S/36/PV.66 Security Council

We are meeting again to consider one of the last colonial problems on our planet. It is one of the most glaring examples of injustice, op- pression and violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It is simply inconceivable that in the year 1981 one country and its people should live under colonial occupation and the terror of its oppressor. Yet this is happening, and it continues unabated. 2. Fifteen years have expired since the United Nations proclaimed illegal the occupation of Namibia by South Africa. The exploitation and oppression of the people of Namibia goes much further back. But even a period of 15 years is far too long a time for the international commu- nity to have allowed such an unacceptable situation to ex- ist. The process of decolonizatic;m during those years has brought freedom to almost the entire continent of Africa and to other parts of the world. Fonner colonies have been free and independent countries for a number of years. They are participating in international life as sov- ereign and equal members of the international community and of the United Nations. All of them opted for and contributed to the strength~ning of non-alignment. New generations have grown up in those countries, and for these generations freedom and independence come as nat- urally as air or water. 3. During all that time, Namibia and its people have remained under foreign occupation, subjected to exploita- tion and terror. For them, freedom has remained a hope for which they are still fIghting and dying, a hope that has so far remained unfulfilled. 4. The United Nations did not remain inactive once the international consensus on the necessity of achieving in- NEW YORK dependence for Namibia had been reach~d and South Af- rica's Mandate terminated. On the contrary, the United Nations Council for Namibia has kept an almost daily watch over the situation in and around Namibia, doing all within its power to promote the cause of the independence of Namibia and to assist Namibians in exile. Owing to South Africa's intransigence, the Council has not been able to carry out its mandate as Administering Authority until independence; however, it has done all that is possi- ble in the existing circumstances. 5. The General Assembly has so far adopted a number of resolutions confIrming anew each year the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence, condemning South Africa for its occupa- tion and exploitation of Namibia, and formulating a pro- gramme of activities designed to speed up the process of independence. The Assembly has recognized and re- affirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of the people of Namibia under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization [SWAPO], its sole authentic repre- sentative, against the illegal occupiers with all the means at their disposal. The Security Council also has adopted a number of resolutions endorsing the decisions of the As- sembly. Furthermore, the supreme world legal authority, the International Court of Justice, proclaimed on 21 June 1971 that the presence of South Africa in Namibia was .illegal. I 6. However, all those United Nations decisions have been to no avail. South Africa, a Member of the United Nations, has blatantly disregarded them all. For the regime which has chosen to practise apartheid and to deny elementary human rights to the majority of the peo- .pIe of South Africa, the position of international outcast seems to have been a considered choice. The exploitation of the natural and human resources of Namibia and the prolongation of South Africa's inhuman racist regime are more important to Pretoria than international respectability and ~endly relations with other countries. 7. Yet that regime is not without friends-friends on the basis of mutual interest in the exploitation of the natural wealth of Namibia and on the basis of so-called strategic interests. This is why all the efforts of the United Nations have so far been unsuccessful and this is why its deci- sions have not been translated into an effective system of measures which would make the occupation of Namibia prohibitively costly for the Pretoria regime. 8. Three years ago, with the adoption of Security Coun- cil resolution 435 (1978), a period of hope for Namibia was inaugurated. South Africa accepted the United Nations pian for the independenc~ of Namibia. Indepen- dence seemed within reach, and discussions about the details of the independence process ensued. However, it is not independence for Namibia that the world has wit- nessed during. the last three years. It has been an endless process in which hope has seemed to exist only to be dashed. From Geneva to New York and to Geneva again the clear pattern emerged: South Africa was playing for, 9. On the other hand, SWAPO has accepted that plan and has always maintained its readines~ to participate in the process of a peaceful solution through electi011s on a democratic basis. On nUffi~mus occasions, SWAPO has shown its statesmanship and its willingness to reach agreed solutions. The front-line States also have displayed readiness to assist in the implementation of the plan in every possible way. 10. The racist regime in Pretoria added ·this year to its long list of armed attacks against sovereign neighbouring countries by a massive invasion of Angola, inflicting heavy human losses and causing vast material damage. The territory of Namibia was once again used as a launching pad for aggression in a sinister design to weaken the stability of the front-line States and their re- sistance to the racist and colonialist policy of Pretoria. The Security Council was again. immobilized, and a cry- ing injustice was done to the freedom-loving people of Angola. Such an outcome of the deliberations in the Se- curity Council could not but cause the gravest concern, coming only months after the Council had failed to im- pose mandatory sanctions owing to a veto.. 11. The eighth emergency special session of the General Assembly, devoted to Namibia, two months ago pro- nounced itself once again unequivocally on all the issues connected with Namibia's independence and decided that all Member States should, individually and collectively, impose sanctions against South Africa. 12. This is the situation with which we are now faced. It seems to us that there should be no doubt about the true intentions of South Africa and those who support it. Once again, however, some hopes seem to have been re- kindled by the latest initiative of the original authors of the United Nations plan. My country welcomes any ini- tiative that will result in genuine independence for Namibia and wishes ~my such initiative success. However, the strictest adherence to United Nations decisions· adopted so far needs to be advocated as much now as ever before. 13. The United Nations plan is the only agreed basis for the independence of Namibia, and, I may add, it is incon- ceivable that any so-called legitimate interests or concerns should stem from a situation which is in itself illegitimate and should have been terminated a long time ago. At- tempts to introduce such changes into the plan as would induce South Africa to implement what is left of it might lead to the circumvention of the plan and would irrepara- bly damage the existing international consensus on Namibia. I 14. The self-determination of a people cannot be treated in the context of bloc confrontation. The heroic people of Namibia must not and will not be deprived of the results of its long liberation struggle, waged under the leadership of SWAPO, African countries, the non-aligned countries and, indeed, the United Nations as a whole cannot toler- ate the continuation of the present situation ad infinitum. Vetoes and the raising of hopes that are quickly dispelled by South Africa will not be able to curb the resolve to put 22. is a matter of great regret, however, th'at those an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia. The resolu- countries which maintain the most intensive economic, 16. All these considerations emphasize the increased re- sponsibility of all ~lements of the international commu- .nity for the immediate solution of the problem of Namibia. 17. Yugoslavia is guided by the decisions of the United Nations, by the principles of the policy of non-alignment and by its long-standing support for the struggle against colonialism and oppression anywhere in the world. Con- sequently we will support the draft resolutions prepared by the United Nations Council for Namibia [A/36/24, para. 708], which fully reflect the concerns of the inter- national community with regard to Namibia. My country does not maintain any relations with South Africa. Thus, the decisions of the General Assembly are the confirma- tion of the policy we have followed for a long time. 18. Yugoslavia will continue to extend full support and assistance to SWAPO in its just struggle for the liberation of Namibia, as well as to the front-line States that are the victims of constant acts of aggression. We are confident that the liberation struggle of the people of Namibia, which is based on the very principles that are the fo~nda­ tion of the United Nations, will soon be crowned with success. 19. The question of Namibia is a question of indepen- dence and freedom. It is a matter of the inalienable right to freedom and independence of all countries and peoples. It is a matter of the struggle against foreign domination. The history of the struggle against colonialism and domi- nation has time and again shown that the determination of . a people to oppose its oppressors is in every case the most important factor in winning its independence and freedom. Namibia and the people of Namibia are no ex- ception.

The question of Namibia has been the subject of constant attention by the United Nations. Recently, it was considered by the eighth emer- gency special session, which adopted relevant resolutions. The atmosphere in the debate during that session demon- strated the growing impatience and indignation of the majority of Member States over the delay in the imple- mentation of United Nations resolutions concerning Namibia. 21. It was pointed out during the eighth emergency spe- cial session that the illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa was the biggest obstacle in the way of decolonization in Namibia. It was also made quite clear that the South African regime could not defy United Nations resolutions without the support of its V/estern partners. That is why, in its resolution, the Gen- eral Assembly called upon all States to impose compre- hensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. It also urged them to cease aB forms of collaboration with South Africa in order to isolate it totally. 23. Collaboration with South Africa continues, and in some cases has even been intensified recently. The United States Government has established a new strategic alliance with South Africa. According to the argument in justifica- tion of that alliance, connections should be maintained in order to influence the racist regime with a view to its changing policy of racial discrimination and ending its military occupation of Namibia and its armed aggression against neighbouring States. But tht; facts do not bear out that argument. As a result of such growing support, the racist regime has become more aggressive and more in- transigent. It was that intransigence that caused the failure of the pre-implementation meeting, held at Geneva in Jan- uary 1981. 24. After the .first signs of increased support and under- standing, the Pretoria regime started a massive arms build-up in Namibia whilejntensifying military operations against the national liberation movement, SWAPO, which is the sQle legitimate representative of the Namibian peo- ple, and carrying out armed incursions into neighbouring States. Angola has been the main target of the armed ag- gression by military forces of the South African regime. 25. The triple veto by the Western pennanent members of the Security Council blocked the adoption of compre- hensive mandatory sanctions in April this year, which gave further encouragement to the racist regime. The bru- tal aggression against Angola in August was a direct con- sequence of such encouragement. That time a single veto-the veto of the United States-saved the racist re- gime from condemnation by the Security Council. 26. In spite of the expressed will of the majority of the international community, collaboration with the racist re- gime of South Africa has not been ended. The States con- cerned. have not taken legal and administrative measures to stop collaboration and investments by their corpora- tions in South Africa. The role of transnational corpora- tions is deplorable, primarily for the plundering of the human and natural resources of Namibia. 27. More attention should be paid to nuclear collabora- tion with South Africa because of the great danger inher- ent in it. The nliclearization of South Africa constitutes a serious threat to peace and security, not only in Africa but all over the world. According to an article published in The New York Times on 14 November, South Africa has succeeded in buying enriched uranium in Western Europe to start up its nuclear power plant. Other sources of infor- mation confinn the presence of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the South African ~nned forces. From these facts we can conclude that United Nations resolutions pro- hibiting nuclear collaboration with South Africa are being violated continually. We should not forget these deplora- ble facts in considering the recent efforts of the Western contact group in connectior with Namibia. There can be no lasting solution without strict compliance with the rel- evant resolutions of the United Nations. 28. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) must remain the basis of any negotiations on a settlement. In accord- ance with that resolution, SWAPO must be considered the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people. Any attempt to impose a constitution not written by the Namibian people must be opposed. It is the right of that 29. The report of the United Nations Council for Namibia states: "The Council is aware that, more than ever before, the explosive situation in and surrounding Namibia constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security". [Ibid., para. 25.] That statement by the most competent oody on the question of Namibia should be given the most serious consideration during our delib- erations. Such warnings in connection with Namibia have been discussed here many times, but, in view of the re- cent political constellation in southern Africa and on the African continent as a whole, urgent action must now be taken to speed up the process of implementation of United Nations resolutions on Namibia. 30. First of all, decisive international pressure should be exerted on the South African racist regime to secure its compliance with United Nations resolutions. Without such pressure, it will not grant independence to Namibia vol- untarily, as events during past years have demonstrated. The application of comprehensive mandatory sanctions is the only effective way of exerting pressure. The unmask- ing of the Western partners of South Africa is becoming more and more complete, because they are maintaining clO'iJe co-operation with the racist regime, which is reso- lutely condemned by the international community for its policy of apartheid. Sooner or later, peacefully or by force, the people of Namibia must gain independence. 31. The Government and people of the Hungarian Peo- pIe's Republic have always followed with great sympathy and.in a spirit of solidarity the just struggle of the Nami- bian people for independence and sovereignty. 32. We are confident that the people of Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole legitimate representa- tive, will very soon win final victory and that Namibia will be able to take its place in the United Nations. .We are also confident that the inhuman system of apartheid in South Africa will be destroyed completely and that, instead of a constant threat to international security, peace, amity and the well-being of the peoples will pre- vail in southern Africa. 33. My Government will continue to support, as it has supported in the past, the national liberation movements, in their struggle for independence and social justice, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Na- tions.

More than 20 years have elapsed since the adop- tion of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)}. More than 15 years ago, the United Nations put an end to South Africa's Mandate over Namibia and assumed direct responsibility for the administration of that Territory. More than 10 years have passed since the advisory opin- ion of the International Court of Justice1 declared South Africa's continued presence in Namibia illegal. More than five years ago the Security Council adopted resolution 385 (1976), condemning South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia. In that resolution the Security Council also proclaimed the need to hold free elections under the su- pervision and control of the United Nations in order to make it possible for the people of Namibia to decide its own future. 36. The question of Namibia is in the forefront of the political questions which continue to be of concern to the international community. This year it has been dealt with in a number of international forums within the Organiza- tion of African Unity [OAD] , the non-aligned movement and the United Nations itself. 37. The efforts of the international community to arrive at a peaceful solution of the problem culminated in the convening of the eighth emergency special session, from 3 to 14 September last, devoted to the question of Namibia. These discussions have revealed the following. 38. First, the question of Namibia urgently needs a just and peaceful solution, for it constitutes a serious threat to peace and security in southern Africa and might well cause bloodshed extending beyond the borders of Africa. Secondly, the leaders of SWAPO have displayed both wisdom and moderation in accepting the plan for a peace- ful settlement. Thirdly, the racist regime, with unbridled cynicism, arrogance and obstinacy, has engaged in delay- ing tactics to thwart the Geneva meeting in order to con- tinue to plunder Namibia's resources and to strengthen its puppet regimes in the Territory in a bid to maintain its domination there. Fourthly, the Security Council has not been able to fulfil its responsibilities because of the re- fusal of certain permanent members to impose sanctions against South Africa. Fifthly, the cOIl.tinued co-oper(ition of certain countries with South Africa is encouraging it to defy United Nations resolutions and the will of the inter- national com....nunity. 39. Egypt's position on Namibia has not· changed; we have confIrmed it on frequent occasions, but I should like to repeat its most salient features. 40. First, we condemn South Africa and we· denounce its attitude, which has prompted it to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia, and its refusal to implement United Nations resolutions to solve this problem. Sec- ondly, we affrrm that the plan for a peaceful settJ~ment approved in Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the only legal means for reaching a peaceful settlement. That plan should be applied comprehensively in accordance with a well-established time-table, without any change or amendment. Thirdly, everything should be done to en- courage those countries that have great influence with South Africa to exercise all the pressure necessary to force South Africa to give up its present policies. Fourthly, it must be recognized that SWAPO is the only ~ legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. The diplomatic community should be asked to intensify its diplomatic, political. and material assistance to the people of Namibia in their just struggle. 41. Those are the fundamental elements upon which Egypt's position is based-a position which is shared by the large majority of the States Members of the United Nations. 43. First, in paragraph 13, the General Assembly called upon all States to impose comprehensive mandatory sanc- tions against South Africa in accordance with the provi- sions of the Charter. Among those provisions is the pos- sibility, in the case of aggn:ssion or a breach of the peace, of using force to maintain international peace and se- curity. Secondly, we reject the interpretation that the refer- ence made in paragraph 13 to the imposition of sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the Charter means necessarily that sanctions have not already been recom- mended and that, consequently, the Security Council will have. to meet to discuss that question. Our rejeCtion of that interpretation is based on the fact that paragraph 12 of the same resolution strongly urges the Security Council to impose sanctions. This confIrms the fact that the Gen- eral Assembly, in paragraph 13, recommended imposing sanctions in accordance with the provisions of resolution 377 (V). Thirdly, without wishing to go into details, since the collective will of the States Members of the Organiza- tion should be considered a ~ource of international law constituted by organizational or semi-legislative opera- tions, resolution ES-8/2 is a recommendation. But the adoption of the resolution by a majority of 117 Member States gives it a binding character, and it must be re- garded as a unilateral international juridical act. . 44. What has happened since the last emergency special session was held? We are aware that the Western contact group stated that it was trying to expedite negotiations with South Africa, and that it held a ministerial meeting to study some of the constitution~l principles which might help to build cGnfIdence among the parties concerned. A mission visited the front-line States-Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa-from 26 October t06 November 1981. It was stated that these constitutional principles require the approval of two thirds ot:. the constitutional assembly that will be elected in Namibia and that all the ethnic groups should be represented there in equitable proportion to the total population of Namibia, in order to guarantee the rights of the minorities and of all the parties. 45. The front-line States announced their position re- garding those principles following the meeting of 17 November and asked that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) be implemented without any change or amendment whatsoever, according to the timetable laid down. They stated that it was necessary to preserve the right of the people of Namibia to draft theIr own constitution and to choose the form of government they wished. 46. What should be done at the present time? In the light of what I have said, the Egyptian delegation consid- ers that in order to get out of this vicious circle the fol- lowing steps should be taken. 47. First, resolution ES-8/2 must be implemented. We should particularly like to emphasize that Egypt is one of the countries which informed the Secletary-General that they have already applied that resolution [see A/36/696]. 49. Thirdly, everything should be done to urge the con- tact group to give up its policy of creating small group- ings in the Territory. Pressure should be exerted to force South Africa to give up its policy of illegally occupying Namibia. The contact group should take into considera- tion the fact that the best guarantee for ensuring the rights of the white minority is inherent in the position that will be taken by the black majority, as has been shown by those African peoples that have acceded to independence. 50. Fourthly, the entire world should be made aware that SWAPO and the African countries may well run out of patience and that they cannot continue indefinitely to par- ticipate in negotiations which lead nowhere, particularly as SWAPO has already made several concessions. We should like to pay a tribute to President Mitterrand for the statement which he made about the withdrawal of France from the contact group if it does not succeed in bringing about the independence of Namibia quickly. It was noted in that statement that France could not continue to take part in negotiations which were in danger of never ending and that it was necessary to set a timetable for achieving the independence of Namibia during the coming year. 51. Fifthly, if South Africa does not bow to the will of the international community and to the behest of United Nations resolutions, particularly in regard to the pe'aceful settlement that has been approved, the Organization must take the necessary steps under the Charter to put them into effect, in order to safeguard its prestige and its very existence, so that South Africa's defiance of the Organiza- tion's resolutions does not lead to the beginning of its downfall. In addition, SWAPO would then have no other choice but to carry on its struggle, with all the bloodshed that entails. 52. Egypt would like to reiterate its commitnl'~~nt to give all .possible material and moral aid to dIe people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole authen- tic" representative. By way of example, may I say that last month Egypt contributed $200,000 to the non-aligned Fund for' Namibia. I should like to mention the invitation extended by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of Egypt to SWAPO to visit Egypt and to meet with leaders there to study together the kind of assistance which would be needed to make it possible for SWAPO to continue its struggle. 53. In conclusion, I should like to refer to the laudable efforts which have been made by Mr. Lusaka, the Presi- dent of the United Nations Council for Namibia, to en- sure the implementation of the recommendations of the General Assembly and to alert world public opinion to this problem.

Fifteen years ago, the General Assembly in its resolution 2145 (XXI) decided to terminate South Atnca's Mandate over South West Africa and to place the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. The resolution strongly reaffirmed the fundamental xtght of the people of South West Africa to self-determination, freedom and in- dependence. 56. The decisions of the United Nations, of the OAU, of the non-aHgned movement and of many other representa- tive forums on this issue are clear: the Pretoria racist re- gime must stop its occupation of Namibia, which is con- trary to international law. It must withdraw its military personnel from the Territory. The Namibian people shall have the opportunity to decide in free elections on their destiny. 57. In its resolution 435 (1978), the Security Council adopted a concrete plan for the implementation of that people's right of self-determination. In this context, let me recall paragraph 2 of that resolution, which states that the Security Council . "Reiterates that its objective is the withdrawal of South Africa's illegal administration from Namibia and the transfer of power to the people of Namibia with the assistance of the United Nations in accordance with Se- curity Council resolution 385 (1976)". The United Nations has worked intensively towards the implementation of that resolution. 58. For the third time this year,. the General Assembly is dealing with the question. In one of its most significant debates. last April the Security Council, with the par- tici!"~tion of about 20 foreign ministers of States Members of i:~(; United Nations, made great endeavours to achieve the objective. The draft resolutions submitted by African States2 contained provisions for a number of comprehen- sive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. The adop- tion of these draft resolutions would have been consistent with the responsibility of the United Nations on this is- sue. It would have created a tangible impact on the apartheid regime, obliging it to observe the standards of international law and to respect the rights of peoples. However, the veto of the Western permanent members of the Security Council prevented that. They preferred to meet the wishes of the South African racist regime at the expense of the fundamental rights of the Narnibian peo- ple. 59. That stand and the fact that it is those very members of the so-called contact group that, together with South Africa, have the lion's share in the economic plunder of Namibia are the cause of the apartheid regime's continued illegal occupation of that country. And all this is happen- ing over :'.0 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 15 years after the termination of South Africa's Mandate over -Namibia and as long as three years after the adoption of resolution 435 (1978) by the Security Council. . 61. There is a direct correlation between the terrorist policy of apartheid, the illegal occupation of Namibia and Pretoria's war of aggression against neighbouring States. The policy of appeasement and overt encouragement of the racist regime by Western States bears fruit. Thus, South Africa was able to torpedo the negotiations at Ge- neva early this year on the settlement of the question of Namibia. The allies rewarded South Africa for that action by their veto in the Security Coun.:-il. Thus encouraged, the apartheid regime escalated its acts of aggression into a real war, which was the gravest act of aggression since the attacks on Angola from 1974 to 1976. . 62. South Africa's military doctrine, which includes aggressive acts by its armed forces extending to central Africa and which is closely linked with its nuclear ambi- tions, shows what is still to be expected from that regime. To the escalation of South Africa's aggression against Angola the United States reacted with another veto of the condemnation of the aggressor by the Security Council. There is an old truth: if so-called strategic interests, prof- its or raw materials are involved, imperialist circles do not bother about self-determination, human rights or the sovereignty of independent States. . (i3. At the momeJlt, activities of the so-called contact group for the settlement of the Namibian question are agt~in under way. Mter the sabotaging of the Geneva ne- got;.ations by South Africa, one heard from Pretoria, just as from the capitals of other countries, that the United Nations Namibia plan was dead. Now, new plans are being made which allegedly will facilitate the implemen- tation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Have' some people changed their minds? Of course not. Under the label of the restoration of the United Nations plan, and with the consent of Pretoria, so-called proposals have been framed. Their implementation would turn resolution 435 (1978) into the opposite of what was intended. The States represented in the contact group, together with South Africa, intend to pla~e the future legislative assem- bly under tutelage. This is called "working out the cor- nerstones of a constitution", which obviously is aimed at a neo-colonialist status for Namibia. 64. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic supports the posit~on of the OAU Council of Ministers at its thirty-seventh ordinary session, held at Nairobi from 15 to 26 June 1981, which, in the face of the imperialist manoeuvres, declared vigorously that it rejected ". . . the latest sinister schemes by certain mem- bers of the Western contact group, in particular the United States of America, aimed at forcing the interna- tional community to abandon Security Council resolu- tion 435 (1978) endorsing the Unfted Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, and depriving the· op- pressed Namibian people of th~ir hard won victories in 66. The position of the German Democratic Republic on this issue is unshakeable. In pursuance of the relevant de- cisions of the United Nations, our people will continue to render political, moral and material assistance to the liber- ation struggle of the Namibian people under the leader- ship of SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, just as we supported the struggle of the liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique, Zim- babwe and elsewhere. 67. In this context we welcome the intention to declare 1982 the ·'International Year of Mobilization for Sanc- tions against South Africa". 68. In its hard struggle, the Namibian people can al- ways rely on the Jolidarity of the people and the Govern- ment of the German Democratic Republic. Evidence of this was the International Seminar on Publicity and the Role of the Mass Media in the International Mobilization against Apartheid, held at Berlin from 31 August to 2 September of this year, which was organized by the Spe- cial Committee against ApartJ~eid, in co-operation with the Government of the German .Democratic Republic and its Solidarity Committee. 69. The delegation of the German Democratic Republic is convinced that the thirty-sixth session will adopt reso- lutions requesting the Security Council to decide on man- datory sanctions again~t the apartheid regime which will pave the way to the exercise by the Namibian people of its right to self-determination. The German Democratic Republic is ready to make its contribution in this sense.

The General Assembly, in its resolu- tion ES-8/2, demanded "the immediate commencement of the unconditional implementation of Security Council res- olution 435 (1978) without any prevarication, qualifica- tion or modification and not later than December 1981". 71. It goes without saying that the delegation of Madagascar has always supported and continues to sup- port this proposal, which constitutes the first of two solu- tions to the Namibia problem submitted in a 'communica- tion addressed by the President of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on 30 August 1981 to the Secre- tary-General.4 72. The second proposal in that message takes into con- sideration the authority of the United Nations Coupcil for Namibia in its capacity as tht; legal Administering Author- ity for the Territory and suggests authorizing the Council 73. We consider it necessary to recall these proposals, which were prompted by the desire to break an artificially created deadlock, because the manoeuvres that were de- nounced by the General Assembly in the resolution just mentioned are now becoming increasingly clear. Those manoeuvres could mean that the United Nations was no longer able to play its proper role and bear its proper responsibility; they could delay unduly the process of in- dependence for Namibia and make the very concept of that independence meaningless. 74. Indeed we share the concern of those who see in the current negotiations a means of disguising the rejectionist policy of the racist regime, which has placed one obstacle after another in the way of implementation of the United Nations plan and has only appeared to accept the pI...n so as better to strengthen the hand of the members of the contact group in the game they are playing. 75. Everyone understands that by demanding constitu- tional guarantees for the minority the South African re- gime is simply attempting to maintain white superiority in Namibia and strengthen the imperialist hold on the econ- omy and natural resources of the Territory. 76. In fact it is well known and can be seen from their statements that the members of that minority reject univer- sal suffrage a priori and continue to favour a political system in which the various racial and ethnic groups would establish separate electoral colleges. Since they are the exclusive beneficiaries of the present regime, they see the accession of the majority to political and economic power, the elimination of racial discrimination and the abandonment of the present system, under which local schools and institutions are controlled on a racial and eth- nic basis, as threats to their privileges. No one can doubt that this white minority group is acting with the support and at the instigation of the racist regime and South Af- rican political parties. 77. It is unlikely that these tactics of the Pretoria au- thorities will change and no doubt they will make more and more demands, until the members of the contact group will have nQ choice but to bear the responsibility for breaking off negotiations or accept the independence of Namibi.a under the apartheid regime. 78. We must emphasize here that the right of the Nami- bian people to self-determination and independence is in- alienable. No country or group of countries, however powerful, can use that right as a bargaining counter, par- ticularly with South Africa, which is less qualified than any other country- to take part in such negotiations. . 79. Therefore the responsibility of those who take it upon themselves to mortgage the political future of the Namibian people cannot be overemphasized, for we are convinced that Namibian independence is not for sale. It cannot be bought at the cost of legitimizing apartheid, in Namibia or elsewhere, just as it cannot be exchanged for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, which have very good reasons for being there. Similarly, the indepen- dence of Namibia cannot be-as is suggested in the bul- letin published on 11 November by the African American Institute-the counterpart of a possible resumption by the ' United States of deliveries of enriched uranium to the rac- 80. My delegation suppJrts the principle according to which no one can dictate to the Namibian people the terms of its future constitution. The sovereignty of the constituent assembly, which should be elected in accord- ance with the United Nations plan, in our view ~s incon- testable and cannot be restricted. Negotiations leading in that direction would necessarily be suspect in the view of international opinion, particularly when they take place between South Africa and the group of five Western countries, which to date have rejected the representative nature of SWAPO and the legitimacy of the action under- taken by it on behalf of the Namibian people. 81. It is not by wringing concession after concession out of SWAPO that South African leaders and the white minority of Namibia can be made more willing to accept the principles of decolonization. The necessary reaffirma- tion of the authority of the United Nations must make up for the lack of co-operation of one group and-the bad faith of the other. 82. That reaffirmation requires, first of all, a rejection of manoeuvres aimed at weakening the international con- sensus expressed in Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and at stripping from the oppressed Namibian peo- ple its hard-won victories in its struggle for national liber- ation. 83. Th.:t reaffirmation further requires that the Security Council, in the discharge of its responsibilities, make the necessary effort to overcome the ideological differences of its members and to take action that could put an end to this illegal occupation, the source of an armed confronta- tion which, unfortunately, does not spare neighbouring countries and which poses a dangerous threat to interna- tional peace and security. 84. The demands and appeals to that end, which are contained in resolution ES-8/2, remain valid. We reaffirm them both out of conviction and in solidarity with our Namibian brothers and sisters. 85. It seems to us useful to recall the fundamental prin- ciples that should be observed in any initiative designed to solve the problem of Namibia. They are as follows. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colo- nial Countries and. Peoples is applicable to the case of Namibia. That Declaration enshrines, inter alia, the need to preserve the territorial integrity of Namibia. South Af- rica's occupation of Namibia is illegal. The territory or Namibia should not serve as a base for South Africa's acts of aggression against its neighbours. SWAPO is the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. The United Nations recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle for the liberation of Namibia waged by SWAPO by all means available to it. The United Nations is "responsible for Namibia until it achieves independence.. 86. Any initiative proposed for the solution of the Namibian problem would be invalid unless every one of those principles is observed. 87. Before concluding, I should like to associate my delegation with the congratulations expressed by other delegations to the United Nations Council for Namibia and, in particular, to its President, Mr. Lusaka of Zambia, for the efforts it has made to discharge the responsibilities - _.~ .• f. - ~ ,. :' • l' • , 89. We also congratulate and thank the Special Commit- tee on the Situation with' regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colo- nial Countries and Peoples, whose activities have greatly strengthened the struggle of the valiant Namibian people under the leadership of SWAPO. 90. To our brothers and sisters, the militants of SWAPO, we expres~ our admiration for the courage they have dem- onstrated by confronting the South African army of oc- cupation, which has the mission of liquidating them. They are also demonstrating praiseworthy political maturity, which has made it possible for them thus far to resist the various pressures which could lead them to national polit- ical suicide. The Democratic Republic of Madagascar as- sures them of its internationalist solidarity and will con- tinue to provide them with assistance as foo- as our modest means permit.

The fact that this is the third time in a single year that the General Assembly has discussed the ques- tion of Namibia indicates in itself the acute nature of that problem and the urgent need for its solution. 92. Notwithstanding the will and the demands expressed by the international community, by the United Nations and by other authoritative organizations, South Africa continues its illegal occupation of Namibia, relentlessly exploiting its people and its natural resources. Further- more, the racist Pretoria regime is pursuing a policy of intensive militarization of Namibia l a~d it is using that Territory as a springboard for the perpetration of acts of aggression against neighbouring States. The recent armed aggression of South Africa against the People's Republic of Angola aroused the legitimate indignation and condem- nation of the entire world. 93. As the Secretary-General rightly observes, in his report on the work of the Organization: "The continuing . stalemate over Namibia is extremely harmful to the inter- ests of the people of Namibia as well as to the peace, security and development of southern Africa as a whole". [See A/36/1, sect. IV.] 94. The growing concern of the world community over ihe deteriorating situation in Namibia was also reflected at 'he eighth emergency s~cial session held in this very hall a mere two months ago. Members know that at that ses- sion the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self- determination, freedom and national independence was reaffirmed, and the urgent need for an immediate solution to that problem re-emphasized. f 95. Speaking during the general debate at the eighth emergency special session, the representatives of certain Western Powers painted a highly coloured picture of the "new initiative'" of the so-called contact group, and tried to· represent it as a new step which, they stated, would lead to a settlement of the Namibian problem. But in actual fact th; very opposite has happened. Judging by the results of t~\~ recent visit of th~ contact group to Af- rican countries" h'e "new initiative" of these five Western Powers has not merely brought us no nf.;arer to a genuine with the help of its own henchmen, by implanting its own puppet regime there. 96. The overt or covert support for the racist regime provided by certain Westem Powers, primarily the United States, warily protecting the interests of their transnational corporations, is the underlying reason for the present deadlock in solving the Namibian problem. 97. After all, it was the United States which repeatedly cast its veto against the Security Council resolutivns which provided for effective steps against South Africa and condemned its acts of aggression. This can only be regarded as direct protection and encouragement for the criminal policy being pursued by the South African racists. 98. While expanding political, economic and strategic co-operation with South Africa, the United States and cer- tain Western and other Powers are affording it assistance in the field of nuclear technology as well, which is fraught with extremely dangerous consequences ~ot only for that part of the world but for international peace and security in general, if we bear in mind the irn!!~r~~lle~~e and insolence of the Pretoria racists. who will stop at nothing in order to maintain their position and domination in southern Africa. 99. The situation in southern' Africa requires new con- cerned and co-ordinated efforts by the international com- munity. 100. In the opinion .of our delegation, the basis for a peaceful settlement on the question of Namibia can still be found in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which envisages the immediate withdrawal of SOlith Af- rican troops from the Territory of Namibia and the hold- ing of general elections under United Nations supervision. Any attempt to amend that resolution would simply help to mainta:n the present deadlock, to the detriment of the interests of the Namibian people. 101. We concur with the view that the United Nations, which administers Namibia, bears direct responsibility for that Territory and will do so right up until the very mo- ment that it achieves genuine self-determination and inde- pendence. In this connection, I should like to say that the delegation of the Mongolian People's Republic would like to commend the United Nations Council for Namibia for its work; we support its efforts to reach a settlement or the Namibian problem. 102. There is not a shadow of a doubt that solving the problem of bringing Namibia to freedom and national in- dependence is unthinkable without the direct participatioQ of SWAPO, the sole legitimate representative of the Nami- bian people. My delegation would like to express its.ad- 103. Pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the historic Declaration on the Grant- ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and motivated by our fundamental policy of supporting national liberation struggle of peoples, we in the Mongolian People's Republic give our full support to the i:taIienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determi- :dation, freedom and independence. Mongolia also backs to the hilt the just struggle of the Namibian people for national and social liberation, a struggle which it is wag- ing under the leadership of SWAPO by every means available to it. 104. The Mongolian People's Republic would like to join with those who have firmly condemned the South African racist regime for its illegal occupation of Namibia, for its continual acts of aggression against the front-line States and for its imposition there of the inhu- man system of apartheid. 105. The actions of the United States and certain West- ern countries should also be forthrightly condemned. Those countries have done everything to embolden the ex- pansionist ambitions of the Pretoria regime for the sake of their own economic and strategic interests. By means of various strategems, procrastination and delays, they are creating obstacles to Namibia's achievement of genuine freedom and independence. 106. May I express our conviction that South Africa's wiles and repression will not enable their henchmen or their patrons to stifle the will of the Namibian people in their efforts to achieve liberation from the fetters of colo- nial and neo-colonial domination. 107. The struggle of the Namibian people for freedom and national independence has reached a critical crossroads, which requires redoubled efforts to mobilize assistance to and support for the Namibian cause in order to promote the implementation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. 108. The Mongolian delegation believes that the time has now come to finally introduce comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of the Re- public of South Africa, as laid down jn Chapter VII of the Charter, so as to completely isolate that country and thus force it to abandon its criminal policy of apartheid, occupation and aggression. 109. The Mongolian People's Republic will continue to co-operate by lending its assistance to international efforts aimed at enabling the people of Namibia speedily to reach full freedom and national independence. lIO. Mr. LIANG Yufan (China) (translation from Chi- nese): Namibia is the only country on the African conti- nent today that has not yet achieved independence. The realization of independence for Namibia has thus become a question of utmost urgency in the struggle for decolo- nization in Africa and in the world. 111. The question of Namibia has not been settled so far and the basic cause for this lies in the South Afrir.an authorities' obdurate adherence to a racist and colonialist stand. Resorting to armed suppression, it is trying to van- quish the Namibian people in their struggle for indepen- 112. But all reactionary forces, bent on going .against the tide of history and attempting to turn back the clock, however obstinate they may be, inevitably end in utter failure. What happened in southern Africa just a few years ago suffices ~o serve as a warning; we need look no further. The racist regime of Ian Smith, in its time, flaunted its arrogance and tried all sorts of tricks to obstruct the independence of Zimbabwe, but did not es- cape defeat. Today, should the South African authorities continue in their intransigent position by refusing to change their approach, meet the demand of the interna- tional community and comply with the United Nations resolutions, greater defeats are in store for them. 113. Since the beginning of this year, the racist regime of South Africa has been extremely truculent, and this is the result of being condoned and given support by a super-Power, which used the veto in the Security Council twice during the year to block condemn&tion of the South African regime. Outside the meetings its high-ranking of- ficials declared its policy towards southern Africa to be "impartial" mId "neutral". The result is further entrench- ment of the adamailt position of South Africa. Obviously, this not only impedes the speedy settlement of the ques- tion of Namibia and arouses strong indignation on the part of African States but also provides the other super- Power with opportu..-tities in its intensified infiltration and expansion in southern Africa under the pretext of support- ing the struggle for national liberation. 114. In order to implement the United Nations plan for a settlement of the question of Namibia, SWAPO and the front-line States have always been reasonable in their ap- proach, thereby winning wide support and condemnation from the international community. More and more people in the West have come to see that the realization of inde- pendence for Namibia is an inalienable national right of the Namibian people. It will also help to prevent the infIl- tration and expansion of outside forces in southern Africa and contribute to peace and stability both in the region and on the African continent as a whole. We are con- vinced that the oay will surely come when Namibia will join our ranks as a new, independent State. 115. The African front-line States have made immense sacrifices to give support to the people of Namibia. The Chinese delegation wishes to express its heartfelt admira- tion of their just stand. 116. In the course of the past yeal, under the able lead- ership of Mr. Paul Lusaka, the United Nations Council for Namibia has done considerable work in mobilizing inter- national support for the just struggle of the Namibian people and has achieved gratifying results. The Secretary- General has also made positive efforts to facilitate the start of the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and a speedy settlement of the question of Afric~, Olld should adopt practical and effective measures in order to strengthen the support it gives to the Namibian people and to the African front-line States. The Chinese delegation supports the proposal to adopt measures of mandatory sanctions against the regime of South Africa as laid down in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

Slightly more than two months has passed since the eighth emergency spe- cial session, on Namibia, adopted a resolution which many regarded as the culminating point of the efforts made for many years by the international community to bring about a just settlement of the extremely dangerous situation which prevails in the Territory, for which the United Nations bears direct and particular responsibility. But today we are forced to admit that this question is very far from being properly resolved. The situation in Namibia has not become less tense and the resolution unanimously. adopted has simply added to the long list of similar documents. 119. The racist regime of Pretoria, with an obstinacy that can only be attributed to the comprehensive support and open encouragement which it is afforded by those in certain imperialist circles in the United States and certain other Western States, is pursuing a policy which would amount to a virtual perpetuation of its illegal occupation of Namibia by imposing on that Territory a so-called internal settlement. At the same time, a more active part has recently been played in these strategems by the West- ern contact group, whose actions have revealed a clear intention of closing a. deal with Pretoria and circumvent- ing the United Nations. We have seen the desire of the United States and its partners to revise th~ very plan for a Namibian settlement which they themselves put forward and which was approved in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). There can be no doubt about the purpose of these attempts. It is essentially to prevent SWAPO com- ing to power, SWAPO which has been recognized by the United Nations and OAU as the sole, legitimate and authentic representative of the peopi~ of Namibia; to impose a compliant puppet government on Namibia and thus to ensure 'Pretoria's ability to continue to exploit ruthlessly the rich natural resources of that country. 120. The same purpose is pursued by the continuing policy of repression and terror against the indigenous pop'" ufation of Namibia, particularly against its political spearhead, SWAPO, which is being practised by Pretoria, which is treating with profound contempt the numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. "The continuing political, economic and military collaboration of certain Western States and their trans- national corporations with the racist regime of South Africa encourages its pers!stent intransigence and de- fiance of the international community and constitutes a 121. The territory of Namibia, where over 100,000 major obstacle to the elimination of the inhuman and South African troops are now concentrated, is being criminal system of apartheid in South Africa ~d the actively utilized by the South African racists as a launch- attainment of self-determination, freedom and national iog pad for acts of aggression against neighbouring inde- independence by the people of Namibia".6 122. There are no grounds for attempting to link the ag- gressive nature of the Pretoria regime and, indeed, the whole range of problems of southern Africa with the sub- mission by Angola to a number of ultimatums. This is really nothing other than an attempt to intervene openly in the internal affairs of a sovereign State. South Africa's aggressive actions are by no means either accidental or unique. Reliance on force is indeed inherent in the very nature of racism, the existence of which is possible only if it relies on brute force. 123. In referring to the aggressiveness of the Republic of South Africa and its reluctance to put an end to its illegal occupation of Namibia, we cannot remain silent about the comprehensive co-operation with the Pretoria racists that is maintained by the United States and other countries members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion [NATO], as well as by Israel, particularly in the mili- tary and nuclear fields. There is no dearth of facts which corroborate this military and economic alliance, which has been attested to by numerous documents and material from the United Nations Council for Namibia, the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implemen- tation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Special Committee against Apartheid and other United Nations bodies. 124. A number of Western countries and their transna- tional corporations, in co-operation with the South Af- rican regime, continue their ruthless exploitation of the natural and human resources of Namibia in violation of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and in particular of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, en- acted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974.S In-this connection, we also refer to the just-completed discussion in the Fourth Committee on the item relating to the activities of foreign economic and other interests in colonial countries and to resolution 36/51 adopted on that point. However much the represen- tatives of certain Western countries attempt to deny the fact that they have far-reaching ties with South Africa and that they participate in the depredation of Namibia, they will not be able to refute the conclusion that was unan- imously reached by the International Conference on Sanc- tions against South Africa, held at Riris from 20 to 27 May 1981, according to which: 126. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR believes that the Namibian people should be enabled to exercise with- out delay their right to self-determination and indepen- dence on the basis of unity and territorial integrity, in- cluding Walvis Bay and the coastal islands. 127. The General Assembly should categorically reject and condemn any manoeuvres by South Africa and its patrons aimed at creating a sham independence for Namibia under a puppet regime. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR supports the appeal to all States made by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Deciaration on the Gran~ing of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. "To deny any recognition and to refuse all co-operation with any puppet regime which the illegal South African admin- istration may impose upon the Namibian people in dis- regard of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly." [See A/36/23/Rev.l, chap. VIII, para. 15.] In this connection, it is the task of the General Assembly to nip in the bud any attempts to weaken or amend Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 128. We believe that it is extremely important that the arms embargo imposed on South Africa by the United Nations should be strictly and faithfully complied with. The cessation of loans, investments and economic and other relations with South Africa and the complete isola- tion and boycott of the Pretoria racist regime may become an effective tool for the elimination of this most abomina- ble hotbed of colonialism. We support the demand voiced by the majority of countries that the Security Council must enact comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter. 129. Th~ delegation of the Ukrainian SSk would once again state that the people of Namibia can always rely on our complete solidarity with and support for its just strug- gle for liberation. 130. t1r. ABULHASSAN (Kuwait): We meet again, as we have been doing for many years, to discuss the ques- tion of Namibia. At several junctures in the past, we ap- proached the question with some elation, only to find dis- appointment. At several junctures, plans which had every chance to bring about a just and equitable solution to the Namibian problem were dashed because of the stance of South Africa. At every juncture we are told not to press for the very principles-not to mention the guidelines- that the Organization has adopted, because the Pretoria regime, we are told, will ultimately yield and agree to a just settlement. 131. In 1978, our hopes soared. We believed then that with the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 132. We do not support the renewed efforts to solv.e the problem, but we fully support the new initiative setting a date for the independence of Namibia, and we must em- phasize that the Namibian people should be able to exer- cise their right to choose their own future and type of government through free and universal elections. 133. We emphasize that lest we arrive again at an im- passe-an impasse indicated by the interest shown by the Pretoria regime in veering away from United Nations su- pervised elections unless it is promised the victory of the so-called internal parties rather than of SWAPO. That is why we fear that we are entering another cycle, and that is why we fear that the new deadline may become a mere date that in the future will be discussed in retrospect. We hope that our fears are unfounded. 134. South Africa has followed a two-pronged policy of negot~ating with the five Western Powers and stalling for time while launching invasions and destructive action against neighbouring countries. All the indications are that South Africa aims at controlling the outcome of a settlement and the future of the Territory. In carrying out these policies, South Africa is deriving comfort from the lack of enforcement measures against it. It is assured that the international community will not apply effective sanc- tions against it. But this inaction does not prevent Mem- ber States from taking individual or collective measures against the Pretoria regime. We strongly believe that this would prove to be a form of pressure that did not jeopar- dize the chances of a politically negotiated settlement. We, for our part, have taken that position. Kuwait has boycotted South Africa and tried to enforce such meas- ures. In May this year, together with the member States of the Organization of Arab Petroleum-Exporting Coun- tries, we decided on additional measures to guide us "in operations for the sale of petroleum to purchasers, its 0 transportation and its unloading in foreign ports, in order to increase the strengthening of the prohibition on any sale of Arab petroleum to South Africa" [see A/36/665, annex]. As I said, we shall pursue these policies indi- vidually and collectively, with the co-operation and co- ordination of member States and internatioJ.lal organiza- tions. 135. As we approached this debate some argued that it should be postponed, that it was untimely. It,was said that the debate might enrage Pretoria and that it might derail the negotiations. Others argued that the debate was suffi- cient and that no resolutions should be put forward. We do not doubt the sincerity of these concerns, but we fear that, as in the past, South Africa will not be forthcoming in these negotiations. It is our duty to draw the line and to refuse to go back to the vicious cycle" of earlier ses- sions. It is our duty again !O reaffirm Security Council

The process of decolonization has substantially transformed international society; however, it has not yet been concluded. As long as peoples and territories rema''l subject to colonial domination, as in the typical case ut Namibia, relations between the North and the South will continue to be distorted and doubts will persist as to the true loyalty of some States to the principles of the Char- ter. 137. The elimination of colonial bonds, which is an un- deniable requirement of international law, is dictated by reason. Despite this, most peoples have achieved their in- dependence through anned struggle and in other cases as a result of changes in the world political balance. 138. The impressive progress made by the developing ~oples over the past three decades is the result of in- creased international awareness and of a readjustment of forces thrOUghOllt the world. The third world is at once the embcdiment of the essence of the most cherished human values and of the emergence of a new and over- whelming political reality on the international scene. 139. After having waged countless battles, we are about to reach the historic milestone of political decolonization. There are only a few enclaves left that are subject to the direct domination of great Powers or regional sub-Powers. Some of them, particularly NaII1Jbia, have turned into symbols and frontiers: symbols, because the stubbornness of the dominating Powers is an example of illegality and a challenge to the international will; frontiers, because they clearly divide the positions of States between those that favour freedom and those that are accomplices in oppres- sion. 140. Almost all of us have worked for the self-determi- nation of Namibia. We have created a body composed of sovereign States responsible for the administration of the Territory; we have adopted innumerable resolutions which call for the full independence of the Namibian people; we have promoted collective progrr.mmes and taken action to promote that process; we have held dialogues, we have negotiated and we have condemned. However, we have not achieved our purpose. 141. To date, South Africa continues to oppose full im- plementation of the principle of the self-determination of peoples. It is obvious that it would only accept the estab- lishment of a new State in the Territory of Namibia if it were to receive sufficient guarantees that it would have an influence on the form of government adopted by ihat State and could determine the validity of the electoral process, so that it would protect the economic interests that protect it and strengthen the political wall surround- ing the hateful regime of apartheid. 149. The actions that we have undertaken to isolate South Africa are not sufficient in the economic' sphe~, but they have a decisive political significance. nced with 142. The Pretoria regime has repeatedly insisted that its almost unanimous agreement, it was necessary to exercise main concern regarding Namibia is to guarantee the ad- the right of veto. However, the prestige of the United Na- vent of a democratic system. In stating this, it is _merely tions is being called into question, as is the ~spect that reproducing anachronistic models of paternalism and con- its principles deserve. 143. For the occupying Power and its allies, Namibia continues to be a strategic area that cannot be surren- dered. It represents economic booty, a military base, a security zone and a bridge for political domination. and colonial expansion. However, for use, the United Nations, self-determination implies that the Namibian people are fully empowered to decide their own destiny, to provide themselves with the .kind of Government and economic system that suits them and to benefit from their own natu- ral resources. 144. We are not trying to find some kind of statute for administrative autonomy in Namibia, nor are we seeking conditional freedom or independence under trusteeship. What the United Nations is seeking is to ensure that the Namibian nation can enjoy the full exercise of its sov- ereignty. 145. The aims that are being pursued by the interna- tional majority on the one hand and by the hateful Pre- toria regime and its allies on the other are different, and indeed opposed. On the one hand, there are those of us who are. emphatically condemning the illegal occupation of the Territory and proposing its unconditional, immedi- ate independence; on the other hand, there are those who are attempting to provide South Africa with guarantees so as to support politically the regime of Pretoria. 146. This dialectical relationship is not new. For many years now, it has characterized the political spectrum of the international community. During the struggle to ,achieve independence waged by many States, even beftlre our Organization was created, this is what always OCP curred. All national liberation movements since the begin- ning of the last century were denounced by the colonializ- ing Powers when they emerged as representing symptoms of social pathology, and were defended by peace-loving peoples and States. . 147. In the case of Namibia, because of the broad soli- darity with it throughout the world, we find that we are coming to the end ot:. a cumulative process. Countries that have been fighting for its independence, particularly the front-line States, have demonstrated firmness, but also flexibility. We have amassed the most voluminous dossier that can be remembered in international life but, despite our efforts, we have come up against the barrier of colo- nial stubbornness. 148. The large majority of Member States wish to iso- late the Pretoria regime economically, militarily and polit- ically. However, our initiatives have been blocked by van- ous initiatives that have been taken by States that claim to be safeguarding peace but are only fanning the flames of the conflict. What they are really doing in the name of democracy is making it more difficult for a people to ex- ercise its right to independence. 151. It would be futile to claim now that the elements of an agreement achieved with such great difficulty could be changed, since it constitutes the only possible basis for a compromise. No passing circumstances, no political ex- pediency, no confrontation between Powers or super- Powers, can affect the firm decisions adopted by the inter- national community, nor can they ¥iolate the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to achieve independence. 152. .Our opponents have been able to poison the inter- national atmosphere, but they cannot hold back the tide of hi~tory. This has been learned from the national experi- eqce of many peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania. Our armies and our liberation movements are the ancestors and brothers of the sole authentic representa- tive of the people of Namibia, SWAPO, which can there- fore count on the unswerving solidarity of most of the ~ountries of the world. 153. The draft resolutions so carefully drawn up by the United Nations Council for Namibi~ are the result of joint work undertaken by all the Member States which make up that body. We were not only one of the sponsors but took part in the drafting of them. They encompass a broad range of action which should be undertaken by the international community, ranging from investments to an embargo on arms and oil. Above all, they express the fmn political will of the broad international majority. 154. The delegation of Mexico once again unreservedly joins in this honourable political exercise, as we have been doing for almost two years in the Security Council, in the hope that implementation of the decisions that we take today will soon become compulsory. 155. International peace and security require this, as does the respect that we all owe to the United Nations.

May I once again on behalf of the delega- tion of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania extend our con- gratulations to the United Nations Council for Namibia. 157. The relevance and importance of the Council's re- port now before us makes it unn~essary for u~ to expand on a subject which the international community has dis- cussed this year in many places-New Delhi, Paris, Al·· giers, Geneva, New York, Nairobi and elsewhere. 158. We also congratulate the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Decla- ration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun- tries and Peoples on its excellent report on the situation in Namibia. 159. It would certainly be tiresome and, even worse, .pointless to speak at length before this assembly of diplo- mats who are conversant with the policy of apartheid about the scandalous and illegal behaviour of the South African Government in Namibia. We shall confine our- se~ves to recalling what we regard as particularly serious faCts in the long and dismal catalogue to be found in the report of the Council. Those facts can be summarized as follows: first, South Africa's deliberate attempt last winter 160. Our delegation, in accordance with the responsible position adopted by SWAPO and endorsed by the OAU, would like to give the efforts of the so-called Western contact group a chance to succeed. We very much hope that the group will be able, in the interests of preserving the valuable ties between the West and Africa, to brlng us closer to a democratic, just and peaceful solution to the Namibian problem. Nevertheless, the present practices, manoeuvres and philosophy of South Africa demand that we show caution and, above all, vigilance. 161. For the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the follow- ing facts have always been and remain, the minimum ac- ceptable basis for a true solution of the Namibian prob- lem. 162. First, any agreement on the future of the Territory must be made with SWAPO, the sole authentic representa- tive of the Namibian people. 163. Secondly, Security Council resolution 435 (1978) remains the only basis for a peaceful, just and lasting solution which guarantees the people of Namibia its ter- ritorial integrity and unity. 164. To depart from that framework because of delaying tactics would be to encourage the illegal, racist occupier and to reward aggression. Particularly with regard to the exorbitant demands made on behalf of the minority of European origin, we reaffIrm what we said here on 10 September, at the eighth emergency special session: '"While respecting the rights of all racial commu- nities in southern Africa, we consider-and the exam- ple of Zimbabwe is eloquent testimony in this regard- that only a democratic and just solution, preserving the right of the majority"-which has been virtually ignored so far-"can constitute a lasting"-and valid- . "guarantee." [9th meeting.) 165. We repeat our belief that neither leniency nor, even worse, weakness.will succeed in curtailing the intolera~le demands of an inherently racist and oppressive regiIrie whose unchanging policy has been the contemptuous re- jection of all the decisions of the United 'Nations and whose fundamental demands are political and strategic concessions to limit the future sovereignty of Namibia. 166. In the face of the irresponsible and anachrQnistic actions of South Africa and its challenge to .the United Nations by its illegal seizure of Namibia, the only viable alternative is an increase in material and moral assistance to SWAPO and the strict and increasingly widespread application .of comprehensive .and complete sanctions. That is the price of justice in Namibia, calm in southern Africa and the peace and security of the world. NarES I Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence cf South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), I.C.J. Reports 1971. p. 16. 6 AlCONEI07/8. para 210.