuwait a Some reject that option, basing themselves on the principle of the non-use of violence to aettle disputes, A second option ia the imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa, That is a peaceful option, but various pretexts are advanced againat it. soma people say that the impoaitijn of sanctrons would damage the economies of the countries of the region. We can only tell those who advance such flimsy pretexts that the people actually in the region reject that explanation, Some say that the imposition of sanctions meana the isolation of South Africa and that we oannot isolate a regime and negotiate with it on a settlement at the same time. This pretext can always be answered by saying that sanctions are a peaceful means of bringing pressure to bear against South Africa to comply with the will of the international community. One reason for optimism is that many countriea that at first opposed the idea of sanctions against South Africa have now adopted sanction8 through their national legislation, although in a limited way. We hope that those sanctions will become increasingly comprehensive. Until the entire international community adopts effective measures against South Africa, my country, in co-operation with others, will persist in its position of principle in support of the struggle of the Namibian people under the leadership of its sole and legitimate representative, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) , its solidarity with the front-line States and its support for the adoption of all possible international measures against South Africa. (Miss Al-Mulls, Kuwait) Finally, I should like, on behalf of my delegation, to express to the Council for Namibia our appreciation of the efforts it has made over the past 20 years to achieve the noble objective for which it was established. We are confident that the Council will carry out effectively its no less important role in the establishment of the Namibian State. Mr. BADAWI (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): The united Nations has had a special responsibility for the Territory of Namibia and its people since the General Assembly decided at its twenty-first session, in 1966, to terminate south Africa’s Mandate over that Territory. The United Nations Council for Namibia was established by the General Assembly in the following year as the body legally charged with fulfilling the special responsibility of the united Nations to enable the Namibian people freely to express its will in an act of self-determination and to achieve independence. The iacist Pretoria regime rejected the relevant resolutions and arrangements from the outset and has continued for more than two decades, its illegal occupation of Namibia, contravening the norms of international law, challenging the will of the international community and disregarding United Nations reSOlUtiOnS+ For more than two decades the Namibian people has been struggling heroically under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPS), its sole, legitimate representative, for freedom and independence. Indeed, that struggle has been going on for over 100 years with a determination that earns the respect and appreciation of all peace-loving Powers that call for justice and freedom. %Vt has always been in the forefront of those supporting the right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence, in accordance with its commitment to Support all national liberation movements in Africa and its conviction that an independent, free Africa cannot be achieved unless all vestiges of colonialism are eradicated. Thus, Cairo was host to the first external office of SWAPO, from which it began its political support for the struggle of the Namibian people in its occupied Territory. Egypt’s solidarity with Namibia in its just cause stems not only from principles of justice and peace but also from a deeply rooted belief in international law and the principles of the Charter. For two decades the racist Pretoria regime has continued to challenge the international will by its illegal occupation of Namibia and by subjecting the Namibian people to its racist policies and laws and to abhorrent repressive action, The illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist Pretoria rhgime is accompanied by the plundering of Namibia’s natural and human resources in circumstances of oppression, violence and intimidation. This is accomplished with the collaboration of foreign economic interests seeking exorbitant profits. The aim Of that alliance is to plunder Namibian resources and deprive the legitimate “mere of the enjoyment of the riches of their Territory. We have no doubt that the purpose of that collaboration is to support not the Namibian people but the illegal occupation of the racist forces , and to impede the process to independence of the Territory. In the light of these crimes, the United Nations Council for Namibia, in the context Of its Mandate, adopted Decree No. 1, of 1974, which was subsequently aPProved by the General Assembly, to safeguard and protect the natural resources of Namibia until the attainment by its people of independence. The Council, of which Egypt is a member, then proceeded to take the legal steps provided for in Decree No. 1, to make those foreign interests pay for their depredations in Namibia. The policies of racist South Africa are not confined to the illegal occupation Of Namibia and the plundering of its economic resources. south Africa also use it ass a base for launching acts of aggression and intimidation against neighbouring African countries, violating their territories and sovereignty and destroying their (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) infrartructutea. All thin has led to a rtate of instability in southern Africa and is a moot dangerous threat to the whole region. Obviously, that unstable situation heightens the prorprrcrta of a cold war and e%ternal interference, and ah0 endangers peace and Iecur ity not only in Af 1: ica but all over the world. The responsibility for the deterioration of the rrituation and the korrening increase in violence in Bouthern Africa wholly rert0 on South Africa becauee of ite aggreeaive retaliatory policies and ite illegal occupation of Namibia. The haa come to put an end to all these dangers; to whiah African Peoples and States are subjected. While the mandatory ranctionrr imposed by many countries have succeeded in isolating the racirt Pretoria rbgime , those meaiurerr are still not sufficient to force South Afriua to heed the will of the international community and embark inmecliately on the implementation of all the relevant United Nations reaolutionsr fti particular Security Council remlution 435 (1976). The overwhelming majority of State@ are now convinced of the need to impose comprehenrive mandatory ranctione against south Africa ar the sole means of bringing about peaceful change in the very dangeroue aituation in the southern Part of the Afrioan continent. The Security Council, which is the international organ mandated to protect and 8afeguard international peace and security, is obliged to adopt all mearures gtiPulated in Chapter VII of the Charter to ensure the immediate withdrawal of the ‘aoist occupation forces from Namibia and the implementation of the United Nations Plan under Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The Security Council is not Only being called upon to discharge the duties assigned it in the Charter but also to safeguard the right of the international community for whoae protection it Was B8kabliehed. Since the Security Council’s credibility is threatened, the international community expects it to take steps immediately to end those faCtora thet lead to instability in southern Africa. Egypt reaffirms its principled poeition of support for the right of the Nmibian people to self-determination and independence, and its national aspiration to eXercis@ sovereignty over ite territory and economic reaources~ It also reaffirms its intention to continue to support SWAP0 to enable it to achieve the material and psychological goals of its heroic people* WYpt pays tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia for its determination to carry out ita duties and call8 upon the internatiomd CommunitY to demonstrate its support of the legal atepe that would enable the Council to discharge its responsibilities. -YPt reject8 and condemn8 anew the continued illegal occupation Of the Territory of Namibia by the racist minority rbgime of Pretoria, the plundering of the resources and economic wealth of that Territory, and the repeated act6 Of aggression against Afrioan neighbours. rt calls upon the Security Council iWuedfately to embark on the adoption of mwwuree to ensure a prompt end to those &ngerous situations in eouthern Africa. (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) Egypt looks forward to the day when the struggling, heroic Namibian people will attain its independence and freedom and start Playing its role in the international community. Mr, BARTKEVICH (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian) : The question of Namibia, which is again being considered by the General Assembly, is one of the items that have been on the agenda of the United Nations practically since its founding. For almost 40 years now the Assembly has been debating the guestion of South-West Africa. Twenty years ago it revoked South Africa’s Mandate to administer Namibia and made that Territory a direct responsibility of the United Nations. However, despite numerous United Nations resolutions and the clearly expressed demand of the international community for the granting of immediate independence to the Namibian people, the South African racists are continuing their illegal occupation of Namibia and stubbornly refuse to comply with decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Together with Western transnational corporations, they are mercilessly exploiting that Territory’s natural and human resources and, with the help of local puppet figures, are attempting to impose on the Namibian people a so-called internal settlement. The situation inside Namibia has deteriorated sharply: the racists have turned the country into a huge concentration camp; acts of repression against fighters for independence are being stepped up; Namibia’s civilian population is being subjected to genocide; basic human rights are being violated on a massive scale ; and the South African authorities are resorting to brutal acts of repression. The racist apartheid regime continues to build up its military presence in another Part of Namibia - the Caprivi Strip - by reinforcing existing military bases and setting up new ones. Terror against the Namibian people is accompanied by acts of armed aggression against Namibia’s neighbours, independent African States which support the just struggle of the Namibian people for independence and freedom. Under the pretext of talk about its professed desire for peaceful and good-neighbourly relations with neighbouring African States, the Pretoria rigime, assisted by its Western protectors - first and foremost the United States - is seeking to channel the process of resolving the Namibian problem along neo-colonialist lines. It maintains the notorious linkage, rejected by the United Nations, between a settlement of the Namibian question and the irrelevant issue of the withdrawal of Cuban internationalists from Angola, where they have been stationed at the request of a sovereign Government and under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The objective of those attempts is obvious: to delay independence for Namibia and try and project this problem into the sphere of global confrontation between East and West. As was emphasized in the joint Soviet-Burkina Faso Declaration, signed in October 1986, an explosive situation has developed in southern Africa which is a CaUSe of grave concern for the international community. The existing situation requires a just political settlement. Such a settlement can be achieved only by completely stopping now, and preventing in the future, acts of aggression by the South African racist regime against the front-line African States, granting immediate and unconditional independence to Namibia on the basis of the relevant United Nations decisions, and the speedy elimination of the brutal and inhuman mYStem of apartheid in South Africa, The Soviet delegation supports the recommendations contained in the last report of the United Nations Council for Namibia. In them, the General Assembly would "strongly reject the policies of 'constructive engagement' and 'linkage' pursued by the present United States Administration, which have served to encourage the racist rigime of South Africa to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia, and calls an appeal for their abandonment so that the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations on the question of Namibia can be implemented." (A/41/24 (Part II), draft resolution A, operative para. 26) The Council's report quite rightly Points out that this policy has been totally discredited by the very actions of the Pretoria rhgime, both within South Africa and in the southern African region as a whole. The United Nations Council for: Namibia quite rightly recommends to the General Assembly that it appeal to the United States Administration to desist from that policy. ! The Soviet Union favours an intensified collective search for ways of resolving the conflict situation in southern Africa and advocates a constructive r search for ways and means of implementing, as rapidly as possible, United Nations decisions on Namibia and achieving in that region a just political settlement fully ! in accordance with the principles of the United Nations and the Organization of / ’ African Unity. c This requires, first and foremost, the complete cessation of acts of aggression by the apartheid regime against neighbouring African countries and the prevention of such acts in the future. Moreover, Namibia’s independence must be assured immediately and the inhuman system of apartheid in South Africa speedily eliminated. The Soviet Union consistently calls for, in all international forums, the t immediate end of racist South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia. It favours the immediate realization of Namibia’s inalienable right to genuine self-determination and independence and the immediate and compl.ete transfer of Power to the Namibian people, in accordance with all relevant United Nations decisions, including Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). It is extremely important to enhance the role of this Organization - and above all that of the Security Council - in this matter and to ensure the implementation Of the decisions of the United Nations, international conferences and the Non-Aligned Movement concerning Namibia. It is imperative that those States which have not yet done so should immediately end all their relations with South Africa SO as to isolate Pretoria completely - politically, economically, militarily and culturally. The time has come, in view of the grave threat to international peace and security created by South Africa’s racist rhgime, to convene the Security Council. The Council should use its powers to ensure the implementation of its resolutions on Namibia and to take resolute measures to counter any of South Africa’s diversionary manoeuvres and plans in Namibia by imposing comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter.VII of the united Nations Charter. The Soviet Union calls for the settlement of outstanding problems, including those in the African continent, by political means, through collective efforts and scrupulous respect for the independence and the right Of Peoples to determine their destiny themselves. we are ready to associate ourselves with either joint or parallel action to that end with all States. As is stressed in the press communiqu6 issued when the appeal by the Eighth Conference of Beads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries, addressed to the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States of America, was handed over to the General Secretary of the Central committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr. M. S. Gorbachev, that appeal and other documents of the Harare Conference are in keeping with the policy of the Soviet Union. That policy is aimed at eliminating the nuclear threat , achieving a just settlement of regional conflicts, ensuring the right of peoples to free and independent development, economic independence and international co-operation on equal terms. Mr. Gorbachev stressed the Soviet Union’s solidarity with the Republic of Zimbabwe and other front-line States in the Struggle to free the Peoples of South Africa and Namibia from the colonial racist yoke. me Soviet Union is a steadfast advocate of the speedy realization by the People of Namibia & its inalienable right to genuine self-determination and independence I on the basis of the maintenance of the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia, including Walvis Bay and the coastal islands, and favours the immediate and total withdrawal of South Africa’s troops and administration from Namibia. It alSo advocates the complete transfer of power to the only genuine represe*tative of the Namibian people@ the South West Africa people’s Organisation (SWAPG), which is recognised by the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity. From this rostrum the Soviet delegation once again solemnly declares that the Soviet Union is among those countries which scrupulously comply with all united Nations decisions on the Namibian question. Guided by the decisions of the United Nations on Namibia, the Soviet Union is supporting, and will continue to supportr in every possible way, ..the just struggle of the people of Namibia, led by SWAPS, means at its disposal. which it is waging for its liberation, using all Mr. YU Mengjia (china) (interpretation from Chinese): The independence the people of Africa and the rest of Namibia is a question of major importance for of the world who are struggling to eradicate residual pockets of colonialism. &bout two months ago the United Nations General Assembly met in a special session to consider the question of Namibia and adopted a resolution by an overwhelming majority. In their statements at the special session, delegations from many countries expressed strong indignation at the heinous crimes of the colonialist authorities of South Africa and reaffirmed their resolute support for the just struggles Of the people of southern Africa and Namibia. In recent years the South African colonialist authorities, while intensifying their ruthless suppression of the struggle of the Namibian people for national independence, have stepped up their manoeuvres aimed at a so-called internal settlement. By setting up an "interim government of national unity", they attempt to sow discord among the Namibian people and jeopardize their unity SO as to Perpetuate their illegal occupation of Namibia. At the same time the South African authorities have wantonly launched armed incursions, engaged in political subversion and economic blackmail against the front-line African States, and grossly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those countries in an attempt to force them to abandon their support for the just struggles of the Namibian and South African peoples. These criminal acts by the South African authorities, coupled with their brutal suppression of the anti-apartheid struggle of the South African people, have gravely undermined peace and stability in southern Africa, thus posing a threat to the peace and security of the world as a whole 4 The Namibian people have been waging an unyielding struggle against South Africa’s colonial rule and for national independence. under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) they have strengthened their unity, engaged in vigorous struggles of various kinds, including armed struggle, and continued to win victories despite difficult conditions. We firmly believe that the Namibian people, persevering in their struggle, will surely win the final V iCtOry of independence. (Mr. YU Mengjia, China) The just struggle of the Namibian people not only enjoys the firm solidarity Of the African countries but has also gained ever greater sympathy and support from the international community. Both the twenty-second Organization of African Unity sunUnit meeting and the Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held this year, have focused their attention on the question of southern Africa. In addition to the special aession of the General Assembly on Namibia held not long ago, the United Nations organised in Vienna the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia. All theee conferences have reaffirmed their resolute support for the struggles of the people of Namibia and South Africa and called for effective sanctions against the South African authorities. What ehould be mentioned in particular is that in supporting the just Cause Cf the Namibian and south African peoples, the front-line African States have Wstained enormous pressure from South Africa and endured heavy national saC?rif ice. For this, we wish to express our sfricere appreciation and support. The United Nations Charter and the Declaration on decolonization provide in =xPliCit terIn8 that national self-determination and independence are the sacred and inalienable right of the people of all countries. Complying with the aspirations Of the people of the world, the United Nations has adopted many important resolutions and decisions aimed at expediting the realization of Namihian independence. In 1966 the United Nation8 General Assembly adopted a resolution to terminate the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia. In 1969 the Security Council Confirmed this decision by the General Assembly; and in 1971 the International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion expressed its support for this action Of the General Assembly. The unequivocal opposition by the three major bodies of the United Nations to south Africa’ s occupation of Namibia has invalidated every sing1e Pretext used by South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of that Territory. In 1978 the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978). The realization of Namihian independence through elections under the Supervision and control of the United Rations, as called for in resolution 435 (1978) I f* a fair and reasonable plan and provides a realistic and viable basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian auestion. fn seeking a reasonable settlement of the Namibian question, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) ha* displayed great sincerity and a spirit of accommodation and worked in active co-operation with the United Nations Secretary-General. Roweve r , the south African authorities have all along defied and refused to implement the solemn resolutions and decisions of the United Nations. Even on Security Council resolution 435 (1978)) to which they agreed, they have gone back On their own word and tried by every means to obstruct its implementation. By November last year the South African authorities were said to have agreed to the choice of the electoral system , and in March this year they indicated their readiness to make 1 August this year the date to start the implementation of the , Security Council resolution. Despite all this, with the backing and connivance of a certain big Power, they have continued to insist on the linkage between the independence of Namibia and the troop withdrawal from Angola and pre-condition the former on the latter, thus leading the Namibian question into a stalemate. As iS well known, the linkage formula is in fact a pretext used by the south African authorities for delaying the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This is not only strongly opposed by Angola and the other front-line African States and SWAP0 but also categorically rejected by the United Nations General Assembly and the security Council, Xt must be pointed out that the KealiZatfOn Of the independence of Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola are two different matters. The linking of these two questions will only (Mr. Yu Mengjia, China) further complicate the problems in southern Africa and make them more difficult to solve as well as prolong and deepen the sufferings of the Namibian people. During the current debate , most representatives have made al.&Jly clear where the Crux of the Namibian question lies. The situation in which the Namibian people are Subjected to aggression and enslavement must not be allowed to continue. fn order to put more pressure on the south African colonialist authorities and render mOre vigorous support to the Namibian people’s etruggle for national independence, the South African people’s struggle against sartheid and the struggle of the frOnt-line African States to safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity, we h+d that the current session of the General Asaembly should respond to the call of the people of all countries, adopt resolutions urging the Security Council to apply effective sanctions against south Africa in compliance with the relevant Provisions Of the United Nations Charter and call on all Member States t0 take Punitive measures against South Africa individually or collectively and increase their moral and material support for the people of Namibia, South Africa and the frOnt-line African States. only by translating our positions expressed during the current debate into concrete actions can OUK efforts be more effective and fruitful* The Chinese Government and people are deeply concerned about the developments in the Namibian situation. Last September, wu Xuegian, State Councillor and Minister Of Foreign Affairs of China, attended the fourteenth special SeSSiOn Of the General Assembly as the chairman of the Chinese delegation and delivered a sPe@ch reaffirming the resolute stand of China in support of the Namibian people’s struggle for national. independence under the leadership of SWAPO. The Chinese Government and people will, as always, stand by the African countries and peoples and all the peace-loving and justice-upholding countries and peoples in the world and continue to make unremitting efforts for the elimination of the system of apartheid in South Africa, the realization of the independence of Namibia and maintenance of peace and stability in southern Africa, until these goals are reached. Mr. POSTCWICZ (Poland): We have gathered once again to discuss the question of Namibia, one of the most challenging problems facing the United Nations. Although we have scored great victories in decolonizing Africa, the plight of the people of Namibia and South Africa reminds us of our unfinished task. After more than a hundred years of struggle for national independence, the heroic Namibian nation continues to be subjected to colonial domination, racism, military occupation and ruthless economic exploitation. The unresolved question of Namibia remains a thorn in the flesh of the entire international community and specifically the united Nations, which bears primary responsibility for Namibia. The occupation of Namibia by South Africa and the obstacles placed in the way of the realization of the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence are in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations as well as other principles of international law. As a conseauence we are faced with a deteriorating situation not only in Namibia but in the whole southern African region which clearly poses a threat to peace and international security. The main obstacle to the realization of the Namibian people's right to self-determination and the granting of independence to that Territory is South Africa's refusal to fulfil its obligations under the United Nations Charter and to implement the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Twenty Years have passed since the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for Namibia. Unfortunately, South Africa not only has continued to defy the reSdUtiOn5 Of the United Nations but has actually proceeded to consolidate its illegal presence in Namibia. 1t has intensified the militarization of the Territory, making it a launching pad for aggression against neighbouring independent Af r ican States . It has invoked one pretext after another for thwarting immplementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia contained in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). In the light of these facts, a particular source of concern is that South Africa is receiving support and encouragement from certain Western Powersl especially the United States and Great Britain. By casting their vetoes in the Security Council, these States have blocked the adoption of effective measures for the implementation of the plan for Namibia’s independence. such actions have made it perfectly clear that Pretoria and its supporters are seeking to bypass the United Nations and impose their own solution to the Namibian question. (Mr. Postowicz, Poland) As a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Poland has consistently endeavoured to make a constructive contribution to the task of promoting the interests of Namibia. we have always considered this a genuine decolonisation issue and maintained that the people of illegally occupied Namibia have the inalienable right to self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia. We are also deeply convinced that the genuine independence of Namibia can be achieved only through the direct and full participation of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) , the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. Bearing this in mind , Poland condemns all attempts by the South African rQgime to impose neo-colonial solutions through the establishment of a puppet administration in Namibia. In our opinion, the most effective means of accelerating changes in tiamibia and South Africa is the total isolation of the apartheid regime in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. We therefore call for the immediate imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the united Nations Charter. In this regard, Poland fully supports the final documents adopted this year during the Conference on sanctions in Paris, the Conference on Namibia in Vienna as Well as the September special session of the General Assembly on Namibia. We firmly believe that the time has come for the international community to transform its declarations of sympathy towards the case of the Namibian people into concrete decisive action. The United Nations cannot afford merely to continue to reiterate its determination to take such action sometime in the future. The time has come for all States to demonstrate the necessary political will to end the suffering and insecurity in Namibia and southern Africa. we are deeply convinced that the independence of Namibia is within our reach and that we must unite our efforts to obtain it. make this statement on behalf of the Arab Group over which I am presiding this month. *In this way I can once again make clear the position of the Arab Group, which fully supports the independence of Namibia and vigorously condemns the continued occupation of that Territory by South Africa. Throughout the last 20 Years, that is, since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXXI), by which the United Nations put an end to South Africa's mandate over what was then called South-West Africa, South Africa has continued to reject the resolutions of the United Nations and illegally to occupy the Territory of Namibia. That ~eupation represents an act of aggression against the Namibian people, aggression as defined in General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX). South Africa continues to defy all the relevant resolutions of the United Nations - not only those of the General Assembly but also those of the Security Council, as well as the well-known judgements of the International court of JUStiCe- The United Nations has not been able to assume direct responsibility for Namibia. It has been unable to put an end to South Africa's defiance of the international community, which has had to put up with this affront for the Past 20 years. That affront, in addition to the Organization's inability to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people has shattered the confidence which the Peoples Of the world have placed in the United Nations whose credibility has thereby suffered. This year once again the international community has demanded that South Africa withdraw from Namibia. It has stressed the need to safeguard the right of the Namibian people to freedom and self-determination in accordance with General Assembly resolution s-14/1 adopted at the last special session. That resolution Once again reaffirmed the right of the Namibian people to self-determination, freedom and independence, and vigorously condemned South Africa for the (Mr. Al-Kawari, Qatar) continuation of its illegal occupation of Namibia and for the establishment of an interim government in Namibia in June 1985. The international community has rejected all the Pretoria rbgime's plans by which it is attempting to maintain its illegal occupation , and has declared them to be null and void, it has also requested that an end be put to those plans and that mandatory global sanctions be imposed on South Africa in order to force it to comply with United Nations resolutions on Namibia. Peace and security can never be restored in southern Africa as long as Namibia has not achieved independence and as long as the racist riigime of South Africa persists - which are the two objectives that the united Nations has been trying to achieve for years. We appeal to those countries that assist and support the racist regime of Pretoria to renounce their assistance and support. I should like, in this respect, to refer to General Assembly resolution 40/97 B, in which the Assembly condemned the use of the veto in the Security Council to prevent the Council from adopting effective measures against the Pretoria rbgime. On behalf of the Arab Group , I should like to reaffirm our full support for the struggle of the Namibian people under the leadership of its sole legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). (Mr. Al-Kawari, Qatar) i We pay a tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia and the united ' Nations High Commissioner for Namibia for the efforts they are making in spite of i the difficulties and obstacles they have encountered. 1 We are convinced that the march of history will continue and that, at long i last, Colonialism will disappear from southern Africa despite all these difficulties and obstacles. The stain on the record of the world today caused by the South African r&gime*s flouting of international legality and refusal to allow the people of Namibia to he free and independent will he wiped out. Mr. ICAZA GALLARD (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): A few days ago the General Assembly considered the problem of apartheid. More than 100 delegations joined in expressing the universal repudiation of that System. But when the time came to vote on specific actions in the form of resolutions, once again the negative votes that are cast time and again, and in all forums, revealed the true faces of those who collaborate with the south African r&ime- Today we are once again considering the question of Namibia, which is a direct oo*s@quence of the apartheid system. And we ask ourselvesr how long will it take, how much blood will have to be shed, how many human beings will have to be sacrificed, how much suffering will have to be endured by these Peoples before they oan make any impression, however slight, on the conscience of those who Perpetuate this situation and those who encourage them? FJh@n it comes to Namibia, we are not talking about Periods of five or 10 years of oppression and injustice: we are talking about more than 100 years Of ignominy. But we are also talking about more than 100 years of heroism and rebellion by that worthy people against foreign rule. South Africa, in violation of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) Of 1966, continues its stubborn occupation of Namibia and, in connivance with other countries, persists in its ruthless plunder of the natural resources of that Territory. South Africa has applied in Namibia the same laws of tribal and racial segregation that it applies to the black population of South Africa. In order to exploit the natural resources of Namibia, the labour force of the Territory is also governed by the//apartheid system , which, although it is even more brutal, follows the South African model. Moreover, the differences of income and standards of living between whites and blacks in Namibia are and always have been even greater than in South Africa itself. From the beginning of colonial rule , Namibia, because of its enormous resources, was known as the “paradise for foreign capital”. But it has been turned into a hell for its own inhabitants, who, ironically, are the victims of their own good fortune. Today more than 200 United States and South African subsidiaries and companies with headquarters in other Western countries are illegally and mercilessly exploiting Namibia’s natural resources. Those resources are the exclusive property of the Namibian people, and their exploitation has not hen authorized by the United Nations Council for Namibia, which, in Decree No. 1, Stipulated that the exploitation of the resources of that Territory must be authorized by the Council. South Africa has also been using Namibian territory as a base for aggression against the fraternal front-line countries, in particular the People’s Republic cf Angola. AS iS well known to all, the irresponsible policy of “constructive engagement* has led Washington to pursue the same policy that it pursues in Central America - that is, a policy of using foreign territories in order to commit aggression against sovereign States. The United States has decided to provide sophisticated weapons - as it has been doing in Central America - to the armed bandits of UNITA which operate from Namibia and represent Pretoria’s interests. (Mr. Icaza Gallard, Nicaragua) Security Council resolution 435 (1978) contains an internationally accepted plan for Namibia's independence.. But that resolution has not been put into effect and Namibia remains enslaved. There is not and never has been any justification for continuing to deny N%mibia its legitimate right to independence. The now discredited theory of “linkage” is the product of the same obscurantist minds which gave birth to *constructive engagement ". The presence of the Cuban internationalist troops in AR9cla is nothing but a capricious and unfounded linkage invoked in order to make Possible the continued occupation of Namibia and to mask the lack of will on the p%rt of South Africa and its allies to fulfil their international obligations. We therefore come back inevitably to the same point: The illegal occupation Of Namibia, the continuing tension in southern Africa, the threat to international Peace and security in the region are all the result of the perpetuation of the apartheid rhgime, which survives because of the historical co-operation which it receives from its powerful allies. Therefore, Namibia's struggle for independence 1s indissolubly linked to the struggle against the heinous apartheid r&Time. As we said a few days ago, the international community must act in a WaY oomensUr%te with the struggle of those peoples for justice and freedom. There is % clearer conviction now than ever before that the imposition Of mandatory s%nctionS is the only peaceful mechanism available to the international Community to help those peoples eradicate apartheid. In that connection, we would mention the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, held in Vienna last June. That Conference produced % Programme Of Action in which we read the following: v “The Conference appeals to the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Permanent members of the Security Council, which have thus far prevented the Council from aCtin9 effectively, to reconsider their position in the light of the grave situation in southern Africa and the accumulated evidence Of the Past 26 Yearsl which irrefutably points to comprehensive mandatory sanctions as the most effective peaceful means of forcing south Africa to terminate its illegal OCCUPatiOn of Namibia”. (A/CONF. 138/11, para. 168) On 8 November, representatives of 130 political parties of Asia, Africa, Oceania, Europe and America met in Managua to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Those Parties issued the Managua Declaration , which states in the part dealing with Namibia: “The Parties demand that an end be put to the Continued occupation of Namibia, in violation of countless resolutions adopted by the United Nations, the OrganiZatiOn of African Unity and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. They also reiterate their solidarity with the Namibian people’s attempt to secure self-determination”. (Mr. Icaza Gallard, Nicaragua) History has taught us that though the process of decolonization may be Painful and sometimes slow it is certainly inexorable. Remnants of odious systems still cling to the fringes of history, trying at all costs to survive, but the peoples involved rise in rebellion and will triumph in the end. That reminds us of the words of one of the leaders of the South West Africa P@0ple's Organization (SWAPO), Comrade Herman ja Toivo, who was imprisoned on Robben Island in South Africa: %e do not recognize, nor shall we recognize in the future, their right to govern us, to promulgate laws in whose drafting we took no part and to treat our country as if it belonged to them and as ,if they were our masters. We have always regarded South Africa as an intruder in our nation. Those were Our feelings, and they will always be our feelings . . . Only when South Africans understand this attitude and act accordingly shall we be able to end Our struggle for freedom and justice in the land of our birth." Twenty years ago, on 18 July 1966, having exhausted all peaceful means, SWAP0 stated at the end of a document published in Dar-es-Salaam: "The only recourse left: to us now to achieve our liberation is an armed uprising." Today more than 100,000 racist troops occupy Namibia, but they have encountered heroic resistance j.n the war of liberation waged by the Namibian People, led by SW&PO, its sole and legitimate representative. In the light of that heroic saga, the people of Nicaragua, which is also suffering aggression, but which also retains its dignity, reaffirms its unshakeable solidarity with the Namibian people in its fight to win back its inalienable right to freedom, justice and peace. Mr. TANASA (Romania) : The General Assembly is again debating the auestion of Namibia. Twenty years have elapsed since it terminated South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and proclaimed its people’s inalienable right to self-determination, freedom and independence. The situation today remains unchanged. Namibia is still occupied by South Africa, and self-determination, freedom and independence remain a dream for the suffering and struggling people of Namibia. Twenty years of efforts by the international community to achieve freedom for Namibia have produced no results. The auestian of Namibia has been on the General Assembly’s agenda since 1946, and the Assembly has already held three special sessions on the subject. At the fourteenth special session, held only two months ago, the General Assembly examined all aspects of the matter and adopted resolution S-14/1, which inter alia, upholds the legitimacy of the strugqle of the Namibian people by every means at their disposal, including armed struggle, to repel South Africa’s aggression and to achieve self-determination, freedom and independence. Thus the international community has once again given its verdict in very clear terms. Yet there is no sign of any change of mind in South Africa. On the contrary, the Pretoria regime continues arrogantly to defy the call for an end to it8 illegal occupation of Namibia, and persists in its ruthless political repression, racial discrimination and Ertheid. The situation in southern Africa and around Namibia has given rise to a feeling of profound concern and anxiety among the African countries and the international community. (Mr. Tanasa, Romania} The liberation of Namibia from colonial oppression has now come to the forefront of the struggle to eliminate colonialism from the face of the earth. Many representatives here have very convincingly expressed the determination of the international community to support the struggle for the freedom of Namibia until complete victory. It has been firmly underlined that the United Nations Plan for Namibia remains the sole basis for a peaceful settlement of the problem of Namibia. Support has also been expressed for the continuation of the work of the Secretary-General in this connection, and the necessity for the implementation without delay of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) has been reaffirmed. It is unanimously considered that the settlement of the Namihian problem is vital, not only for the Namibian people themselves, but for all the Peoples in southern Africa, in order to meet the urgent need to avert serious tension in the area and to ensure international peace and stability. At the international level, there has been widespread action to mobilise Public opinion in support of the just cause of the people of Namibia. The overwhelming majority of States in the world have taken steps to force South Africa to put an end to its domination over Namibia. AS stressed in the Political Declaration of the summit Conference Of the non-aligned countries, held in Harare, the Heeds of State or Government Of those Countries strongly condemn the racist rhime of south Africa for the continued illegal, colonial and brutal occupation of Namibia in flagrant violation of the r@solutiona of the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement and other international forums. (Mr. Tanasa, Romania) With deep regret, we must once again observe that South Africa iS Continuing to defy the efforts of the United Nations and the international community. The Pretoria rigime is continuing to create further obstacles to Namibia’s attainment of real independence. It has become clear that for South Africa negotiations are merely a pretext to gain time , to perpetuate its domination over Namibia, to irapoae a neo-colonialist solution and to implement its expansionist destabilizing designs in the region. The cynicism with which the Pretoria rbgime defies the most elementary norms of international law is expressed in the militarization of Namibia and the use of its territory as a base for terrorist actions, for the commission of aggression and for the destabilisation of Angola and other neighbouring countries. This has created a particularly dangerous situation in southern Africa that threatens international peace and security. Those actions, which run counter to’ United Nations efforts to bring about an agreement to implement the plan to grant independence to Namibia, clearly show the hypocrisy and duplicity of the South African racists. Romania’s constant and manifold support for the national liberation struggle of the Namihian people, under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), its legitimate representative, and our support for efforts by the United Nations to discharge its responsibilities have been reaffirmed many times here at regular and special sessions, in the Security Council and in other international forums. The people of Romania, firmly committed to the ideals of national and social justice, has shown its strong solidarity with the people of Namibia in their efforts to attain freedom and to exercise their inalienable right freely to decide on their future without any external interference. The Socialist Republic of Romania Is complete solidarity with the StrUggae Of the Wamibian people was recently reaffirmed by our President, Nicolae deausescu, in ; the message addressed to the President of the South West Africa People’s ’ OrganizatiOn (SWAPO) , Sam Nu joma, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Struggle of the Namibian people as well as in the message addressed t0 the eighth summit conference of the non-aligned countries. Socialist Romania actively favours the adoption of strong measures, including i sanctfons, to speed up Namibia’s achievement of independence on the basis of United Nations resolutions, in particular security Council resolutions 385 11976) and 435 (1978). We support the concerted action of the international COmmunitY to ’ reIIIOVe any and all obstacles to the implementation of the united Nations Plan. We 1 most firmly reject any attempt to link implementation of the plan with extraneous elements and of any conditions and obstructionist manoeuvre8 aimed at impeding 8atiSfaction of the Namibian people’s aspirations for freedom. In keeping with its position of principle regarding strict compliance with 1 United Nations resolutions on the question of Namibia, Romania has COnSistentlY adopted an attitude of strongly condemning the illegal occupation of Namibia and the policies and practices of apartheid pursued by the racist Pretoria authorities. Romania has always fully supported the just struggle of the Namibian people to realize its legitimate claim to independence, freedom and social ) Progress. Similarly, it has resolutely condemned aggressive and destabiliming I I actfons undertaken by the Pretoria authorities in neighbouring COUntries- In the name of the struggling and suffering people of Namibia, in the name of Peace and security in southern Africa and beyond we Solemly urge that the General AssemMy live up to its responsibilities in respect of Namibia. Let us all marshal (Mr. Tanasa, Romania) our forces for resolute and decisive action in support of the liberation of Namibia. Let us redouble our efforts to secure the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) forthwith. Mr. SLAOUI (Morocco) (interpretation from French) : It is difficult, for a variety of reasons, to resist the temptation to link the debate we held last week on the South African Government18 policy of apartheid to the one in which the General Assembly is now engaged, that is, the question of Namibia. First of all, both situations derive from the attitude and actions of the Pretoria Government, which are in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the elementary principles of international law. The fact that they have been allowed to continue poses a serious threat to international peace and security. Moreover , both of these situations have given rise to a clear and firm international consensus, which over the years has been formed by the United Nations. In the specific case of Namibia, 20 years have already passed since the General Assembly stripped South Africa of its Mandate over the Territory and decided to take over direct and exclusive responsibility itself. After much hesitation, the efforts of the international community led to the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), incorporating the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. *ceptance of this plan by all parties made it seem that prospects for a negotiated settlement were good and that the patience and maturity shown by the Namibian people and, by the whole of Africa, were about to be rewarded by the removal of the last remaining obstacles to the implementation of the plan. Unfortunately, instead of committing itself in good faith and with determination to the implementation of the plan, South Africa, with characteristic duplicity, undermined the process by erecting a series of obstacles to its implementation. It is in this context that we should view South Africa’s attempt to introduce elements extraneous to the internationally approved plan for a solution, an attempt designed to weaken the determination of the international community to secure the immediate independence of Namibia. This procrastination and these obstructionist tactics of the apartheid rdgims, designed to prevent any solution of the Namibian problem, can be traced to the economic and financial gains made by the rbgime, and through it, by certain foreign military circles, from intensive exploitation of v Namibia’s immense wealth. In the absence of decisive collective reaction by the international community, that exploitation, which is continuing in violation of Decree No. 1 for the protection of Namibia’s natural resources, cannot fail to be a scurce of comfort to the South African Government, and encourage it in its ignoble policy of apartheid and its hegemonistic designs for the region. Developments in Namibia and southern Africa in general show that South Africa has not the slightest intention of renouncing its illegal occupation of Namibia. That same conclusion was reached by the recent special session of the General Assembly which was held on the very question of Namibia. Given the intensification of the courageous struggle of the Namibian people, South Africa, far from facing the facts, has been strengthening its brutal repression of innocent person8 of all ages, denying the Namibians enjoyment of the most elementary human rights and trying to crush their national unity. South Africa, finding itself unable to contain internal resistance to its colonial policy, has been seeking through terrorist actions to intimidate the (Mr. Slaoui, Morocco) front-line States in order to compel them to withdraw their support for the legitimate struggle of the Namibian people. These repeated acts of aggression are a real threat which could set the whole region ablaze, and endanger international peace and security. It is high time that the international community translated into action its unanimity on the Namibian question by adopting measures commensurate with the gravity of the situation as well as with Pretoria’s arrogant attitude. An end must be put both to the rhgime’s continued blatant challenge to the authority of the United Nations and the international community and to the suffering and frustration of the Namibian people. My country condemns the continued illegal occupation by South Africa of the Territory of Namibia, and stands firmly on the side of the Namibian people, to whom we reaffirm our support for its legitimate aspiration to independence in a unified Namibia. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) remains, in our view, the sole basis for a peaceful and satisfactory solution to the Namibian question. We feel that combined action should be taken to persuade South Africa to renounce pre-conditions preventing immediate implementation of the plan. The Kingdom of Morocco would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary-General, whose perseverance and determination to hasten the independence of Namibia, have made it possible to reduce the obstacles south Africa has sought to erect in order to prevent a definitive solution to the problem. (Mr. Slaoui, Morocco) The Council for Namibia, in pursuing this objective as the legal authority responsible for protecting the interests of the Namibian people until independence, continues diligently, and to our general satisfaction, to fulfil the task assigned to it by the General Assembly of eliminating this last vestige Of colonialism in Africa. Finally, the Kingdom of Morocco pays tribute to the sacrifices made by the front-line States to the Namibian cause, and hopes that the day will scan come when the colonial and racist South African policy will disappear for ever, so that a new era of peace, freedom and harmony can be ushered in for the people of the region. Mr. SINCLAIR (Guyana) : This is the third occasion in less than two months that the General Assembly is obliged to focus its attention on the Pretoria rhgime; on its oppressive policies which lie at the root of the instability reigning in southern Africa, and which fuel. the anger not only of the oppressed peoples of the region, but of civilized peoples everywhere. Focusing on Namibia, as we did less than two months ago , we are constrained to observe that this brief span has meant, for the people of the Territory , seven more weeks of the excesses of the South Africa Defence Force ; seven more weeks of sleeping at night fully clad, in preparation for the midnight visits, the flash-lights, the night-sticks, the insults, the grillings in the open fields; seven more weeks of molestation, torture, imprisonment, death - in this Territory for which the United Nations assumed responsibility 20 years ago. Meanwhile, our colleagues of the South west Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPC) continue, as they did in September, as they have done in previous years, to occupy their seats in the wings of this Hall, observing the proceedings of this Assembly instead of being full participants. They wait with impatience to emerge from the twilight of their observership into the full light of membership of the community of nations. We are waiting impatiently to welcome them, and to have the benefit of their contributions to the deliberations Of the Assembly, not only on African issues, but on the whole range of our concerns. For us in the Assembly, for an overwhelming majority of US at any rate, preoccupied as we are by the tragic delay in Namibia’s freedom, the principal challenge, of course, continues to be that of getting South Africa to co-operate in implementing Security Council resolution 435 (1978). But the secondary challenge is that of finding a way to break the solidarity between the Pretoria rBgi.me and two Western States in particular , a solidar ity which does not even permit them to move decisively towards the implementation of the plan which *hey themselves helped to formulate. The Assembly has consistently called for the imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa, a call which these two States have just as consistently opposed. My delegation notes, however, with satisfaction and encouragement, the enactment of sanctions legislation by the United States legislature, legislation which specifically extends also to Namibia as a Territory illegally occupied by South Africa. We dare to hope that this enactment will be followed by action toward South Africa consistent with the spirit which motivated that legislation. My delegation is pleased to note, too, the extent, not only of the political, but alSO Of the practical support which the cause of Namibia’s liberation finds at the level of individual Governments as well as non-governmental organisations in Western Europe. We PaY due credit to those Western European States whose legislatures have enacted Varying forms of sanctions legislation against South Africa. Yet, after carefully studying the statements made by the representative of the United Kingdom on behalf of the nJelve on 18 September last, as well as yesterday I it is less than clear whether the sanctions package agreed to in Brussels also extends to Nam ib ia. And this is a point of practical importance, for without such extension the Territory of Namibia could serve as a conduit for new European investments in South Africa which would not only frustrate the spirit of the sanctfio*s agreed to but would also give some comfort to the of fending Pretoria r+kvin= - It is a sobering observation that while we have been able formally to exclude South Africa from participation in the Assembly, the question of collaboration between South Africa and some Member States continues to be a burning issue in bath the Assembly and the Security Council. On the face of it, a rBgime that tramples SO flagrantly over the dignity of its people; a rQgime that desecrates its citizens on the scale that the Pretoria rdgims does, then compounds that desecration with the vilest contempt for the United Nations, such a r&gime should find no quarter, no comfort, no sustenance, no support anywhere in our community. Yet it does. Sanctions are blocked; the rdgime is given a smoke-screen behind which to hide its non-co-operation in implementing Security Council resolution 435 (1978) . And what is more we who seek, correctly, to deny the rigime any comfort are placed on the defensive. It is in this difficult and contradictory environment that our Secretary-General is obliged to seek to prepare the way for implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Guyana pays tribute to his Job-like patience and his special diplomatic skills in dealing with the Pretoria rdgime. It is likewise in this kind of environment that the Council for Namibia j.s obliged to function. Guyana salutes its new President, Ambassador Zuse of Zambia. We are pleased, as a member of the Council, to be part of the great effort that Ambassador Zuse is directing on behalf of Namibia’s liberation. We join him in his recommendations regarding the report submitted to the Assembly. This year the Council’s draft resolutions will undoubtedly be subject to, among other things, the new procedure which seems to have evolved in recent years in the consideration of its resolutions on Namibia , whereby references considered offensive are removed by invoking the Assembly’s rules of procedure. It is undoubtedly the right of the States concerned to seek these changes, and my delegation is not about to dispute that right. Our concern is, having completed this exercise in sanitizing, what then? We still have to deal with what is the essential purpose of the draft resolutions, and that is Namibia’s independence through the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Beyond the theatrics of securing the removal of this or that paragraph, this or that phrase, this or that reference, lies the question of what we do to help hasten Namibia’s liberation, and here the answers have been all too short. That is what troubles Guyana. (Hr. Sinclair, Guyana) It is expected, too, that the inclusion of the concept of armed struggle in our draft resolutions will this year ,aqain make a difference in the errtent of support given to them, for there are sare deleqationr whiah have eXQreued difficulty with that concept. This, too, is their right, even though among their number are some that did not shrink fron armed etruqqle to rid their own territories of Nazi occupation forces. To tell the truth, Guyana does not like armed struqqle eit;her, and I asuure the Asuembly that SWAP0 likes it even 1688. Armed atruqqle, we muut remember, bum an option forced upon SWAP0 by South Africa after its peaceful owerturerr far change were answered with violence and repression. But armed atruqgle, in the final analysis, ia only a means to an end. If deleqations have diftiaulty with that neans, then we would wish to see them push South Africa to bring,crbout change in Namibia by other means. The essential counterpart of a concern about armed struggle is more pressure for aotion by South Afrioa to brinq about Ohange by political means - in other words, to implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978). I must clarify that there are sonts delegationu which have difficulty with this concept but whose Ooverrknents are otherwise unequivocal in their demonetratiane Of Political and practical euppurt for s#pI#) and i?Mmibia~s liberation. I wish to make that very clear. But we are concerned when sake would exclude armed struggle *fle at the same time placing obetaalea to movement on the political front such as a 1 inkage”. Then what options are we ‘leaving SWAPO? My delegation is concerned about the effeot that these and other perceptions have on the quality of our decisione, in terms of the extent of support, the fullness of support, and ultimately on the message which this Assembly should send to South Africa. We are also aware, for example, that there are some that have particular feelings about SwAPO@s international associations. It is cerainly SWAPO's right, in accordance with the Namibian people’s right to self-determination, to make an assessment as to who have helped the oppressed Namibian people to end their tyranny and who, on the other hand, have by their action, or inaction, given comfort to the occupiers of Namibian territory. That, I repeat, is SWAPO’s right. What it all comes down to is the following. One cannot turn one’s back on the oppressed people of Namibia, on their struggle, on their sacrifice, and be concerned when they grasp the hands that are outstretched to them in friendship and solidarity. Likewise, some, we understand, have not yet suite assimilated the concept of SWAPOqs being the sole authentic representative of the Namiban people. Here, again, I have no wish to derogate from the right of any delegation to feel one way Or another about SWAPO. What I wish to say is that it is for the people of Namibia and no one else to, decide what role SNAP0 will play in a future independent Namibia. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) provides a mechanism whereby Namibians can make precisely that decision. That mechanism is free and fair elections under Unf ted Nations supervision. The sooner the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) can be begun, the sooner will that mechanism be activated. SWAP0 has long ago indicated that it is ready to co-operate in implementing resolution 435 (1978), and in doing so has in effect dared South Africa to do the same. Put there has been no movement, and we do not have to guess why. My delegation has no doubt that in free and fair elections under the supervision and (Mr. Sinclair, Guyana) auspices of the United Nations SWAP0 will emerge Victorious. Nor does Botha have any doubt. Is that not why he does not want to hold those elections? Let me add that I have no wish to make light of the positions of any delegation or delegations with regard to any aspect of the Namibian question.1 have spoken with all sincerity and all the respect that I have for all the delegations in this Assembly. If I have allowed myself to be as frank as I have been, it is because my delegation has a concern about the kind of message we send to South Africa, particularly after this debate. Let us remember well the emotion and passion in the statement of the reprsentative of the Namibian people as he described to us yesterday the unreal, yet tragically real, details of the life of the Namibian people under South African occupation. Let us remember, too, the touching faith of his people in the united Nations, which faith, despite everything, still survives. The massive onslaught on the human condition in Namibia demands in turn a massive response of solidarity and commitment to action by the Assembly. When all is said and done, whether it is name-calling, armed struggle or representativity, we are essentially in the realm of tactics. There is a consensus On strategy on the independence of Namibia, a consensus which is embodied in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). While we wait for resolution 435 (1978) to be implemented I make a special plea - as other delegations have done in the course of this debate and as I did in September - on behalf of the people of Namibia, for whom delays in that implementation are measured in terms of life lost. Let us intensify all moral, material and political support to them and to SWAPO, their sole authentic representative, under the leadership of comrade Sam Nujoma. My delegation hopes that the imperatives of the Namibia Situation will prevail and make it possible to proceed at an early date to the modalities of transferring power to the people of Namibia. The settlement plan is in place, all the outstanding problems have been removed, our Secretary-General is ready to continue to play his part, SWAPO is ready to co-operate and assume the responsibilities Of statehood, and the people of Namibia have suffered more than enough. Let us do what freedom and justice demand.