A/43/PV.50 General Assembly

29.  gJESTmN OF NIiMIBIA (a) REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIDNS OOWCIL FOR NAMlBIA (A/43/24) (b) RER>RT OF THE S!ECIAL a:J.JMITTEE ON THE SI'!UATIDN WITH REGARD '10 THE IMPL9Ul.TATlON OF TIE DECLARATIDN ON THE QtANTING OF INDEmND~CE TO OOIDNIAL OOUN'lRIES AND PmPLES (A/43/23 (PART V), A/AC.109/960) (c) RER>RT OF TIE SEQtETARY-QilNERAL (A/43/724) (d) RElURT OF THE FOURI'H a:ltMlTTEE (A/43/700) (e) DRAFT RmOWTlDNS (A/43/24 (PART II), CHAPrER I) international community is witnessing a momentous event; the proclamation of the Palestinian State. This significant developnent is the culmination of a long struggle ar.,d unstinting sacrifice. It gives effect to the principles of international legality embodied in the prOV'isions of the United Nations Charter and its resolutions, which reject foreign occupation and uPlold the rights of PeOples to self-determination. Those are the same lofty goals for wich the people of Namibia is struggling. Since the United !~ati.ons proclaimed the termination of the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia and the direct responsibility of the United Nations for that Territory in accordance with its resolution 2145 (XXI), adopted at its twenty-first sessiQ'l in 1966, the natiQ'lal liberatiQ'l movement, namely the SOuth west Africa People's Organization (SWAB», has waged an unrelenting struggle to achieve independence. The Council for Namibia also has made constant efforts in defence of the legitimate rights and interests of the Territory. After more than 20 years of Valiant struggle, the Namibian people has proved its resolute will to gain independence despite the repressive measures imposed by South Africa. The Territory is Q'l the threshold of the final phase of that unrelenting struggle. Throughout that long period, the internatilJnal colllllunity has directly stood by the Namibian people. It has supported its struggle and strengthened its efforts to achieve its ultimate goal~ In 1976, the security Council adopted resolution 385 (1976), in which it requested SOuth Africa to withdraw its illegal administration from the Territory, transfer power to the people of Namibia, and hold free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations throughout Namibia as a single political entity. That was ~ol1owed by a nume!" of historic dll!velopments, foreroost of which was the adoption of a draft plan for the peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia, conneotion, we wish to pay a tribute to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has made constant efforts to achieve independence for the Terri tory. 'It Regrettably, however, the South Afr ican regime has constantly endeavoured to. prevent the implementation of the United Nations plan by linking it to extraneous iSLOOs. The Security Council rejected such linkage, considering that the independence of Namibia should not be a hostage to matters unrelated to the (hitec Nations plan for the independence of the 'lerritory. It seems that the S/::lIuth African regime failed to grasp the significance of all those develo~:,~~uut:s. It tr ied to oppose them by all means, inclUding the establishment of a provisional Government in violation of the prO'lisions of the settlement plan formulated by the United Nations'. The international col1ll\unity rejected that attempt, and the Sltcudty Counci:i.. considered it a blatant insult and a glaring violation of its previous resolutions. It there£o~e declared the measure null and void and requested South Africa to rescind it. Meanwhile the Pretoria regime continued its hostility to the resis~:ance movements, perpetrating acts of ruthless violence and political oppression, racism and .!e!!.theid, flouting the Charter of the United Nations, human rights and the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Securi ty Coun~il. Ai thoogh recent devfJlopll9nts suggest light at the end of the tunnel and the possibility of agreellent between the negotiating partiE!s at the wi thdrawal of South African forces ·Mr. Al.-Shakar (Bahrain), Vice-President, took the Chair. South Afr ica's arbitrary and colonialist practices in Namibia have led to the deprivation of its people of their political rigllts, their fundamental human rights and their right to contribute to economic activity. The deprivation of all those rights has impoverished the people and weakened their ability to tackle the proolems they are oonfronting and those they will be oonfronting after indepsndence. In 1974 the Council for Namibia adopted Decree No. 1, pursuant to its responsibility for protecting the natural resources 0;: the Namibisn people. The Decree dealt wi th the protection of i:he natural resources of Namibia in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1720 (XVI) which proclaims the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their dc:hes and natural resources, after it became clear that the Government of SOuth Africa had usurped those rights. The State of Qatar pays tr ibl.ite to the people of Namibia in its struggle for independence under the leadership of SWAlO, which has spared no effort to ac:hiC!ve fr~d<Xl\ and independence. we look forward to the day when the Namibian people will achieve self-determination and independencea Mr. ESZTERGALn6 (Hungary}: in the wake of improvements in the international situation we have witnessed promising progress and favourable developments in the quest for settlement of several acute regional hotbeds of er isis. It may be stated that "dui:ing the past year the prospects for Namibia's accessicn to independence have imprOl1ed and the Namibian people has moved closer to the poasibility of actually exercising its genlJine right to self-determination. Since the termination of South Africa's Mandate oyer Namibia, the world Organization has been unable to enforce its will and give effect to the relevant resolutions of the General. l\8semly and the SC!curity Council. During the past . years the Mtlmber States have become clearly aware of the causes of that incapacity of the South Afr ican legime to meet with success. It is obvious that those interests have not ceased to exist over the past period, but have been put into a new persp..'ctive by the world set-up and, first and foremost, by the developnent of the situation in that regioo, pranpting the parties directly inv,-lved to seek a compromiae. The region is giving added proof that its inherent antagonisms are bound to surface sooner or later~ that they cannot be removed or suppressed by the use Gf force. Those antagonisms and the tension in the southern part of Africa are multifaceted and interrelated, all of them rooted in the essence of the apartheid system. In his report on the work of the Organization the Secretary-General of the lbited Nations refers to a three-dimensional confliet\ the question of Namibia, the acts of destabili~ation against neighbouring States of SoUt·l Africa and the syetflm of afartheid in South Africa itself. My delegation fully shares the view expressed in the report that: "Developnents in, or relating to, the continuance of a situation of racial discrimination, whim is so repugnant to the spirit of our age, lend further force to the repeated - and hitherto unheeded - urgings of the international community that apartheid be dismantled." (AI"3/1, p. 5) Recent negotiations on the southern African region and the agreement achieved today, according to the latest news reports, give reasm for cautious hope of resolving the conflict in Angola and achieving the independence of Namibia. The fact remains, howwer, that the root cauae of the cmflict in southern Africa is the maintenance of apartheid, and as lmg as this system is in effect, regional peace will be threatened constantly. lttile there are promising signs of an impc:OI1ement in the political climate in and around the region, the international community is witnessing the fact that apartheid - racial discrimination - which has been the root cause of the regional oonflict, remains virtually intact. Therefore we are of the view that as long as the regime defies the world's demands, postpones introducing fundamental changes and tr ies to evade the inevitable, total eradication of apartheid, it is of vital importance that the cotmlunity of nations should exert pressure on the regime. The sanctions already imposed have si(Jtificantly cmtributed to the common efforts of the international co1llllunity 8l.,a have had Cl catalytic effect on the regime ~s awareness that there is an increasing need to intro&1oe fundamental mange. It is a weloome fact that, in the absence of the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions, a growing number of countries have adopted measures, national as well as collective, although we continue to believe that international pressure can be effective and successful only if it is cauprehensive and mandatory 0 The regime finds it of vital importance to maintain its influence and daninant role in the region. For that purpose it resorts to armed aggression against the froot-line States, besideG exercising econanic pressure 00 them, thereby destabilizing the situation in the entire region and prejudicing the chances of those States to develop and to establish I\'Utually beneficial relations al the basis of equality. Although II'Y colleagues have already spoken of the different aspects of '"'lis canp!ex question in the course of the debate, let me share some of our further thoughts on the situation in Namibia. Tbe Territory has been oClCupied and kept in colonial baldage. It has been denied the right to dispose of its rich natural .' resources and its aspirationa for national liberation have been suppressed by force. This has been dale without consulting, and against the will of, the vast majority of the Namibian people. The PJuth African regime, however, has been' mable to suppress the liberation s tru9gle led by the SOUth west Africa People's Organization, the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian people, which enjoys international recognition. A settlement plan exists" it is internationally recogniZed, and the world commmity has to act to ensure its implerr.,entaticn. The developments of the past ten years, the PE'esent international situation, and the changes in the region have narrC»led the apartheid system's scope for manoeuvring, and this has created a more realisti'f:: possibility for the implementation of resolution 435 (1987) of the security Council. FOt' its part, the thlted Nstions has made the necessary preparations for the implementation of the plan, whic:h I1PJ Government notes with high appreciatia1. We hope that the new efforts and posl:5ibilities will open fresh perspectives ~r the common political endeavour and will serve as an encouraging example to follow in eliminating other regiooal hotbeds of the wccld. Mrs. MKO'lONDR1tMBOA (Madagascar) (inarpretation from French) \ The date of 29 septeliOer 1988 was the tenth anniversary of security Council resolution 435 (1918), ~n anniversary which the international CDJllnunity had hoped not to have to celebrate any longer. Alas, Namibia is not yet relENlsed from its <::hains. The positive side of this celebration, however, will have been that it was a reminder to states MeJlbers of the thited Nations of their collective responsibility towards Namibia. It is in this spirit that, from this rostrum, Mada9~car reaffirms its unreserved support for the just struggle for national liberation w.llged by the Nemibian people, under the ';)uidance of its authentic and legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAR». During these ls " months, my delegation has followed with interebt the efforts of multilateral diplomacy to arrive at a cease-fire in southern Africa and the application of the plan prOl7ided for under resolution 435 (1978). We have shared the hopes of the Namibian people to accede at last to independence. We have also shared their doubts regarding the sincerity of SOuth Africa. The change in the date fran 1 NOI7ellber to - probably - l January in the timetable for the implementation of the resolution seems, regrettably, to confirm those doubts, the more so since the anbiguous attitude of Pretoria leads us to be cautious in our optimism. Indeed, even while the talks were continuing and while it was claUled that the dialogue had not been interrupted, while SWAPO declared unilaterally that it had halted military operations, Pieter Botha's government was tightening its hold over Namibia. There ar.e reports of increased military activity, of the aerial transport of weapons, it would appear, from Win~oek to the north of the country. There is talk also of 50,000 men which South Africa has massed at the Angola frontier. But it is the situation within Namibia itself that denies the sudden apparent good will of Pretoria. No oppositicn is tolerated in the Territory. Through cruel and r~preuive laws pro.ulgated in dafi_CI of General Asse1llbly and' Security Council resolutions the racist SOuth African minority continues to impoB~ _artisl law, aintaina security zmes, ~ohibits boycotts and demnstrations and auzzles the press. Thd8e laws, which the General Aasellbly in parqfaph 2S of its resolution .'114 A declared to bet null and void, are being used by the South African occupation fOrQ98, flmked by their trcope and death equade, as justification for ...s arresta, cold-blooded _urdere, deportationa, torture, detention without t~l&l, and the disappearance of civilians. Students and trade unions are persecuted, the _di& are muzzled« lien between 17 Md 55 years of age are being forcibly conscr ipted to confront their bl'othera in order to undermine the credibility of SWAR>, or are trained for tribal cc::nflict. SOuth Africa 'a aereanaries are increasing. This is deSpotiSIII in all ... ;;8 horrcx. Thousands of W_ibians have no choice but to seek refuge in neighbouring Stat.as, thus giving Pretoria a cynical pretext for pursuit, transforalng Namibia into a springboard for alllbuehing, COIIJIlitting a99ressica and terrorizing the populations of neighbouring States .. (Mra. r.kotcndruboa, Mada9!scar) south Africa mintains its illegal occupation of Namibia in violation of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), of 27 OCtober 1966. Greed is at the root of this illegal occupatial. Because of the vast mining, agricultural and merine resources of the Territory, SOuth Afr ica, in order to preserve its advantages and these of other fcxeign economic interests "flbidi, by their co'"Operation, give it support and comfort, impedes Namibia's accession to independence. South Africa's grip on the natural resources of Namibia enables it, in association wi th foreign companies, to make large profits. It is indeed plunder to which South Africa and certain Western and other econanic interest-s resort, in violation of relevant General Assembly and security Council resolutions, Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural aesources of Namib.a and the adYisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971. We have often heard certain dalegations, prompted by concern for objectivity or by bad fai th - it is not always easy to differentiate - affirm that transnational companies also benefit colonial peoples. That is not true of Namibia. The transnational caapanies are delighted to find there an enormous reservoir of raw materials and cheap labour, wh Ue the black majol: i ty, depr ived by South Africa of their most fertile lands and their mining areao, live in exile in arid homelands where they can barely survive or are forced to work for the white minority in mines or agricultural pcojects in cmdltions approaching slavery. For South Afr ica and the transnational corporations, however, these are ideal conditions in which to garner enOrllDUS pcofits which they transfer to their respective countr lea without investing in the ~rr1tory or trying to help the indigenous population by integrating sectocs of the Namibian ecOftCldly. It is a colonialist and (Mrs o Rakotondruboa~ Madagascar) neo-colonialist economic policy which drains the human and natural resources of Namibia at the expense of the legitimate aspirations of the l~mibian people to genuine national independence in a united Namibia. It is clear that this situation will persist for as long as foreign and other economic interests, which are the main beneficiaries of this plWlder, cCXltinue to p.Jt their short-term national interests abewe the interest of mank ind as a whole. This is Why, given the intransigence of PretorIa, we call upon the international oormnunity to be firm. Negetiations are now at a C?tucial stage. The Namibian people need, more than ever, the full support of all memers of the Assembly. My delegation hopes that the various ideologies will not .distract us frc:m our purpose, because the question of Namibia is a question of decoionization and as such is part of the Assembly's belief in the fundamantal rights of man and the dignity and value of the human person. In keeping with its support for the conclusions set out in the final dOCulZ'ient of the Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries, which met at N.lcosia in regular session from 5 to 10 September 1988, my delegatic.'n reaffirllS its conviction that comprehens ive mandatory economic sanctions mus t be imposed iJll!llediately against the racist South African regime to force it to eod its illegal occupation of Namibia. We exP:'ess the firm hope that the decis ions of th is Assembly w111 contr ibute to ending that occupation and that, sooner or later, the natural resources of the Territory will be used for the benefit of the majority of the Namibian people, whose dignity will be restored and who will be compensated for the damage inflicted upon them•. We hopef too, that the front-line countries will be able to develop in peace and security. Accardingly, Madagascar will show its support by voting in (Mrs. Rakotondramca, Madagascar) favour of the draft resolutions now before UB, in particular those on the situation in Namibia resulting from the illegal occupation of the ~rritury by South Africa, the implement&tion of security Council resolution 435 (1978), the programme of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia and dissemination of information and mob11iza tion of interna tional public opinion in support of the immediate independence of Namibia • We urge all Member States str ictly to apply economic sanctions, the effectiveness of which is begiming to be proved by events. Madagascar appeals to the two permanent members of the Security Council which have so far supported racist South Africa in its intransigence by their veto to transform that veto into a positive vote. We support multilateral diplomacy and encourage all those who continue to work tirelessly for a lasting peace and the canplete independence of a united Namibia. we are particularly pleased by the activities of the Council for Namibia, which, having undertaken responsibility for the interests and rights of the Namibian people, continues to defend them to the best of its ability. we encourage the secretary-General of our Organization and assure him of our total support in his efforts and his continuing col'l'mitment to ensure implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). On 9 Novenber the world remembered with horror and profound sorrow Kris tallnacht , the synbol of fascist genocide. We remind the Governments and peoples who witnessed or were victims of that holocaust that for the black majority of Namibia every day is Kristallnacht. (Hr s. Rakotondr al'lboa, Madagascar) Hrs. CHAN (Singapore) \ The year 1988 should have been Namibia's year and Novenber should hava been Namibia's mooth. After seven decades of repress ive colooial occupation by South Afr tea, 17 years of it illegal in terms of international law, the internatiooal community looked on as an agreement was initialled in New York in JUly '1988 for a peaceful settlement in southern Afr iea. The implementation of United Nations security Council resolution 435 (1978) was promised~ the date was settled for 1 November, usher ing in the long-awaited process of independence for Namib ia. But it was not to be. The target date has now been moved to 1 January 1989. Shall Namibia yet be free? My delegatioo greeted the negotiations on southerr.. Africa this year with two cheers - two, not three, because one of the parties to the negotiations is South Afr~ca. iflen one is dealing with a blatantly racist regime with the iron will to survive, it is necessary to be cynical and sceptical. Alfred T. Moleah, a black African academic D born and raised in and around Johannesburg and now teaching in the United States - a person who is active in the struggle against racism, apartheid and cola\ialism - has warned that "In Namibia, as in SOuth Africa, the more things change, the more they remain the same". Recent history teaches us to be cautious. Sou th Africa is well known for its breaches of promise. It has oome close to signing or has accepted agreements that raised great hopes for a settlement in southern Africa, only to have them dashed to the ground. One of those agreements, and a classic example, was security Council resolution 435 (1978), which spelled out a process of wi thdrawal of SOu th African troops from Namibia in seven months and the implementation of United Nations-supervised elections in one year. It was adopted on 29 septenber 1978. But South Afr ica, after accepting it in pr incip1e, has successfully avoided its implementation. Then again, in 1984, SOuth Africa signed the Lusaka t'greement to withdraw its troops from Angola but did not meet that objective. In 1984 talks wel'e held also in Lusaka and in the Cape Verde Islands between SOuth Africa and the SOuth west Afr lea People's Organ ization (SWAFO), the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, but failed to reach a conclusion because of South African obduracy. It should be remembered that, when faced with the pcospect of United Nations-supervised elections in the 1970a, South Africa attempted to annex walvis Bay in 1977 in order to exclude it from negotiations over Namibia's transition to independence. The att.empt to annex walvis Bay was universally ccnde1llled by Governments, the United Nations and SWAlO. Today an estimated 3,500 South African troops are permanently based in lfalvis Bay, lIlhich has become one of the most militarized areas in southern Afr iea. Even !tat as the quadripartite talks are progressing - and we heard this motning that an agreement has been reached in Geneva - the question for us is simply this: does South Afr ica have a hidden agenda for Namibia? The indications that South Africa may be unprepared to relinquish control OIler Namibia are numerous. SOuth Afr ica has been introducing apartheid structures into Namibia since 1964. In 1980 it introduced a decree dividing Namibian society into 11 mutually exclusive groups on the basis of racial, ethnic and tribal origins. That was a clear mOl7e to prevent the African majority from acting and organizing in un!sCXl against white and colonial domination. On 8 April 1988 President Botha visited Windhoek to check l1lOI1es to reform apartheid. He strengthened the powers of the South African Administrator-General. He would be able to call racially based elections and veto any attempts to abolish existing authorities or to diminish t.lle power of two second-tier authorities. The Administrator-General was also authorized to take "appropriate" steps to muzzle local media that proIlDted "subversion" and "terrorism". President Botha further advocated "fitting and effective" action against SWAPO and its supporters in their struggle for national 1iberation. And as recently as 26 October 1988 we had clear indications from the South African local elections that the political climate within South Africa is hardening against the dismantling of apartheid. It is difficult in these circumstances to conceive of south Africa easing up on Namibia. For its atn selfish interests, South Afr ica uses Namibia as a er itical buffer. It is oblivious of the injustice and suffering borne by the people of Namibia. South Africans do not want to lose Namibia for fear of the impact of that loss upon the wite population in SOuth Afdca, but more importCl1tly because of its (Mrs. Chan, Singapore) impact upon the black majority. Namibia would deliver the final P3ychological blow to the whites after the liberation of all the other African States. It would greatly magnify tt,1e writing m the wall. In fact, in a seri.es ·of interviews conducted in South Africa in 1982 by the Christian SCience !bnitor,. black leaders put the independence o'f Namibia at the top of their list of changes they hoped to see. Bishop Desmond 'lUtu said, "Namibia is a very high priority. I would say it is a pre-cooditiCl1 to our liberatioo". Furthermore, South Africa sees Namibia as fertile plunder ground. Namibia is richly endowed with mineral resources. It is the fourth largest African and the fourteenth largest "orld producer of mineral p~oducts. The country is also said to possess rich oil, gold and coal reserves. South Africa will not relilquish this pr ize unless it is forced to. The international oonmunity must continue to exert pressure on South Afr iea so that it realizes that there is no other acceptable recourse for it but to withdraw from Namibia. If there is any intention to renege on the agreement even now before us, the international community should make SOUth Africa feel the high cost of its intr ansigence • While Singapore is dedicated to a peaceful solution to conflict and a negotiated political settlement to conflict, we reject any attempt by South Africa or any other State to impart to the question of Nami'bia a dimension that is different from the one i" has; an act of colonial dominatim which violates the pr inciples and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. We agree with the report of the Special Committee that Namibia has always been and remains a deoolonizaticn issue. We agree with the report that any attempt ~o portray Namibia as part of an East-West confrmtation rather than as an issue of decolonization is flagrant defiance of the will of the international oommunity and could only have the effect of furthe:r delaying the independence of Namibia. We reject linkage, as Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library we &re gravely coocerned that SOuth Africa may seek to intervene in ttte shaping of the future independent Namibian cxm<.3titution. Namibia's constitution Bhould be decided by Namibians. The tbi ted Nations plan provides for a consti tuent ASsembly to be ulec:ted on thfl basis of one Namibian/one vote uncbt United Nations-supervised elections. Therefore, the annO\»'lcement by South Africa's MainbJuator-General after a cease-fire was announced in August, this year that he would push ahead wi th domestic segregated elections should be rQgarded wi~.h auapici4:.~. He has also publicly stated his desire tc tie up "loose ~:,:·.:cs". Ont: of these Qloase ends" is the drafting of an independence constitution. That d~&On8trate8 the IJlttel:' contem~ SOuth Africa has for the will of the 9amibian ~ple and its legiti.te rights, even as it is a party to the current negotiations and says it is prepared to withdr&w from Namibia. We know that in Namibia today momentum is building up against the illegal occupying Power. SWAlO has provided leadership and mobilized the broad masses of the ~ple f« a sust:3ined Dlltifaceted struggle for nlltional liberation. Throughoot 1987 and 1988 there was a cont!noous wave of. student protests and clusrooa boycotts. MUitllry bases were established in and, alongside scnool g'rounds on the ~etext of discouraging guerilla attacks. In reality, it was to keep a t:ight control <Wer the students. In filly this year mer 40,000 black Ne.i~ian secondary school children chose to bO]r'Cott s~C!Ol to pr:otest against t;h:.! pr...~ee of the south African lIilit6ty in their £chool properties. They were joined by 6C,000 workers, about 70 per cent of the ;,}lack worker population. "-!hia vu bcought to a ~>irtual standstill. It was the biggest strike in the ~rritorY'e histofy. conscriptia. is rUMill9 into trouble) too many white South African youths are dying on the battlefield) large-scale indiscipline has been rep:.u:ted in the ranks of the SADF and the South West Africa Territorial Force (SWATF). In fact, thel."e are reports of Cl marked increase in mutiny, rebellion, indiscipline and desertion in the ranks of the SADi' 6!\d SWATF. Many lcng years have passed, and the Namibian people have waited patientlY3 They have grown confident waiting. Qlt so long as t.'1ey are ru thleasly exploited, brutally !epcessed and unfree they will intensify their resistance. They have a sense of inevitability about their liberation. As the Africans put it so vividly, I:lNobody can stop the rain-. Hr. fDHENFELLNER (Austr la) \ The issue of ltamibia has featured annually as an important item en the agenda of the United Nations. The General AsseJ1t)ly and tlle Security Council have over the years adopted dozens of resolutions demanding South African withdrawal from Namibia and the return of the Territory to the United Nations. To Austria .it is a matter of profound concern that the people of Ramibia are still unable to exercise their fundamental, right to self-determination. we bave always considered the continued illegal occupation of Namibia, in defiance of internatiooal law, to be a pal:ticular challenge to the international community. we have categorically rejected any unilater~l ItlOVSS by South AfriCA to transfer power in Namibia and have regarded the establishment of the so-called interim government in Namit-~.Q as null and void. The international colllllunity has made great efforts to enable the people of Namibia freely to exercise their right to self-determination~ Efforts to arrive at an internationally acceptable solution resulted in the acbption of Seeurity Council to the people of Namibia through free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. The year 1988 markQ the tenth anniversary of that important resolution, which constitutes the ooly W'live.rsally accepted frdmetfork for a peaceful transl tion to independence for Namibia. Despi te its endor sement by the international col'lll\unity and its acceptance by SWAPO it has taken nearly 10 years before we have seen movement towa.rds implementation of the plan. In various rounds of negotiaHons between Sou th Africa, Angola and Cub.a, mediated by the United States of America, agreement on Cl set of measures with a view to starting implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) was achieved. Although Austria has never approved of the concept of linkage, we welcome the agreement-in-principle on an end to the war in Angola and on Namibian independence reached by the parties c:cncerned in July 1988 in New York. That agreement offers i1 realistic chance, the first foe a decade, that the Namibian people will finally ga in their independence. Austr ia, which has consistently deplored that South Afr ica used the territory of Namibia aa a springboard for military attacks against neighbouring States, also welcomed the cease-fire agreed upon by Angola, Cuba and South Afr ica, with which SWAPO agreed to canply. The date that was widely believed to be that which would br ing about the start of implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978),1 NoveJrber, has passed. We know that some issues still have to be resolved. However, in the light of the iDIOBt recent events we are hopefUl that the solution is now emerging. Austria looks forward to an early date for the beginning of the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Nations Transition Assistance Group (~'l'AG) with a polica contingent. IJbday Austria is again prepared to put such a cc:ntingent at tJNTAG's disposal, and ~'uld consider making additional personnel available for other tasks related to the transition of Namibia to independence. The cost of mTAG has been estimated to amount to between S700 million and Sl billion. tJN'l'AG will need a sound financial basis. i\s the thited Nations peacekeeping operations now enjoy the highest esteem, we believe that all Member States will be able to agree 00 the appropriate mandatory financing for tJNTAG. In view of the importance of the issue of leading Namibia to independence, for which the thited Nations has a special roesponsibility, financial considerations should not stand in the way of finally bringing independence to the people of Namibia. The issue of financing, however, remains one of the highest priority and will have to be solved if the operation is to be as successful as we should like. Not ooly is the question of Namibia a burning political problem, it also has economic, social and human dimensions. The eex>nomic consequences of South Afr i~'s cCX\tinued occupation have been devastating. The natural weal th of Namibia in minerals, in agriculture and in fisheries could not prevent its eoono~ going through ca period of seve?e crisis. Foreign exploitation of natural resources, unemployment, inadequate educational and health services, the militarization of the Territory, human rights violations and repreGSion - these manifold hardships overshadow the lives of the Namiblan people. This situation will change decisiVely only when Namibia achieves its rightful place as a sovereign independent nation. Under these circumstances the Namibia... peopla clear 1y need the assistance of the international community. My Government welcomes and supports the efforts of the United Nations to help thE'. victims of South kfricaos policy in Namibia. For llany years Austria has therefore cmtributed to the ftl'lds and programmes of the United Nations for Namib~. It is the COlll'llon responsibility of the international collllmnity to reach an early settlement of the Namibian question. I should like to pay a special tribute to the constructive policies of the front-line States, which under adverse circumstances have never flagged in their commitment to Namibia's independence. We woul£i deeply resent any attempt to delay Namibia's independence any longer. we look fexward to the ne)!:t session of the General Assemly, when there should no lalger be a need to quot~ Security Council resolution 435 (1978). My delegation expresses the hope that Namibia will SOal join the other 159 States Members of the United Nations and calls on the parties concerned w take immediate actiQ'l to implement security Council resolutio~l 435 (1978). of Namibia is one of the mjex issues that cOIIlmand th'! attention of the international col'illlunity. Recently there have been some significant develoPlentB wi th regard to the situation in NUlibia. Since early M!ly this year seven rOla\ds of formal negotiations hilve been held among Angola, Cuba, South Africa and the United States of America 00 the issues of peace in Angola and the independence of Namibia. There are plenty of indications that these n.890tiations have made considerable headway, ~eaking the long-standing stalelUte and bringing fresh hopas for Namibian independence. However, as these talks have failed to th is day to produce a final agreement) and the target date agreed upon by the parties concecned to start implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) has been postpcned time and again, we cannot but feel worried. It is at this critical juncture that the General AeseDlbly is deliberating on the Namibian question. Hence i.ts special importance. Now I wish to make a few observations on this item. Pirst, an early realization of Namibian independence through peaceful negotiations is an inevitable trend of our times and represents the popUlar will of the people throughout the world. At present, the international situation is lIIiOVing towards relaxation. The fierce rivalry between the super-Powers has somewat eased, and the tendency to seek peaceful solutions to regional conflicts iD picking up momentum. 1lgainst the backdrop of these developments, a new situation has thus emerged, with the four parties sitting down for nego~iations to settle the questions of peace in Angola and Namibian independence. For decades, the South African authorities have refused to implement the relevant resolutions of the Olited Nations on Namibia and cmtinued their illegal occupation of that Territory. Moreover, they have used it a8 Cl base to launch armed invasions into Angoa and other neighbouring countries, mdemining peace and stability in the region. The perverse acta of South Africa have not only met wi th dauntlees resistance from the Namibian people and the people of Angola and other front-line African States but also aroused strong coodemnation on the part of the international co_unity. losing its edge on the battlefield in recent years, South Africa is not only bftset with mounting economic difficulties and a surging anti-war movement at hOl':e but has found itself in a worsening predicament caused by growing international isolation. longing for peace, the Governments of the front-line States and the South ~c>t Africa People's Organbation (SWAPO) have OIler the years made unremitting efforts to recuce regional teUlsion and bring about: Namibian independence. The Government of Angola has come to the four-party negotiations with flexible and realistic policies. SWAR> has time and again expressed its willingness to sign, and honour, a cease-fire agreement with SOUth Africa. This testifies to the good faith of the front-line States and SWAIO for a negotiated settlement on the question of peace in SOUth-West Africa. It has thus become an ardent desire shared by the ~amibian people, the people of the front-line States and the people of the whole world to see a negotiated settlement of the Namibian question and the re-establishment of peace in South-West Afr ica. Secondly, the key to the settlement of the Namibian question lies in South Africa's implementation of relevant United Nations resolutions. Since its inception, the Unibid Nations has adopted scores of resolutions on the question of Namibia. If the SOuth African ~uthorities had implemented them, the Namibia question would have loog ceaf.!erd to exist, and Namibia would have be(X)me an equal partner in the commWlity of sovereign nations a long time agoG As is known to all, the Security COUncil adopted resi..~hjtion 435 (1978), approving the Secretary-General's plm to realize Namibian independence through elections under U\itad Nations superVision and controlo Successive sessions of the General Aasellbly have also repetedly adopted resolutions reaffirming th~t; resolution 435(1978) constitutes the only acceptable basis for the p!aeeful settlement of the Namibian question and calling foe its immediate tmplementatlon without any pre-conditions and qual1f1eations. Al though the SOuth Afr lean author i ties have been CQ!\pelled to agree to this resolution' under international pressure, they have kept obstructing its implementation by c~84ting one,aide issue after another and deliberatel}' complicating the l'Mtter, thus reducing the resoluticn to nothing more than a piece of paper ten years after its adoption. It is crystal clear that the key to the settlement of the Namibian q~~estion lies in a pranpt: change in the obstinate position of 9luth AfI: iea and the cessati'on of its external aggression and expansion. 'thirdly, SOuth Afr iea's move to reinforce ,its eOlcxiialist afid' tacist rule in Nslibia does not accord with the spirit of the four-party negotiation now Wl.der way. The actions taken by the SOuth Afr ican author iUes since the beginning of this yeM have made it clear that they are still reinforcing their oppressive rule OIler Namibia. During his visit to Namibia President Botha granted greater' pcw~r to South Africa's Administrator General in the Territory, including the power to call ~acially segregated local elections and the power to impose more rigorous censorship on the mass media. The "interim gOllernment lll propped up by SOuth Africa is also stepping up its activities to fiormulate a so-called constitution in a bid to work out an lIlinternal solution" outside the framework of the United Nations resolution. In the meantA..~, the South African suppresaion of the Namibian people has gone on unabated. A large occupation force 100,000 strong remains in Namibia. SOuth African troops and police keep harassing Namibian schools, churches and trade unions, and many iMOcent Namibians have been wilfully arrested ".rid killed. (Mr.. Yu Mengj la, China)