S/36/PV.64 Security Council

In accordance with the announce- ment made yesterday [63rd meeting], I propose that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed this afternoon at 5 o'clock. May I take it that there is no ob- jection to that proposal?

I call first on the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Mr. Lusaka of NEW YORK Zambia, who will introduce the report of the Council [A/36/24]. 3. Mr. LUSAKA (Zambia), President of the United Na- tions Council for Namibia: Since this is the first time I am addressing the General Assembly during the current session, I should like, on ber-I £ of the United Nations Council for Namibia, to congratl..e Mr. Ismat Kittani of Iraq on his election to the high office of President of the General Assembly. His wealth of experience and diplo- matic skill give us the assurance of a successful session. 4. I should like also to express our great appreciation to the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts to ensure the implementation of the decisions of the United Nations. 5. For many years now, the sufferings of the people of Namibia have claimed the attention of the international community and that of the United Nations. In attempting at all costs to keep Namibia under its control, the racist regime of Pretoria has ignored the numerous General As- sembly resolutions and Security Council decisions and is attempting to consolidate its presence in the Territory; it is stepping up the terrorism practised against its popula- tion and unscrupulously plundering its natural resources. 6. All these acts are in blatant contradiction of the norms of international law and are perpetrated not with the actual strength of the regime itself but rather with the broad political, economic and military assistance and sup- port which it receives from outside. 7. Since the termination of the ~andate, the General Assembly and the Security Council have adopted numer- ous resolutions demanding that South Africa withdraw from Namibia. In an advisory opinion given on 21 June 1971,' the International Court of Justice stated that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was ille- gal, that South Africa was under obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately, and that States Members of the United Nations were under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and to refrain from any acts and dealings with South Africa with regard to Namibia. Faced with the arrogant defiance of South Africa, the General Assembly and the Security Council called upon States Members to take specific measures to co-operate in the implementation of United Nations decisions on Namibia and to support and promote the rights of the people of Namibia. Furthetmore, the General Assembly recognized the South West Africa Peo- ple's Organization (SWAPO) as the sole" and authentic representative of the Namibian people, and supported the legitimacy of their armed struggle under the leadership of SWAPO. 8. The United Nations Council for Namibia, in its Pan- ama Declaration, adopted on 5 June this year [ibid., para. 222], condemned South Africa's continued illegal occupa- tion of Namibia, its brutal repression of the Namibian people, its efforts to destroy the national unity and ter- ritorial integrity of the Territory and its persistent refusal 9. It will be recalled that the Security Council consid- ered the question of Namibia from 21 to 30 April 1981.2 However, despite the will of the international community in favour of imposing sanctions against South Af- rica in view of the threat which that regime poses to inter- national peace and security, the Council failed to act in conformity with its mandate and to impose sanctions be- cause of the triple veto cast by three Western permanent members. 10. By refusing to vote in favour of sanctions, the West- ern powers, without actually saying so, demonstrated their support for South Africa's policies towards Namibia and gave it political encouragement to continue its illegal oc- cupation of the Territory and to pursue its war against the Namibian people and against the independent African States. In other words, the triple veto was cast not to facilitate the independence of the Namibian people but to strengthen the hand of the illegal occupying Power, thus inc~asing_further t~e agony- 9f the Namibian people. The three negative votes in the .Security Council only gave comfort to the regime that has flouted, time and again, every resolution of this Organization on the question of Namibia. 11. While diplomatic efforts are being made, the Coun- cil for Namibia is extremely disturbed by the ongoing usage of Namibia as a springboard for aggression against and occupation of Angola. As the world remembers, on 25 August this year South African forces launched a full- scale" invasion into the front-line State of Angola, involv- ing more than 1,000 troops and mercenaries and vast amounts of military hardware, much of it supplied by the West. Their action marked the culmination of a series of daily raids and other acts of aggression. 12. The South African invasion has in fact been trans- formed into an occupation. The racist regime of South Africa has made it clear that it has no intention of getting out of Angola. let alone Namibia, unless it is forced to do so. What we see here is an attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent African coun- try; we see a crime against peace, perpetrated by the apartheid regime with the complicity of certain Powers which have always aided and abetted the aggressor in im- plementing a severe breach of international law. 13. In response to a request from Angola, the Security Council met from 28 to 31 August 19813 to consider' South Africa's latest act of aggression but was unable, on" account of the veto by the United States, to exercise its responsibilities with respect to the maintenance of interna- tional peace and security. Once again, in vetoing and even abstaining on a resolution of condemnation in the Security Council-a resolution which simply identified South Africa as the aggressor and as a danger to interna- tional peace and security-it was intended to send a clear message of protection and encouragement to the racist re- gime of Pretoria. 15. The United Nations Council for Namibia, although it has not discussed the matter, is naturally paying great attention to the current discussions relating to whnt are called constitutional principles for Namibia. The Council does believe that no more time should be lost befcre the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The· international community cannot negotiate with South Africa in perpetuity. In this regard, I wish to stress, on behalf of the Council for Namibia, that the right to decide how independent Namibia shall be governed belongs to the people of Namibia and to no one else. 16. I now have the honour to introduce the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia containing the rec- ommendations of the Council, together with their finan- cial implications. Part one of the report deals with the work of the Council as a policy-making organ of the United Nations; part two deals with the work of the Council as the legal Administering Authority for Namibia; part three deals with the organization of work and the decisions of the Council; and part four deals with recommendations and activities having financial implica- tions. . 17. The draft resolutions contained in part four were worked out on the basis of the resolutions already adopted by the General Assembly in the past and taking into ac- count developments on the question of Namibia during the past year. 18. Unlike those .of previous years, this year's draft res- olutions have taken on a new flavour and a new impor- tance because of the decisions taken at the eighth emer- gency special session of the General Assembly, devoted to the question of Namibia. They are fewer and more compact, with important features. The main draft resolu- tion. which deals with the situation in Namibia resulting from the illegal occupation of the Territory by South Af- rica, seeks to assess the situation in and around Namibia and to bring in items which are of current interest. 19. In accordance with the decisions taken at the eighth emergency special session, draft resolution B, entitled '~ction by Member States in support of Namibia", calls for a total boycott of South Africa by Member States; it further indicates to Member States th~ir obligations in ac- cordance with the decisions of the emergency special ses- sion on different items and the actions that they might take in implementing the decisions of the General Assem- bly. 20. The other draft resolutions-C, D, E and F-relate to the work of the Council itself: its work programme, the new venture being undertaken to monitor the boycott of South Africa and how the Council will be able to do so; 21. The implications for the international community are quite clear. As crises become more acute in southern Africa, it is for this international body to redouble its efforts: first, tl) win wider recognition of the legitimacy of the liberation struggle in Namibia as the decisive force for change; secondly, to challenge the policies of collab- oratiu~ bdng pursued by' certain Western Powers and bring about their reversal; and, thirdly, to ensure the total isolation of South Africa through the imposition of com- prehensive mandatory sanctions by the Security Council. I am confident that the General Assembly will once again demonstrate its strong support for the genuine indepen- dence of Namibia.

I now call on the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of In- dependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Mr. Frank Abdulah of Trinidad and Tobago, who will comment on the report of the Special Committee [A/36/23/Rev./. chaps. I-VI and VIII). 23. Mr. ABDULAH (Trinidad and Tobago), Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonfal Countries and Peoples: "In March4 and Septembet of this year, the General Assem- bly considered in depth the continuing criminal injustice inflicted upon the Namibian people by South Africa. In April,2 the Security Council also gave its close attention to the question, albeit without coming up with a desired solution. 24. As described just now so succinctly by the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, my brother and friend Mr. Paul Lusaka, the Council for Namibia has, with the assistance and close co-operation of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, continued to give ex- tensive consideration throughout the year to every aspect of the question. In addition, the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence tq Colonial Countries and Peoples has, within the context of the im- plementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Inde- pendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)], also reviewed the devastating situation in the Territory which has fast assumed crisis proportions. 25. Resulting from those considerations, the General Assembly, the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee have once again adopted by an overwhelming majority of their respective membership, if not with unanimity, a series of key recommendations de- signed to put an irreversible end to this illegality. this ~ 27. It has often been asked, both within and outside the Organization, why adopt so many resolutions? Why re- turn to debating and adopting resolutions so soon after the holding of an emergency special session? Have we not a plethora of unimplemented provisions already? I wou.ld be less than candid if I did not admit that I, for one, would have been in a quandary in determining the effectiveness of our own action in the various diplomatic endeavours if, while visiting Africa as a member of the Special Commit- tee some years ago, I had not had occasion to benefit from a discussion on the matter with the Secretary-Gen- eral of PAIGC,6 the late Amilcar Cabral, and with the President of FRELIMO,' the late Eduardo Mondlane. 28. Those two most dynamic leaders of the liberation struggle, who sacrificed their lives for the freedom of the peoples of their countries, had this to say: "My brother, we are most grateful for your concern and deeply appreciative of your frustration. We are fully aware of the inherent limitation of Members in delivering the desired results in our favour. Our free- dom will come one day, no matter at what cost. The people of our country are being indiscriminately bombed with napalm, murdered in cold blood and driven to starvation, but our struggle will never cease. We know in our heart that the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world are supporting us and we derive hope for our future from you and other Members of the Organization who are spearheading our cause on the United Nations front." 29. It is for this cause that our endeavours within the Organization must be intensified. We must ensure that the lives of Namibian patriots, like the lives of the two pa- triots whose wise words I have just quoted, are not sacri- ficed in vain. We reiterate our demand for immediate, full and unconditional compliance by South Africa with Se- curity Counci~ resoiutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). We demand the immediate and unconditional implementation of resolution 435 (1978) in particular. We demand an end to the aggressive and irresponsible actions of the South African regime against the territorial integrity and sov- ereignty of neighbouring States. We once again call for the imposition against South Africa of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to compel that illegal occupier of the international Territory of Namibia to comply with the de- cisions of the Security Council and to cease its open de- fiance of the will of the world community. 30. No less crucial is the pressing need to provide an increased level of support to the struggling people of Namibia and their sole and authentic national liberation movement, SWAPO. The international community has a particular responsibility to ensure that through the Nation- hood Programme for Namibia and the United Nations In- stitute for Namibia all possible steps are taken to offer the maximum training opportunities for the people in prepar- 32. I should at this juncture like to reiterate that, for the spirit of accommodation, patience and statesmanship con- tinuously demonstrated by them, the leaders of SWAPO deserve our warmest tribute. For our part, we in the Spe- cial Committee promise once more to give them our full support in their struggle to achiev.e the goal of a free, democratic and independent Namibia. 33. On behalf of the Special Committee, I wish to pay a particular -tribute to the United Nations Council for Namibia for the effectiveness with which it has continued to carry out its important task under the leadership of Mr. Lusaka of Zambia. It goes without saying that the Council should continue to be given the full co-operation of an Member States so that it can continue to discharge its responsibilities' with even greater effectiveness. 34. I should like to conclude by expressing my confi- dence that under the President's leadership and guidance, and thanks to his skill, wisdom and diplomacy, the work of the Assembly at this session will make a further posi- tive contribution towards ending the present situation in Namibia. '.

In pursuance of General Assem- bly resolution 31/152, I now call on the Observer for SWAPO.

Once again I have the distinct privilege and . honour, on behalf of the oppressed people of Namibia, to bring warm greetings and felicitations to the United Nations, which has embraced the sacred cause of Namibia's independence as its own cause, to the Secre- tary-General, whose tireless efforts to bring aboat the speedy decolonization of our country we very much ap- preciate, and to Mr. Ismat Kittani on his brilliant unan- imous election as President of the thirty-sixth session. SWAPO wishes him well in his difficult task of guiding this important debate and all the current deliberations to a successful conclusion. 37. Speaking for the embattled patriots of Namibia, who are waging an heroic struggle against the most vicious and brutal fascist dictatorship of South Africa, SWAPO is gratified that the General Assembly is debating the ques- tion of Namibia in the full context of the critical situation in and around occupied Namibia. I shculd like to point out that, contrary to the rampant propaganda campaign of disinformation and misrepresentation conducted by some countries and their mass media regarding the alleged pro- gress on a Namibian settlement, the South African racists have so far not given any clear indication of accepting the early implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Nobody has so far been able to convince us of, or . put forward a report on, racist South Africa's clear and categorical commitment to the achievement of early. and genuine independence for Namibia. 39. When we at times insist, as we have done lAefore this debate, that the United Nations should neither relin- quish its special responsibility for Namibia until total lib- eration is achieved there nor allow an unfortunate situa- tion to arise in which that responsibility would be usurped by tho~e whose involvement through the years has been solely in support of apartheid, colonialism and illegal oc- cupation, which resulted in immense suffering, repression and the exploitation of our struggling people, it is because we want to maximize world public opinion against the Boers. 40. SWAPO, as an organization of revolutionary mili- tants operating on the principle of a protracted people's struggle~ does not consider the numerous resolutions and decisions, as well as the political statements by friendly countries, as being a mere conglomeration of printed waste paper. Rather, we see the work of the Assembly. which, in effect, represents the global consensus of pro- gressive humankind, as well as the positive contributions of all the various other organs of the United Nations, as being supplementary to the efforts of the Namibian pa- triots themselves more effectively to resist apartheid bru- talities and illegal occupation by the Pretoria racists, who serve as the front-line managers and protectors of the for- eign interests of the major Powers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] and their giant transnational corporations engaged in the plunder of our natural re- sources and the ruthless exploitation of cheap African la- bour. 41. We know that those who profess to care about the lot of the Africans in Namibia and South Africa are the very ones that shamelessly reap huge profits througn the exploitation of cheap African labour. Those are people whose record of involvement in southern Africa shows not only collusion with the racist Boers but also a policy which puts mineral rights and profits above human rights. freedom and social justice. 42. We come back to the United Nations time and again because we believe it stands for the noble ideals of free- dom, justice and self-determination for which we are making sacrifices in Namibia. But let there be no mistake about our position. We have not accepted the United Na- tions as our partner in the struggle our of desperation or because we are not certain about eventual victory in Namibia. Rather, we consider the Organization to be the collective expression of the commitment of the over- whelming majority of its Member States, which, in spite of the sabotage and diversionary manoeuvres of certain recalcitrant friends of the racist Boers, continue to support colonized peoples and countries everywhere until they re- gain freedom, the right to self-determination and ttational sovereignty. In this regard. the United Nations record of 43. Perhaps this generous observation about the positive contribution of the United Nations to the decolonization procefis might sound parado;dcal coming from a Nami- bian whose people have been yearning for liberation for far too long, and indeed during the past 36 years since the inception of the United Nations itself. 44. I should like to point out a few salient facts about our patriotic struggle. First, just like the rest of Africa, Namibia as a European colony-a German colony-dates back' to that infamous Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, which was devoted to the scramble for Africa and which re~ulted in the subsequent vicious colonial policies of al- ienation of th~ peoples. from their ancestral lands; the sei- zure of property and livestock; the imposition of a migrant or contract labour system; the creation of the so-called native reserves, which are today called homelands or ban- tustans, in order to provide a ready source of cheap la- bour; the enactment of cruel colonial acts based on mas- ter-servant relations and white supremacy and, above all, the systematic practice of genocide to exterminate entire African communities, resulting in the permanent exile of many generations of Namibians. That is but a glimpse of the m'ilst sordid colonial legacy left by the German colo- nialh;ts. 45. Namibians hoped that the defeat of imperial Ger- many during the First World War would bring about a change for the better. They were mistaken and disap- pointed. Actually, it was a case of getting out of the fry- ing pan only to land in the fire. No sooner had the racist Boors taken over the effective administration of Namibia, which their forces invaded in 1915, than they transferred their repressive system to Namibia lock, stock and barrel. 46. Thus, for the past 66 years, our people have known only apartheid repression, police brutality, arbitrary mass arrests and imprisonment in Gestapo-like gaols and other concentration and torture centres throughout the country. Today Namibia is ruled by the Pretoria regime in an at- mosphere of a state of emergency, which has been in force since 1972; it has been further buttressed by the martial law now covering more than two thirds of the country. The white minority~ of which the Afrikaner ter- rorists are the dominant factor, monopolizes absolute power over the lives of our enslaved people in their own fatherland; the economic wealth, which is enormous, ben- efits only the white minority and the foreign monopoly capitalists; political power is controlled by the colonial agents of South Africa; Africans, who are united under the patriotic banner of SWAPO, their sole authentic repre- sentative, are persecuted and vir.timized; and African workers have no legal right to strike, nor are genuine Af- rican trade unions allowed legal existence. In'addition to all these crimes against the Namibian people, which af- fect all aspects of their lives-economic, political, social, cultural, educational and religious-the racist ()('~upiers have during the past several years imposed one unilateral measure after another, institutionalized various illegal acts and created bogus legislative and executive entities, all serving the interests of Pretoria and foreign explOIters. 47. I have endeavoured to give this factual background in order to stress the point that the real culprits and obsta- 4~ It follows, therefore, that the inscription on the agenda of the question of Namibia each year for the past 36 years, together with the accompanying deliberations, has been both important and necessary. Why? Because our oppressed people, who have already suffered so much but who nevertheless are still prepared to continue to wage a protracted people's struggle do, indeed, find in this inspiration and encouragement to carry on with the struggle until victory. 49. Namibian patriots are able to see the difference be- tween the racists, the puppets and their supporters, 'on the one hand, and a much larger community of nations, peo- ples, and progressive and democratic forces, on the other 'hand. The statements made by the representatives of friendly countries in the debate reassure our people that they are not alone. The resolutions and decisions adopted at the end of the debate are more than a symbolic gesture of solidarity: they constitute a firm basis for collective action with a view to isolating the racists and exposing their collaborators. It is for that reason that SWAPO was satisfied with the outcome of the eighth emergency spe- cial session of the General Assembly, devoted to Namibia, held from 3 to 14 September last. We also know that the other side is always worried whenever these kinds of meetings take place-not for the ridiculous rea- sons publicly stated, but for fear that they will be exposed and condemned for their duplicity and hypocrisy. In this context, SWAPO supports the imporotant work being done by the United Nations Council for Namibia under the dy- namic leadership of Mr Lusaka of Zambia. We fully as- sociate ourselves with the statements just made by the President of the Council and the Chairman of the Special Committee, ~vt:. Abdulah of Trinidad and Tobago. We en- dorse the reports and the recommendations of the two United Nations bodies which devote their activities to the decolonization of Namibia and other occupied colonial Territories. 50. May I now proceed to another point, namely, the contention that we should spare no effort in embracing the latest diplomatic initiative, lest a failure to give our consent right away should lead to the abandonment of the so-called negotiating process, now being spearheaded by a powerful friend and ally of apartheid South Africa. I need to say something about this. NatumHy, it would be a good thing if all the nations in the United Nati~!1s system could be faithful to the United Nations principled position on Namibia and assist it in a vigorous manner towards the rapid decolonization of our country. But what we hear are mere lam~ excuses and verbal acrobatics. We are neither impressed nor convinced. 51. The current position is that the Security Council has already adopted an independence formula on Namibia, which incorporates a settlement proposal drafted by the five Western Powers themselves and the implementation plan endorsed by Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This is the only plan which must be implemented in its . final and definitive form and without any further delay, prevarication, amendment, modification, qualification or dilution. SWAPO stands by its undertaking, given to the Secretary-General in 1978, that we are ready to co-oper- ate with him and his stllff in the implementation process. On the occasion of the pre-implementation meeting, held 52. It is clear, if only on the basis of the past four years of dealing with the Pretoria outlaws, that there is no Hmit to their demands. But we also want to state that we have long since reached the ultimate limit beyond which we cannot make any further concessions in terms of resolu- tion 435 (1978) without irreparably destroying the letter and the spirit of that resolution. 53. Namibians have always known that the South Af- rican racists regard Namibia as a territorial, economic, political, cultural, social, stra~egic, military and psycho- logical extension of the apartheid republic. In this sense, the Afrikaner mentality sees Namibia as being qualitatively different from all the other countries border- ing on South Africa. If representatives will take the trou- ble of familiarizing themse}ves with the actual situation in Namibia, they will, I believe, come to the obvious con- clusion that South Africa is not planning to leave Namibia, but rather is entrenching itself, not only through a neo-colonial set-up, but through actual control by means of a massive military force, police and racist-white-minor- ity-settler sections of the population. 54. In the circumstances, it is most strange that Pre- toria, through its friends and the mass media, where the regime spends millions of dollars, should try to dictate to the United Nations and the rest of us the entrenchment of certain I,;-onstitutional guarantees for the white racists and expoiters in Namibia. Well, we accept the challenge that the Boers refuse to leave our country; we also know that they are armed to the teeth, thanks to their major NATO allies. We think, too, that they may already possess nu- clear weapons; if not, they certainly do have a nuclear- weapons capability, again thanks to their good friends in the so-called free world. But there is absolutely no reason why. we should be expected to surrender or be frightened into accepting national political suicide. The reality of South Africa's strategy, which is being put forward through public relations activities, means no genuine indepen- dence in Namibia-the bottom line being: no SWAPO government in any circumstances. This is a matter of public record. In other words, the Namibian people are being sold down the river by way of secret talks and by various otper means. And SWAPO is actually being asked to make further concessions which will lead to a situation ensuring defeat for SWAPO. 55. Do people sincerely believe that the racists have taken a hard look at Namibia and decided to get out? You cannot give a big, juicy carrot to racist South Africa, call it a friend, an ally and an indispensable actor in the re- gion and, at the same time, expect a firm commitment that it will leave Namibia, which is what has been lacking since 1978. Concerted world-wide pressure through total economic sanctions must be the instrument used to bring South Africa to its senses. 56. If we are all agreed that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the only basis for a solution, then no action should be taken that would have the effect of tampering with its provisions. We should be talking about specific dates for a cease-fire agreement and for the commence- ment of the United Nations operations inside Namibia as already provided for in the United Nations plan. 58. Until that certain victory which SWAPO is destined to score through the bullet or the ballot, we can only pledge to our friends and supporters that we shall even- tually vindicate the trust and confidence that the United Nations has so generously reposed in us, by liberating Namibia. Then, we shall be able to join forces as an in- dependent nation with the other Member States of the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity and the non-aligned movement, to extend the hands of friend- ship and militant solidarity to the heroic people of South Africa, who, today, under the leadership of the African National Congress, have intensified the armed phase of their revolutionary struggle, as they march towards that decisive day of ending apartheid and establishing a multi- racial, democratic State in that great country. Our fra- ternal ties and militant solidarity go no less to the courageous people of Palestine, led by the Palestine Liber- ation Organization, in their heroic patriotic struggle which runs parallel with our own, until they hoist their own flag on the Palestinian soil as a sovereign nation. 59.. In conclusion, may I, on behalf of the struggling Namibian people. launch an urgent appeal from this ros- trum that all-round practical support ·and assistance be given to the front-line States, which are being victimized by the murderous gangs of the fascist dictatorship of Pre- toria-in particular, the People's Republic of Angola, whose people, Government and .party have put their own precious lives, facilities and resources at our disposal to intensify the struggle. Such internationalist, collective as- sistance will, indeed, contribute positively to the ending of apartheid, colonial, illegal occupation and regional im- perialist expansionism in southern Africa. 60. The struggle continues. Victory is certain.

India's principled and consis- tent position on the question of Namibia has been stated on several occasions, particularly recently, when the ques- tion was considered by the Security Council8 and by the General Assembly at its eighth emergency special ses- sion.9 62. We have repeatedly stated the following. The in- alienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determina- tion, freedom and national independence.in a united Namibia should be secured. Namibia is the direct respon- sibility of the United Nations. We support the United Na- tions Council for Namibia in the discharge of the respon- sibilites entrusted to it. SWAPO, the national liberation movement of Namibia, is the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. We" support the armed ~t!!!,ggle of the Namibian people as a legitimate weapon to achieve freedom and nationr- independence. We strongly con- demn the South African regime for its continued' illegal occupation of Namibia and for its persistent refusal to 63. Having stated those cardinal principles over and over again, and having contributed our mite to the efforts of the international communiiy for the realization of the objectives of the United Nations with regard to Namibia, we wish to address ourselves during this debate to certain myths and misconceptions that have been churned out by the propaganda machine of South Africa and its support- ers. It is neCes};cl1Y to deal with them now more than ever before, because Hlese myths and misconceptions are being used by South Africa to camouflage its plan to perpetuate its control over Namibia.. 64. First, South Africa seeks to give the impression that its acceptance of the United Nations plan in 1978 was a major concession. But in actual fact it was SWAPO, the front-line States and the United Nations that made sub- stantial concessions in accepting the plan presented by the five Western countries. With the termination of South Af- rica's Mandate over Namibia in 1966 [resolution 2/45 (XXI)] and the establishment of the United Nations Coun- cil for Namibia in 1967 [resolution 2248 (S-V)] , the United Nations took the unprecedented step of assuming direct control over the Territory with a view to enabling it to proceed to independence. At that very moment, South- Africa ceased to have any legal authority over Namibia, and its status was transformed from that of a trustee into that of an illegal occupying Power. It was therefore the United Nations that made a major concession when it ex- pressed readiness to negotiate with the s~me illegal re- gime. 65. Similarly, by endorsing the plan for an election that would give all the parties in Namibia an equal oppor- tunity to seek the popular mandate, the General Assembly relented from its position that SWAPO was the sole au- thentic representative of the Namibian people. In fact, the United Nations plan bestowed on South Africa the status of an administering Power over Namibia while the Gen- eral Assembly had removed the status from it several years ago. SWAPO, which had already earned the status of the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia and had won victories in its armed struggle, willingly made a compromise on its status and expre:;sed readiness to sign a ceasefire agreement, to withdraw to designated bases and to take part in the elections on an equal footing with other parties. 71. South Africa has also created the impression that the implementation of the United Nations plan has been held up because implementation in its present form would jeopardize the interests of minorities inside Namibia and also the independent nations around it. History has ~ught us that every nation can find its own methods of dealing with its internal problems after the withdrawal of the colonial Power. Invariably, a period of reconciliation fol- lows the exit of the aggressor. Efforts made by the colo- nial Powers in the past to safeguard what they perceived to be the interests of minorities led only to bloodshed a~ chaos. Constitutional principles and pious declarations are 67. Another myth that South Africa bandies about at will, particularly when all its other arguments appear ex- 66. On the other hand, South Africa's acceptance of the United Nations plan involved no major compromise, no concession. It was no concession to the United Nations that South Africa expressed willingness to hand over the administration to an elected government in Namibia; in- deed, it is an affront to the United Nations that South Africa has so far not agreed to facilitate the holding of such elections. b8. In the struggle between justice and injustice, the United Nations would' naturally support justice. How can the United Nations, which was established to seek justice for humanity, be impartial with regard to right 'and wrong? How can the United Nations be impartial ~ith regard to the repressive regime of South Africa and the oppressed people of Namibia? Had it not been for the declared partiality of the United Nations towards the just cause of the people of Namibia, their rig~ts would have been trampled upon indefinitely by their unscrupulous op- pressors. But that partiality should not cause aspersions to be cast on the ability of the United Nations to supervise and control an election in Namibia, as proposed in the United Nations plan. At present, the people of Namibia are victims of aggression; they are pitched against the mighty military machine of South Africa. 69. Though the whole-hearted support that the United Nations has given to the people of Namibia has not yet enabled them to secure their inalienable right, the support has at least promoted their cause internationally and equipped them with the ability to assume the respon- sibilities of independence. But, once the stage has been set for fair elections and South Africa ceases to terrorize the people of Namibia, it will no longer be necessary for the United Nations to take sides. Indeed there will be no sides to take because the elections will be fought among the Namibians themselves. The United Nations has no reason to prefer one Namibian to another. 70. Yet another misconception that has emerged in re- cent months is that the so-called internal partie-:o in Namibia are speaking for themselves and that South Af- rica has no control over what they say or do. Such a misconception has been created by organizing puppet groups, holding fraudulent elections and seeking to confer legitimacy on the agents of the South African regime. We witne~sed an attempt at the meeting held at Geneva in January this year to divert attention from South Africa to these groups, which claimed equal status with SWAPO. It is clear for everyone that these groups echo their masters' voice t.-,j merely respond to the pulls on the strings that connect them to their South African rulers. If the strength of these groups was significant, the legitimate course open to them would be to contest the elec..tions. No amount of propaganda or the assumption of impressive designations will ever bring them international recogni- tion. ~ 73: These myths and misconceptions systematically propagated by Pretoria and its friends have clouded the vision of the short-sighted and confused the thinking of the jll-infonn~. But the vast majority of the Members of the United Nations have remained steadfast in their pur- suit of the goal of liberating Namibia and have extended their principled support to SWAPO. We are confident that victory is certain for the people of Namibia, however long and arduous the struggle may be. 74. turning to the report of the Council for Namibia [A/36/24], my delegation can endorse it whole-heartedly as we not only participated actively in all the activities described therein, but also helped to formulate its conclu- sions and recommendations. Under the able guidance of its President, Mr. Paul Lusaka of Zambia, the Council has succeeded in fulfilling its mandate despite the indifference and even open hostility to it displayed in certain quarters. Unfortunately. the reverberations of the worsening interna- tional situation have begun to echo within the Council. India has endeavoured to work within the Council solely in the interests of Namibia as we perceive them. We were privileged to r~ceive in India a mission of consultation of the United Nations Council for Namibia this year. As the Prime Minister of India, Shrimati Indira Gandhi, told the Council mission clearly, India will consider her own polit- ical freedom incomplete until Namibia attains genuine na- tional independence.

We turn now to draft resolution Ill, entitled "Mobilization of personal savings". The Sec- ond Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to do so? g5. The PRESIDENT: We turn next to draft resolution lV, entitled "Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2()()()". The Second Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? -

We turn now to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 69 (h). 87. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Second Committee. The Committee adopted that draft resolution, entitled "Techni-=- cal co-operation among developing countries", without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do so also?

I now invite the Assembly to turn its attention to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 71 (b) and (c), in which the Second Com- mittee recommends the adoption of a draft resolution and a draft decision. 89. The draft resolution, which is entitled "United Nations University", was adopted by the Second Com- mittee without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to do so?

The draft decision, which is entitled "Unified approach to development analysis and planning", was adopted by the Second Committee with- out a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly will now consider subitem (b) of agenda item 17 concerning the election of 20 members of the Gpverning Council of 93. I should like to remind members that, after 1 Janu- ary 1982, the following States will still be meml>ers of the Governing Council of UNEP: Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Egypt,Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Netherlands, New'Zea- land, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Venez~l­ ela, Yugoslavia and Zaire. Therefore, those 38 States are not eligible for election. 94. May I remind members that, under decision 34/40I, the General Assembly agreed that the practice of dispens- ing with the secret ballot for elections to subsidiary organs when the number of candidates corresponds to the number of seats to be filled should become standard, un- less a delegation specifically requests a vote on a given election. 95. I should like to announce that the chairmen of the regional groups have informed me of the following can- didatures: for the six seats from Africa: Botswana, Bur- undi, Guinea, Morocco, Senegal and United Republic of Tanzania; for the four seats from Asia: Afghanistan, in- dia, Oman and Thailand; {cr the two seats from Eastern Europe: Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and Po- land; for the four seats from Latin America: Colombia, Jamaica, Mexico and Uruguay; and for the four seats from Western Europe and other States: Canada, Greece, Spain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 96. Since th~ number of candidates endorsed by each group corresponds to the number of seats to be filled in that group, I declare those candidates elected members of the Governing Council of UNEP for a three-year term be- ginning on I January 1982. Afghanistan, Botswana, Burundi, the Byelorussian So- viet Socialist Republic, Canada, Colombia, Greece, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Morocco, Oman, Po- land, Senegal, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Uruguay were elected members of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1982 (decision 361314).

I congratulate the countries which have been ele~ted members of the Governing Council of UNEP. (d) Election of seven members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination

We turn now to subitem (d).of agenda item 17, concerning the election.of ~ev~~. mem- 99. The following candidates have been nominated by the Economic and Social Council: for the seat from the Asian States: Pakistan; for the seat from the Latin Amen-- can States: Trinidad and Tobago; for the two seats from the socialist States of Eastern Europe: Romania and Yugoslavia; and for the three seats from Western Euro- pean and other States: Germany, Federal Republic of, Netherlands, Norway and United Kingdom of Great Brit- ain and Northern Ireland. 100. The jlumber of States nominated from among the Asian States, the Latin American States and the socialist States of Eastern Europe is equal to the number of seats allocated to each of those groups. In accordance with de- cision 34/40I, I take it that the Assembly wishes to de· clare those States elected members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination for a three-year term be- ginning on I January !982.

Since the number of Statet nominated from among the Western European and other States is greater than the number of vacancies in this group, we shall proceed to an election. 102. Ballot papers are being distributed indicating the number of States to be elected for the group of Western European and other States. Only the countries nominated by the Economic and Social Council are eligible during the balloting. These are: Germany, Federal Republic of, Netherlands, Norway and United Kingdom of Great Brit- ain and Northern Ireland. I should like to stress that onl) the names of these countries should be written on the bal- lot papers. 103. In accordance with existing practice, the countries receiving the largest number of votes and not less than the majority required wm be declzrtd elected. In the event of a tie for the last place, there will be a restricted ballot limited to those countries that have obtained an equal number of votes. May I take it that the General Assembly agrees to that procedure?

The result of the voting for the election of three members of the Committee for Pro- gramme and Co-ordination from the group of Western Eu- ropean and other States is ~u: f"llows. Number of ballot papers: 150 Number of invalid ballots: 0 Number of valid ballots: 150 Abstentions: ' 2 Number of members voting: 148 Required majority: 75 Number of votes obtained: Germany, Federal Republic of .. . . . . . . III United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Having obtained the required majority, Germany, Federal Republic of, Netherlands and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were elected members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination. Germany, Federal Republic of, Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Yugoslavia were elected members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination for a three-year term beginning on 1 Janu- ary 1982 (decision 36/315).

On behalf of the General As- sembly, I wish to congratulate the countries which have been elected members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination and to thank the tellers for their as- sistance in this·'election. The meeting rose 'qt 1 p.m. NarES I Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (/970). Advisory Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 1971. p. 16. J Ibid.• 2296th to 2300th meetings.