A/43/PV.48 General Assembly

I nOl'l call on the Observer for the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAID), in accordance with General Assembly resolution 31/152, of 20 December 1976. Mr. ANWLA (Sou th West Africa People's Organ iza tion (SWAID»: Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you, Sir, upon your well-deserved election to preside over the forty-third session of the General Assembly. Your great country, Argentina, is very supportive of the Namibian cause and has in recent years taken important steps against apartheid South Africa, including the severance of diplomatic relations with that regime. The close geographic proximity of our two countries offers good potential for future co-operation. Your predecessor, Mr. Peter Florin, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the German Denocra tic Republic, presided over the work of the forty-second session of the General Assembly with admirable distinction. I take this opportunity to salute him for a job well done. I also wish to pay a special tr ibute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for h is courageous and un tiring efforts in pursuit of freedom, justice and peace across our globe. His unshakeable corranitment to the common good of mankind has earned him great admiration. I should be failing to mark a historic moment if I failed to refer to the great potentialities existing today for the resolution of conflicts and making our planet safer from a nuclear apocalypse. Thanks to the Secretary-General's strong faith in the United Nations, hard work and sacrifice, we are at this historic moment witnessing a revitalization of our Organization. Even those who in the not-too-distant past wanted to wish it away now realize the central role of the United Nations in maintaining (Mr. Angula, SWAm) eertainly the eas ing of tens ion between the Soviet Ution and the tbi ted States ef !!mer:ica and the signing of the Treaty 00 the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles - INF Treaty - eliminating a whole class of nuclear weapons are cOllll1endable steps in the right direction towards complete world disarmament. Naturally, southern Africa, specifically the current efforts to resolve the conflict in South West Afric8 p was refet'.red to during the general debate by various eminent persCl\s. I will return to this suhject in detail at a later stage. Now I should like to put things into proper perspective. Q1ce again the General Assembly is seized of the question of Namibia. 'Ib some, this may hav~ become but a routine exercise. The uncaring ones who, even before looking at the content of the subject, lament the inopportuneness of the debate, the length of the documents, the expenditure, the so-called name-ealling and other such diversionary manoeuvres would probably be happy if the question of Namibia were rernoveo from the agenda of the tbited Nations without necessarily the resolution of the problem. we owe our warm appreciation to those who, as a mattar of pr inciple, have rejec~d this cynicism and cootinue to support our just struggle for self-determination and national independence. To us, the Namibian people, appearing before this body over the past decades has been an experience of both pain and hope~ pain because wi th the pass ing of every year, every month, every week and every day more and more Namibian men, women and children are murdereG in cold blood, maimed, arrested, imprisooed, detained and tortured by the army, police and murder squads of the apartheid regime. tbre of their property is destroyed by those terrorist bands and more of their natural reBom:oes, be it diamonds, copper or uranium, are plundered by the unscrupulous and greedy Western transnational corpccations operating in our country, which ignore (Mr. Angula, SWAR:» the plight of poor, hungry and homeless Namibians while repatr iating the fabulous profits accrued. This eminent world body is the right forum in which to expose such gross denial and violations of the fundamental rights of our ~~ple, for it was this body which, over two decades ago, in a historic decision, terminated racist South Africa's Mandate wer our country. Similarly, the decisions by other international bodies: including the highest organ charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, the tbi ted Nations securi ty Council, as well as the 1nternational Court of Justice, served to assure the Namibian people that they were in good hands. aIt today we look back with anger and frustration upoo two wasted decades of continued manoeuvring, delaying tactics and outright arrogance on the part of the illegal occupa tion regime, wh ile the U'li ted Nations seems to be powerless \:0 put its own decisions into effect, particularly security Council resolution 4.35 (1978). Nevertheless our people have come to appreciate the role and importance of the (hi ted Nations. There was a time in history when our hope was close to sheer naivete, when we thought the United Nations would come marching to liberate us. Those days are new past, for we have come to apprecia te that, unfor tuna tely, the same Organization that holds promise for the oppressed and exploited is hamstrung by those who be fr iend the racist coloo ial rul er s in Pretor ia and are bent on supporting that regime for their am selfish and shortsighted ends. Understanding this internal cootradictioo does not in any way dissuade us fran our faith in the tl1ited Nations. It is for this reason that we are convinced that, if the Governments of those so-called demcracies refuse to see the light, the PeOple must of necessity make their voices heard. Herein lies our hope, for the voices of reason are becaning more audible every day. There is no doubt that there are those represented here who wish the Namibian people well and wno will call for patience at this time of delicate negotiations. I would just like to remind them that 10 years is a long time for which to demonstrate patience. (Hr. Angula, SWAlO) (Hr. Angula, SWAPO) We are heartened by the Secretary-General's untiring efforts in seeking the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) in its final and definitive form. We congratulate him on his patience. SWAPO, for its part, has always maintained close co-operation and regular consultations with him and his staff in this regard. Our own history and exper iences elsewhere have taught us thCDt we are indeed our own liberators and, in this context, whatever the internationa~ community does is complementary to our own struggle. In the tradition of thoae who came before us, our vanguard movement, SWAPO, has cootinued to build on the victories achieved on the political and military fronts against the racist regime. In other words SWAPO has continued to play the vanguard role in l.eading the Namlbian people at home and abroad in the struggle fOl national liberation and social emancipation. We have succeeded in uniting the masses of our people - the workers, the peasants, the women, the youth and the students - around that common objective. In keeping with our policy of reaching out to all Namibian patriots, without regard to their creed or colour, SWAPO has in the past years and months witnessed an ever-growing number of white Namibians joining its ranks at a time when the political and military sit.uation in Namibia has made it extremely difficult for any self-respecting person still to believe Pretoria's cheap propaganda and disinformation campaign. The intensification of the armed liberation struggle by the combatants of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia, combined with the ever-increasing mass act:i.on by our people, particularly the workers, youth and students, has led to the current turning-point in the history of our struggle, which is irreversible. We are more than ever before confident that victory is in sight. (Mr. Angula, SWAm) Let me now turn to the ~,going quadripartite talks involving Angola, Cuba, South Africa and the United States. SWAm has already expressGd itself at length on the subject. It is OUi' view that if there is goodwill, a real possibility exists of resolving the conflict in south-western Africa by bringing about the long-delayed independence of Namibia on the basis of United Nations security Council reeolution 435 (1978) and guaranteeing security for the People's Republic of Angol~h In this context, we fully support the Angolan/Cuban constructive proposals that led to the agreement reached in Geneva in July. Pursuant to that agreement, and in an effort to make a positive contribution to this welcome process, the President of SWAm, Comrade Sam Nujoma, wrote a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General on 12 August in which our position was made clear. We undertook to observe the agreed cease-fire on the Angolan side and to suspend offensive military action inside Namibia provided we were not provoked by the Pretoria army of occupation. This position still stands. In addition, SWAPO restated its willingness to sign a cease-fire with South Africa in urder to start the process of implementing United Nations Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Needle~s to say, racist SOuth Africa has to date not responded to our offer. However, it must be understood that cease-fire is not an end in itself. The Pretoria regime is notorious for its bad faith, arrogance and defiance. We have still to be convinced that Pretoria is serious this time. we are reminded of missed deadlines in the past, from the terminatiun of south Africa's Mandate over Namibia to the adoption of the United Nations plan for Namibia's independence. we recall that on 4 OCtober 1969 Pretoria was ordered by the security Council to leave N~mibia. We are equally reminded of the period immediately after the adoption of resolution 435 (1978), particularly after racist south Africa supposedly accepted the resolution. Then came the Geneva pre-implementation conference in (Mr. Angula.. SfAR» January 1981. Need I remind the Assembly of the talks in New York in 1982 when we were promised that the only remaining outstanding issue before the implementation of the decolcnization plan was the choice by Pretoria of the electoral system? Three years later, in May 1984, we went to Lusaka for yet another conference. On all these occasions, of which I have mentioned only the recent onss, the people of Namibia and the international community were treated with the characteristic racist Boer mentality of deceptiveness, arrogance, and blatant refusal to co-operate. The uncouth behaviour of the apartheid regime was best characterized by the eminent international figure and Indian leader, Jawaharlal Nehru - whose birth centenary commel1Dration coincides with the opening of this debate - when he stated: -The capacity of the Government of the Union of South Africa to persist in error is really quite remarkable, but I ~ake it that if a country, as an individual, persists long enough in error, retribution comes.- I have recalled these facts to show that the fixing of dates alone does not in itself constitute willingness to act on the part of racist SOuth Africa. Racist South Africa cannot cynically use the world body to determine the deadline as to when and how it will exit fcom Namibia. Pretoria very conveniently provides changing deadlines to suit its diabolic intentions. On this basis, we believe, so far as we are williog to be optimistic, that the Pretor.ia regime has still to sh~ tangible signs of willingness to leave Namibia. As it is now, the situation on the ground in Namibia does not indicate in any way that the illegal occupation regime is ready to withdraw its colonial machinery. On the contrary, while Pretoria has been talking peace, it has simultaneously increased its repressive machinery in the country. In the recent months and weeks, apartheid South Africa's militarization of Namibia has reached dangerous proportions. The regime has poured into NGmibia more of its OCCUP!ltion troops and war mabiriel cn an unprecedented scale. The troops which were already in Namibia have been reinforced by thousands of others from the apartheid Republic and those recently withdrawn from Angola. This unprecedented military bUild-up is particularly worse in the northern part of Namibia, where the regime now has 50,000 troops along the Namib ian/Angolan borders. This fact has been (X)nfirmed by some Western journalists. During the same period racist South Africa conducted provocative military manoeuvres at the Namibian port of Walvis Bay. The regime has been expanding its military bases in the same area. Above all, the iliegal occupation regime's army, murder squads and police have increased their brutal campaign of repressi.on and terrorism against our people. The cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, including old people and children, has become a daily reality in our country. People are shot at will; their property ia destroyed or looted by Pretoria's troops and other armed agents. Many IIlOre of our people are imprisoned, detained without trial and tortured. The racist army is also currently conducting a campaign of intimidating members and supporters of our movement at gun point, with the aim of imposing the regime's rejected puppets on the Namibian people. Given the deterioration of the security situation inside Namibia, as we witnessed in tha aid-seventies, thousands of Namibians, mainly young children, are escaping the Gestapo-like repression lOt home and going into exile. SWAPO has been receiving daily hundreds of these young Namibians in its centres in Angola for care. It is on the basis of that sad reality that we urge the international community to remain vigilant lest it be hoodwinked again by the racist Beers. To be sure, Pretoria is not negotiating because of a change of heart. On the contrary, the apartheid regime is compelled to talk because of the humiliating defeat it suffered at the hands of the Angolan-Cuban forces following its ill-fated large-scale invasion of Angola at the end of last year. Available informa~ion indicates staggering fi9u~es in military expenditures, estimated to be about 1 billion Rand a month - that is, approximately $500 million. Combined with the intensification of the struggle in Namibia and South Africa and the measures taken by the international community to isolate Pretoria, this has made the regime pay a higher price for its policies of aggression. As we suspected, the apartheid regime has been looking for a breathing space. It is now busy with manoeuvres and delaying tactics. From both Pretoria and washington we see attempts to have Pretoria thanked for being forced to accept the fact of having to agree to the safe withdrawal of its troops which were trapped in Angola. What is more, apparently they would also like Pretoria to be showered with praises for its years of violation of Angola's territorial integrity and sovereignty and its killing of so many Angolan people as well as its massive destruction of economic and social infrastructures in that country. Using their compliant media, both South Africa and the United states are accusing the victims of being intransigentJ therefore, according to that logic, the victims should be held responsible for the missed target date. We have not forgotten that it was the United States Administration that invented the linkage, to the joy of pretoria, eight years ago. For that reason we still find it difficult to accept Washington's playing the role of an honest broker while its sole concern is the presence of Cuban internationalist forces in Angola. ~~anwhile the United States still provides military and other forms of support to the UNITA bandits in a campaign to destabilize Angola. It is therefore not surprising that we see more and more linkages being manufactured - the latest being the so-called internal reconciliation in Angola before independence for Namibia can even be considered. The only way to counter-poise such manoeuvres is to remain true to the letter and spirit of resolution 435 (1978). We specifically call upon the United Nations to push for the unconditional implementation of that resolution. It has now been prO'led over and over again that the only language Pretoria understands is that of force. We L'rge the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the apartheid regime. Of late we have been hearing an old song once again - the so-called Uni ted Nations bias in favour of SWAPO. Tb our best knowledge, and without giving the racist rulers in Pretoda undue credit, the Secretuy-General was assured that the apartheid regime was satisfied on the question of so-called impartiality. But apparently this issue is being raised again and again. If this were merely coming from Pretoria, we would say we were not surprised, but since there is more to it we should like to state here, loud and clear, that the United Nations has shouldered direct responsibility for Namibia until genuine independence is achieved. That is the letter and spirit of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) of 1966. That historic decision has been reaffirmed in subsequent decisions of both the Assembly and the security Council. SUggestions that, somehow, in order for the United Nations to show its impartiality it should relinquish its responsibility to the Namibian people before genuine independence are, tc say the least, tantamount to the betrayal of the sacred trust ~nd of our people's right to self-determination and national independence. Moreover, it is absurd to observe the illegal Pretoria regime demanding United Nations impartiality in administering the electoral process when it denies human rights to the vast'ajority of the population within its own territory. In all seriousness, we strongly suggest that it is high time that Pretoria's years of destruction in Namibia and its capabilities of manipulating all the efforts to implement resolution 435 (1978) before, during and after that implementation are clearly understood. We are on record as ha';dng undertaken to accept the verdict of the elections, so long as they are free and fair. We are talking here about an illegal occupation regime that has had its own colonial machinery in operation in our country for so many years. The regime has spent billions of dollars in creating its repressive institutions. B¥ this we mean that (Hr. Angula, SWAFO) apart from its standing ar~, the so-called SOuth African Defence Force, which will pull out of Namibia in accordance with resolution 435 (1978), the regime has created so many armies, para-military forces an ~ so-called police forces, such as the so-called South~est Africa Territorial Fbrce, the notorious Koevoet, the so-called SOUth-West Africa Police Force, and the other mercenary forces. All of these together comprise thousands of armed thugs under the command of and on the payroll of the illegal regime. l'alat assurances do we have that even if they are disbanded they will not remain on the loose, to disrupt the process? In addition, Pretoria has created bogus political institutions, such as the so-called interim government, which is totally maintained by the apartheid regime in all respects. It should be kept in mind that all these bogus institutions were created in violation of resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) and other United Nations resolutions. Given that serious situation, we would expect the United Nations to address itself to these and other questions of great concern to us and the international community in general. We should like to stress that those who think the so-called impartiality relates only to SWAPO need to rethink their position, because this pre-supposes either bad faith or lack of serious appreciation of the situation. It is common knowledge that SWAPO has given an undertaking to participate on an equal footing with any political groups in Namibia when free, democratic and fair elections are held in our country under the supervision and control of the united Nations on the basis of resolution 435 (1978). To raise the so-called partiality issue, even before the signing of the enabling resolution by the Security Council, is dishooest and treacherous and is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Uhited Nations plan for Namibia's independence. We call upon the United Nations Council for Namibia to remain true to its mission as a fighting body until such time as it has fulfilled its mandate and the flag of independence is hoisted in the Namibian capital. At this critical juncture of the Namibian struggle we cannot afford to have self-doubts and uncertainty about the work of the Council. Its mandate must remain as stipulated in General Assembly resolution 2248 (S-V) of 1967 until Namibia achieves independence. Under the dynamic leadership of its President, Ambassador Zuze - whose important statement earlier was indeed reassuring - we call upoo the Council to continue to mobilize international public opinion in support of our just cause and to carry out its programmes of support for the Namibian people. We call upoo the General Assembly and the international community fully to support the report of the Council, particularly its recommendations for action during the coming yearo Similarly, I should like to commend the work of the deoolonization Committee described in its report now before the Assembly. The Spp.cial Committee will remain a vital body for as loog as there are countr ies and peoples under colonial rule and foreign dominatioo. In our 1009 and bitter struggle for national liberation we have always relied on the support of the international community. The role played by the MO'"ement of Non-Aligned Countries, of which SWAR> is a full member, remains a key factor in keeping the question of Namibia to the forefront. We have enjoyed all-round and long-standing support from the socialist countries. This has been indispensable to our cause, and SWAPO and the eJrbattled people of Namibia will always remember it. SWAm's steadfastness and perseverance have earned sympathy and admiratioo from all peoples of good will. Our relations with the H:>rdic co~mtries deserve a special mention. We are very grateful for the humanitarian assistance given by those countries to our displaced and exiled people. As a fighting Afr ican people, we have naturally relied on the crucial support of our CQltinental body, the Organization of Afican Ulity, and its menDer states, whose charter calls for the total abolition of colonialism, racism and imper iaHsm from the face of the African cQlt1nent. Turning to our region, southern Afr fca, as has often been stated apartheid is the root course of instability in southern Africa. The frQlt-line States, particularly Angola and l-bzambique, have suffered from direct military aggression by racist South Africa or, indirectly, through its surrogate f )[ces, UNITA and MNR. We thank the fraternal peoples of the frQllt-line States for their steadfast support. At this juncture I should like to single out the People's Republic of Angola, which has just commemora'l:x.!d the thirteenth anniversary of its independence. In his congratulatory message to the Angolan President, Comrade Jose EHuardo dos Santos, the SWAPO leader, Comrade Sam M.1 joma, said: "Since its independence Angola has beoome a bastion of anti-colon~l struggle which has greatly encouraged the people of Namibia and South Africa in their fight against the apartheid regime. We have great admiration for the Angolan Government and people and their armed forces, FAFLA, which have heroically defended their independence CIl1d sovereignty from imper ialist aggtessiQll, and which despi te the enornnus human and ma ter ial losses suffered as a reEoult have remained firm and resolute in supporting our ~use. We salute them in their cormnitment to socialism, justice, peace and social progress. " On behalf of our vanguard movement, SWAlO, I should like to reaffirm our fraternal and militant solidarity with those who are engaged in similar fights~ the heroic people of South Afr iea, led by the Afr iean Ra tional Congress of South Africa (ANC), in the u s uuggle for a uni ted, denDcratic and non-racial society in that sister oount:y~ the people of Palestine which, under the able leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organizatioo (PID), is courageously fighting the Israeli occup&tion and working towards the establishment of an independent Palestine~ the fighting people of western Sahara, led by the IDLJSAAID Froot ~ the peoples of Puerto Rico and New Caledo:lia~ and all other peoples figklting colonialis!t, racism, oppression, exploitation and all the oth~ (fill forces tl>-\t'eatening mankind. In conclusion, we should like to declare that we will march 00 to victory no natter what it entails. Should Pretoria at last show goodwill, SWAPO will not be found wanting in playing its pai:t in achieving Namibia's independence through the ballot. However, in the event of that regime's cootinued intransigence, we shall call upon our people to rise to the occasion and to shoulder their national dUty for the total libeI'ation of every inch of Namibian soil" including N:llvis Bay and all the offshore islands. The struggle continues~ victory is certain.· ~. BM*I (Egypt) (interpretatioo from Arabic): 'lbday the world is celebrating the lOOth anniversary of the birth of the great Indian leader, Jawaharlal Nol.ru, who through his steadfast policy left an imprint on cootemporary history and joined ~e ranks of t..~e noble leaders of his day. India is not the only COWl try to be proud of him, for he has become a leg! tima te source of pride for a 11 other developing countr ies. Nehr'J was a staunch fr iend of a:Jypt ,!lOd its people~ he took Cl sympathetic view of its problems and always supported its rights in the political ar~ha. B)ypt will always be grateful to him for his support for oue 1 ibera don 8 uuggle. ~ Mr. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahit!ya), Vice-President. took the Chair. (Hr. Badawi, !'ypt) Nehru, with his cc::ntemporaries Tito and Nasser, was one of the pioneers who laid the gromdwork for the positive policy of neutrality and one of the founders of the Mov'ement of Non-Aligned Countries, which resulted from the convergence of the purposes and pr inciples of the newly independent States of Afr iea and Asia. Because of his farsightedness, Nehru was Cl precursor of and responsible for the awakening of the world conscience to the tragedy of racial discrimination in SOuth Africa, t«1ich is the very negation of tile dignity of man and his inalienable rights. With his characteristic prescience, he awakened the conscience of the international community to the need to resist that loathsome phenomenon so as to prevent its taki."g on the dimensions of a catastrophe the effect:; of which the international community would be unable to escape. The General Assembly today must come to grips with a problem that was born at the same time as the Organization itself and that has preoccupied it since its first session. For more than 40 years the General Assembly has adopted resolution after resolution on this subject, as has the security Council. IlJt, above all, since the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXn, in 1966, terminating South Africa's Mandate over the Territory, it has had direct responsibility for the administration of the Territory until independence. security Council resolution 435 (1978), accepted by all the parties concerned, was the culmination of the efforts of the international Organization to br lng about a peaceflJl1 settlement of the Namibian problem which would restore to their legitimClte owner.s the rights of which they have been deprived and contribute to the establishment of. peace and security in an important region of the African oontinent. The international community welcomed that reso~ution and has declared it to be the only internationally accepted mea!l1s of enabling the Namibian people (Hr. Badawi, EglE.!:) to exercise self-determinati~n, regain their independence and take control of their territory, its natural resources and its economy. Although the implementation of the united Nations plan for the independence of Namibia has been impeded for a long time, we feel that the serious quadripartite talks now under way and the intensive diplomatic; efforts, which have made significant progress in the last few months, give grounds for hoping that implementation will begin at an early date. Egypt has supported these sincere ~fforts from the outset and has played a major role in encouraging the attainment of independence by Namibia and the establishment of peace and security in southern Africa. That is why we welcomed the willingness of the interlocutors to come to Cairo for the first round of the ~talks. That is not surprising because, from the moment that Cairo played host to that meeting and Ca iro was chosen as the site of the first foreign office of the South West Africa People's Organizati.on (SWAPO), Egypt has always supported, materially and politically, independence and freedom for Namibia. Thus this is the culmination of a long effort. We feel that Namibian independence would be a giant step forward, not only towards peace and security but also in bringing justice and equality to the region, and to other regions, including the region from which I come. Independence for Namibia would bring to an end an illegal occupation repeatedly denounced by the international community - a positive outcome that would restore to the Namibian people the right, of which they have been depr ived, of national sovereignty over the resources and economy of Namibia, while putting an end to a vile chapter of history during which the natural resources of that country have been f. ~ndered. (Hr. Badawi, Egypt) Independence for Namibia would also mean the end of the acts ~f aggression launched against the neighbouring countries from Namibian territory, of pressure and of blackmail, and would make it possible for the Namibian people to devote all their efforts to reconstruction and national development, thus ridding themselves of the vicissitudes of the past. But, above all, Namibian independence would demonstrate the pre-eminence and triumph of legality, no matter how great the acts of aggression and the injustice. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Secretary-General and his Special Representative in southern Africa for their sustained and sincere efforts and their firm determination to carry out the wishes of the international community. We wish them complete success in that historic task. In conclusion, I wish especially to thank SWAPO, which has given proof of its political and military effectiveness, and the United Nations Council for Namibia, which will continue to carry out its task until Namibia accedes to independence. Hr. ZEPOS (Greece): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the twelve member States of the European Community and to reaffirm our full support for the right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence. Over the years the policy of the Twelve has been clear, consistent and unequivocal. We remain firmly committed to Namibia's independence in accordance with the United Nations settlement plan endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (lS78) and reaffirmed by subsequent resolutions. This plan embodies the only internationally agreed framework for ensuring Namibia's independence and its people's authentic expression of its will through free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. The Twelve, in rejecting the establishment of a so-called transitiunal government in Namibia, have repeatedly called for the implement&tion of the settlement plan without further delay or pre-conditions. In this respect, we believe that the role of the Secretary-General will continue ~c be of great importance and we wish to reiterate our whole-hearted support for his resolute action with a view to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). (t'r. zepos, Greece) ... 1.. • The Twelve express their satisfaction with the ongoing negotiations ~mong Angola, Cuba and South Africa, mediated by the United States. We strongly support the endeavours to find a peaceful soluticm to the conflict in the area and to seCUE'e Namibia's early independence in conformity with security Council resolution 435 (1978). we welcome the progres£.l acbieved so far. We regret that the date set by the parties involved for an eventual beginning of the illplementation of the settlement plan, 1 NOI1ember, was not met.. Nevertheless, we reiterate our wish that the momentulI of the negotiations not be lost and that the transition period under united N4tions control leading to Namibia's total independence will at last start in tbe very near future. As the secretary-General has put it, Namibia's independence is long overdue. The question of Namibia haa been before the United Nations virtually since its inceptionJ a decade has passed since the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), and still the people of Namibia have not exercised their right to self-determination. The Twelve share the frustration felt by tno international community and its anxiety for the early and full independence of Namibia. The prcc:ess leading to that independence is the responsibility of the United Nations - and in particul&1' of the 5eclUity Council and the secretary-General. However, the question of Namibia constitutes a IIIOral responsibility of the international community as well. For their part, the Twelve wish to recall their established position on Namibia's independence and their previous statements deploring specific policies and acts of the Government of SOUth Africa in this regard. The Twelve have substantially contr ibuted to efforts to alleviate the euffering of the t~mibian people caused by SOUth Africa's illegal occupation of the Territory. The European COflIlIIUnity and its meAlber States have provided the people of Nllmibia with a8sis'~ance in various fields. On the one hand, educational (Mr. Zepos, Greece) training and professional secondment aid has ensured an imprOl7ement of the standards of living of the population. On the other, humanitarian aid and self-help projects in favour of Namibian refugees and support for the victims of apartheid there have helped to ease to a certain extent. the negative impact of the dracon ian policies exercised by Sou th Africa, such as human rights violations, illegal detentions without trial and forced conscr iption of the people. We reiterate our readiness to continue and, if necessary, to expand our aid to the Namibian people with a view to securing a smooth transition to independence. Furthermore, solid econanic infrastructure is a prerequisite to full political independence, secur ity and stable and lasting socio-economic developnent. Genuine Namibian independence can only be assured through continuing assistance, paticularly in the early period of freedom. Once again the &1ropean COllll\unity and its member States reaffirm their intentioo to assist Namibia to that end as soon as it becomes independent. In the light of the above, we are looking forward to receiving fran a sovereign Namibia an applicatioo for association with the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States and accession to the lome Convention. On the question of Namibia, our attention should remain focused on the fact that it is a question of illegal occupation in defiance of repeated resolutions of the thited Nations. N:> excuse can justify prolongation of this situation, which constitutes a breach of fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter. The international community must spar\! no effort to secure Namibia's independence. we urge the Q)vernment of South Afr lea to comply forthwith with its obligations and to help turn into reality the spirit of determination demonstrated ewer the last month and thus bring about a peaceful sett~.~ment of the Namibian question. We are convinced that an early and just solution to this problem will have positive reper'-ussions for peace, stability, further settlements and co~peration in the Mr. KAfIi (India): It is a particular hQ'lour for my delegation to participate in the debate on the question of Namibia on the day that the centennial CQ1IDellcxation of the birth of the first Pd_ Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, begins. In his eyes, the United Nations was a vital institution. As he said in the very first of his regular letters to the Chief Ministers of India's states, with the clarity and candour that was so iluch a quality of his style, ·we were dependent f,~ lUny things on international good will.· Newly free India was fortunate to reedve this good will in abundant measure and it was in this spirit that we, among many others in this world body, were determined that good will should reach peoples everywhere. No matter what their political oondition or the abridged state of their freedom, the united Nations and the world would be with them, with solidarity in their struggle and determination to diminish their despair. We need no statistics to tell us hew effective the translation of this internatioual good will into tangible international ~~itment~ pr~ed to a largely dependent world. Its proof, if proof is needed, is in this Hall itself. And 90 is the pcoof of where that translation seems to have been less than successful. Who dare question the 9Oodnes8 of our will towards Nainibia? Who dare suggest that our commitment to the dignity of man is less hallowed them hollow? lttom shall we blame for not allowing a country with internationally acknowledged existence to take its pl~ce between the seats reserved for Mozambique and Nepal? The past year has been full of those deliciously ePlemeral I'IDments of tantali21ing torment and withered hopes we are so desperate to believe are still qreen. SOuth Africa's proposals on Namibia have aoquired a new stridency, a new assurance, to many a new legitilMCY. Like Hamlets trapped on the stage set for ·A MidsWllller Night's Dream·, we wait in the wings unsure what part we are expected to (Mr. Kahn, India) they have been here before. Wi th a sense of political decision and statesmanship, Angola and Cuba have joined in negotiations whose success could allow the Namibian people to spend at least a fraction of the twentieth century in freedom and sovereignty. But the great. prlictitioners of aJgby along the Cape of Good Hope should know, at least by now, that you cannot play a game if you keep changing or hiding the goal post. There is more truth than resignatioo to the reply to the question "Who is more insincere, Pik or P.W.?" The answer, ~oth are." My delega tion is glad, and proud, that we have not allowed the lure or temptation of tinsel promises to hold us hostage in the proposals submitted to this Assembly on the ques tion of Namib ia. South Africa mus t be judged not on our hopes but on our exper ience. Its culpability on counts without nutOOer is proved. Its impunity has prOl1ed to be directly in proportioo to the benevolence of its well-wishers abroad. Sanctions against South Africa will be a sanction for peace. Sanctions against South Africa will be a sanction for human rights. Sanctions against South Africa will be a sanction for the capacity of the United Nations to approximate wi th action the weal th and wisdan of its words. In this threshold hour, poised bet\>!een the certain past and the uncertain future, our thoughts are wi th the Namibian people, whose representatives we are honoured to have with us in this Assembly~ the South west Afr ica People's Organizatioo. "Not law, nor duty bade them fight~ not public men and cheering crQids". We salute them for having begun a struggle that was, as all great struggles are, at first looely) which gathered, as all great struggles do, not only the tumultuous enthusiasm of its people but also the support and resolve of the wcxld beyood. In his broadcast to the people of India after the formation of the pre-independence interim Government, Jawaharlal Nehtu said, 11The wer Id, in spj, te of its r ivalr iea and hatreds and inner confl icts , mOl1es inevitably towards closer co-operation and the building up of a world ooJmlonwealth. It is for this one world that free India will work, a world in which there is the free co-opera tion of free peoples and no class or group exploits another • 11 At this forty-th.ird session of the General Assembly, when so much ooce thought intractable has prcwed capable of traction, will the question of Namibia finally be excised from our agenda? The question is perhaps unfair, put to' this Assembly, for (Hr. Kahn, India) the single party that can give us that assurance has desel.vedly been excluded fran our deliberations. But its postures, its prevarications, its procrastinations and pre-emptions of acticn 9 ive us all the answer we need. Ca1side~able, indeed, have been the effort and the time spent on this question - 20 years; to some, like Eliot's phrase, 20 years largely wasted. Certainly, against the yardstick of freedom the years have been squandered, but wi th in the Hmita tion of our means we have prOl7ed ourselves. The thi ted Na tions and the United Nations Council for Namibia have not allowed the continued canpulsion of their trusteeship to weaken or dilute their focus. thder the wise and able stewardship of Ambassador Peter zuze, the United Nations Council for Namibia has cootinued its record of awareness enhancement, research and assistance in regard to Namibia. To the Unitad Nations Conmissioner for Namibia, Mr. Bernt Carlsson, and his staff are also due our appreciatioo for the diligence and dedication in which so awesome a political responsibility has been fulfilled in harmony with this Assembly's mandate. In his recent novel "The Shadow Lines", the Indian author Amitav Ghosh wrote of "the indivisible sanity that binds people together independently of Governments". That perception's truth is compelling, palpably tangible, in South Africa where the ordinary civilized perscn can and does rela te wi th canpassion , affection and kindness to those who are his kin. That is the lessoo Pretoria has yet to learn. That is the lesson it cannot afford to learn if it wishes to survive in its present p,r imeval form. That is the lesson, once learned, that will prOl7e that clinging t.o the body cannot assure cootrol of the mind or possession of the heart. We cannot teach lessons to those who will not learn. We can only leave them to the enforced solitude of their ways, bereft of the faintest caatact with the world they need so mudl more desperately than the world needs them. But we cannot (Mr. Kahn, India) afford to wait I1Uch longer. The evening of our indecision is growing dark and chill. Our anger and our sorrow will no Imger have the power to console. Many years ago an Indian lyricist, Talat MehJ'llOOd, sang of "the night that had itself fallen asleep and the life that had lost itself in the face of sadness". If we think about it, there is a moral there somewhere for us today. Mr. SUmiSNA (Indonesiah The General Assembly has taken up the question of Namibia at a time tmen the situa tion inside the Terri tory and in the surrounding area is characterized by a sense of heightened expectation simUltaneously tempered by uncertainty and doubt, for the bitter history of the region requires a degree of scepticism that South Afr iea has finally decided to let go its gr ip on Namibia. In this regard it is instructive to recall the many lost opportunities and unmet deadlines in the past. The original date set by the United Nations for Namibia's independence was two decades ago, in June 1968. Significantly, this year is also the tenth anniver sary of the adoption of Secur i ty Council resolution 435 (1978), containing the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, the only internationally acceptable framework for the peaceful decolonization of Namibia. Since then the United Nations has repea tedly established time-frames for the implenentation of the plan, but to no avail. Thus in 1981 the Pretoria regime scuttled the Geneva pre-implementation talks on Namibia. In 1983 it introcl1ced preconditions that were, a priori, designed to prevent implementation of the United Nations plan. In 1984 it sabotaged the two meetings 00 Namibia held in Lusaka and Mindelo. In 1985 it sought to subvert the United Nations plan by attempting to impose a so-called internal settlement on Namibia. 1 need hardly go on with the endless lis t of dilatory manoeuvres, dupl ici ty and delay that have always been SOuth Africa's tactics, as they are all too well :1 known to all of us. Qlffice it to say that at every stage of the negotiations South Africa initially accepted arrangements for the oi:derly transfer of power to the Namibian people under United Nations auspices, only subsequently to raise objections and introduce elements that conformed neither to the spirit nor the letter of resolution 435 (1978). (Mr. Sutresna, Indonesia) agreements by resort to pcevarication and subterfuge. This established pattern of hypocr isy and betrayal should also be viewed in the context of South Afr iea 's unceasing efforts to entrench itself further in Namibia. In this connection I should like to emlilasize particularly Indonesia's grave concern over the total militar1zation of the Territory~ whim has been transformed into a huge military bue with one heavily armed SOuth African soldier for every 12 Namibians, including women and children. PUrthermore, Pretor ia has continued to step up the ruthless exploitation of Namibia's human and natural resources, aided and abetted by the moraUy repugnant investments of SOuth Afr iea 's .major trading partners, in total disregard of the Council for Namibia's Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia. E\1rthermore, there has been no cessation of attempts at irt~ernal social and political fragmentation through the creation of pseudo-political parties and a so-called intedm gO'lernment , in ord~r to impose a falt accanpli. The people of Namibia are also subjected to all of the demoaning and degrading policies anJ practices of apartheid. Thus there has been no ll!t-up in the full array of repressive measures intended to bludgeon the Namibians into submission. It is against these stark realities that Indonesia has followed the quack ipartite talks to establish a basis for peace in the" south western region of Africa and to ensure Namibia's independence. Regrettably, the indices tions are that South Afr iea has already begun postor ing, pulling back frcm its oomm1 tments and sending delibsrate and confueing signals. As representatives are Wldoubtedly aware, the deadline for oonmencing the'implementation of the United Nations plan.. 1 NO'Ielllber 1988, has passed, with SOUth Africa now allegedly proposing 1 Jmuary 1989 as a possible alternative date, and its insistenca on linking extraneous issues to Namibia's independence remains unchanged. &lob a situatim cannot but instil in us a sense of c1IBA vu, that indeed we have been here before. Indonesia is therefore constrained to express its foreboding that SOUth Africa may again be engaged in a sinister diplomatic game to gain time for itself and ul tillBtely to scuttle the Ylole process. None the less we believe that the ongoing discussions in Geneva may in the end be successful, for they have alreac'ly resulted in the withdrawal of South Africa's troops from southern Angola and have brought about the general cessation of armea hostili ties in Namibia as well. These developments are in themselves signi ficant, as they enhance the pcospect of a just and peaceful solution to the Namibian problem. It is to be emPiasized that, inter alia, the SOUth West Africa People'S Organization (SWAIO), the fron~-line States, the Organi~aticn of African Unity and the Non-Aligned MoITement have welcomed these talks in the hope that peace, justice and independence can be established in the subregion. The fact of the m.ltter is that, in CCXltrast to south Africa's intransigence, SWAPO and the frent-line States have always r'J!spontJed in a constructive manner to diplCll1\atic initiatives and have co-operated fully tI1i th the (hi ted Na tions in the search for ways and means to conrnence th~ implementation of Security Council resolutien 435 (1978). In this connection also, my delegatial fully recognizes the right of the individull parties engaged in the negotiations to end the conflict between them, namely, the termil,ation of the occupation by SOOth African military forces of southern Angola, and it is precisely the four parties involved - Angola, Cuba and South Africa, with the thited States as the mediatc.>r - that He the prinoipals in that confliet. Indonesia is also aware that the preservation and consolidation of the sO'lereignty, independence and security of the front-line States are part and parcel of the liberation struggle of Namibia. We are equally convinced that tbe solidarity and effective support Qf those states constitute a decisive factor for success in that struggle. It is our hope that the new opportunities thus created will contribute to the search for a permcment solution to the grave situation prevailing in south-west.ern Afr iea and be made to serve the immediate and unconditiona~ decolonization of Namibia. At the same time Indonesia would like to stress that when it comes to the question of Namibia there are only three parties involved~ SOuth Africa, the illegal occupier of the Territory1o the SOuth west Africa People's Organization, the sole and legitimate representative of the. Namibian people1o and the tllited Nations, the Administering Authority responsible for the 'Ilerritory until independence. Rence any final solution must be acceptable to and implemented by the tllited Nations in accordance with security Council resolution 435 (l978). In this regard we are heartened by the results of the working viait to southern Africa in September last by the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, during which further practical arrangements were made for the implementation of the United Nations plan. with the finalization of the draft agreement establishing the legal status of the United Nations T~ansition Assistance Group (WTAG) and its personnel, as wall as the dispatch of a United Nations technical team to the Territory in order to assess the administrative, logistic an~ bUdgetary requirements for UNTAG, there is further cause for guarded optimisn. However, given the fluidity, complexity mid uncertainty aurroWlding the quadripartite talks, the international commmit;y must demonstrate the utmost vigilance and resolve. Indeed, there can be no justification for complacency, s inC':8 securi ty Council r esolution 435 (1978) !"el!llins unimplemen ted and p.~ibla continues to be oecupied. If South Africa persists in its delaying tactics, demanding unacceptable linkages and diluting the terms of the United Nations plan, then the collective will of the thited Nations must be lxought to bear through coocrete penalties rather than further concessions and inducements" which have only emboldened the Pretoria re9~,me in the past. Indooesia therefore supports the call for the early convening of the security Council in order that the Council may move expeditiouGly ei ther to adopt; an enabling resolutioo for the emplacement of UNTAG in Namibia, in accordance with the terms of the United Nations plan, or, in the event of South Africa's refusal to co-operate wi th the thi ted Nations, to act lIlder Chapter VII of the Charter and impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria regime. In sum, whatever the further evolution of the situation it should not divert us from the IX'imary objeetive of Namibian independence. In conclusion I should like to reaffirm Indooesia's solidarity with and conmitment to the people of Namibia, led by SfAEO, in their 1eg1timate quest for freedan, justice and independence. Indooesia will not cease in its principled assistance to them as well as to all international efforts towards the immediate independence of Namibia. At this critical juncture there can be no excuse for inaction. The United Nations is duty-bound to bring the requisite pcessure to bear in order to canpel South Afr iea to live up to its internatioraal obligations. It should be our coDlllOn resolve that, 10 years after ta'1e acbption of security Council resolution 435 (1978), there will be no further delay in securing the faithful implemenution of the plan for Namibian independence. Kr. UTARKA (Albania) \ It is almost 10 years since the Unit.ed Nations security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) 00 the independence of Namibia and more than two decades since the United Nations decided to terminate South Afr iea 's Mandate ewer Namibia. Nale the less, this high international body is still deliberating on the question ef Namibia. It continues to remain on the agenda of the General Assembly because the situation in Namibia has not changed and south Afr lea's racist regime continues to depr ive the suffer ing Namibian people of their legitimte national right toself-determinatim, to live free in an independent and sovereign homeland. The policy of segregation that the Pretoria racist regime obstinately pursues, turning Namibia into a big prison for the entire Namibian people and Cl base for aggression and a~med terrorist interventions against the independent frmt-line African States, has for years been the subject of the severe condemnation and tremendous indignation oi the war ld pUblic. The Albanian people, too, have followed with attention and cmcern the inhuman conditions to which the Namibian people have been subjected, and the oppositim and large-scale resistance they are putting up against the South African occupying regime and tOe unpreeedented violence, massacres, genocide and political manoeuvres to which that racist regime resorts. The Albanian people have always been on the side of the Namibian people, and have supported and followed with sympathy the consolidation of the armed resistance of the Namibian people under the leadership of the South west Afr iea People's Organization (SWAiO). The delegation of the People's Socialist ~public of Albania holds that the cootinued occupation of Namibia is further supporting evidence of the fact that the imperialist Powers will stand by the most obscure racist and fascist forces ~en it comes to defending their imperialist alld neo-<:olon1alist interests. we recall the support and all-round assistance the tbited States and the other imperialist Powers have given to South Afr iea 's bloody regime, supplying it with armaments and other means to crush by fire and sword the armed resistance, the undying struggle, of the Namibian people. It is this very support and assistance, stemming from coltll\on interest in preserving danination OITer and oppression of the peoples and sustaining the neo~olonialistsystem that has prolonged the tragedy of the Namibian people, threatening and undermining the security of the neighbouring countries as well. This assistance has further encouraged the Pretor ia racists to engage in hazardous ventures and acts of terror and aggression against sovereign countries such as Botswana, Zambia, Angola an.a so on, thus precipitating a tense situation in the region as a Whole. It is not hard to perceive, though, that; South Afr lca 's arrogance and aggressiveness and the present-day reality in Namibia are .yet another reflection of the ri~,alry between the super-Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and the clashing of their imperialist and neo-colonialist interests in the rich African oorl Unent. The imperialists find it easy to plunder the uranium and diamond riches of Namibia and Sotith Africa as long as Pretor ia 's racist regime rules in those countries. Namibi~'s geographic position, its vast natural riches and the United States need to defend its neo-colonialist interests are some of the reasons that make United States impel'ialism rely on the South Afr iean regime, whim it has turned into its gendarme in the region. It has long sinc.e embarked upon so-(",alled oonstructive engagement, reserving to itself the right to determine the destiny of peace. Q'le of the goals that Ulited States imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism are at present str iving to attain is to prove themselves able to solve every discord, problem or conflict - Africa es included - proceeding on the basis of countless manoeuvres and manipulations intended to retain and restore their neo-colonialist positions. These manoeuvres are an escalation of their attempts either to pceserve or to establish their economic and political presence Wherever possible by offering the African peoples "patterns" for t:he solution of (Mr. Pitarka, Albania) their problelll8. This is '!by the granting of independence to Namibia has been .de subject to other questions mmpletely irrelevant in essence to the fundamental issue. In addi tion, numerous manoeuvres have been used, al terna ting wi th pal! tical ptef"sure and various intrigues, dp.signed to divide and split the people into racial and ethnic groupings. Overt violence, coupled with political and diplollBtic schemes, is the pr:eferred means of the Pretoria regime, which in no circumstances has ever lacked support from the Olited States. In their statements the representatives of a number of Member States - and today the representative of SWAm - have \D'1derlined the hardships, the savage oppression and violence of a fascist type, the inhuman treatment and the national destruction that the Namibian people are experiencing. However, the Namibian people have not for a single .moment given up their heroic resistance, and are respa1ding to the Pretoria o:acist regime by expanding and intensifying their struggle. They are resolutely opposing its political manoeuvres and fighting against the measures adopted by the occupying regime for the annexation of strategic regions of Namibian territory, such as Walvis Bay, the Capr 1vi Str ip and the islands. The decades of racist oppression and slavery have failt'd to subjugate the ~..ibian people, wo hold their ultimate freedan and independence to be their dearest cause. From among the people have emerged the freedom fighters and their leading organization, SWAPO, which they incessantly defend and support. In May this year, Namibiclns took to the streets in their thousands in memory of the amiversary of the Cassinga massacre, ale of the racists' extermination operations against the SWAB:> fic1lters. In the li~t of events in Namibia and in view of the heroic struggle of the NamibiCl people I.I1der the leadership of its sole, legitiIBte and authentic representative, SWAPO, it is already clear that SOuth Africa's racist dmnination in Namibia will be sheet-lived. The history of the peoples ~ struggle against colmiaUsm has time and again borne witness that the imperialist Powers have never retreated of their own accord, out of willingness to grant independence to colmial countries. At the foundation of every l1lOI1e towards freedom and independence lies the peoples' fight and resistance, their struggle, weapons in hand, against foreign aggression and occupatime Against this backgroWld, the present everits in Narcibia are, l.n the finQl analysis, the outcome of the self-denying struggle of the Namibian people &'ld their unyielding resistance in all forms~ massive manifestations and demonstrations and clashes with the racists amounting even to armed confrmtationa. This is part of the OI7era11 struggle of the African peoples aga inst colon ialism, neo-colon ialism and rClcism~ it is proof of the boundless strength of the peoples and of their vitality, which originat.es in the ideals of freedom and independence and, in lawful aspirations to self-d1!termination and social development and progress. The Albanian people and Government have always voiced their mlreserved support f~ the lawful national cause of the Namibian people. We have unflagging confidence that, through resolute fight and efforts, they will emerge victorious OITet the Pretor ia racists at last enjoy the results of their long and difficul t struggle and set the country a'l the road to free and independent development. By breaking thee chains of racist occupation and domination the new sovereign Namibia will gain the position it deserves among the other Member States of our Organization. Hr. BAQ5BHI ADSrl'O ImENGBYA (Zaire) (interpretation from French): The encouraging atllOlSpbere that hY prevailed since the begiming of this session, over which Mr. Dante Caputo is IXesiding so skilfully and effectively, has been c:baracteriz~d by the begiming of the peaceful settlement of a numer of regional conflicts, 80 that lI'lAny delegations felt that the question of Namibia would be tackled in the same cCX\text and spirit. The various stages of the quadripartite talks in London, Cairo, New York, BrazzavUle, Geneva and elsewhere led us to believe that the basic principles would be trMolated into specific agreements on a comprehensive settlement by peaceful means of the situation in southern Africa. The long-term aim ttas to create a favourable climate for substantive p:ogress in the areas of co-operation and the establishment of friendly relations of confidence, mderstanding and peace between all the States of the subregion of southern Africa. Those well-knOlrln basic principles reaffirm th~ inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence in a united Namibia, in accordance with the O'.lited Nations Charter, resolutions 1514 (XV) and 2145 (XXI) and other General Assembly resolutions on Namibia, the legi timacy of the Namibian people's struggle to win its freedom being the logical consequence of these basic principles. In acceding to independence Namibia must preserve its territorial integr ity by retaining walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and other offshore islands which are an integral part of Namibia. The history of the world teaches us that all oonflicts and disputes between States or concerning liberation and independence hC!ve been settled through dialogue and ne9Qtiation. For this reason the delegation of zaire encourages the quadripartite talks now under way, since they inclut1e almost all the parties ooncerned and interested in the situation in southern Africa and thus hold out hope of expediting implementation of security Council resolutions 385 (1976), (Mr. Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya, zaire) 435 (1978), 439 (1978), 532 (1983), 539 (1983) and 566 (1985) and the relevant General Assembly tesolutions on the question of Namibia. Namibia cCXlt1nues to be the direct responsibility of the Ulited Nations until it ach ievee genuine sel f~etermination and independence, in accordance with the resolutions I have mentiCXled. Accordingly, the thited Nations should play a fundamental role in the quadripartite negotiations in order to help the parties cCXlcerned in their efforts to mcwe towards a dynamic canpranise. To that end my delegation proposes that the Organization be represented in the negotiatiCXls either by a ment»er of the tltited Nations Council for Namibia or by a mellber of the Special COIIIlittee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the DeclaratiCXl on the Granting of Independence to Colmial Countries and Peoples. As with the meetings in Geneva on Afghanistan, western sahara and the Iraq-Iran oonflict, which led to peace plans, the thited Nations secretary-General and all bodies competent with regard to the Namibian question should spare no effort to thwart any negative manoeuvres by any party coocerned in the conflict during these negotiations. The presence during the negotiations of a representative of the United Nations would guarantee the implementation of agreements reSUlting from the talks because of the means available to the Organization for: ensur ing that all the interested parties respect the cease-fire and that internatiooal peace and security is maintained by the special United Nations forces, the competence and effectiveness of which have recently been recognized by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. The comprehensive, peacefUl, 'fo1itical settlement of the situation in southern· Africa must be based on the inanediate, uncmditimal cessation of the illegal occupation of Namibiai'l territory by South Afr iea, but also on the withdrawal of all fo~eign armed forces from the region and free, unimpeded exercise by the Uallibian people of its right to self-determination and indeperadence, in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV). Zaire believes that the United Nations pl:m for the independence of Namibia, endoned in S&curity CoWlcil resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) - the tenth anniversary of the latter of which we are celebrating - is the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question and must be implemented without delay. The delegation of zaire reaffirms its solidarity with SWAm and urges it to continue its l~beration struggle despite the sacrifices and losses which it has to bear. Its willingness to co-oparate and its farsightedness in the political and diplomatic arena have earned the international community's ;:~ ;>gnition of its qualities and merits as the genuine represen~tiveof the Namibian people. It is in this context that my delegation very nuch hopes that the quadripartite negotiations now under way in Geneva will lead speedily t'.o recognition of SWAPO so that it nay be entrusted with the task of implementing the agreements which emerge from the meetings, in particular through the att.dnment of independence for its coWltry and the people it represents. In operathe paragralph 7 of draft resolution A, entitled, "The situatiOn in Namibia resul ting from the illegal occupa tion of the Terri tory by Sou th Africa", it is proposed that the General Assembly reaffirm its decision that the United Nations Council for Namibia, in pursuartce of its mandate, should proceed to establish its administration in Namibia with a view to terminating racist South Africa's illegal occupation of the Terri tory. Present circumstances lead us to believe that the quadripartite negotiations wUl be able to acx:elerate the process of implementation of that decision because, although the tbited Nations COWlcil for Namibia has not taken part in the talks, it is nale the less the legal Administering Authorit¥ for Namibia until independence, in accordance with the mandate entrusted to it by resolution 2248 (S-V). Furthermore, my delegation, while supporting draft resoiution B, on the implementation of security ColD'lcil resolution 435 (U78), feels that the draft resolution ought at least to have contained a reference to the negotiations .at present taking place, me of the main objectives of whidi is the implementation of Secur i ty Council resolution 435 (1978). Similarly, with regard to draft resolution C, on the progranme of work of the tllited Nations ColD'lcil for Namibia, it would have been as well for the draft resolution to redefine the role of the United Nations Council for Namibia in the ccmtext of all the negotiations, the main objective of which is independence for Namibia. We take this opportunity to reaffirm our support for, and congratulate the President of the Council on, all its efforts. My delegation supports draft resolution D, on dissemination of information and mobilization of international public opinion in support of the immediate independence of Namibia, and resolution E, on the United Nations Fund for Namibia, and s.incerely hopes that all the parties calcerned and particip!ting in the current negotiations will agree on Namibia's independence in the veo;:y r.ear future so that it my become a Hemer of the thited Nations, the Organization of African lhity and the fit)vement of Non-Aligned COlD'ltries. !1!.:..-ClUlMAS OLI\A (Cube-.) (interpretation from Spanish) ~ Ten years after the aooption by the security Council of resolution 435 (1978), calling f.or the immediate CjJ:anting of independence to Namibia, as is its inalienable ri9ht, we are again debating the colmial occupation of that country. That resolution is still the sole acceptable ~asis fex a just and lasting solution to this conflict, embodying as it. does the will of the inter.national CClI'IImuni ty •* The Namibi.il patr iots have traveled a long, hard road towards bringing their homeland into the concert of independent nations. The SOuth West Africa People's Organization (SWAm), the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibi&.n people, has been waging a tenacious struggle to ensure the exercise of the inalienable right of every I':;)eople\ its iru3ependence. All the obstacles raised by SOUth Africa as it has sought to perpetuate its occupation of Namibia have been swept aside by the will of a people determined to attain its cher ished goal of independence. South Africa has used the territory of Namibia also to attack Angola, despatching its troops to the southern part of that country's territory, in open defiance of the rules of international cooduct, decisions of the security Council and demands of the General Assembly. Because events prOlTed its position to be mistaken, South Africa used its troops last year to attempt to seize a strategic objective in southern Angola.. Cuito Cuanavale. There, the corrbined Mgolan and Cuban forces resolutely repulsed C9.!:'ld defeated the invading soldiers, thereby safeguarding Angola's territorial integrity. That operatim marked a qualitative change in this long-drawn-out confl ict and was a er ucial factor in br inging about th e new s ituatiun we see today in the region of South west Africa, in which cmditions have been created that are prt)pitiouEl to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and the independence of Namibia. '* The President returned to the Chair. SOuth Africa, Cl joint Ahgolan-Cuban delegation and the tbited States, as lllediator, have throughout thb ~st year been holding four-party ta:lJcs. Those talks have alr9dy pro(l1ced the wi thdrawal of Sou th African troops frail St;,JU ther n Angola. Today, terms are being discussed for the str iet implementation of resolution 435 (1978), free from any distortions or roodifications. By the same token, any just agreement that emerges from this negotiation process must lSlequivocally guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the People's Republic of Angola. CtI3a has been participating in these talks, together with Angola, in a constructive and noble spirit and with the aim of CQ'ltributing to a negotiated, worthy and hQ'lourable solution to the situation. We have no desire to humiliate any of the parties; rather, we are determinll!d that Angola's territorial integrity will be respected and that Namibia will become independent, in conformity with the agreement 'e~ached 10 years ago by the security Council. We have sat down at the negotiating table with the firm intention of cCXltributi~ to the establishment of Peace in the southwestern part of Africa, where there has been perturbation for years now because of the apartheid regime. For the internationalist Cuban forces that 13 years ago roopooded to a call for solidarity with Angola, it would be a special halour to be able to retUrn home in the knowledge that what they had dale had caltributed also to putting an end to one of the last vestiges of colalialism al the Afr lean continent. we deem it necessazy to specify that our stance throughout these negotiatioi.a has been clear for all to see. we take this opportunity to reject categorically insinuations and ~Ui1Ours to the t!ffect that Cuba and Angola have any responsibility for the delay in starting the implamentation of resolution 435 (1978) - which had been envisaged for 1 November last. into fact of the international ootmlunity Gs determination that Namibia should accede rapidly to independence. It is taking certain steps in that Territory which oontradict its own statementG about its readiness to implement resolution 435 (l978h for it is reinforcih9 its troops in Namibia, holding military manoeuvres in Walvis Bay, stepping up repression against the Namibian people and appointing soldiers as teadlers in institutions Y'lose students SUPPOl't the call for independence • We a~~al to South Africa from this rostrum to heed the wishes of the international community and put an end to this kind of action, which is delaying a negotiating process that must conclude with the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) in all its parts. The recent general ~ebate in the General Assembly has shc~m once again ~e deep interest of the vast majority of St.ates in bringing Namibia out of its oolonial night. Of 154 speakers in that debate, 139 heads of State, foreign ministers or special envoys spoke out u''''H!quivocally for the earliest independence of Namibia and for support for: StlAlQ. South Afr lea and those that cover tly help it must draw the proper conclusions from th&t near-unanimity voiced in the General Assembly by Q)vernments throughout the war Id. we deem it pertinent to repeat now the following st&tement l1I/J,de recently by our Foreign Minister, Mr. Isicbro Malmierca, from this rostrum\ "Cuba is not seeking a military victory. Cuba has no intention or desire to ht.miliate anyone. It is inspired simply by the desire to make its modest contribution to the preservation of Angola's independence. to the progress of the negotiations on Namibia's independence and to the attainment of pe&oe and security in that part of Africa. Consequently, Cuba is prepared to cootinne these talks and looks forward to a suocesaful oonclusion, although it is aware of the obstacles and difficulties that still have to be overcome md the time and e~fort that this will requirew• (A/4J/PV.ll y p. 7) Cuba believes, and we wish to state this unequivically here Ilnd now, that the outcome of the four-pa~ty talks - that is, the agreement that may emerge from them - must be endorsed by the security Council, acting as a guarantor of the agreementt' thus eMphasizing the responsibility of the Council and the United N&tions for the independence of Namibia. Hence, it is at thited Nations Headquarters that those cowatr iea taking part in the four-party talks must formalize the agreement. My del.egation wishes to express its profound concern at certain reports that envisaqad to give effect to Security Council resolution 435 (l978). There can be no excuse of any kind for modi £1ing the or19inal plan for the implementation of tha t resolu tioo. It makes no sense to have wai ted a decade for implementa tion of this security Council decision, during which so much blood of Namibian patriots has been spilled and so many Angolan combatants and internationalist Cuban soldiers have fallen on the soil of Angola. To accept new a caricature of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and its implementation plan distorted or. modified on the pretext that the-.re are no funds available, would be to make a mockery of the feelings of the international community and of the reputation and credibility of the United Nations. .' " We wish to warn against any manoeuvre designed to undermine the process already eawisC!ged for the accession to independence of Namibia, and to emPtasize the need for full international guarantees that the transition will. be proper ly carried out. Q'lly thited Nations troops can guarantee the balance necessary to ensure that the elections in Namibia will be genuine and honest. we must bear in mind that those greatly indebted to the thited Nations have special responsibilities and the resources with which to meet the financial needs created by the accession to indep~ndence of a Territory which has for so long been subject to eclm ial exploitation. As I say this, I recall the words of the father of Cuban independence, Jose Marti, who said: "If I had kept silent abo~t anything important it ~uld have been weakness; I have said what needed to be said." Hr. ABULH.'SAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic) \ The General Assemly is considering the question of Namibia just two weeks after the tenth anniversary of the adoption of security Council resolution 435 (1978), which is the basis accepted by the interna,timal cOillmunity for the peaceful settlement of the question. It is also the basis of all the efforts made to achieve that goal. The State of [tuwai t reaffirM the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self~eterminationand national independence, on the basis of this resolution and under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organizaticm (SWAPO), their sole, al1Jthentic representative. That organization deaerves ~e full sUPPOJ:'t of the international community for its honest struggle on both the military and the diplanatic front to liberate. Namibia from the yoke of racist oppression and illegal OCCUp!ltion. The South African occupation regime continues to step up ita oppressive acts in Namibia. The people of that occupied country are still sw,jected to all possible forms of intimidation, murder, torture and usurpation, as well as the destruction of property and detention of innocent citizens for many years without trial. In this connection we should like to pay a special tribute to the stand taken by that heroic people against the b~ut.lll occupation forces. It is reported that popular resistance to South Afri~n oppression is gaining momentum. There are also '. , reports of the persistent boycott throughout the country of all schools administered by the South African authorities and the continued increaB~ in the activities Qf the trade union movement. The question of Namibia is basically one of illegitimate occupation and colmialization.· ',\I't!~efore international legality demands that the independence of .. . ...,. Namibia is not-,linked t.o.t;le -solution of any extraneoas or J.trelevant issues. This ''''. "";., ....",;. ': explains the incftcination of the';orld public at the cootinuec1 attempts by SOUth ". , '..:~~:; / " Africa to dominate the Territory and s~jugate its peopla, and to i.1Jlpede the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia endorsed in security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 385 (1976) respectively. The United Nations has assumed direct responsibility for the Territory of Namibia - the first time that it has taken such action. Thus it has shouldered international responsibility for the restoration of the rights of the Namibian people and fulfilment of the desite of the international community to enable them to attain independence and exercise their sovereignty. On the basis of that important responsibility the security Council and the G6neral Assembly are called upon by the international community to take all necessary measures to ensure that the O1ited Nations CoWlcil for Namibia fulfils its responsibility for the Terd tory in all circumstances and completely free of any pressure or political pre-coodi tions. Therefore, my delegation urges the security Council to consider once again the imposi tion of comprehens ive manda tory sanctions aga inst South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, in view of its failure to implement security Council resolution 435 (1978) on 1 Novell'ber, as expected by the international community and as agreed by its delegation at the quadripartite negotia tions in Geneva last August. My country joins the international oonmunity in welcoming the negotiations now under way at the solution of the question of Namibia. Those negotiations were reaumed at 11 November, and we ~ay that they may be crowned with success so that a free and independent State may soon be established in Namibia. However, the racist regime in Pretoria, which is based on force and suppression, persists in its procrastination and vacillation, backed by the protection and support given to it by a few in the western world and the continued activities of foreign economic interests o The majority of the Members of this --- international Organization are therefore convinced of the need to bring to bear stronger eoonomic pressure on SOuth Afr iea and impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against it, and for the few I t<ave mentioned to withhold all forms of military col~aboration and co~per8tion from the regime in Pretoria. Because of the immeasurable suffering impcsed by the Pretoria system on the peoples of both Namibia and South AfriCl\, we categorically reject tha argullent that no sanctions can be imposed since they would lead to further SUffering for those peoples. In this CX)nnection, we call for urgent measures to be taken to implement Decree No. 1 of the tllited Nations Council for Namibia fex the Protection of the Natural Resources af Namibia, including bringing pressure to bear on the Governments ltilid\ have not yet reoognized the legitimacy of that Decree to do so. This would be in adeli tion to tak ing all the ne~ssary measures aga mst the CQ\\panies violating the Decree. My delegation finds it neoessary also to condemn here the establishment of the so-called interim gwernment of Namibia, SOuth Africa's attempt& to create Plppet entities there and imposition of ooloniaUst economic structures on the people of the occupied Teedtory against their will and vi thout their consent in order to keep them continually in a state of subjugation, IOverty and deprivation with the same force we ccmdelll\ the cmtinued use by Pretoria of the territory of Namibia as a base for terrorist activities, and repeated attacks against the front-line States and nei.ghbouring countries which are in full solidarity "i th the Hamibian people in their heroic reslstance against racist Pretoria. lttile we ca\demn occupation and support resistance to it and the rights of those under its yoke, we demand that Pretoria release forthwith the valiant polttieal prisoners in Namibia and desist from CQ'ftpulsory drafting of Hamibians into the r acis t army of occupation and the tr ibal armies, us ing mercenar iea and suppressing the Namibian people. we also condeJm the oppressive practices of Pretoria against persons, organizations, trade unions, student organizations, religious leaders and the press in Namibia. WIt would also take this opportunity to express support for the right of the Nallibian people to eelf~eterminationwithin their undiminished territory, including walvis Bay, the Penguin IslMds and all the offshore islands of N&mibia, as an integral part of Nal!libia~ and this should not be linked to any extraneous issues or pre-ca\ditions in negotiations. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the twentieth anniversary of the declaration of the illegality of the pc6sence of South Afr iea in Nam!bla. Desp!te the passage of all these years, the Pretoria regime still pel'sists in denying a f\l'ldamental human right, namely, the right of the Namibians to the; r land. Therefore it is a major Il«al duty of every memer of the internatialal community to make every possible effort to end this plight and to restore rights to their rightful owners in Nl.IIibia. In order to achieve this noble objective, the international community should give all possible moral, political and material support to the Namibian people and their heroic 8uu9gle, under the leadership of SWAPO. we are fully confident that this just struggle will soon be crowned with success and that the Namibian people will attain naticnal independence thrw9h their struggle and the constant support given them by all the peoples that cher ish freedom and peace. Mr. OULD MO~J.Mm LI!MINE (Mauritania) (interpretation fran French): The question of Namibia was on the agenc!a of the first session of this AssezN)ly and U: has COIIe up again ever since, in our annual debates and at certain special sessions. During the same period the Security Council and other subsidiary bodies of the Organizatioo have also had occasioo to consider this question. All these bodies have adopted, at their respective levels, a ser ies of resolutions and deoisions on the question of Namibia. The General Assembly at its twenty-first session ended South Africa's Mandate over South-West Africa and decided to place the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Ha tions. That resolution was to begin the process leading to self-determination and genuine independence for Namibia in accordance with the march of history, the United Nations Charter and the relevant :esolutions of the General Assenely. However, 20 years later, we have to acknowledge that South Africa, in defiance of internatioilal law, is simply consolidating its illegal occupation of the 'lerri tory • Since this is an exceptional situation, where the Organization has assumed direct re':ionsibility for Namibia's accession to self-determination, freedan and independence, the Assembly decided last year to examine at th is session steps to be taken in accordance with the Charter if the security Council should find itself unable to adopt speci fie measures to compel South Afr iea to co-opet'ate in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) by 29 septenber 1988. The Namibian people has suffered far too much from domination and oppression. "In additioo to the usual trials and tribulations which accanpany col001al rule, "Namibia has been subjected to the odious policy of apartheid, a systematic brutal repressioo has been unleashed against the Namibian people and its territory has been used as a springboard for acts of aggression and destabilization directed against neighbouring States. The cCX\tinuing ordeal of the Namibian people is G slap in the face for the international (x)l1Illunity and a flagrant violation of international law. The illegal occupation of Namibia also poses a seriolJs threat to regional and international peace and secur i ty • In this situation, it is more necessary than ever for the United Nations to assume its responsibility with respect to this international Territory. Determined efforts must be made without delay to enable the Namibian people to exercise rapidly its inalienable right to freedan and independence. The United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia set forth in security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) preyides the only internationally . accepted basis for: a settlement of the Namibian question. Its immediate, full and uncmditional implementation is the special responsibility of our Organization and all States that cherish peace and justice. It must involve the increased isolation of South Africa, since the most effective pressure is still the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. In particular, \i1at is needf;!d is strict and rigorous implementation of the arms enbargo imposed by the Seour i ty Council in resolution 418 (1978). In these difficult circumstances, SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people is confronting the apartheid regime on all fronts. It is making enormous sacrifices but delivering stinging blows against the illegal occupation. The entire international colllllunity should give it its full mater ial and moral support to this legitirrate and heroic struggle. Mauritania's solidarity with SNARl is only natur:al, since it is based on the iMumerable ties that unite our two peoples and takes various for711S. The accession of Namibia to independence is ale of our major concerns, and we cannot but welcome any action conducive to the speedy achievement of that independence. In this spirit, we note with satisfmctial the ongoing talks on southern Air ica~ but we are aware that the apartheid regime will yield only to the colibined force of armed struggle and internatiaull pressure. Hence it is up to our Organization to take specific measures to compel South Africa to end its colatial domination of Namibia and to implement the resolutions and decis ions of the tAtited Hations. In so doing, we shall have oontr ibuted to remO'ling the serious threat to internatimal peace and security posed by the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Afr iea. The Un i ted Hations Council for Namibia, the only legal Mministering Authority of the Territory, is actively participatiQg in this just and noble work of peace. We should like to take this opportunity to commend it on its tireless efforts. e international rel&tions are now mewing towards dialogue and co-operatial. The recent positive developments have brougM: rays of hope and \;he pr:omise of peace and settlement to the JlW"iY pressing i ~;';lj.es of both regiooal and global dimensions. !'ot the first time, there h.as been a breakthrough in genuine nuclear disarmament, with the si~ing and ratification of the Treaty between the U1ited States and the (bion of Soviet SOcialist R5lpubHcs on the Elimir.'ation of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles - INF Treaty. Peace talks geared to political settlements have emerged out of deadlock situations in various partlS of the world from Afghanistan to southern Afd-ca, from Qrprus and the Gulf to the Western Sahara. The results obtained, though they vary in degree, have opened up a real prospect for solving regional conflicts and disputes through political means and dialogue. These enl~uraging developments are but a beginning. There are still some who obstinately oppose that process of dlange. Those forces of confrcmtation and interferen.ce have been seeking to hinder or reverse th·! ongoing trend of dialogue and to limit or: Wldermine the progress adlieved. so far, especially as the process is yet at an initial, fragile stage. Experience, whether from Central America, the Middle East, South-East Asia or southern Africa, shows that ooly with the elimination of the source of the pr:oblem, whether it be reactionary forces, apartheid, genocide QC outside interference, can the search for a negotiated settl-.ent be accelerated and bear fruits. Fully aware of the complexities involved, the international comJIIWlity must therefore strengthen its political will so as to make the pr:ogress achieved so far sustainable and to meet more effectively the challenges now ccmfraating us. The question of Namibia has long stood as the test of our political will and common efforts to do away with the legacy of a laag-preserved colCllialism. The challenge posed by the question is typical of its kind. For: more than two decades now, Namibia has been the unique case where the United NatioilS has undertaken direct responsibility for transition to independence and self-determination, since it adOpted the historic General Assenbly reaolution 2145 (XXI). This undertaking received the support of the overwhelming m~jority of tht: inter~ational community. 8Jt Namibia is Y'!t to be freed. Colmialism has persi( "~~d in its old form for OIler a century and exists up until today with all its attendant sinisterne&s and brutality~ and wexse yet, South Africa has extended apartheid - the most obnoxious form of colonialism that exists - to the Territory. Mass, unwarranted arrests, detention, repressi.cn, massacres, and unabated exploitation, continue to be the daily lot of that anguished people. Tears and blood cQ1tinue to be shed by the NlIl\ibiana at: the barbarous hands of the racist regime. WOrds, however, cannot express the case adequately and cannot tell all. SOuth Africa, on the other hand, has maintained its policy of State terrorism, unceasingly launching attacks against the front-line States, so that the region is constantly prone to danger and instability. All tht::. has stemmed from a root cause, namely, ap!rtheid, whim, as universally concluded, cannot be reformed but must be eradicated. For a lalg time the international conmunity has oonmited itself to the Namibian people's struggle for independence and self-determination, and to the elimination of apartheid. This is a case where unanimity has reached an unprecedented level with regard to the initiation of collective efforts on a global scale. The world as a whole has demanded the termination of South Afr iea 's illegal occupation of Namibia, along with the elimination of apartt~ - upon which that occupation is based - and all its practical manifestations. A plan for Namibia's independence has been envisaged in security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). The plan, since its ac:bption in 1978, has been the sole, universally acceptable basis for N_ibia's independence.. Ten years have elapsed but tha t resolution has yet to be implemented. SOuth Africa, thanks to the help of some, has for years brazenly defied wor Id public opinion. Wi th that support, South Afr ie<.. has sought by all means possible to obstruct the implementation of sacurity Council resolution 435 (1978). It has brt;)ught in groundless, extraneous issues, such as the policy of "linkage n, which has been totally rejected by the international community. With the favourable conditiona that are emerging in the world, diplomatic endeavours have recently been enhanced in sou tb-wes tern Africa wi th a view to speeding up the search for a political settlement of the region's problems. With the authorizatioo given to him in security Council r~solution 601 \1987), the Secretary-General has proceeded with practical arrangements for the emplacement of the lhited Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG), dispatclling a technical team to the region and holding oonsultations with the various parties ooncerned. The quadriparti te negotiations now untler way have aroused hopes that a political solution to the conflict in the region will eventually be found. We support the correct posi tion and constructive attitude taken by Angola and Cuba in this ongoing diplomatic endeavour towards a solution that would guarantee Angola's sovereignty, securit~' and territorial integrity, as well as Namibia's genuine independence. The South AfI'iean, author ities must str ictly abide by the agreements reamed and must refrain from setting up any new artificial obstacles. The heroic struggle of the Namibian people has always enjoyed our whole-h~arted sympathy and support. we further reiterate at this forum the consistent position of our people and Q)vernment towards i:he Namibian people and its sole, legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWARJ). We also support the atti tude of good will adopted by SWAP:> in facilitating the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). In the present circumstances, the international ool'llllunity must in no way lessen its vigilance, given SOuth Africa's record of bad fai th and intransigence. International pressures must more than eve~ be increased~ especially thrOl.:gh the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against that racist regime. ThOile tllho have misused the veto to date by blocking the security COWlCU from taking action in that regard must adopt a nw line and join the rest of the world, because sanctions represent the IftOtJt effective peaceful lIeans available to compel ~uth Africa to end its illegal OCCUpatiOf: of Namibia and its policy of apartheid. The Namibian question, like many other burning issues of our time, requires great efforts and firm action now more than ever. With the current broadening of international co-operatien, our enhanced joint efforts and determination should finuly bring about independence for Namibia and peace and stability to the whole region. Mr. NONORY'l'A (Polandh We meet ones again to deal with a problem that should have been resolved long ago. This year, insted of celebrating the independence of Namibia, we have markad yet another anniversary of our powerlessness - this time the tenth anniv8rsary of the adoption of security Council i'esolution 435 (1978), which contains the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. Unfortunately, the tl'lited Nations has so far been unable to contribute decisively towards the liberation of Namibia, although the entire international COIIllDlKlity - wen SOUth Africa, in its own devious way - reco9nizes the right of the P90ple of the 'n!rritory to form an independent State. For years, we have been firmly and consistently demanding freedom for Namibia and providing as!llistance to the struggle of the Namibian people, while South Africa has reacted defiantly, appearing at best to yield to international pressure while in fact making only cosmetic changese* Unfortunately, Pretoria has repeatedly suCceeded in keeping a settlement on Namibia just out of reach, ""ile working frantically to circument the will of the international OOJmlWlity as e~essed in numerous resolutions and decisions of the * Hr. Van Lierop (Vanuatu), Vice-'President, took the Chair. (Mr. Noworyta, Poland) tbited Nations, including the security .Council. It endeavoured to establish a puppet government in Namibia, to destroy the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and all internal opposition. It undertook military action or political destabilization against neighbouring States, trying to end their support for the liberation struggle of the Namibian people. Due to the efforts of the international· ocnllnunity and of the United Nations in particular, we have this year witnessed progress in the prccess of settling a number of regional OJnflicts. In recent months, new prospects for a peaceful settlement in SOuth West Africa have emerged. The constructive position and flexibility of Angola and Cuba at the quadripartite negotiations with South Africa, mediated by the lhited States, have prOl7ided a real possibility for resolving specific issues relating to the self-determination of the Namibian people. We express our sincere hope for a successful conclusim to the talks and for early agreements. A free and indepandent Namibia is in the interests of peace and security of the region and the entire world. Therefore, the realization of that objective constitutes an urgent task. Poland once again wishes to reaffirm its readiness to take active part in the process of implementing security Council resolution 435 (1978). On the other hand, the many years of Pretoria's defiant rule in Namibia leave ample grounds for scepticism about i t"oS good fai th and readiness to carry out the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. The occupatian forces in northern Namibia have grown even more numerous. An estimated 5,000 youths have fled the country due to harassment by the security palice~ South Africa has drafted new legislation against the trade-union movement, and a deliberfttely planned arson attack against The Namibian, the only independent newspaper in the Terd tory, occurred on 11 october 1988 aga inat the backgro\l'ld of peace negotiations. (Mr. Noworyta, Poland) Disturbing, too, are recent reports of armed soldiers of the SOuth African Defence Force canvassing Namibian villages, taking down names, identiiication numbers and addresses and asking inhabitlmts to indicate their political affiliation. Should such action not be considered as pre-empting free elections wtder international supervision? Should the thited Nations not remain vigilant? In the peesent situation, it would seem important and useful, in order to ensu!'e the cootinuity of the settlement process, to involve the Ulited Nations and the Secretary-General in the elaboration of a definitive formula in accordance with security Council resolution 435 (1978). In that cOMection, we would like to cOlllnend SWAlO for its continued commitment to the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia and its preparedness to co~perate fully in the implementation of that plan. Today, a great and friendly Asian nation, India, begins a 12-month conmemoration of the birth 00 N0'\7enber 14, 1889 of Jawaharlal Nehru, its founding father and first Prime Minister from independence in 1947 until his death in 1964. Let me pay tribute to that outstanding po1!tician by recalling some of his wise and inspiring words~ IOThe racial policy of the South African Union is, I think, more basically wrong and dangerous for the future of the world than any-at,ing else. It surprises me that C'OW'ltries, particularly those that stand for the democratic tradition and those that voted for the tbited Nations Charter and for the Human Rights Coovention, express themselves so moderately or do not express themselves at all about the racial policy of the Sou th African thion. It is not a question of policy only. I say it is the greatest international immorality for a na tion to carry on in that way.· (Mt. Noworyta, Poland) Namibia is clearly a victim of immorality and inhumanity. Those who aid Pretoria share mQral resp:msibility for the plight of the Namibian people. In conclusion, we once again express our full support for and solidarity wi th the people of Namibia, led by their sole! and authentic i:epresentative, SWAl'O, in their just and heroic struggle for libei:ation and equal rights. We remain convinced that the days of the illegal occupation of their count:y are numbered and that Namibia will soon attain its rightful place in the C01MlWlity of nations. Ms. ATTAR (i~igeria) ~ The Chairman of our delegation at the current session of the General Assembly and Minister for External Affairs of N.t.9Cl:ia has already conveyed to Hr. Caputo the congratulations end warm fel icitations of the Government and people of Nigeria for his election wen he addressed this body on 29 september 1980. I shall therefore simply reiterate his sentiments and arasure the President of our cQ1tinued co-operation wi th him and the other memers of t!le &areau in the discharge of the onerous tasks assigned to them. We are totally satisfied with his stewardship to date and we are certain that his wide experience and immense diplomatic sk ills will see us through to a successful conclusion of the session. (Ms. Attah, Nigeria) The Nigerian delegation attaches grsat importance to the agenda item mder consideration. This importance springs not only from the historical fact that Nigeria is a pl'oduct of the inevitable process of decolonizatial which occurred in the middle decades of this century in Afr iea, but also from our belief that the cue of Namibia is sui generis. Among the remaining colc:mial and dependent Territories, which number about 19, Namibia is the unique case where the United Nations terminated the mandate that was given to the administering racist Q)vernment and thereafter assumed direct responsibility for the Territory. ~:amibia is also lI'lique in the sense of having an agreed framework in the form of the U1ited Nations plan approved in Security Council resolution 435 (1978) designed to guide the Territory to independence. It is sad that 22 years after racist SOuth Afr ica 3S mandate over Namibia W38 terminated by the tbited Nations, and 10 years after the security Council adoptei. resolution 435 (1978), Namibia is still a dependent colony. And yet apartheid South Africa's arrogance and cQ'ltempt for the thi ted Hadons and the entire international oonmunity are the direct consequences of the support, solace and sucoour it continues to receive from certain countries, some of which were the chief architects of Security Council resolution 435 (19;8). It is regrettable that implementation of seC\!rity Council resolution 435 (1978) approving the Olited Nations plan for the independence of Namibia has been consistently frustrated and stymied for over a decade in total defiance of the U1i ted Hations and the international OOlllnunity. It is even nore regrettable that apartheid South Africa's disregard for the injunctions of the thi ted Hations has been encouraged and supported by some of the nations whose painstaking endeavours culminated in the adoption of resolution 435 (1978). It is hypocritical, in our view, for countries which played very key roles in forllUlating and negotiating the framework fe! a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem to be involved in attempts at deraUing the implementation of the same plan by insisting on extraneous issues. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the United Nations plan approved therein are quintessential democratic means of bringing about a peaceful resolution of the Namibian question. The resolution neither seeks to impose a solution devoid of the preferences of Namibians nor to foist at them a Government, liberation movement or political party which the Namibians themselves have not chosen. _ong other things, the resolutiCX\ envisages a cessation of hostilities, the p!l!aceful return of Namibian refugees and exiles, the organization of free and fair elections for both a constituent assembly and an eventual demr;cratic Government of NmIlibia, all under the clOEle and impartial superVision of a United. Nations Transition Assistance Group. All these are denocratic principles and processes which certain countries proclaim and r.ecomend to others. The SOuth Jlest Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the liberation movement of the Namibian people, h&S consistently and repeatedly declared readiness to initbte and submit itself to the dellCcratic verdict of the Namibian people. It has never wavered in its commitment to the full and unfettered lmpleentation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). SW!~PO therefore deserves the commendation and support of the international (x)lII!'lunity for its res«)lute collll\itment to peaceful and democratic solution of the problem. The Secretary-General has indicated in his numerous reports that all ca\ditions necessary for the implementation of security Council resolution 4JS (1978) have been met. Nevertheless racist South Africa and its allies continue to stall and prevaricate CX\ the commmencement of implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978) by insisting on red herrings to delay, if not totally (Ms. Attah, Nig,!!!.!!) prevent, the long overdue independence and freedom for Namibia. SOUth Africa has done everything, including impose the hand-picked and unrepresentative inter im government cm the Nmdbian people. Nigeria is dismayed that the self-appointed gumrdians of Western civilization have failed to date to appreciate the ploy of r&cist SOuth Africa. we are disturbed by the overt and covert support to maint&in· apartheid's stranglehold over Namibia and its people. It is iralic that some of the countries which are propping up racist South Africa are the SaIDa whose history inaugurated man's fight for freedal'l, equality and dignity in the last three centuries. It is however noteworthy that the people of those countr les have through mass demonstrations, the media, churches and other non-gcvernmental organizations, distanced themselves from the myopic policies of their Governments regarding apartheid South Afr ica. We call al the Governments cCX\cerned to heed the expressed wishes of their citizens and stop S\L9taining apartheid and colOK1ialism in southern Africa. we cannot but observe that 1 NovenOer 1988 has come ana gone ra ther uneventfully apart from the intensification of the repression and oppression of the people of Namibia. ltlile Nigeria expressed its support and encouragement for the efforts to achieve a peaceful solution, which was the proclaimed goal of the ongoing Quadruparti te Talks, we cannot but sound a note of cautio., and warning to the international co_unity not to be lulled into complacency and a betrayal of the Namibian peoFle. The racist OCCUpa tiCl'l forces in sou thern Angola were made to realize that CuitlO Cuanaveles was the limit of tolerance and aggression had its price. The delll«alized racist troops were forced to withdraw. south Africa may be buying time for yet another chapter in prevarication and frustration of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. The foregoing assessment leads to one inevitable conclusion. We believe that it is new opportune for the international community to take immediate steps to consolidate and universalize all the disparate measures that are 1n place against the racist regime. We believe that the abhorrence of apartheid by all civilized people must be lmderscored and re-emphasized in order to force the Pretoria regime to abandon its p:>licies of racial discrimination, oppression and brutal repression. Further, we reiterate our conviction and the Jemand of the majority of Memer States of the United Nations for tho imposition of canprehensive and manda tory sanctions agaiost the racist South Africa regime under Chapter VII of the Charter. We believe that action under Chapter VII is the only viable optioo for peaceful settlement of the problem. It has become urgent and imperative for the international oolll1lunity to terminate the itn4chrmisms of aparthe,!g, and colmiali8111 in Namibia. The intransigence of apartheid South Africa should be stopped without further delay. The freedan of the entire people of Africa is nei ther negotiable nor reversible. The gale of freedom and independence which started to sweep across the vast continent of Africa in the 1950s and 1960s cannot stop Q'l the banks of the Zambesi and the Lilllp)po. It is headed for and will blow across the Namib and Kalahari deserts, through the Orange River and the velds of SOuth Af.rica into the rough waters of the Cape of Good Hope. History is Q'l the side of the people of Namibia. No force and no alOOW\t of overt or covert support for the oppressors will stop them from enjoying their inalienable right to self-determination and independence• --- In the final analysis, there is never a time-frame for a liberation stn,ggle; it will continue until victory is achieved. The people of Namibia are engaged in such a titanic struggle, and all the freedom-loving peoples of the world are with them. They will not fa il. Hr. mSIIJ (Ethiopia) \ The General Assembly is once again engaged in its periodic deliberations on Namibia. Despite the concerted efforts deployed by the international community and the world Organization, the unique colonial Territory of Namibia remins under the cruel occupation of the racist regime of South Afr iea. In spi te of our fervent hope that the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence would be duly recognized by South Africa and its collaborators, the '1erritory has been systematically converted into a regimented mineral-resources outpost serving the rather focused interests of the multinationals. Regardless of our resolve to accelerate the process of decolonization in that Terri tory and move closer to the day Mlen Namibia <;lssumes menDer ship in our family of free and independent nations, the occupation troops of the racist regime remain entrend'led in every part of that unhappy land. The illegal and brutal colonial occupation of Namibia continues unabated, exacerbated by the racist regime's arrogant conversion of its territory into a springboard for carrying out acts of State terrorism, aggression and destabilization against the front-line States and other neighbouring States. Ten lCllg years have elapsed since the adoption of the now well knO\' n security Council resolu tion 435 (1978) providing for a l.I'\ iversally accepted independence plan for Namibia. Although we had harboured the hope that its implemantation might at long last lead to the in~pendence of Namibia, the atti tuda displayed by the Pretoria regime ever since the adoption of that resolution, on 29 september 1978, has left nuch to be desired. Pretoria has demonstrated its mastery of the craft of deceit and treachery by systematic introduction of extraneous issues into the negotiating agenda, wich has not only stalled the negotiations carried out within the parameters of Security Council resolution 4J5 (1978) but further complicated the issue of Namibia's accession to independence. Without any of the prevarication or obfuscation often employed by those in certain interested quarters, we affirm that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the sole universally acclaimed framework for the peaceful resolution of the Namibian question. For as long as the racist regime resorts to futile manoeuvres to deny the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination there will be no end in sight to the stalemate and proerastina tion that have so far characterized developments surrounding the Namibian question. Essentially, Namibia remains the direct responsibility of the thited Nations. The United Nations Council for Namibia is the sole legal Administering Authority for Namibia until the Territory accedes to independence. In that rege-rd, however, it is important to highlight the fact that we are at an important crossroads as regards the settlement of the Namibian question. In this connection, while we colllilend the effocts of the United Nations and its tireless Seoretary~eneral, we should like all the same to emphasize that no time and no opportunity should be lost in conmencing implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978). In th is regard, a word or two at the unfolding si tua tion regarding negotiations on the peaceful resolution of the Namibian question may be in order. It is significant that the recent Geneva agreement on Namibia is the culmination of a sustained international campaign for the independence of the Territoryft As suc:h it marks the triwPt of multifaceted world-wide efforts mobilized O/er the past several years to secure freedom for the people of Namibia) hence it constitutes a serious setback for the racist clique and could be the harbinger of the systematic dismantlement of the system of apartheid in South Africa itself. In view of South Africa's history of arrogance, obduracy and recourse to dilatory tactics to delay Nmnibia's independence, however, it is most appropriate to rellain vigilant and watch for aigns that the 'racist regime is not employing another gimJlick. In spi t:e of our misgivings about South Afr iea '13 intentions, we shall support all negotiations leading to the ultimate independence of Namibia. We believe that every effort made to enhance the probability of the attainment of peace in southern Africa is on the credit side for the people of Namibia. If such tributary efforts can oontr ibute to the mic#lty river of peace, they will continue to enjoy our support. Howev~r, it must be said that when Namibia accedes to independence its territory must of juridical necessity be in one piece. Sudl processes therefore should take into acooW'lt the iliaintenance of the terri tor ial integrity of Namib ia , including Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and all other offshore islands. itlen the history of the struggle for freedan and independence in southern Africa is written it is certain that a significant part will be devoted to the role of the valiant sons and daughters of Namibia who, lDlder the vanguard leadership of the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAlOj, the sole, legitimate representative of the people of the now illegally held Territory, have successful~y brought the racist occupiers to their knees. It is iIIOSt pertinent to note that the South African regime, whim is renowned as an arch-enemy of peace, would not suddenly have optea for negotiations and peaceful dialogue over Namibia had it not been for the crushing blows it suffered in southern Angola and Namibia. My (~. Goshu 6 Ethiopia) delegation therefore salutes the SWAPO comatants and the heroes of Cui to Cuanavale , and pays a tr ibute to the front-line States and other neighbour lng States which have borne the brunt of South Africa's campaign of destabilization and State terrorism and, having endured all types of hardship and tribulations, have given unswerving support to the struggle of Namibian and Sou th African pe triots. At th is eleventh hour of Namibia 's long march towards independence it is essential that the international community demonstrate its cOl'illlitment to the Namibian cause by augmenting its support for the struggling people of Namibia and its sole, authentic national liberation movement, the South West Africe People's Organization. All assistance rendered will facilitate the speedy accession of Namibia to independence. Conversely, any delay in the provision of vital assistance is bound to be an added advantage to the occupation forces of South Africa. Thus, the worth of our support. so far will be determined by how expeditiously we act today. We have come a loog way, and we can only follCM the worthy path we have trodden thus far. As a Member State which had the honour of br inging the question of Namibia to the attention of the International Court of Justice, Ethiopia has followed this crucial question with the degree of seriousness it warrants. Within the limits of its capabilities, Ethiopia has never failed to prOl7ide the patriots of Namibia wi th political, diplomatic and mater ial back ing. let me therefore avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate Ethiopia's unswerving support for the people of Namibia in their struggle for independence, justice and peace. Hr. H. R. ODUDIIJRY (Bangladesh) ~ That at this time and age the malignant cancer of racist occupation should be allowed to spread and decimate an entire population is a sad cOImlentary on our generation. H)where has tyranny expressed itself so starkly as in Namibia. Nowhere has colooialism manifested itself so virulently as in that unfortunate land. The soul of Afr iea today cr ies out in anguish, while the inflicter of pain, Pretoria, carries on its odious conduct wHh impu"ity. If the sorrows of Namibia are a great tragedy, our toleration of SOuth Africa is a mortal sin. The sUfferings of the Namibians have been excruciating. Their lUl1bs have been bound, their voices silt":1ced and their resources stolen. Pretoria has also tried to numb their minds by foisting on them a vile hypothesis that the lighter the skin, the more ~uperior the culture. For decades the global conmunity has tried to reason with South Africa. To date, its efforts have been in vain. We cannot, however, afford to throw up our hands in despair. The need now is for sober reflection, cool assessment and concerted actioo. Also, although there is a glimmer of light perceptible at the end of the tunnel, we cannot afford to rest in complacency. We must plan and execute our programme - whim is in what we hope are its final stages - to blot out for ever the stains of suppression left impr inted upon the fabr ic of Afr ica by a pariah regime. The peoblem, however, is not as intractable as it might appear. There is indeed a solutioo. It lies in the Ulited Nations plan for Namibia. Of particular urgency is the need to implement secur ity Council resolution 435 (1978) of 1978. A decade has elapsed since its adoptim. The main obstructioo to its implementation has been the int-.ransigence of South Africa. Time and again th~.' ,:'~neral Assembly, this parliament of nations, has adopted resolutions 00 the issue, which Pretor ia has persistently defied~ We condemn that attitude unequivocally. (.!r. H. R. Choudhury, Bangladesh) The Dotha regime does not appear to be amenable to reMon or logic. wa see no option, therefore, but to try to force its hand. If there ever was a case for the imposition of the canprehensive, mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, it is here and nQl. To assist South Afz:ica to buttress its military capabil:.\ties would be unwise and destabUizing. South Africa must also be isolated economically. Those of uS who still remember the long struggle for 'freedom against the Raj in British India will recall what an effective noo-violent weaJ:lOn the boycott of goods was. If the world shuns the use of things South African the message to Pretoria will be unanbiguous., the signal will be clear. We are all aware of SOuth Afr iea 's attempts to hoodwink the world by installing a PJppet regime in Windhoek in June 1985. ~t it failed to pUll the wool over our eyes. Its attempts to muffle the media have revealed more than they have concealed. we must not allow the Botha Government to succeed in linking the independence of Namibia to extraneous or irrelevant issues, nor must we allow it to cootinue its shameful plunder of Namibian resources in defiance of Decree No. 1 of the Council for Namibia. True, Namibia inspires rage~ but then, it also evokes the positive emotions of courage and determination. Bangladesh salutes the courage of the valiant people of Namibia and supports them in their relentless struggle against oppression. We admire the glorious leadership prCNided by the SOUth West Africa ~eople's Organi:::;ation (SWAIO), the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, and we support it in its de termina tion to free its people. Our minds and hearta are always with the front-line States in Africa, engaged in a bitter and noble resistance to the evil ll=!ci\inations of Pretoria. We commend the untiring efforts of Secretary-General J~~ier Perez de Cuellar, Qlder-Secretary-Gen~alMarrack Goulding, Commissioner Bernt Carlsson and others to bring peace to that troubled part of the world. The cause of Namibia has always been dear to the people of Bangladesh. As members of the Council for Namibia we have tr ied to make our modest contr ibution to bring independence to Namibia. we offered to support the transition by participating in the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (tfiTAG). Should - Namibia, t4len it is free, seek to share our experience to tide it over the initial phases, Bangladesh will be pcepared and happy to make it available. It is our hope that the ongoing discussions on southern Africa will lead to a settlement that will be acceptable to the heroic struggling people of Namibia. With those ends in mind the Bangladesh delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolutions before the Assembly. Surely there is a dawn at the end of the darlmess of suffer ing that envelops south Africa today. As poe t John RElata said, there is always a budding morrow at midnight. We hold our bi:eath and await the first streaks of light on the Namibian horizcn. The wait may still be a trifle la1gcr, but the Gtr iving towards our goal is so ennobling that every moment will be worth the while. Mr. LANQ3LET (Norway)':. More than 40 years a90 the General Assembly rejected a proposal to inoorporate South west Africa, now Namibia, into the Union of South Africa and recommended that the Territory be placed W'lder the U1ited Nations trusteeship system. 'lWenty years later, in 1966, the General Assembly terminai:ed SOUth Africa's Mandate OI7er Namibia and assumed responsibility for administering the 'n!rdto!'y until independence. In 1978 the Security Council aoopted resolution 435 (1978) and thereby apprcwed the proposal for a settlement the Namib!an sitQation. Regrettably, subsequent efforts to implement that resolution failed owing to attempts by the SOUth African Government to d;)struct progress by introducing extraneous issues. (Mr. Langslet, Norway) South Africa's obstruction of the diplomatic process, its illegal occupation and its use of Namibian territory for launching unprO'loked acts of aggression against neighbouring countries, particularly Angola, have for many years been a eause of deep concern to the international oommunity. For all these years the Namibian people have been fighting wer basic issues affecting the very nature of their existence~ self-determination, independence, human rights and dignity. New hope WellS injected into the situation in May th is year by the ini tiation of talks between Cuba, Angola and South Afr iea, with the United States as mediator. Meetings in New York from 8 to 10 July led to an agreement between Angola, Cuba and South Afr iea on a set of essential pr inciples to establish the basis for peace in the south-western region of Africa. The first tangible signs of progress came as South Afr iean troops withdrew from southern Angola and a de facto cease-fire between the South West Africa Paople's Organizatioo (SWAPO) and SOU th Africa took effect in August. Norway supports the ongoing negotiations aimed at a peaceful settlement of the si tuation on t:."'le basis of security CoW'lcil resolution 435 (1978). We commend the mediation efforts and the flexibility and restraint exercised by the parties throughout the process, tmich we hope have reached the point of no return. We appeal to the parties to continue their endeavours towards a speedy and canpr~.hensive settlement of the situatial. Norway is oonvinced that the settlement plan endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (1978) offers the ooly internationally acceptable basis for the achievement of independence by Namibia. The modaUties for the transition to indePendence have been agreed. The Namibian people must now be allowed to determine their own 40uture through free and fair elections under the supervision and con trol of the thited Na tions, in accordance wi th the settlement plan. '" ' " (Hr. !angalet, tbr ~) Nexway has consistently held that CQ'ftprehensive mandatory sanctions would constitute the most effective instrument through which to exert pressure on South Africa to implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This remains ocr position until & peaceful settlement: of the Namibian issue has been reached. until suc:b time, Norway for its part will cmtinue its policy of total boycott against South Africa, as evidenced by the law on economic boycott which took effect on 20 July last year. We urge Hemer states, pending a decisim en canprehensive mandatory sC5\ctions by the security Council, to take appropriate national action. Recent events have hic#1lighted the need for preparedness (Xl the part of both the tl'lited Nations and the international cxulIDunity as a whole. We are confident that the Se~etary-General is prepared to undertake the administrative md other practical steps necessary for the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) ,.aen he is called on to cb so. Norway stands ready to play its part in the implemen~tion of Secmrity Council resolution 435 (1978) and in assisting the people of Nmnibia. We have offered to contr ibute to ~TAG and, in co-operation with our Nordic neighbours. have developed a plan for concerted action at development co-operatioo once Namib ia is a free and independent country. Namibia is potentially one of the weelthiest countries on the African caltinent. The rights of the Namibiane to their natural resources ha;,e to be scrupulously respected by all. tbrway shM'es the concern of the international commtmity over the rapid and unjustifiablecJepletion of the Territory's weal th by foreign interests. My delegation is alarmed at the serious over-fishing off the Namibian coast and expects all tllited Nations Hemer states to have regard to the interests of the people of Namibia and ensure that their marine resources will be used for their benefit. The Norwegian Gcwernment cQ\tinues to believe that a thorough mapping of the marine resources off the coast of Namibia would be useful. (Mr. Langslet, Norway) I should like to repeat the offer made by the Government of Norway during last year's session of the General Assembly of practical assistance in this regard. We .ftlso stand ready to draw on our diversified experience in such related fields as legislation to ~otect the marine resources off the coast, as well as the exploration and exploitatioo thereof, for the benefit of a free and independent Namibia. Norway remains deeply col'l'l1\itted to alleviating the plight of the Namibian people. I should like to reiterate my Government's unequivocal support for efforts made and measures taken by the United Nations to correct the grave injustice done to the Namibian people. Norway has had the privilege of contributing to various United Nations activities benefiting the Namibian people, such as those carried out through United Nations Institute for Namibia, in tusaka, and the Namibia Nationhood Programne. We also accord humanitarian support to Namibian refugees through ~AIO and shall cmtinue to do so for as 100g as such assistance is required. Norway appeals to all Member States of the United Nations to cantr ibute generously to these funds and activi ties. Last year in the course of the debate on the question of Namibia the delegation of Norway made a few conunents on the activi ties of the most important United Nations body in this respect, the United Nations Council for Namibia. Although commending the main thrust of the Council's activities, my delegation eXlZessed its concern at certa in aspects of the reooll'fllendations presented by the Council to the General Assenbly~ This year I am pleased to note that some of our concerns have been addressed. May I also, on a more general note, reiterate that in the current difficult financial situation all {hited Nations acHvi ties, including those of the Council for Namibia, should be carefully scrutinized to secure effectiw.! and appropriate utilization of resources. My delegatia'l has a'l previous occasions expressed • ----n- (Mr. Langslet, Nor"'!I) concern about the level of the Council's expenditure on seminars and conferences. We have G\!ggested that the Council should concentrt1te its efforts on direct and pt'actical assistance to the Namibian people. I take this opportunity to resta te our position on these questions. My delegation looks forward to the day when Namibia will take its rightful place in the family of nations. We call upon the internatiSllal community to contr ibute effectively to the building of a fr ee, united and independen t Namib ian nation State. Hr. AL-ZMBI (United Arab Iftirates) (interpretaticn from Arabic) ~ The Cba irman of the Ar ab Group for th is month will be apeak Ing on behalf of the _mers of the Group to expcess our views in full. I shall therefore smply shed a little more light on the issue under consideration. In the years since the establishment of the United Nations, the General Assemly has confrcmted a sequence of events inconsistent wi th the objectives of the Mandate, including South Africa's assertion that it is not res~nsible to the ll'1ited Nations, the implementation of its policy of apartheid, its seizure of Namibian territory, its disregard for the ruling of the International Court of Justice and its defiance of the relevant resolutions of the General Aeselfbly and the Security Council. The Q)vernment of South Afr!~ continues to colll1lit inhuman crimes, causing suffer ing which amounts to a blatant affrCl'lt to human dignity and values. In doing so it is posing a threat to peace and security in Africa and hence in the world as a lIIhole. The question of Namibia is primarily one of deoolonization. kcordingly, it has to be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in General Asse."IIbly resolution 1514 (XV). The fact that the South African racist regime is linking its illegal occupation of Namibia with co-operation between Angola and certain other <»untries is but III c'uversic," aimed at justifying its occupation and turning the question 01: Namibia into an international conflict. While pursuing such policies, the afar the~ regime is endeavouring to beeak the un!ty of the NUlib ian people by militaJ.:izing the Territory and establishing 4 white population there. That has led to tragic disruption in Namibian 8Ocie~. In order to attain its goals, the racist regime has also created local tl'ibal armies and Plppet groups, and made extensive use of .ercenaries in its desperate effort: to crush the liberation struggle of the Na.ibian people. (Hr. Al-Zaabi, United Arab Qnirates) Foreign economic interests, by co-operating with the occupaticn forces in the framework of South Africa's overall military strategy, are centr ibuting directly to the continuation of the illegal occupation of the Territory by South Africa. Considering the situation, with South Afr iea 's acquisition of nuclear weaplns in co-operation with Israel, and its aggression against neighbouring African States to ~s~bilize them, we are deeply concerned at the dangerous situation in Namibia.. we urge the international community to step up its efforts to enable the heroic Namiblan people to exercise its inalienable right to self~etermination, freedan and national independence in a uni ted Namibia. This should be done wi thout jeopardizing the territorial integrity of Namibia, inclUding Walvis Bay and the islands off its coast, in accordance wi th the relevan t resolu tions of the General Assembly, which stipulate that those territories are an integral part of Namibia. and that any manoeuvre by SOUth Africa to separate walvis Bay and the islands from the ~rritory would be illegal, null and void. Although we are deeply grateful to the secreta~¥-General and the tbited Nations COllll'lissioner for their efforts to plt an early end to the colonization of Namibia, that can be done ooly if two cooditions are met. First, there must be international unanimit'J, including the major Powers, so that in accordance with the Charter of the ll1ited Nations disciplinary measures may be taken against countries that defy the will of the international oomnunity. secondly, we have to mobilize world pUblic opinion and expose the political, military and economic activities of the Pretoria regime, and measures must be taken to protect the territorial integrity of Namibia and its natural resources in accordance vi th the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth session in 1974. We also have to safeguard Namibia's interests in the international organizations and to prepare its nationals to assume responsibility for setting up their own State. An (Mr. Al-Zaabi, United Arab Emirates) administration must therefore be established in the Territory in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its last session.. Of course, we welcome the talks thmt have been - and are being - held, indicating that an internationally acceptable settlement providing for the peaceful transfer of power to the Namibian people in accordance with Security CO\mcil resolution 435 (1978) may be in sight. However, we would condemn any attempt to impose on the Namibian people a groW'ldless electoral system likely to lead to the establishment of a neo-colonialist system which would deny the Namibian people the victories they have won under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAEO), their sole legitimate representative. We do indeed appreciate the enornous sacrifices that have been made by the front-line States in support of the liberation struggle of the Namibian PeOple. We condemn t.'le repeated acts of aggression committed by the racist SOuth African regime, includin9 invasion and' occupation, because such acts are incompatible wi.th . . the Charter of the United Nationsomd constitute breaches of international peace and security. In particular, we welcome the way in which SWAPO is leading the Namibian people~ its constructive, flexible and consistent attitude; its co-operation with the united Nations in its efforts swiftly to implement Security Council resolutions) its endorsement of the agreement of 10 August 1988 on a cease-fire in AngolaJ and its compliance with that agreement pending the official signing of the cease-fire with SOuth Africa. This attitude again demonstrates both SWAPO's co-operative approach and its resolve to caltinue the struggle for its freedom and independence, despite the obstacles created by the SOuth African regime. (Mr. Al-Zaabi, United Arab Emirates) Independence means freedan from the constraints that restrict scope for action and the ability to take decisions by oneself, for oneself. That is what we want for the people of Namibia in the near future to enable them to establish their own independent and sovereign State, so that they can take their place among the nations of the world, especially since confidence in the Organization, as a framework for the settlement of regional and international disputes, has begun to pick up strength. Mr. JARRETT (Liberia): Once again the General Assembly, as it has done for the last two decades, is debating the question of Namibia. This unfortunate situation is the result of racist Pretoria DS persistent unwillingness to terminate its illegal occupation and colonial domination of Namibia and of its contemptuous treatment of the many resolutions and decisions of the United Nations. More than 21 years ago the General Assembly, by its ;resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 OCtober 1966, terminated South Africa's mandate over Namibia and placed the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. By resolution 2248 (S-V) of 19 May 1967 it established the United N..-.tions Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority until independence. When we started the business of this forty-third session of the General Assembly ewer a month ago an overlllhelming majority, if not all, of those who participated in the general debate mentioned with some degree of satisfaction the successes that this Organization has achieved recently in the resolution of conflicts, and commended the Secretary-General 60r his tireless efforts in achieving those results. References were made to the Afghan accords which made possible the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan) to the acceptance by (Hr. Jarrett, Liberia) Iran and Iraq of a cease-fire in thei.: eight-year war) to the acceptance by Morocco and the POLlSARIO Front of a United Nations plml for holding a referendum to settle the .Western Sahara problem~ and to viet Nam's aMouncement of the withdrawal of 50,000 of its troops from Kampuchea by the end of this year. Unfortunately SOuth Africa's vi thdrawal frOi'll Namibia could not be included in the list. The racist Pretoria regime continues to deploy its forces in Namibia and seemingly has no intention of withdrawing those forces and of commencing implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which is the only internationally accepted basis for the settlement of the Namib!an questioo. As we know, the settlement plan embodied in that resolution provides, among other things, for the holding of free and fair elections under the supervision and coo.trol of the Un i ted Nations • The various negotiations that have taken place between South Africa and other interested parties during ti'1e last few months 00 the question of Namibiams independence appear not to have convinced the racist Pretorla regime of the imperative need to termin:aCe its illegal occupation of Namibia as well as to desist from using its territory for the launching of acts of aggression against froot-line and other neighbouring States. South Afr ica's announcement of its intention to commence the wi thdrawal of its forces from Namibia on 1 Novenber th is year, good as it sounded, because such action is loog overdue, was nevertheless received with scepticism by my Government. The Foreign Minister of Liber ia, addressing this issue in his statement early in October during the general debate, stated~ lII1t1ile we take note of the ••• quadripartite discussions on the Namibian question, there is nothing in the negotiating records of the racist regime to justify ,any r.eliance on its commitments. III (A/43/PV.22, p. 58) History has prCNed that correct. We now understand that the withdrawal process will commence on 1 January 1989. M'lether this is anothar ploy remains to be seen. However, The New York Times, reporting on this subject in its 6 November 1988 issue, had th is to say: "Namibians - including whites who make up only 7 per cent of the population - expect independence to come, perhaps not in two mooths, but inexorably, months or years later. III The racist Pretoria regime has consistently thwarted every action designed to free the Namibian people from oppressive apartheid policies and coloo1a1 domination. South Afr iea's deception should be easily discernible by now. But unfortunately there are those that still believe in the Coocept of constructive engagement and those that continue to have faith in that moribW'1d regime of desperadoes. However, my Government wishes to reiterate that it is still convinced that nothing but concerted action will terminate South Afr iea's stranglehold on (Hr. J~Iett, Liber ia) Namibia, a Territory that it ccntinues to occupy illegally in defiance of resolutions and decisions of the United Nations. The General Assembly should therefore send an unequivocal signal to the Pretoria regime of its resolve to settle the Namibian question and that it will tolerate no fu~ther dilatory tactics. The Government of Liberia perceives SOuth Africa's insistence on linking its illegal occupation of Namibia to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola as just another sinister strategy to delude the internatiooal community. The pity of it all is that there are certain permanant members of the security Council which, perhaps because of their economic interests in Namibia, seem to have been hijacked by the Pretoria regime, judging from their vigorous support of the linkage theory. The presence of Cuban forces in Angola can never be an acceptable reason for SOuth Africa's continuing occupation of Namibia. The racist Pretoria regime started its defiance of, and obstinate attitude towards, the thited Nations loog before Cuban forces entered Angola at the invi tation of that sovereign Sta t:e. Linkage, as members know, is totally unacceptable. It has been consistently and firmly rejected by the international oonmunity, the SOuth West Afr ica People's Organization (SWAPO), Angola and, indeed, the froot-line States. It is nothing but a pretext by the Pretoria regime to perpetuate its illegality. We must continue to reject the spurious argument of linkage and insist on south Africa's total and complete withdrawal from Namibia. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) was aCbpted 10 years ago, but its implementation has been delayed for so long because of south Africa's dilatory manoeuvres. During this lQ-year per iad the people 0"" Namibia - men, wonen and children - have been systematically subjected to the most cruel and inhumane treatment. The racist regime has deployed a massive military force in the Territory, not CI1ly to suppress the Namibian people's struggle for their inalienable risht to freedan, justice and independence but also to launch acts of aggression and destabilization against front-line and other neighbouring States. Those attacks, which result in indiscriminate destruction of life and property, must oe~se if there is to be peace and security in the region. At the same time, foreign economic interests, which include some of the world's largest corporations and financial institutions from South Africa, Western Europe and North America, are involved in the exploitation of Namibia's mineral resources !;)y means of licences issued by the illegal and colonial South Afr ican regime. There are others which plunder the Territory's marine resources. These activities are in contravention of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, promlgated in 1974 by the tbited Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority for that Territory until independence, and in disregard of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971. In view of South Africa's subjection of the people of Namibia to degrading and oppressive treatment throucjl its alilorrent a2artheid policy and its rePeated defiallce of the demands of the international oonmunity that it end its illegal occupation of Namibia, my Government au::e again urges the security Council seriously to consider the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Na tions against th& t racist and remorseless regime. We appeal to those friends of the white minority regime of Pretor la which are also permanent memers of the security Council and which repeatedly cast a negative vote on proposals for the imposition of sanctions against South Africa to reconaider their action, taking into account the sufferings and harsh treatment the:,\~ ;;:he people of Namibia have had to endure for so long under apartheid. (Mr. Jarrett, Liberia) The Government and people of Liber ia wish to reaffirm Qlce again their solidarity with, and unwavering sUPP01:t for, the heroic people of Namibia, who., under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization, their sole and authentic representative" have gallantly resisted the onslaught of apartheid. The Namibians continue to fight courag60usly for self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia, including Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands and the other offshore islands. It is our fervent hope that wen tlle fo!:ty-fourth session of the General Asaembly is oonvened next year a free and independent Namibia will take its rightful place as a full Menber of the tbited Nations. Before I end this statement I wish 00 behalf of my delegation to conrnend our Secretary-General, e man of peace., for his personal commitment to Namibia's independence and for his tireless efforts to bring about the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of the thited Nations on the question of Namibia, in particular securit"l Council resolution 435 (1978). While encouraging him to cootinue those efforts, I wish also to reassure him of the fullest co-operation and support of the Government of Liberia. Mr. MARDOVICH (Byelorussian Soviet SOcialist :Republic) (interpretation fran Russian): In the complexity of the world today there are grounds for noting the accumulation of positive trends as well as others. There is growing awareness of the indivisibility of the world, of the commooality of the fate of all PeOples. The ideas of new polltical th ink ing are beginning to penetrate the very fabr ic of practical politics and speci fic actions, including disarmament affa irs. There has been movement towards the political settlement of regional conflicts and, in particular, a political mec:han ism has begll1 to work in southern Africa. We support in principle the quadripartite talks on a political settlement of the situation in southern Africa, but believe that 00 this item we must proceed from the actual situation in that part of Africa. For two centuries Namibia has been fettered, in chains. Twenty-two years have passed s inee the General Assembly terminated SOuth Africa's Mandate to administer Namibia and made the Territory the direct responsibility of the Ulited Nations. The General Assembly and other bodies have adopted over 100 resolutionf:\ on this very matter, calling for an end to the illegal occupation of the country by the South African racists. security Council resolution 435 (1978) has been waiting 10 years for implementation. :Recently, the situation in Namibia has not merely been improving but has been worsening. The dOOJment prepared by the United Nations Council from Namibia (A/AC.131/284) eMPtasizes in particular that over the past year South Africa has continued to use all possible methods to subjugate the Namibian people. It has extended the policy of apartheid to all aspects of life for the popu1&tion of the Territory and stepped up the militarization of Namibia and acts of ruthlessness and oppression against the Namibian people. There have been more frequent cases of disappearance and detention of members of the South west Afr iea People's Organization (SWAPO) Md its supporters. The emergency situation, maltial latl, the curfew - all have been :L.,troduced by the Pretoria regime in the so-callf'd security 2lonea that cover more than two thirds. of the Territory. Namibia is still subjected to occupation by SOUth African troopes. In a country with IS population of approximately 1.6 million there are about 100,000 South African soldiers, present illegally ZIld supported by 10,000 police.. That large military presence is used by SOuth Africa as the basic means of maintaining cClntrol c:Ner the Territory and carrying out acts of aggression against the fr on t~line States, pr mar11y Angola .. There is no doubt that ate of the has lc reasons for South Afr iea 's refusal to grant independence to Namibia is the Territory's wealth of natural resources. Deapi te many United Nations resolutions, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971 and Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, South Africa, western and other foreign economic elements continue to plunder the natural resources of the Territory. The virtually unlimited activities of foreign economic elements in Namibia has led to the I exploitation of the wealth of N6mibia in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of the people and has resulted in the further strengthening of the illegal occupation of the Territory by South Africa. The scope of this activity can be seen, for example, in the data cited in a document (A,h.C.131/~86) of the tbited Nations Council for Namibia. It indicates, inter alia, that ~e epartheid regime .p:ovides conditions in which transnational corporations of' certain Western countries can make enormus profits as a result of ~heir plmdering of the eoonOlllic resources of Namibi& and exploitation of Ha.ibian w«kers, whose pay, according to estimates, is 16 times lower than the pay for tthi te workar s in Nallibla • The General Assembly, in its resol!Jtion 42/14 A, and in earlier decisions also, declared that all activities of foreign econamic intereots in Namibia were 1 illegal and called for the immediate withdrawal from the Territory of Namibia of transnational corporations and the ending of their co-operation with the illegal South African administration. It is perfectly obvious that the apartheid regime could not have conducted itself in such an insolent manner had it not enjoyed the direct and indirect support of certain Western countries. The interest of those States in strengthening the Pretoria regime and ensuring its continued occupation of Namibia is prompted by political, economic, military and strategic considerations and interests. It is those States, primarily, that are blocking the security Council's adoption of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against SOuth Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The road that would lead to a p)litical settlement in Namibia is well kncwn. It is described clearly and in detail in united Nations decisions, particularly Securi~ Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), as well as in subsequent decisions cm Namibia which have been accepted throughout the world 0 The most important thing now is to exert pressure on the Pretoria regi~ and make it implement those decisions wi thout linking the problem of the granting of independence to the people of Namibia with totally extraneous matters. The delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic supports the recent appeal by the non-aligned countries to the security Council, as oonto.ined in Cbcument A/43/70e, to impose canprehensive mandatory sanctions against the racist regime in the event that South Afr iea once again resorts to its dilatory and destructionist tactics and prevents the commencement of the implementation of Securi~ Council resolution 435 (1978). The Byeloruss!an Soviet Socialist Republic, which has always advocated a policy based on the principle of the full and canplete elimination of colooia1iam, racism and apartheid in all their forms and manifesutions, firmly and consistently calls foie the immediate exercise by the Namibian people of their ina! ienable r 19bt to self-determina tion and independence in a uni ted and terri tor ially intact Namibia. It also advocates the immediate and complete withdrawal from the Territory of all South African troops and administrators. (Mr. Mardovich, Byelorusaian SSR) (Mr. Mardovich, Bxe10russian SSR) we support SWAPO, tihich has been recognized by the U\ited Nations and the Organization of Afr iean thity (OAU) as the sole and authentic representative of the Ntnibiail people. We bolieve in stepping up the collective efforts to break the deadlock in this conflict in southern Afr iea and we believe there should be a constructive effort to find ways and means of swiftly implementing decisions taken by the thited Nations on Namibia. We believe in working out a just political settlement in the region, fully in accordance with the principles accepted by the O1ited Nations and the OM. Such a settlement would entail the complete cessation of acts of aggression by the apartheid regime against neighbouring African States and the prohibition of such acts in the future, the immediate granting of indep3ndence to Namibia and the swift elimination of the inhuman system of apartheid in South Africa. The thited Nations has a direct responsibility for the gr~ulltin9 of independence to Namibia as soon as possible. Accordingly, it is extremely important to accentuate the role of this Organization, primarily the SsC'.lrity Council, in ac::bieving the implementation of tbited Nations decision8 on Namibia. The Byelorussian delegation supports the secretary-Genek:al's efforts to settle the Namibian pl'cblem and we commend the work done by the thited Nations Council for Namibia. Glided by our position of principle, the Byelorussian SSR will oontinue to support the struggle of the gallant people of Namibia, headed by SWAPO. for their liberation. In concluding my statement, I should like to express the hope that the United NatiCA'ls General Aesed>ly will adopt decisions on this item on the agenda that will serve further to .lIIObilize the efforts of the internation6l collftunity on behalf of the liberation ~f Namibia and the final elimination of colonialism and racism frCII southern Mrica. We firmly believe that the Nallibian people, with the support of (Hr. Mardovich, Byelorussian SSR) the forces of peace, progress and justice, will achieve true freedan and independence • Kr. IOHIA (Papua New Guinea) ~ Much discussion in recent years has centred round attempts to find a negotiated settlement to Namibia's g8iluine struggle for independence. The world must not be discouraged by the fact that the question of Namibia has been debated over and over here in this body without a change of attitude en the part: of the authorities in South Africa. This Assembly, the Secretary-General, the security Council and the Council for Namibia must cootinue to put extra pressure on South Afr iea and ita fr iends. Papua lbw Guinea will continue to maintain that we mu.st all make a concerted effort, in keeping w1 tb the. spirit of the s tatements we make in this Assemly, to make possible the early and illllediate implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978) and all related resolutions and initiativos of the thited Nations and the Council for Namibia. The ugly face of colonialism is disfigured with economic greed, Cl cultural superiority canplex, political arrogance and strategic interests. Cclcmialism continues to exist in Namibia and elsewhere because of that greed, that super ior ity COI\plex, that arrogance and those strategic interests. The abundant n&tur~l resources found in Namibia and SOuth Afr ica tempt: countria to maintain policies 1\!hic:h they know deep down are wrcmg and inexcusable. There are those who prefer to have Namibia continue to be a colonial territory WIder racist south Africa as lcmg as the rim resources of Namibia flow their way. If Namibia were not as rich as it is in natural resources and if it had a leas strategic poaiticm, there would be little oppositiQ\ to its freeda'n and independenCEt. Papua New Guin. is hopeful that all the people of the world and the various interest groups in N_ibi~ will re_in united, for if they do not, the (Mr. roh ia, Papua New Gu inecs) racist regime will cootinue to take the opportunity to gain more ground and cause further instability among the good people of Namibia and southern Afr iea. Papua New Guinea welcomes the prospects for the implementation of security Council resolution 435 (l978) on the independence of Namibia. We oollll\end the Secretary-General of the tbited Nations and others for their tireless efforts in giving us this hope. Papua New Guinea appeals to all MemLer States to be realistic, and to give their full support to the draft resolution now before us. let us for me moment forget our differences, come together and sing in tune and in harmony, and show South Africa that Namibia must be granted independence. In so doing, we shall have at least two more countries added to the United Nations in line with the objective of achieving universality of menbership in this Organization, the world family of cations. We, the Members of this Organization, regard ourselves as the champions of liberation struggles. Many more have fought vigorously to set themselves free from colooial baldage and are therefore totally colIII\itted to the pr inciples of decolmization., both in word and in deed. Though colooialism as a system has been relegated to human history, its remnants, to our great indignation, have not disappeared canpletely. Indeed, Namibia is an unfortunate relll'lmlt of the colooial era of the past in the great African continent, just as New Caledonia is in the ,aquatic cootinent of the Pacific. Certainly, decolcnization is one issue Q'1 which unanimity must prevail. Haw can we, who fought vigorously to free ourselves from colonialism, ignore those wh"j are fighting against the same enemy today? The persistent defiance by the racist South Africa of the universal calls for an end to a pa!,cheid' and for the withdrawal of its troops from Namibia can be countered oo1y by a SUoog demonstration of a firm political will and moral responsibility by those who are well placed to bring about effective pressure, including mandatory sanctions against racist South Africa. Papua New Guinea reaffirma its solidarity with the people of Namibia and the African people in their struggle on the rough and bitter road to freedom and independence, foe it is our firm belief that there is no power that can for ever resist a people determined to free itself from colonialism, racism and apartheid. (Mr. lobla, Papua New Gu in~) Mr. McIBAN (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): The principles of peace, freedan and self-determinatim have forged the consciousness of peoples throughout history. For most of those peoples this has involved an arduous and unrelenting quest for their own identity and for their own inalienable right to live in freedom. Colombia is a product of this historical process and, as an independent Republic, it has not ooly incorporated these principles in its laws and Coostitution but has also committed itself to the cause of all peoples, including those which are still struggling to achieve those ideals today. The creation of the United Na~ions has given a universal character to this commitment, and this in turn led to one of the most important and successful stages of human history, with the process of self-determination and deoolonization which began in 1947 wi th the independence of India, under the leader shi p of Jawaharlal Nehru, whom we particularly remember today, 14 November, on the hundredth anniversary of his birth. However, for thousands of human beings who still live under the yoke of colooialism, this process has not been canpleted. This is certainly true of Namibia, where a people is not ooly seek ing to exercise its inalienable right to independence but also fighting a regime which is determined at all costs to maintain its rule over the Territory. The many initiatives taken by our Organization, particularly over the last 20 years, and pressure by the international community have had no effect, for Namibia remains under the Ptysical, ecooomic and administrative cootrol of a foreign regime. 'lb what can one ascr ibe th is stagnation of the process, a process which should be irrevarsible and enjoys universal support? First and foremost we must consider the continuedinuansigence of the South Afr iean regime in the face of this situation. Indeed, the Pretorit. GoI1ernment has clearly shown its cootempt for (Mr. McIean, Colomb la) fundamental rights such as the rights to peace, justice and freedan, not jlJSt externally when it persists in maintaining dominion over the Territory of Namibia but also domestically ~en, disregarding those principles and the repeated appeals of the international oollltmnity, it has preserved the political system of apartheid tmich guarantees the power of, a minority OIler large majorities. In order to uPiold its position the South Afr ican Govermrent has not ooly disregarded the appeals of the internatiooal community and the resolutions and decisions of the thited ttations but also pursued a blatant policy of destabilization in the region, crossing its own natiooal boundaries in its determinatioo to strengthen its influence and power. While it is essential to acknowledge the inu;msigence and arrogance of the Pretoria Government as the principal obstacles to legitimate independence for Namibia, it is also prudent to analyse the strategy of the United Nations over those years and ascertain possible changes in our course of actioo that would help us redefine our future strategy more forcefully. I do not intend to give a detailed historical account of the process but rather to hicjllight some of its aspects in order to strengthen the role of the United Nations in its efforts to achieve independence for Namibia. First we must refer to our lack of determination to implement mandatory sanctions as a logical step to secure compliance with the Organization's resolutions and decisions. In the case of Namibia such a situation has been obv10us on more than one occas ion. By way of example, I refer to resolution 2145 (XXI), which terminated SOuth ..frica's Mandate OIler Namibia and O)mpelled it to withdraw immediately from the ~rritory, and to security Council resolution 435 (197B), which was adopted unanimously more than 10 years ago but which has not Yet been implemented. (Hr. McIean, Colomia) lack of will on the part of certain MeilOer States has been one of the prime factors impeding the implementation of the mechanism leading to str icter oompliance by States with thited Nations resolutions cmd decisions, a fact tmich has clearly inhibited and impeded the work of the Organization. This difficulty of giving more binding effect to thited Nations resolutions has given rise to a secood difficulty, the difficulty involved in adopting resolutions which are apparently contradictory or inconsistent. General Assenbly resolutions 2145 (XXI) and 2248 (S-V) gave the Organization a mandate, first directly and subsequently through the establishment of the Council for Namibia, in order to bring about the transition of Namibia from a colooial State to the status of a free nation and, additionally, made this process cootinge."'lt on the immediate withdrawal of South Africa from the Territory of Namibia. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) would transfer that mandate to an independent special representative, thereby removing South Africa's wi thdrawal as a condition for the holding of elections. Of course, all processes have to evolve and hence there is the need to adjust cootinually to changing conditions; but it is also clear that the process should show signs of progress towards a solu tion of the problem and should not be coupled, as it would now seem to be, wi th the intransigence of one of the parties involved. The case of Namibia would seem to fit the second of those definitions. As a [f:sult of these factors, the ability of the United Nations to bring pressure to bear has been reduced and consequently a process of independent talks designed to provide a definitive solution to the Namibian problem has been started. Coloni>ia is prepared to support that initiative, which we hope will lead to the unconditional implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). None the less, we feel that it would have been preferable for this process to have been carried out under the direct auspices of the United Nations and - here I touch on a point \rlhic:h is perhaps more important - wi th the p~rticipationof representatives of the people of Namibia, which have suddenly ceased to be a party to the negotiations and have instead become the objer:t of the negotiations. Our prime objective continues to be the immediate independence of the Namibian people and the holding of elections to allow them to decide at their future. That is why we shall support any peace initiative within these parameters that is in keeping with the true interests of the Namibian people. en the other hand, we are aware that the problem of Namibia still remains and that the mandate given to our Organization is as valid now as it ever was. consequently it3 work should not just continue but should be intensified. In this repaect we must accordingly be prepared to place stronger emFbasis on concepts 'iKlich for the time being have passed into a seoondary role but which, without dOUbt, have been fundamental pillars of the thited Nations strategy. These coocepts are flexibility, independence and unification and co~rdination of work. The ti\ited N&tions and its various organs must be able to adapt to situations th~t are constantl.y changing. They must take an approach that will make possible c<Xltinual and smooth work, in~pendently of any ptocess that may be set in mt!a: tbre illpOrtant still, the United Nations efforts must be based on a strategy t)I.... l~ is co--ordinated throucjlout the Organization and its various bodies. Over and above those concepts, however, what is most important is the will 0' ~ch Malllber State to make sure that the fundamental rights of freedan, peace and iildependence are fully iaplemented - for these rights belong to all the peoples of the world. Cololllbia will c<Xltinue to work towards that end, n.ot only through the Genep;al Assembly but also as la membsr of the United Nations Coun~i! ior Namibia and the security Council. CoIIIlit:lllent to the cause of a free Namib,ia is a universal ClOlllnitment and must re_in me of the principal items <Xl our agenda until that lCllg-overdue indepmdence is adli,:ved. In the meantime, the United Nations must not relax its efforts. Ql the cootrary, it 14USt ch iU utmost to ensure that all the efforts _de to achieve this objective are in keeping with the real needs and rights of the Na.1btan people M A<ZNDA ITI!M 8 (continued) ADOPrlDN OF THE AGBtmA AND ORGAN DATION OF WORK: LETTER FROM TIE CHAmMAN OF THE OJMMl'l"!'BE ON alliFBRllNCZS (A/43/600/Add.l) The PRISID!NT; Doculllent A/43/600/Add.l contains a letter dated 11 Novelllber 198f: addr:)sHd to the President of the General AsseJd:>ly by the Chairman of the Cc.ittee on Conferences.. As members are aware, the Assembly, in paragraph 7 of section I of its resolution 40/243, decided that. no subsilH~Y:f ')r'Gan of the General 1J!'",~iilb1y should be permitted to meet at United Nations Heaaquarters dur lng a regular GassiQ'l of the Asselllbly unless e21plicitly author !zed by the ~aeably. As indicated in the letter to which I have just r0ferred, the COIIUIlittee on CCX1ferences has raCOJllllended that the Selection Panel for Human Rights Prizes should be author ized to meet dur ing the current seBSian of the General Assembly. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts that reco_endation? It was so decided. The meeting rOBe at 7.35 p.m. (The President)