A/43/PV.54 General Assembly

I call on the representative of Bulgaria, who will introduce draft resolution D. Mr. KUIOV (Bulg&ria): It is my pleasure and privilege to introduce to the General Assembly for its positive consideration draft resolution 0, on dissemination of information and mobilization of international public opinion in sul;tport of the illililediate independence of Namibia. The draft resolution, first and foremost, reiterates the importance of intensifying publicity on all aspects of the Namibian '.luestion as an instrument for furthering the direct responsibility assumed by the United Nations for Namibia. It also stresses the urgent need to disseminate information on Namibia and to mobilize l..'lternational p.1blic opinion on a continuous basis in support of the inalienable. right of the people of Namibia to self-determination, freedom and independence. It emphasb:es these important objectives against the background of tha total bl&ck-out of news on Namibia imposed by the illegal SOuth African regime and the campaign of slander and disinformation which that regime continues to carry out against the united Nations and the liberation struggle of the Namibianpeople. In pursuance of the objective of intensifying the internatioal campaign in favour of Namibia's cause, the draft resolution requests the United Nations Council for Namibia, among other thingsl to focus its activities on greater mobilization in Western E. rope and North America, to intensify the international campaign for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to organbe an international campaign to boycott products from Namibia and South Africa, and to expose and denounce all collaboration with the racist South African regime. The draft resolution also envisages a broad and varied information progr8Illl1e, including, inter alia, the preparation and wide dissemination of publications on all aspects of the Namibian question, as well as radio and television programmes designed to draw the attention of the world public to the current situation in and around Naaibia and to counter the hostile propaganda and disinforlll/1tion campaign of the racist regime of South AfriCa. Furthermre, 1n view of the continued collaboration of certain States with the racist regime of South Africa and the need t,o focus on greater mobilization in Western Furope and North America, the Assembly requests the United Nations Council for Namibia to organize workshops for non-gcwerMlental organizations at tIItilich the participants will consider their contribution to the implementaion of the decisions of the Qlited Nations relating to the dissemination of information on and the mobilization of support for Namibia. Mobilization of international public opinion through the disssaination of inforlMtion on Namibia represents an important aSp!ct of the efforts of the thited Nations to bring about the independence of Namibia. In spite of the upsurge of intereat in the situation in southern Africa as a Whole the public at large does not receive adequate· information on Namibia. There is, Illuy believo, a conspiracy of sUence on ~ibia on the part of the media in certain countries. The draft resolution requests the Ullited Nations Council for Nallibla to organize lledia encounters on developments relating to Namibia, particularly prior to _jor acti~it1Q. organized by the Council for Namibia during 1989, in order to counteract 8uch proble_. The draft resolution calls on Nellber State8 to broadcast progrUlDes on their national radio' and television n~twol:'ks and to publish IIllterial in their official new8 .dia about the situation in and aro\Bld Namibia and the obligation of Gcwernllent8 and peoples to assist in every possible way in the struggle of the Na.t:'ian people for independence. It is illperative that the position of the United Nations with regard to Namibia be given the J:8CJuisite publicity in order to educate and inform public opinion at large. In those countries where govermrental policy is not in Une with the international consensus on the question of Namibia the need for such inforlUtion has never been so ptessing. Dissemination of information on Namibia would be a lIeans of bringing preaeure on Pretoria! and its allies to caaply vith the Uoited Nations resolutions and dscisians deIIanding the unconditional implementation of Security Council resohltion 435 (1978) without further delay .. The draft resolution also highlights the extremely positive and important role that non-goverrnental organizations play in the dissemination of infor.tion and mobilization of support for the cause of Namibia. Accordingly, the draft resolution requests the Council for Namibia to cattinue to co-operate closely vi th non-govermMntal organizations in ita efforts to mobilize international public opinion in support of the liberation struggle of the Namibian peeple, undGtr the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). By thes._ draft resolution the General Assembly would decide to allDcate resource8 to be used by the United Nations Comeil for Namibia for its progr.-e of co-operation "'i th non-gcwernmental organizations, including support for conferences and ~"Orkshope arranged by those organizations and for such other activities as will promte the cause of the liberation struggle of the Namibian people, subject to decisions to be taken by the United Nations Council for Namibia in consultation with SWAPO. Furthermore, the draft ~esolution appeals to ncn-governmental organizations, inter alia, to increase the awaranesa of their national communities and legislative bodies concerning South AfriC&ls illegal occupation of Namibia, the liberation struggle being _gel!! by the N_iblan people under the leadersbip of SWAPO, the gross violation of basic human rights by the South African mgime in Namibia, and the plunder of the '1'errito~es resources by foreign economic interests, and to lIobU1lIe in their countries broad public support for the national liberation of Namibia by holding hearings, lllem1nars and public presentations CHl various aSp!cts of the Nalllibian question, as well as by producing and distributing paKlPllets, fUms and other infor_tion aterial. In conclusion, I chould like to express my sincere hope that the Assembly will give its unanimous support to draft resolution D, entitled ·Dissemination of information and mobUization of international public opinion in support of the i-.ediate independence of NlUIibia". The PR_mENTa I call on the representative of Venezuela, to introduce draft resoluticn B. Hr. CAftHEVALI (Venezuela) (intel'pretatlen frOll Spanish) I I have the hcnour to introduce draft resolution E, on the question of Namibia, entitled ·United Nations Fund for Namibia·. The tilited Nations Pund for Nallibia was est:abllshe4 by the General Assembly in 1971 in recognition of the fact that, once SOuth Africa la Mandate ewer Haaibia was terlllinated, the United Natione, having assWll!I8d direct responsibility for the Terdto1'Y until its independence, had thereby assumed the solemn obligation to help the people of Namibia' in its struggle for independence and to provide it with .' • . I material assistAnce ·to that end. '. The assistance· progrlmmes of', the COWlcil for Namibia have been growing in both quantitative and '\(ualitative. terllS since the beginning of the 1970s~' In the period between 1 January 1987 and 30 JWle 1988 the total expenditure o.f the\ Fund for Nalibia was some .US 14 million - a SUID macie up basically of volWltary contributlons from the inte~national community. In recen'~ years. the various progrlSJllllcs have been organized through three different accounts. The first is the general account, which prOl7ides for educational, social and medit-:al aseistance to Namibians. The most important activity charged to this account is a fellowship progrume which at the present time is sponsoring 266 Namibian students in 17 countries. SeCondly, there is the Nationhood Prograume for Namibia account, which provides for an extensive progr8Dllle of as. istance directed towards development enoolllpasBing both the period before independence and the first few years of independence. The progr8lllll9 provides for research, training and educational activities. Over the years a large number of sodo-economic studies on Hallibia ~ave been prepared under the auspices of the Nationhood PrograDlllle for Namibia, but training and education are being giv~ increasing attention at present. There are several hundred Namibians currently benefiting from this type of assistance. 'lb!rdly, there ie the thited Nationa Institute for Namibia account, which prcwidee the financial base for the traning and research activities of the United Rations lutitute for Nuaibia, in Lusaka, lallbia, in which 562 students are currently enrolled.. I aD glad to say tbat the impl_entation of the ;nsslstanoe progf&IIDeS ia lWoceeding sau'sfactorily. The iIIlplementation rate of the various pl:ojeots continU&B to be high and an increasing nuaber of Nantbians are benefiting from the v.ioWl aotivities carded out through the three accounts. There can 1:1" little doubt that all tluese activitiea will hav~ m~rtant 100g':':,erm effects and help IXepare Naibians to gO'lern their country efficiently and effectively after ln~pendence. In this regerd it is important to bear in mind that the majority of the activities involve multi-annual progr...es that will gradually be terminated in an or4erly aanner once Hallibia has achieved independence. Therefore, even after the eettleaent of the question, it will be ilecessary to dr~w on large sums of meney during a transitional period to keep to a minimum any disruption of the prOCJraDlles under .y, in particular in education Md training. Bearing in .inCl all these facts, the present draft resolution proposES .l1ocatloo m the ",ited Nations Fund for Namibia of the SUII of $1 .. 5 • illion from the l'egular budget of the United NatiOfis for 1989. In the draft resolutiCln the Se«.t.ry-Gen.rG~. and the President of the Qlited Nations Council for NUlibia are I'8qUItGte4 to inblnslfy appeals to Goveruents, intergovernllental ol:ganizaticns and In ClOncluslcn, I lIhould like to point out that after independence Nallibia'. Med fex dfi'a~t ...istance wUl inerease considerably. Aftea: ye•• of colonial rule the NJiulibiana "ill take over the reins of their 0tfIl destiny and an. can us_e that they "ill emark upm an exteneift progr_ of 80cial and econOllic develoPMnt and national reconstruction for the benefit of the entire Hallibian people. This wiU be a 110ft_ental endeavour, which will require a vast financial input froa both bilateral end lIultilateral sources. Be~rin9 in mnd that the 011te4 NatiClll8 ha been directly responsible for !Wa1bia for lIKXe than 22 yeare, I aa con:ident that the Organ~lIation, within the PEoper institutional fruework, wUl continue to contribute to the iaplellentaticn of bread, d~velopment-oriented progrUlll8S even in the perio4 follow ing i,J'ldependonce OD After: this brief introduction I COIBIend draft resolution E, al the question of Namibia, to the Aasetlbly for unaniDous adoption. Tbe PRBSmBNTr I now call en those representatives who wish to speak in explMation of vote before the voting on any or all of the five draft resolutions contained in d'lllpter I of &>c.ent A/43/24 (Part 11) .. May I remind delegations that in accordance with Caneral Assubly decision 34/401, such stateaents are limited to 10 lIinutes Md should be _de by delegations from their places. Representatives wUl also have an opportunity to explain their vote after all the votes have been taken. Mr... Ol'rLEABI-GLlPUAHT (Botswanah My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A and B, wen though circWl8tances beycac1 our central constrain us to declare our incapacity to iIIlpl.ent pmrcgraphs in these draft reealutions wich call f'cx ecOftomc sanctions against SOUth Africa. 1kt will not, however, stand in the way of those that can iIDpos. and iJlplement economic sanctions against sauth Africa and decide to do so. !!. tezmITlS (Greeoeh I have the bonour to lUke the follawing S~telllmt on behclf of the 12 MlIb.r States of the European CclIIJIunlty en the draft £..olutiofts nOlI bet50re the General AIIsellblr. The international ccmaunity 's goal is COIIJIQft and clear: Na.ibia's incSepencJence at the e~rliest possible date. The '.l\felve "ish to stress once again cur full, cOl'lat.ant and unequivocal support for the settlement plan endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We have called CXl South Africa to iIlpleunt the eettlement plan u.ediately and vithaut pre-conditions. Jlgainat this background it is unfortunate that a nUlllber of controversial 81e.ents re_in in the draft resolutions. We recognize the efforts made to shorten th_ swstantially and the fact that 801le of the language that has caused problems in recent years has been OIIitted, 1."1 particular in dr~ft resolutk·,':). let lie new briefly rovert to so_ of the well-known rel!ervation~ the 'l\felve have an the draft resolutions. Even though we &hare the iapatience and frustration of the Naaibian people at Salth AfriOll's continuing occupation of their countEy, we cannot support armed struggle as a ileUS of bringing Naaibia to independence. We remain convinced that tho general and prillary duty of the Qlited Nations is to promte peaceful solutions in conforllity with the Charterg thlJS avoiding My encourage_nt af the use of force. Par t:hiti re_CD we cannot endCX'se calls for military 8aistance to the South Wost Africa People's Organization (SWAlO). The '!\relve consider that under the provisions of the settleaent plan the constitution of an independent Namibia IIUSt be wor!:ed out by a oonstituent assembly appointed as a result of elections in which all political groups are able to participate. Hone of these groups, therefo';., sho.ald ~e desifJllated in advancs as the sole and authentic representative of the NeIIlibian people. Owing to a co_it.ent to the principle of universality of HJlberBhip o~ the United Nations, we cannot accept that it mouleS be called into ql.hlstion er that the autonolll:f of the international financial in8titutiens should be coaprOllii!J&d. in our vi.", the total isolation of South Africa could only hinder effo~ts to secure iJlpl..ntation of the Unitlild Nations settl_ent plan. The Ttfolve reject any arbitrary and .elective singling out of individual coontriee or groups of countriea. Unchangctd also remains our respect for the diviBion of cc.petence maong the _in bodies of the Organization. The security Council alme i. authorised to take decisions thet are binding upon Member States. I lIUSt also register our concern at the financial implications of sOlle of the draft re.olutions before us" we have particularly in llind, inter alia, the proposal that the tilited Nations CCW\cil for Namibia Mould hold extraordinary plenary .aUngs awy frOll its headquarters contrary to the pcovision8 of resolution 40/243 of the General Aseellbly" As vi th any new expenditure in the current financial situation, the position will need to be carefully IIOnitored in the light of developaenb. Furthermre, 'le note the failure to take into account in the draft resolutions the fact that the proepects for NaaibiM independence have mprcwed since last yaar, notably cwing to ongoing negotiations between Angola, Cuba and South Africa, with the _cUation a: the Qiitad states of llIIerica. The 'rtfelve r..ain firaly and unequivocally co_1tted to the independence of HMibia in accordance with Security COuncil resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) without delay or pre-conditicxul. we welOOlllS the wu:lerstancUngs reached recently in Geneva and hope they will lead to the iIIpletlllentation of the United Nations settlement plan at an early date. The Secretary-General will, of course, have a crucial role to play in the settl_ent plan and its implementation. We hope thAt in the near future Namibia will at last be able to take its place in the United NatiOM &S a full and sovereign Member of our international community. Mr. MUDBNGE (Zimbabwe): The voting on this item is taking place in the afterlMth of the recent Geneva quadripartite talks on sotlth-western Africa. We do not knew what was agreed to in Genev~. The four delegations are now reporting to their respective Goverments. We would be ill-advised to be eUphoric at this stage. The QP!rtheid Foreign Minister's initial reaction ~njoins us to be cautious. "We will have to study", says Mr. Botha, "what this round of talks has produced in detail to see whether there is a possibility of agreement. There are serious and ee-plicated implications at this stage. At thiB stage, no (X}ncluslon can be made as to whether what has happened in Geneva will be acceptable to the South ~frlcan Government." We therefore hold our peace on this, but while we wait we should not relent in OUlt' pressure to force Pretoria to end its illegal occupation of Namibia, because the Naalbian prebl. rsains unresolved 80 lC!l'lg as apsJ:'theid South Africa. PErsists in its colon181 .and illegal occupation of Namibia. Strenuous diplaaatic efforts were exerted here in New York a&'1d in various capitals earnss the globe to block the present debate on Namibia in the ABseably. The reason g1';'o was ~at th& tone of the debate .ight jeopardize the negotiations en south-western Africa quite accidentally - so we were aaked to believe - ooinciding with the renewed quadripartite negotiations. "e are on the home stretch-, we were inforMd. IIlThe negotiations bave reamed a delicate stage, do not upset the applecart-, we were warned. Fortunately, we bad beard that one onc. too often, as Aesop ada:misbes us in bis famus fable, en. ca.~ r:ry wolf only cnce. So we went ahead "itb the debate i but the effect on the delicate negotiations was in no way negative. If anything, the deJlOn&tration of the international camaunity's resolve to bring Bulbia to independenc. could only have had a salutary effect on the interlocutor. in Geneva. NaIIibia is first anc! fore8lO8t a responsibility of the Qlitec1 Rationa. we, collectively, have Si duty to bring sdf~eterllinmtionand independence to that Territor/e It is our obligation and our right to involve ourselves in the process of bringing uaaibia to independence. This is a responsibility we dare not shirk, delegate or allow to be bijacked. It is a undated trust of bonour that we lUst fulfil.. It COlllPels all of U8 to speak out. For ewer a year new the United Nations has stood by largely as an observer as efforts have been .exerted, at tt-es surreptitiously, to slll1gg1e issues extraneous to Raaibilill independence into the impleuntation· of r..olution 435 (1978).. That could not be allowed to continue vi thout a challenge. This debate has served as a warning to those intending to hold Naaibian independence hostage to extraneous issues that the international caullmity will not toleraba it. !n the early days lUny used to assume that the so-called linkage loIIeant the reaoval of Cuban troops fraa Angola in exchange for South African wi thdraval froa Nallibia and independence for that Territory. How we are all better infor_d. Linkage includes, IUICln9 other things, 8011S political engineering within Angola. It lnvolv. atteapts to change the political ooloration of the Angolan Governtrent as a pre-ccndition of N_ibian independence. Unless Savimbi's UNITA is aCCOllUlOdated not be allowed to be fr... '!'heir: independence i. c:onditional - ye., deP8ndeilt - upcn what la called an acceptllble internal palitic~ solutlon ••erglO9 In Angola. '1b &ascrib. sum a atage in tIlue negot!aations N cJalicat:e 111 an abue of the J!ngU.• language. Thi. is an outrageous propoaition, md we .~t .peak out and say lau4ly and urgently that Haaibian independence eboulcl not be _de a priscner to sudl .Xtz:_~U8 iuu.s. ~'a iuu.. involving purely Angolan, Cuban, Qlited States and SOuth African relations al'. _tter. a!JlClftg tbQlle four 80Vereign States. Tbis Aaellbly h. no role In that. !lit Hulbian Independence is its buslne.. .-cl thos. Hellb... that Involve th.selv.. with that iss.. _t r_pect the views of this bo4y, and the pos!Uon of the tiliteCl Hationa la that no Melllb~ or group of Hemel: S! bas a right to .-broil the deoolcnblltion process of Hui!bia in quarrels that are extraneous to W.1b1an Independence. lillb.... is aware of and bails the valiant sacrifice. and 1aportant oon'aibutions .. by Angola and Cuba 1n order to bring a peacefUl aetUelUfttto the canflict in .outh....t ....n Africa. Bowever, Zbbablle will neve... acetpt that llaaibian Inde~ndlnOlt be delayed mUl a lI01utlon is found ccncerning the 1'01.. of savilllbi and hie UNrrA bau!a in Angola. "e .y be entering one of those ph.... in _i,cb Pretoria appears to be willing to get cut of N_1bia, but let us not forget: that In the PMt the Pretoria .11. bas CD. to the well only to refuae to drin.,. W111 it drink tbi8 tl_? If so, bow ••••y will the peoces. be? Before answering thOlle quutiona let Ul8 that ea.ine why r..olution 435 (1978) ha not 110 far been lIIpl••utH. "at bave be. the stullbllng-blocks to its iIIpl_entation? We b.". already _ftt1Oft~ and r5jecta4 the 8O-1:alled linkagas pcodded cU!lOUflage for the true reason., .-bleb can be amply suaMd up as Pretoria'. reluctance to relinquish ita control 0901' Namibia. &It why ha. Pretexia been 80 reluctant -and is still so reluctfM\t - to get out of Hallibia? And if it agrees to do so new, why is that so and how &Ma it hope to IJafeguaEd i t& inter.ata? Pretoria h. powerful internal and regional crinsiderat10ns that have llilitated against N_lbian independence and that will contiriue to be factors in h:s considerations. The .o--~alled Caprivi Strip ,in Namibia is like a dagger that SOuth Afdca halc!s against the southern African region. Praa its air base in the caprivi Strip, Pretoria casts an oaainous shadow over the whole region. It is hard for the aUitary establillhsient of the aggressive apartheid regi1le to let go of this strategic udvcnt&ge without s~ compensation. In the defence of apartheid the . , .• _. 1. ; c&privi Strip ha been a _:lex asset. 8ecolldly, acco~ding to the 1987 report of Standing CorlIIlittee II of the united Nation. Council for HaIIibia, ·One of the major reasons for South Africa's continued 1':legal occupation of. HMibia and the support that it receives fram its western aUiesbas. be.enthe interest both bave in perpetuating their miIDpeded access to, and eXplo1tati~ r of, the Tel'ritory's key base lietale.... Naaibia's .ineral wealth bolsters South Africa's 111a9«! as a key supplier of strategic 8infrrals to the Western WQ1'ld. Considering that the image of~th Africa u a storehouse of strategic _tale needed by 'the western ooun~i~s is 18lr:g~y cwer8tated" it is not surprising that the apartheid regime has been, clinging to ainel'al-rich Nallibia and wUl find it difficult to let go. PurtherllOre the Botha regime has had internal political reasons for remaining in Haalbia. It bJUI bHnfrightened by the extreme Afrikaner dght wing. The right wing fears that if Botha can give in on Namibia he will socner or later give in ewer aprtheid a. the blacks in South Africa, inspired by the !naependence of ..ibia, increase the p:essure fO&: justice and equity in SOuth Africa. In recent days SOuth Atr iea has strengthened and enlarged its military bases in 1fin~oek and the c.privi Strip. Large-scale troop movements have been observed a8 Pretoria has Pl)u:ed ausive numbers of men and huge quantitiea of equipuent into N.1bia since August th!s year. In Namibia itself repression and activities against the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAIt) are reaching new .heights. SWAPO supporters are being arrested or physically eliminated. (Mr. Mudenp, Zimbabwe) The ~egi_'s present anti-sNAPO campaign has now reached epideaic proportion."J. Are these actions part of Pretoria's swan song or are they _ant to entrench its control irrespective of wat happens in Namibia? Pretoria's so-ealled internal settl_ent in Naaibi& was _ant to leave its puppets in the driving seat in that '1'erdtoty. Is the international CCIIlI\unity about to be used to achieve this dastardly objective? Let us .new go back to the question of whether or not Pretoria is finally ready ( to leave Namibia. In view of its history of deceit and treadlery when it comes to the Namibian tnde~ndenoe process, Pretoria Jlust do a great deal more before we can accept its bona fides. Its actions to date leave us W1impressed. They do not show evidence of Cl suQden conversion to accepting genuine independence for Nalllibia. 'l'hey appear to us to be reluctant and calculated responses to pressures and threats from the outside. Pretoria retreated frc. southern Angola, not because it sudclenly discovered the illegality of its aggression against Angola. No, it was chased out of Angola with a bloodied neee after being defeated at Cuito Cuanavale. It is nOlif building heavy troop concentrations south of the Angolan border in Namibia in readiness for its next !lOve. But what is that move to be? Is it the decimation of SWAPO and entrencbaent of the puppets?SoIIe have seen Botha 8S recent foray8 into the African interior, with all the dangers of being bitten by Gabon vipers and other tropical serpents, not to mention the risks of the political quickSands, as evidence that the apartheid regiae i8 changing and is· now ready to give Namibia its independence. Unfortunately, the ".ruth i~ 801lettbat less edifying than that. ltlat Botha is doing is to fight isolation and international 8anctions by appearing to we his peace wi th AfriC:5. Sanctions, especially the rewctance of the international banking COEmunity and other financial institutions to grant his (Hr. Itldenge« Ziababw) regime desperately needed loans" is beginning to hurt his economy badly. Botha reasons that if he can appear to be making his peace with Africa then his world-wide isola'tion will be broken and he will get the Dlloh needed infusion of new capital into his aUing economy.. What moves Pretoria? The regime moved out of southern Angola because of the increasing cost of aggression in military" ec~omic and political terms. Militarily, South Africa was defeated in southern Angola. The death rate of young White South African ~ilitary conscripts in Angola became politically unacceptable. B:onClllically, Pretoria was spending about R 1 billion a year providing support for UNITA as well as a R 700 million allocation in Namibia itself. It was military defeat and the fear of sanctions and isolation that finally drcwe ~ desperate Pretoria into the~~edor of Africa. It was not dialogue or constructive engagellent that did it. And if Namibia were to become free, it will not be because of those reasons either. Finally, this debate has been important in refocusing pressure on Pretoria and rejecting the introduction of extraneous issues to, or the modification of, the Nallibian independence plan, as well 8S in reminding all of us that bringing Namibia to independence is a responsibility of the United Nations. The Assembly will not tolerate clandestine efforts to load the Namibian plan with extraneous' issues or any attempts to modify that plan in any way whatsoever , no ~tter whence they originate. The ~essur:e exerted by StlMO in the fighting in Namibia has raised the cost of occupation. It is now, 1I0re than ever, vital t.~&t the international COfIJIWlity should increase its support, both diplClllatic ~d material, to the struggling people ef NaIIibia, led by SWAPO, their 801e and authentic representative. We hail the c:oBbatants of the hople ' s Liberation Amy of Namibia (PLAN). We salute all the <!!!.:..!~denge g Zimbabwe) patriotic forces of Namibia. Namibia shall be free. A !uta continua: Next year, in Windhoek: In order to send a strong message to Pretoria to get out of Namibia forthwith, Zimbabwe will vote in favour of all the draft resolutions before us today, and urges others to do the same. Mr. PHIal (Malawi) 3 In introducing the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia to the Assembly, its President, Mr. P. D. Zuze, expressed the hope that this would be the last time the Assembly would be called upon to deliberate on the question of Namibia,. and that by the time the forty-fourth session convened, the people of Namibia ~"Ould have attained their independence and national sovereignty. My delegaticn would like to echo that hope. Indeed, the developnents of the past few months would seem to give cause for such optimism, even if guarded. Bow we would like to believe that the actions which the Assembly will be taking on the draft resolutions now before us will help to contribute to the fulfilment of that hope: My delegation will be voting for the draft resolutions now before us, including draft resolutions A and B, as a muk of our support for the aspirations of the N&mibian people, as well as a m&nifestation of our ncn-acceptanoeof South Africa's continued occupation and control of N&~ibia in defiance of United Nations resolutions. HOiIever, I should like to state that, in doing so, my delegation will not consider itself as being bound by, or in any way lending its support for, certain aspects, of those draft resolutions that llre contrary to the principles on which Malawi's external relations are based. We have enunciated these before on numerous occasions: they are well kna..l to members of the Assembly, and therefore we shall (Kr. flIoonge, Zimbabwe) not enllllerate them here. However, lIy delegation would like to state that it will reserve ita position on the relevent paragraphs to which they apply. ~. SERVAlS (Belgiwa) Unterp~etation frCllD French): Cbee again the General P.asembly has held a lcmg debate to the question of Haliibia. This afforded the international community an opportunity to reiterate its dedication to independence for that Territory.. My country deeply regrets that Namibia should still be illegally occupied by South Africa, whereas for almost a quarter of a century now that country haR been placed Wider the direct responsibility of our Organization. Aa a memer of the United Nations Council for Namibia, BelgiUID already had occasion to express its satisfaction with the effort undertaken to abbreviate the texts of the draft resolutions subllltted to us.. We hope that that effort will continue. Moreover, we note with pleasure that in one of the draft resolutions, account was taken of Bome of our objections. However, if my delegation did not oppose the consensus whereby the Council for Namibia put its report and draft ~esolutions before the General Assembly, it was essentially in order to reaffirm yet again our unshakeable support of the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence. In fact, desp! tQ the imprwements made in same of them, the draft resolutions still pose certain difficulties, which the Peri1l8nent RepreaenQtive of Greece has already mentioned on behalf of the 12 member countries of the JlIropean CODlunityo A certain number of consistent principles in our international policy lead my country to maintain our earlier reservations. My delegation wUl abstain in the votes on draft resolutionS A, B &nd D, which , concern respectively the situation in Namibia, the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and the dissemination of information. The reasons for this threefold abstention have already been repeatedly explained. (Hr. Phirif Malawi) 111 draft resolution A, for instance, my country llBintains its reservations concerning the status attributed to the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAlO). We regret that certain paragraphs do not fully take into account the particular functions of the Security Council. These two xemarks, incidentally, also apply to draft resoluticm B. Still with respect to draft resolution A, Belgium has reservations concerning support for armed struggle, the selective mention of countries, the breaking of all relations with South ~rica, the appeal to sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter and the criticism levelled against Western countries members of the Security Council. (Mr. Servais, Belgium) Pinally, lIy deletzation could have voted in favour of paragraph 59 had it been voted on separately. Wi tb respect to draft resolution D, lIy delegation, while recognizing the need to infora public opinion on the question of NoaibiA, regrets that the IIObUi21ation ca.ign should be ueed too often for channelling concepts with whim BelgiulI cannot identify. My country will vote in favour of draft resolution C, on the prograJEe of work of the Council for Namibia, but would recall the reservations expressed by the representative of Greece on behalf of the 'l'iIelve meJlber States of the 8lropean Cmutunlty during consideration of financial iaplications in the fifth Committee. Similarly, we shall v(')te in favour of draft reliolution E, on the United Notions Fund for Namibia. Belgiull shares the feelings of frustration of the people o£ Namibia. We hope that the recent agreement reached in Geneva will allow for the rapid lIIplelllentation. of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). In that connection we fully support the efforts 0': the secretary-General. We hope that NaIIibia will thus, in the near tuture, accede to independence. Mr. mM (Ireland), Ireland fully shares the views expressed by Greece en beh&1f of the 1\Ielve aellber States of the European CClIIJaunity. I should like to explain IIY delegation's voting positions on the draft ruowtions. Ireland has consistently supported thf! right of i:be Naaibian people to inde~nd.nce. We have repeatedly conde_ed the illegal occupation of Naaibia by lbuth Africa. This occupation bas been an affront to this Organiaation, to the internaticnal eceaunity and to the people of Na111bia, who have experienced so_ch herdehlpand sutfering. I.:oland believes that the people of Naaibia aust be given the freedaD to exercise their fundamental and inalienable right to self-determin~tion in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Ireland welCCllles the understandings reached :1n Geneva earlier this week. we share the hope expressed by many delegations that the transition period to full N_ibian independenC9 under United Nations control will commence in the near future. We believe that the role of the Secretary-General will be of the greatest importance in the implementation of the settlement plan and pledge our full support for his endeavours. I should now like to explain, against this background, our position on the five draft resolutions. we shall vote in favour of three of the draft resolutions and abstain on two. We support many of the provisions contained in draft resolution A, on the situation in Namibia, but unfortunately there are a number of formulations which we are unable to accept. Several paragraphs of the draft give explicit support to armed struggle. We have mde clear in the past our oppositioo to any endorsement of violence by this Assembly, even if we can fully understand the anger and frustration which drives Namibians to take up arms to secure independence. I should also say that we do not believe that the selective singling out for criticism and cmdemnation of certain groups of countries in this and other draft resolutions can promote our common objective in this AsseJllbly. My delegation will therefore abstain on draft resolution A. My delegation will support draft resolution B, on the impleuentation of security Council resolution 435 (1978). We believe that this draft resolution is the only bailie for a settlement and we fully support the objectives and goals set out in it. As regards the referenc. to the South West Africa People's Organizatinn (S'"lfAlO) in this and other draft resolutions!? I wish to reaffirm Ireland's appreciation of the leading role which SWAPO plays in seeking ••lIIIItl;n.'lillii1iil~iii-i·ii-·'i"1.'··~.'_'·.·' "" ' ' (Mr. Cort, Ireland) independence for Namibia. iIlen free and fair elections are held under Olited Nations auspices and superv!sim - a proposal which SWAPO has accepted and which Ireland strongly supports - the people of Namibia will then have the opportunity to choose their representatives freely and through a democratic process. Ireland will also vote in favour of draft resolution e, on theprogranae of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia. we oupport in general the efforts of the Council to end the illegal occupation of Namibia. Nevertheless, we cClOtinue to have reservations about the powers of the Council for Namibia in regard to certain issues and we see difficulties about certain recommendations of the Council. Ireland will abstain on draft resolution De on the dissemination of informmtion and mobilization of international public opinion in support of the immediate independence of Namibia. we support many of the provisiClOs of the draft and would have wished to be &hle to vote in favour of it. Howev~r, we do not regard it as helpful to appeal to nm-governmental organizations and others to expose and campaign against political and economic collaboration of certain Western Governments with SOuth Africa. Such a campaign, in our view, could well be damaging to the COMmOn objectives we all share. Finally, I wish to mention draft resolution E, on the United Nations Pund for Namibia. My delegation wU! cClOtinue to vote in favour of this draft resolution. We believe the iUnd performs a valuable function in providing assistance to Namibians who have 8ufferfXI aa a rElsult of the illegal occupation of their land by South Afr lea. Mr. WALTERS (United States of America) I It is clear that the question of Namibia is one which continues to concern a large number of countries and which arouses oonsiderable passion. The lengthy list of speakors in the debate over the past three days bftQrs proof of that. The problom of N81Iibia ste. frCII the clear and siJIple fact that the Republic of South Africa is illegally occupying the territory of Namibia. South Africa ha no right to be in N_ibia and no right to control the internal and external (X)licies of that country. This debate bears witness to the international CCIUlunity's firm resolve to end SOuth African administration of NaIIib.ia and bring Namibia to independence in acoordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). It appears that long, painstaking and difficult negotiations aimed at achieving independence for Namibia Q'1 the basis of Security Council resl...'J.ution 435 (1978) reached an important denouement on Tuesday in Geneva. It has been agreed among delegations frC'llll South Africa, Angola and Cuba that a finftl round of negotiations will be held shortly in Brazzaville. This meeting in Brazzaville should mark the end of the negotiations !~ld set in train tne independence process envisaged under security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). There is peace along the CWlene River. The parties to the negotiations have not cnly wocked hard to bring independence to Namibia but have sought to create a fra.work for en41ring peace and stability in South west Africa. The calendar for l'edeployaent and vi thdrawal of Cuban troops frcm Angola, which was discussed in Geneva this past week, is but alO of the interlocking el_ents of an effort ailled at fulfilling the objectives of the Charter in that troubled region of the w«ld. In that context I wish to _phaabe the continuing c::omitllent of the United States to natiClNll reconciliation in Angola. It has been the ~actice of II'.f Q:)vern_nt and other _lIbcs of the Ccmtact Group to abstain on the annual s.ries of draft resolu tions about Namibia. The united Statell "ill abstain again this !'tar. we do not do 80 out of any indifference to the fate of Namibia or the NUlibian people and far less frCII any particular affinity for the positions and policies of the Goverrment of South Africa, which has been illegally administering the Territory. In fact our ooncerted decisicm to abstain on these draft resolutions stems from our concern with the situation in Namibia and our desire that NaJlibia should achieve a solid and lastinq independence in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which we helped to create <Ner 10 years ago. Abstenticn is a means of demonstrating to all parties that we remain impartial in the conflict, ccncentrating our energies on the search for peace. Ne wish to do nothing to endanger that outcome. It is unfortunate that the positive developilents emerging from the hard work of the parties to the negotiations are given no expression in the draft resolutions before this Asse1lbly. We take exception to repeated reference in the resolutions to the SOUth West Africa People's OrganizatiCXl (SWAPO) as the wsole and authentic representative of the Nallibian people-. Only the free and democratic elections which will be held WIder the procedures established in security Council resolution 435 (1978) will (XOI7ide the Nallibian people themselves the opportunity to choose whom they want as their representatives. Onoe again the draft rMolutions condelln and reject the policy of Wconstructive engagelleJ1t w. we would simply observe that it is as a result of our continued engagell8nt that the negotiations have reached their present prolliaing stage• Pina11y, theee draft r.solutiOlUJ again caU for the mpcaiticn of coIIPrehensive and .andatory sanctiCXls agalnBt SOuth Africa fer its faUure to g.:ant independence to W_ibia. The position of the OliQc! States on such unctions ia "ell known to this bodr. In concluaian, I should like to reiterate ay GovernllBnt'o fira and active ea-itaent to the search for peace in southw..tern Africa and the prc.pt independence of Na.ibia, under ~cul'ity council resolution 435 (1978). Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretation frOlll French) I The French delegation subscribes enUraly to the stateBent just ude by the representative of Greece on behalf of the twelve States ••lIbers of the European Couunity on the five draft re30lutions cbaling with Hallibia en which the General Aas.bly will vote today. Prance, whichwa. actively involved in the preparation of the (hited Nations pl. for Ha.ibla, o:3nt4ined in security CCNncil ruolutiana 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), cCXltinues to be firll1y dedicated to the rapid iapleaentation of this plan. My country ie therefore gratified that, hy virtue of the progress made in the current negotiations, a settl_ent of the Nu1bian question ls at last taking shape. Prance is pleased that the intransigence and the pre""Conditions that had stood in the .y of iapi.entation of rellolution 435 (1978) have ceased to be ineurllOWltable cb.tacl. to tfaaibia·.. acces.ion to independence. we hope that the process for wh~(3h prClil1isiltilil 18 _cle .,111 ee-ence ae SOOft u poulble. Pranoe'.bu .tated n;'(jpeatedly that it i. willing to contribute to the illPluentation of the lilite4 Nations plo for H_ibia. Quite recently ay GoverMent reata.ted ita "Ulingnes. to PEcwide such •••istance, within the fr_work of the special responsibiUti.. ~onf.rred 011 it by the O1arter. '1'hat i8 the spirit in ..tlich the Prencb delegation, in .cco~danOQ with the stand it ha. taken at previous a••ien., will refrain frOll taking a positiClft en the flv. draft ruolutiona before the General A..emly.. Hr. DA cnSTA llBRBIRA (Portugal) I ~b.lgal Marea tile r..el'VaUQf.l8 held in COIUlOn by the twelve States lIellbers of the l":'lIropsan c::c.aunity, as expr...ed by the rePraentative of Greece. I should like naw to explain ay delegaticn's position on the draft resolutions before the Aeaellbly. Portugal'. position on the questicn of Na.ib:la has been clearly stilted on previouil occasion. in the General Assellbly.. My GtNernlllent is firmy and unequivocally co_itted to the independence of NaMibia and considers that the only acceptable basis for a peaceful and lasting soluU<:II' to the problo is the 1JIpl_entaticn of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). In this respect, thQ Portuguese deleg&tion r~iiterates its full ana whoJLehearted support for the Secretary-Generalis action. We should like a180 to express our satisfaction at the recent agr.-ent, ad referend.., reached in Geneva between Angola, Cuba and South Africa, with tllited States _diation, their negotiations have always had our: strong support. It Is our wish that these developaents will speed up the IflOllentUll towards the iIIpl..entation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). In that regard, Portugal is in principle rMc!y to contribute to the iaplementation of the tkliitecJ Nations sett18lent plan. That is our generAl approach to the q-..stion of Ha.ibic. we took that background into account in examining the five ckaft reaolutionabefore us. We decided to vote in favour of two of th_ and to abstain en three. Our .in reservations ccncern the leading role auUllltd by ane political group, as reflected in draft resolutions A, Band D. In addition, we cannot go 80 far as to endorse call. for increased :!!ilitary asslstl'nce for the South West Africa People's OrgMisation (SNAPO). W. reject also My ubitrary and .elective singling out of indivi4.,al Q)Ufttrl. or grou§18 of coontr!...,. Portugal considers the prodsions of the Unit:ec1 Nations setUeaant plan to be the only interutionally agreed fr...ork for Nallibia's independence. we expect, therefore, that it will ensure that the people of Naibia will be able to choose their own repr:uentativu freely, through free and fair electlons,held under ~ited Nations auspices and tnpervi81on. Hr. VBRGAU (!'ederal Republic of Germany): "We have COIIe a good deal ~l08er to Na1Iibia's independence. Security Council resolution 4)5 (1978) has always been and resaain& the only viable route to this goal. Aa a aemer of the contact group, ay Gcnernllent offers its good offices in seeking the ilIpl_entation of that resolution.· (A/U/PV.8, p. 2a) '!'hase worda were spoken by Foreign Minister Bans-Dietdch Genscher before the General Asa.bly en 28 Septeaber 1988. In accordance with the state~ents made by the representative of Greece before the Aaeelllbly on behalf of the twelve Sute8 memers of the European Co_unity, my Governaent r.ains Q)_itted to Namibia's indep!ndence i... conformity with reaolution 435 (1978) and will continue its full, constant and uneguivocal support for the iJlpl.entation of the settl.ent plan without further delay or conditions. Aa a a.llbel' of the contact group, the Federal Republic of Germany will be further involved in efforts to achieve that iIIpl_entation. In order not to prejudge the outee-e of these efforts in any way, my Gcwerl'Ulent has to refrain froa aSSiOCiating itself in either a positive or a negative JIlllUlel:' with the draft reaolutiona before the General A8slillbly. For that reason the Federal Republic of Ger_ny will abstain on all the draft resolutions before us concerning the questicn of N_ibia. That abatution is mtivated by purely procedural reasons. Since we ehall ab&tainfol' re.ona of principle and procedure, ay dolegation would not wish to co_ni': on the substantive contents of the draft reeolutiona before us. With regard to -r delegation's fir. objections to name-calling in General A8IIellllbly resolutions, and in particular in draft resolution A before us, I refer the Aes.bly to our statellent in explanation of vote last year, it oontinues to express our unaltered poeition on this utter. Today we look with hopeful expectations to the ongoing proce8s of negotiations between Angola, Cuba ana SOuth Africa, lIediated by the Qlited States. My GoverlUllent supports these negotiations and welooMS the progres8 that has so far been actaievR. The intern."tlonal caamunity i8 now called upon to .wter all its strength 1n order to bring us nearer to the iIIpl_entatian of resolution 435 (1978) ana ",0 ensure that all the asaistancc required for the concrete transition of Naaibia to independence will be ."aUable. Hr. DIMINI (Swaailand) I The delegation of the Kingdom of Swaailand will support all the draft resolutions contained in doc_ent A/43/24 (Part I1). BC*\Over; we wish to point out that SWaail.nd is not in a position to iapl_ent C08prehenaive and undat:cry eanctions against so.!tb Africa. The PRBSmmr.;£lt Bef~re we proceed to tho "om on the draft resolutions cantained in chapter I of doc_ent A/43/24 (Part I1), I wiab to ck~w the Asselllbly's attenticn to the prcwieiClns of special rule F in annex III to the rules of procadure, Maich will be applied, .s in the put, 1n the voting on all propoaals under the itea -Question of Naaibia- at the current a.ssian. (Hr. Ver9au, Pederal Republic of GerJHnXI COnBequently, a two thirds majority of the representatives pre~ent and voting ah4ll be required for adoption of the proposals before the Assembly. The Asseably will now take decisions on draft resolutions A to E in chapter I of deeu_nt A/43/24 (part Il). The repoKt of the Fifth CCllmittee on t:he progralllJlle budget i~l1cat1ons of the draft resolutions has been issued as document A/43/818. The Genaral Assembly will now begin the voting process and take a decision on draft resolution A, entitled ·Situation in Nam1'"J resulting from the illegal occupation of the Territory by South Africa·. A recorded vote has been requeate~. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Deru8salam, Bulgaria, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Byeloruaeian Soviet Socialist Republic, C.-eroon, Cape Verde, Central African RepUblic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cate d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, DeRlOCratic l!{ampuchea, Democratio Yemen, Djibouti, Donlini~, Domin~can Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghena, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, GUinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Rondura~, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Pe"ple's Democr&t1c RepUblic, Leb.anon, Lesothe, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongol1a, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, N.icaragua, Riger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, POland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, Sao TOme and Prlncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudanu Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, Togo, T~inidad and TObago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainia~ sovi~t SOcialist RepUblic, Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics, United Arab Emirates, united RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nail, Yellen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zillbabwe Against. None Abstaining, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution A was adopted by 130 votes to none, with 23 abstentions (resolution 43/26 A).* The PRESIDE1'lT: The Gen&ral Assembly wUl next take a decision on draft resolution B, entitled -Implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favou!: Afghanistan r Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist RepUblic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African RepUblic, Chad, Chile, China, COlombia, cameros, Congo, Cate d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican RepUblic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia v Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Dem,~ratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guin38, Guinea-Bissao, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesi~, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao people's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinaa, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and NLVis, Saint Luoia, Saint Vincent an~ the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Sycian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tago, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepUblic, Union of Soviet Sociall_t RepUblics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, V~nuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: None *Subsequently the delegation of Costa Rica and Mauritania advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in tavour. Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library Abstaining' Belgiua, canad., D1)IIinica/l Prance, Geraany, Federal RepubUc of, I.rael, Italy, Japan, Luxellbourg, N.therland~, Portligal, United Kingdoa of Grea~ Britain and Northern Ireland, united State. of AIledca Draft re.olution B war .ldopted by loaO vote. to none, with 13 abnention. (reaolution 43/26 B).* The PRESIDBN'.r: we no" turn to draft re.,lution C, entit1ec5 ;'Progr.- of work of the united Nation. COuncil for Heaibia. A recorded vote ha. been requested. A recorded vote W&8 ta!len. In favour. Afghani8tan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua ana Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, B.h...., Bahrain, Banglade8h, Barbado., Be19iua, aenln, Bhuan, Bolivia, Botswana, BrazU, Brunei DarU8ealo, Bulgaria, Burkina FallO, Buraa, Burundi, Byeloru8sian Soviet Socialist Republic, C..roon~ Cape Verde, Central African RepUblic, Chad, Chile, Chin~, COlo.bia, ooaor08, Congo, cate d'Ivoire, C"ba, Cyprus, C.ecoo.lovakta, DallOCraUc lCaapucbea, DellOCrat!c Ye.en, oe.....rk, Djlbouti, DorIlnica, Do.inlcan RepUblic, BCIJador, Egypt, Bl Salvador, Ethiopia, Piji, plnlanei, Gabon, GulI:d.a, Gerun DltII«:ratic Republic, Ghana. Greece, Grenada, Guate..la, Guinea, Guinea-Bi.8au, Guyana, aaiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indone.ia, Iran (Isl..ic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, I.rael, Italy, Jaaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People'. i)ellCCratic Republie, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab 3all8hidya, Luxellbourg, Madagascar, ~lawi, Malay8ia, Maldive., Mali, Mlillu, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, ~rocco, Mos"i~e" Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, NOrway, OIean, Pakistan, Pan..., Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippine., Poland, Portugal, Qat.~, Rounie, a.randa, Saint Kltt8 and Wevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grea'adin••, SmDOa, sao Toae and Principe, Saudi Ar3lbia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, S!ngtlpore, SOlODCn I.land. c Sa.alia, Spain, Sd Lenlell, Sudan, Surin..., Sw.sUand, Sweden, Sydan Arab Republic, Thailand, TOgo, Trinidad and 'l\.;)bago, Tunisia, Turkey, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist aepublic, union of Soviet sociali.t aepublic8, United Arab Bsiratea, uni~d Republic of Tansania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venozuela, Viet Naa, Ye_~, Yugoslavia, Zair., Zc~1., 2iababwe Against. None *Sub8equently the delegstion cf COsta Rica and Mauritania advi8ed the Secretariat that they had int~nded to vote in favour. Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library Abstaining: CAnada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Netherlands, united It ,,'gdom of Great Britain and Northel'n Ireland, united States of Ahlerica Draft resolution C was adopted by 147 votes to none, with 6 abstentions (resolUtion 43/26 C).*

Next we turn to draft resolution D, entitled lSDisseaination of information and mobilization of international pUblic opinion in support of the ilQ1lediate indepem:ience of Namibia·. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afgh&nlstan~ Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Ben!n, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brasil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian soviet Socialist RepUblic. Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, COlombia, Oomoros, Congo, C&t@ d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Clechoslovakia, Democratic Ka&\,uchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, DOminica, noainican Republic, Ecuador, E9y~t, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Gerllan Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Ru~gary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Iolamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Jamaica, 30rdan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Del'OCratic RepUblic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Rallania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, Oao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapo~e, solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, TOgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics, United Arab Emirates, United RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: ~one *Subsequently the del~ation of Costa Rica and Mauritania advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. Abatalnlng: Auatrla, Belglu., Canada, neMark, Finland, France, Gel'aany, F~d.ral Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, I8rael, Italy, Jupan, Lesotho, Luxellbourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, NOrway, Portugal, Spain, sweden, united Kingdoa of Great Brita1n and Northern Ireland, United State8 of Aaerica Draft reaoluti~!. D was adopted by 129 vote8 to none, with 23 abstentions (re80lutlon 43/26 D).* 'I'~4e PRESIDENT: we come now to draft resolution E, entitled "United N~tlon8 fund for Namibia". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour, Afgha~i8tan, Albnnia, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, ~u8tria, BabaMa8, Babrai~v Banglade8h, Barbad08, Belgiua, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Daru8Bal.a, BUlgaria, Burklna Fa80, Bur.a, Burundi, Byeloru8slan Soviet Scciali8t Republic, Caaeroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, ColoJlbia, COltOr08, Congo, CSte d'Ivoire, CUba, Cyprl!8, Czecho8lovakia, Democratic K.~uchea, Deaocratic Yemen, DenMark, Djibouti, oo.lniea, Do.in1can RClpublic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji" Finland, Gabon, GaJlbia, Gerun Deaocratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bi8sau, Guyana, Haiti, Rondura8, HUDgary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (I8l..1c Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jaaaica, Japan, Jordan, lenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Deaocratic Republic, Lebanon, Le.othe, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jaaahiriya, Luxellbourg, Madagascar, MalaWi, Malaysia, Maldive8, Mal!, Malta, MaudtiU8, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mo3U1bique, Nepal, Netherland8, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Pana.., Papua New Guinea~ Peru, Philippine8, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Roaania, KwaDda, Saint Kitte and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sa.ca, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Sonegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, SOlomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Surin..., Swa3iland f Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and TObago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepUblic, Union of Soviet Sociali8t Republic8, United Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tan:ania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vene¥uela, Viet Na., Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe *Subsequently the delegation of Costa Rica and Mauritania advised the secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. Abata1ning: Canada, France, GerMny, Federal Republic of, united KingdoM of Great Britain and No~th.rn Ireland, united States of America Draft res~lution E was adopted by 148 votea to non., with 5 ab8tentions (resolution 43/26 E;.*

I now call on those representative who wish to explain their votes on t~. resolutions jU8t adopted. !!!.. MOR'l'ENSEN (DelUllark): On behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and SWeden, I ~ave the honour to mak~ the following explanation of vote with regard to the five resolutions on the question of Namihia just adopted. I The Nordic countries have consistently rejected South Africa's illegal occupa'tion of Namibia, wh.~ch is in flagrant defiance of international law and , . , deCisions ()f;-,~~~ ~utf~..~\lncil. Our policy is clear and well established. we ie~in co.aitted to Namibia's lnd~pendence in accordance with the United Nations aettlemGnt plan a8 endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This plan constitutes the only internationally accepted framework for approaches leading to an independent Namibia through free and fair elections under the supervision and control of the United Nation8. The Nordic countries are encouraged by the progress achieved 80 far during the talks between Angola, CUM, South Africa and th~ United States aiJled at ending the conflict situation in south-western Africa and securing independence for Namibia in *Subsequently the deleg~tion of Costa Rica and Mauritania advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The Nordie countries weloo... the understandings reached during the recent rOl.l\d of talks in Geneva and sincerely hope that these will result in the early iapleaentation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). <!!!. Ibrtensen, Denerk) 'rhe Nordic countries agree vi th the _in thrust of the ckaft resolution just aCbpted. Wa note with satisfaction that several of this year's resolutions have laprwed, in terIU of both fo~_t and substance, as ee:-pared to the ones adopted l.at JlI.~. Aa a result we were able this :,'Qar to support draft resolution B, on the lIIpleaentation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), althougb I should like to state for the record that our support does not extend to paragraph .. of that draft resolution, ""Ich, in our view, would prejudice the outee-e of free and fair elections in Nallibia. However, regrettably, we have not been able to vote in favour of all the draft resolutions, since Selle of them continue to contain el_ent8 which cause difficulties of principle. I shall outline these well-known difficulties in general terms. First, we cannot accept foraulatioos that iJlply endorefllent by the United Nations of the use of amad struggle or call for .terial or ailitary a8Bistance to such a 8truggl~. One of the basic principles of this Organization enshrined in the a.arter ls to prc.ote peaceful solutions for conflicts. &:tconcUy, we deplore the selective and inappropriate singling out of individual countries or groups of countries aB responsible for the policies pursued by SOuth AfriC6. Thirdly, we generally rellerve our position with regard to formulations which fail to take into account that only the Security Council can adopt decisions binding on Meaber States. Pourthly, we share the 'If. , that all parties enjoying support in Nambia should be allowed to take part in the palitical ~oce88 leading to the independence of Hallibia and to the e.tabliah_nt of a GoverNlfJnt through free and fail' electioMo SWAPO, in our opinion, is to be regarded as such a party, and it is CMr. Mortansen, Danllark) fund_ental that SWAOO be made part of any solution for the NaJlibia question. As lIentioned earlier, however, we have ~eservation8 concerning forllluJations which could prejudice the .result of the future electoral process in Namibia. we also wish to underline that all United Nations activities, including those of the United Nations Council for Namibia, particularly in the current strained financial situation, should be carefully scrutinized in order to secure efficient and appropriate utilization of resources. In this regard, the general rule that _etinge should not be held outside Headquarters should be adhered to. Finally tJ we note that the resolutions do not take account of the fact that the prospects for Namibia's independence seem to have improved recently as a result of the quadripartite talks. In ClOnclul5ion, the Nordic countries wish to express the hope that the combined efforts of the parties involved will finally enable the people of l~.ibia to achieve their independen~which is so long overdue. Dame Ann BERCUS (New Zealand) I New Zealand has always contended that the question of Namibia is a straightforward matter of decolonization and self-detemination. The people of Namibia have been denied their right to determine their own future by the South African regime, which illegally occupies their country in direct defiance of the rulings of the world Court, resolutions of the Security Council and the wUl of the international COJimunity as expressed in successive General Assembly resolutions. The activities of the South African regime in Namibia - its suppression of the political, social, eOOlllCllic and human rights of the Namibian people - continue to be a matter of the greatest concern to lIlY Government. For many years neN we have joined with other delegations in condemning the South African regime's·Obstinacy in the face of international calls for a peaceful settlement that will enable the (Mr. Mortensen, Den_r~) people of N.ibia to chOOllle their own Govt!rn:aent and their own future. Therefore we are hopeful that following the 1I08t reoer.t round of quadripartite talks in Geneva a CXl8Iplete and lasting 8ettlellent i8 at hand. The only measure of success acceptable to the international oo_unity will be independence for the people of N8ibia. New Zealand's approach to the question of Namibia throughout, the lClng period of South African occupation has been guided by Security Council re8olution 435 (1978) and the principles of c1eoolcnizaticn laid down in General AsseIIlbly re8o.wtions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV). It has always been my Gcwerraent's belief that the key el_ent in the deoolonization proces8 has ~n the right to self-detersination. It i8 in that ccntext that I !lust note here that, while .y delegation has 8upported resolution 43/24 B, we have reservations about aspects of that text. In particular, in accordance vi th our concern not to prejudge the outco. of the political Pl'CC88S loding to the independence of Namibia and the establishaent of an elected Gwermaent, we are obliged to record our strong reservations again8t the prejudgement made in paragraph 4 of that resolution. My Gwer..ent i8 unable to accept that there exi.ate a ·sole and authentic representative of the Hallibian people· until the people of Nallibia have lIlade that choice the_elves at the ballot box in free and fair elections. Ks. WICKBB eAu.ttalia) I Australia's oontinuing and valued ilefAbership of the ~ited Nations Council fo~ N_ibia gives us a particular ccaait.ment to Namibia'8 right to 8elf-deterllination and independence. OUr national position in support of the iJlplelllGntation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) as the only universally accepted plan for Haaibia's independence was set out in our stat.eaent in the debate yesterday, as was our belief that the international community should maintain its pressure until resolution 435 (1978) is impl_ented and Naaibian independence achieved. Given the W\iver.al .pport for the tbited Nations plant it i. disappointing that the draft resolution the ~neral A8sa-bly continues to cOnllider year after year cannot cc.laInC.1 unanimus .upport. My delegation supports the ..in thrust of the texts that the Assembly has just considered. we voted in favour of draft li:dolutions B, C, D and B. We have noted the con.iderable blprO'lMent in the texts over thOlle .ubllitte4 last year, iaprcv_ent _de by shortening the texts and r.aoving in t:CID. cues the more pol_ieal and contentious language on side i.sues that have detracted from the lDain purpose of such resolution. in the past. That i. particularly the cas. with regard to 4raft resolution B. For this reasen, ay delegation has changed ita vote as cc:.pared \)lith SC8e of the resolutions in the past. Instead of abstaining, we bave voted in favour of (lraft resolution B. 1I111e it cantain8 illpedectiona, the rellCWal of a considerable UlOmt of extr&neou& material and the consequent laprcved focus on SGcurity Council r..o~t1on 435 (1978) have enabled ay delegatlcn to cut a positive vote. Draft resolution C reflects continuing ,.fforts Of the COuncil !or Naaibia to . . exhibit .... financial restraint without 8ub8tlfttlaUy affecting delivery of ite progruae. While .. have just voted in favour of the draft resolution, we wish to place en record that there are .. nUllber of i te. tthich continue to trouble us as being .,re costly than ia necel.!~~al'Y for their succe.aful iIIpltaentation. As for draft r..oluticn At ay delegation re.tu unable to Dupport it fully, despite saee laprcwelMtnts 1n the text. It continues to contain language that we regard aa inappropriate mc1 4irtlctec:1 against celt'ta.i.n State., even when they are not directly n..4. I take the opportunity a180 to expreaa once again w.j delegation's misgivings O'1er the General Auellbly'a endoea"aent of the legitiacy of amad struggle and of (M•• Wickes, Australia) the status of the South w..t Africa ~ple's Org_batien (SWAlO) .s the oo1e and authentic repr•••ntative of the Hall!bian poople. My delagation believ.s that we mould not prejUflge the out~ of the elections in Hsibia. .BapeciaUy vi th &n election 80 tantalisingly clClle, it a..s to us all the IIOre illportant to let the electOl'al ootccae be diet.alined by :I.te sole atbitera, the people of Naaibia. It is IIY delegation's f.rvent bope that the General Aa.Bbly will bave no reason to bave before it next yo.. the s.. set of draft resolutions on Naaibia but tba.t instead we 8hall be wlc:oll!ng an independtnt Nallibia into the United Nations. CMa. Wick.., Austral~) Mr. SA~~ (Turkey)t The Turkish Government supports all efforts in favour. of the swift attainment of Namibia's complete independence, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We are also encouraged by the positive developments that have been registered recently in this area. My Government's view on this matter was expressed in the general debate. In accordance with the firm support we hmve committed ourselves to providing for the independence of Namibia, my delegation voted in favour of all the the draft r.esolutions in document A/43/24 (part 11). We are convinced that the resolutions just adopted will contribute to solving this urgent problem. We are also glad to see that these resolutions ~re shorter and more c~ncise than those adopted in past years. Nevertheless, my delegation regrets that, because of a number of controversial elementa, the draft resolutions were unable to marshal unanimous approval. My delegation has reservations with respect to some derogatory references in the resolutions. In principle, Turkey does not approve the designation of third-party States or groups of States on the basis of geographical, political or other criteria, for the purpose of criticizing them, when it is difficult to determine their respective responsibilities. Mr. KIRSCH (Canada): Again this year Canada has chosen not to enter into the substance of debates on draft resolutions on Namibia in the General Assembly and to underline this hy abstaining in principle in the votes on all five draft resolutions. As the Assembly well knows, Canada's absentions on tbese draft resolutions is a procedure that was develo~d by the Contact Group. It must not be taken to imply in any way how we might have voted on their substance. Whil~ we have reservations in some areas, there is also much in these resolutions which Canada can support, and our positions in both respects are already widely known. Raving supported last year the suggestion of a simpler approach to drafting re~olutions on Namibia, howeve~, we have noted the visible efforts made by the COuncil for Namibia in this regard. The reported developments at the Quadripartite talks in Geneva this week are most encouraging. Canada commends the parties and the mediator on completing a difficult negotiating process and hopes that the outcome will soon be confirmed. We look forward to the early, full and definitive implementation of the long-delayed Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Canada stands ready to contribute, as may be appropriate, in all aspects. The united Nations, under Security Council resolution 435 (1976), will, it is to be hoped, soon be conducting elections in Namibia. These must not only be genuinely freG and fair, but also universally seen to be so. This is the surest and shortest way to our long-cherished aim of ~elcoming a delegation from independent Namibia in the Assembly. Mr. HAJNOCZI (Austria): Austria is on record for having consistently supported t~e right of the Namibian people to self-determination, which we regard as a matter of highest priority. Being firmly commmitted to the immediate independence of Namibia, we welcome the enhanced prospects for early implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We believe that all efforts should be undertaken to follow strictly the path designed by that resolution. Austria strongly supports the main thrust of the texts submitted to the General Assembly under the item. We have noted with satisfaction that in . particular the text of draft resolution B has been changed in a very successful way in order to focus in a streamlined manner on the implementaUonof Security Council reoolution 435 (1978). Therefore, my delegation east for the first time a positive vote on this draft resolution. We also voted in favour of draft resolutions C and (Mr. Kirsch, Canada) the United Nation. Pund for Namibia, to which Auetria hae contributed for many years on • regular basis. However, we regret that we were not able to vote in th~ af!irutive on dra:lt resolution. A and D since they contain aoae provi8ione Au.tr.ia doea not support. In particular, let .. recall the followingt Austria believes thet endorsement of ar.ed struggle and calls for military as.istance are in contradiction te the guiding principles of the Charte~, as well as to our con~iction that conflicts should be resolved exclusively by peaceful meane. Purther-ere, we must g~nerally reserve our position with regard to feraulations which would prejudge the deliberations and decisicfts of the Security Council. Neither can Austria associate itself with the singling out of certain countrlo8. Finally, references to the role of the South West Afrl~a People'. Organization (SWAPO) in the various draft resolutions should not be read a8 prejudging the right of the Na8ibian people to choose its representative8 in an independent Na8ibia through free arad fair elections under United Nations superVision. In conclusion, let Me eHpres. the sincere hope of my country that this will h~ve bean the last debate on the question of Naaibla before the i~le.entationof Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Mr. DOl(; OLIVIER (Malta): Malta voted in favour of all the draft resolutions on the question of Namibia just adopted by the General Assembly because we are firmly committed to the iBRediQt~ independence of N..ibie, in accordance with Security Oouncil resolution 435 (1978). While we strongly support the main thrust of the resolutions just adopted, our positive vote should not be taken as an unaualified endorsement of all provisions contained in the texts. We understand and share the deep feeling8 of dt.appointDent and frustration of the Naaibian people at the endless delays and procrastinations which have up to now (Mr. a.incesi, AU!!ria) Nuibia. The reported results of the negotiations in Geneva betwe~n Angola, Cuba and SOuth Africa, ~ith tho M4iation of the United Statee, are very flncouraglng and we ~1C011e the positive outOOlle. We congratulate the negotiators. Xi: is our hope that the Governments concerned will now approve the agreement reached so that i~leaentattonof Security COuncil resolution 435 {l97S) can be initiated i-.diately. The GovernMent of Malta continues to aa1ntain that the best way to achieve United Nations objectives in NaMibia is through honest negotiations and constructive dialogue. Accordingly, we cannot support formulations, such as the ones contmined in draft resolution A, conte8plating recourse to arMed struggle, which is inconsistent with the func1aaental principles eDbodied in the Charter of the united Nations promoting the settle.ent of conflicts by peaceful means. Finally, I should like to add that lIlY delegation regrets that certain countries have been selectively singled out for critici.. in the draft resolutions. We do not support this practice. (Mr. Borq OliYler, Malta) Mr. BI~CH (Unitad ringdom of Great Britain and No~~hern Irela.nd): MY delegation strongly supports the view,> expressed by the re~re~entative of Greece in his statement on the draft resolutions on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community, th~t Namibia ~ust be brought to internationally recognized independence at th9 earliest possible time. We very much welcome the underst8ndlngs reached in Geneva earlier this week and hope that they will soon enable us to welcome Namibia to the United Nations family. Our interest, which we hold in common with all who. took part in the debate, lies in the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. As the General Asse~ly will know, Britain was one of the authors of the settlement plan. In order to sustain our impartiality we have traditionally declined to take a position on the substance of the draft resolutions on Namibia presented to the General Assembly. We therefore abstained in the votes that have just been taken~ We continue to have serious misgivings about several parag~aphs of t~e draft resolutions. Mr. ESSY (Cote d'Ivoire) (interpretation from French): The CSte d'Ivoire voted ~his year in favour of the draft resolution entitled wThe situation in Namibia resulting from the illegal occupation of the Territory by South Africa ft because of its objective, which is to have Security COunt:i1 resolution 435 (1978) implemented. In other words, it seeks the independence of Namibia - a· cause that we have fully supported since 1978. But the Cote d'Ivoire wants to be consistent; and so it is not able to support paragraphs 62 and 63 of this resolution because it cannot comply with the directives in these paragraphs, which do not conform to its foreign policy.

I call on Mr. Helmut Angula, Observer for the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), in accordance with General Assembly four days of our work in this Assembly have been most , ~coura9ing to the oppressed but fighting people of Namibia. The impressive number of 87 delegations participating in the debate, and the clear, firm and reasauring statements they have made, eloquently attest to the unfettered commitment by the international community to the unconditional liberation of Namibia. We are heartened by this solid show of solidarity with our just struggle for national liberation. Many statements h~ve reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence and unequivocal support fOl· the , legitimate struggle of our people, by all means at our dJsposal, including the armed struggle under the leadersh~p of SWAPO, their sole and authentic repres~ntative, to end racist South Africa's Illegal occupation, colonialism, brutal repression and exploitation. In their renewed appeals for the immediate and unconditional implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) membera have highlighted the urgent international demand and, indeed, the demands of our people that Namibia's independence must take effect without further delay. On Tuesday, 15 November, while the Assembly was busily deliberating on the quesbon of Namibia, it came to our knowledge that an agreement had been reached i.n Geneva at the quadripartite talks. We are still ~aitlng for the details of that agreement. It was obvious from the Geneva announcement that the ball WBS now SQUdrely in the court of the Pretoria regime to proceed with the prOVisions of the New York quadr.ipartite principles ratified by the Gove~nments of Angola, Cuba and South Africa. The attention of the w~rld is thus now focused on the Pretoria regime for it to honour its side of the bargain by accepting the immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) so that the coming year may see the birth of the new independent State of Namibia. Even without waiting to study the details of the agreement reached in Geneva, Pretoria haa already made known its intention. The comment by pik Botha, the racist Fore!gn Minister of South Africa, on the outcome of the Geneva informal discussion is quite telling. In Pretoria·s view the outcome of the talks is not agreements but proposals put forward by Angola and Cuba, which the Government of South Africa will study carefully before mnking any pronouncement. Such a cynical utterance by the racist Minister, who, in our view, should have been the one to sell the accord to his colleagues in the Cabinet, gives reason for doubt as to whether the said agreement will indeed receive the approval of the apartheid regime. As the representative of India put it the other day when addressing this Assembly, South Africa must be judged not by our hope but by our experience. Nevertheless, SWAPO for its part is ready immediately to translate the existing truce between our liberation forces and South African occupation troops into a formal cease-fire. SWAPO is ready to sign a cease-fire with South Africa in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978) provided Pretoria is prepared to do likewise. In the light of what I have said, the adoption of five important draft resolutions by the General Assembly and its approval of the programme of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia must be seen as a r~minder to apartheid South Africa that the united Nations will remain seized of the Nnmibian question until genuine independenee is achieved. It must be said that this debate took place against the background of firm opposition by South Africa and its allies, who, after failing to have the debate postponed, sought, on flimsy ground, to obstruct in the voting. TO be sure, they have not givon up their sinister activities. They will seek, as in the past, to frustrate the prcgra... of work of the COuncil by underaining its imple..ntation, ostonsibly to uphold the spirit of iapartiality, even though no enabling resolution ~8 yet been adopted by the Security Council. It ia with this in mind that we urge the United Nations COuncil for Namibia i...diately to consult with the Secretary-General with a view to testing the l~rtiality of the South African r'gime in the implementation process - a r'gime which we realize is known more for its victimization of the Namibian people than for de.ccratic principles or impartiality. Onee again the racist r'gime in Pretoria was strongly condemned for its blatant contempt, defiance and outright violation of decisions and resolutions of the United Nations and for preventing Namibia's independence. Certainly we are not indifferent to those delegations who for all these yaars have aeen fit to object to the concept of armed struggle when it is applied tu national liberation mav.ments fighting against colonialism, racism and white supremists in Africa, yet stop at nothing in giving the most sophisticated arms in their military arsenals to the counter-revolutionariee in Asia, Africa and Latin AMerica fighting against progressive Governments. (Mr.. Angula, SWAPO) In'the same vein, it Is incomprehensible and sheer hypocrisy to object to the designation of SWAPO as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people when it is common knowledge that those same States recognized a host of Governments-in-exile opposed to fascist occupation during the Second World War and that very often leaders of those same countrie~ have received counter-revolutionary leaders at a high level. On a happy note let me whole-heartedly thank those delegations which voted in favour of the draft resolutions recommended by the united Nations Council for Namibia. Our thanks go to the Council for Namibia, in particular its President, Ambassador Peter Zuze, for remaining steadfast and true to the original aims and objectives of the Council. We go away from here fortified by the knowledge that the international community remains solidly behind us in our struggle until final victory is achieved. We endorse th~ recommendation of the Secretary-General that the General Assembly appoint Mr. Bernt Carlsson United Nations Commissioner for Namibia for an additional period of one year. Finally we should like to assure delegations that we shall do all that is necessary to eneure the total liberation of our land and our people. While still challenging the Pretoria regime to agree to sign a cease-fire for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), we remain equally ready, in the event that racist South Africa continues to reject this offer, to take on and intensify our struggle until that day when Namibia joins the community of nations as a sovereign and indepe~dent State. Until then, the struggle continues. Victory is certain. ~e PRESIDENT: This concludes our consideration of agenda item 29. (Mr. Angula, SWAPO)