S/37/PV.106 Security Council

I should like to begin by expressing to the delegation of the Yemen Arab Republic our sympathy and solidarity following the recent earthquake which took such a heavy toll in that country in terms of vic- tims and human suffering. 66. The Assembly is again considering the question ofNamibia, which is one ofthe most important subjects before it in the context of the still unfinished process of decolonization,.and could have a very serious effect on international peace and security. 67. The overwhelming majority ofthe members ofthe international community has recognized and supported the just cause of the people of Namibia. Long ago, that people began its struggle to free itself from South African domination and from the infamous apartheid regime. The basic cause of the present situation in southern Africa is the Pretoria Government's constant defiance of the international will, which has been expressed in many resolutions and decisions of the 70. Thus far, despite even-handed and patient efforts, particularly by the front-line States, South Mrica has continued to raise obstacles and conditions which have proved to be nothing more than tricks to block the final and complete liberation ofNamibia. Furthermore, it appears that the Pretoria Government is blind to the existence of world public opinion and to a clear historical trend in' favour of recognizing an interna- tional system based on the principles of equal rights and on economic development. All this is demonstrated by the recent military aggressions by South African forces against the People's Republic of Mozambique and the Kingdom of Lesotho, which are entitled to fair and proper compensation for the moral and material damage they suffered. We must remember, too, that Angola continues to suffer aggression and the occu- pation of part of its territpry, in violation of its sover- eignty and territorial integrity. 71. The Argentine Republic, in line with its traditional position, is fully prepared to support all efforts being made to enable the United Nations to carry out its basic task of putting an end to all the anachronistic and un- just manifestations of colonialism still to be found in the world. 72. In the particularly relevant case of the Territory of Namibia, the people and Government of Argentina are convinced that comprehensive measures must be undertaken to ensure the full implementation of the plan for the independence of the Territory approved by the United Nations, without delay and without any conditions or strings attached that would violate the principles of the freedom of peoples and the sover- eignty of States. 73. The continuation of the present situation in Namibia and, indeed, in southern Africa as a whole, can result only in a constant increase in tension which would have a serious effect on peace and stability in the region and in the world. South Africa must with- draw from Namibia. It must terminate its illegal occu- pation of that Territory, its policy ofapartheid and its policy of perpetual aggression. It is the desire and the firm hope of the United Nations and the overwhelming majority of the international community that Namibia 94. This colonialist situation, an anachronism at the end of the twentieth century, is unacceptable to Ecua- dor, for our very presence in the international com- munity is due to the determination ofour people, which fought for freedom in open warfare that started in 1809 and that, like the struggles of some 20 Latin American countries which are here in the General Assembly, lasted between 15 and 20 years before full freedom was achieved. Subsequently, we expressed our faith and anti-colonialist convictions in international organi- zations and fundamental documents, such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 95. The South Mrican regime's abuses against the Namibian people are doubly odious because they are characterized by the shameful sign of racial discrimi- nation in its most abominable manifestation, the system of apartheid. 96. This problem is of fundamental concern to Ecuador, and our position on this subject can be found in our legislation. Article 4 of our Constitution states: "The Ecuadorian State condemns ail forms of colonialism, neo-colonialism, discrimination and racial segregation. We recognize the right ofpeoples to free themselves from these oppressive systems." 97. Our country.achieved independent life within the confines ofthe territory ofthe former Spanish adminis- tration. The uti possidetis ljuris) of 1810 is the basis 101. For all these reasons, and consistent with our unswerving adherence to the principles of the United Nations, the delegation of Ecuador will view favour- ably the draft resolutions under agenda item 32 which are now before us.

I should like first to express our sincere con- dolences and sorrow to the fraternal people of Yemen on the tragedy of the recent earthquake they have suf- fered. We consider their tragedy ours, because it con- cerns our brothers; they are the sons ofour great Arab homeland. We extend to the Government of Yemen and the families ofthe victims our sincere condolences. 103. It gives me pleasure to express Qur appreciation and admiration to the United Nations Council for Namibia for its great accomplishments, in particular the report prepared by Mr. Lusaka, President of the Council, and his eminent colleagues, the members of the Council. 104. The continued occupation of the Territory of Namibia by the racist regime ofPretoria has economic, humanitarian and legal dimensions. The violation ofall those dimensions constitutes defiance of the will of peoples, a contravention of the Charter of the United Nations and a breach of the right of the people of Na- mibia to self-determination, independence and the exercise of national sovereignty. 105. Since it is acknowledged that the United Nations is the legal successor to the League ofNations and its international burdens, it is the responsibility of the United Nations to terminate the mandate exercised by the racist minority of South Africa over the Ter- ritory of Namibia. The mandate system was a hideous colonialist manifestation-liquidated in other parts of the world by continuous armed resistance and strug- 121. The close co-operation between the two Fascist entities-in occupied Palestine and in South Africa- hinders the endeavours to secure the independence of Namibia and to restore peace and security to southern Africa. As everyone knows, this co-operation in- cludes advanced weaponry, military training and the co-ordination of actions against the freedom fighters, and the int~nsification of the crime of apartheid. Just as the Zionists consider themselves God's chosen peo- ple and talk of their "ethnic purity", the Fascists of Pretoria are intensifying the apartheid reign of terror against the people of Namibia. Both regimes violate human rights and commit genocide. Moreover, they co- operate in the field of investments and trade and in the attempt to circumyent the resolutions of the European Economic Community through its links with the Zionist entity. Each of the two entities has its own shipping line, which is used to smuggle oil to the Preto- ria regime. In other words, each of the regimes has become the natural ally of the other. 122. One of the principal bases of the foreign policy ofIraq is solidarity with peoples strugglingfor freedom, sovereignty, independence and economic welfare. Hence, we stand firmly behind the right of the Na- mibian people to self-determination, freedom and independence, and we wish SWAPO success in its efforts to realize the aspirations of Namibia. We also support the armed struggle waged by that heroic peo- ple, because that armed struggle is an acknowledged and legitimate right. 123. We call for the imposition ofsanctions in accord- ance with Chapter VII of the Charter, and we affirm that settlement ofthe problem of Namibia is one of the responsibilities of the United Nations. We consider 137. That South Africa has been able successfuJIy to scoff at the efforts of the Assembly and the nations represented here is a mark against the effectiveness of the United Nations, a sad confirmation of its im- potence and sterility. The fact that there are nations among us which have conspired to create that im- potence and sterility is a damning blow to the concept of a world body in which reason and rationality can prevail over stupidity and irrationality. 138. South Africa's continued intransigence with regard to Namibia is not only a vile wickedness being perpetrated upon the Namibian people but also testimony to the world that there are some nations that regard the Organization and its decisions as nothing more than a convenience at best and a nuisance at worst. Those nations obviously feel that they can exist without the United Nations. One day they may have to, for eventually those that grow tired ofwaiting, that have become frustrated with promises and fed up with deception, will sever their links with the United Nations and elsewhere. They will seek solutions to injustice in their own way and through their own councils. 139. Obviously, those that now weaken this body will find such a development unhelpful to the cause of world peace and stability, but they will also find it unhelpful to their own progress and prosperity. 140. That possibility should be a warning to all that we cannot continue to disregard the United Nations. And nowhere is that disregard more blatantly manifest than in the impasse over Namibia. Namibia has be- come a symbol of the United Nations failure, a testa- ment of the opportunism of 80me who sit in this hall. 141. My delegation is mindful that, during the thirty- sixth session ofthe General Assemblx a resolution was adopted condemning foreign interests in Namibia which exploit the resources of the country for the benefit of South Africa. We are distressed that those foreign interests continue to operate unhindered by their Governments, which pay nothing more than Iip- service to the resolutions of the Assembly. . 142. We are concerned that the thirty-seventh ses- sion will merely mark the adoption of even more reso- lutions on thIS question, resolutions worth no more than the paper on which they are written. 143. My delegation has heard much about the quan- tum of contributions to the United Nations. We acknowledge that some countries pay much more than others, and we want them fo know that we appreciate it. We greatly value their sense of responsibility and right. But small countries, such as mine, pay as well. And, in relation to our populations and our economic bases, we probably spend more per capita in simply maintaining Missions to the United Nations. Is it right that we should spend so much to see our best efforts cast aside by the arrogance of those too powerful to acknowledge that right may be on the sideofthe weak? 151. My country has received with intense indigna- tion the news ofthe aggression by South Africa against Maseru. The communique issued by our Foreign Ministry indicated that such criminal aggressiora was another attempt on the part of South Africa to tighten its racist hold and to silence the voices raised in oppo- sition to its barbaric policies, policies that have been condemned by the international community as a crime against humanity. There can be no doubt that it is an attempt doomed to failure. 152. The question ofNamibia is a very clearissue that brooks no distortion, prevarication or manreuvring. It is one ofthe last pockets ofthe hateful settler-coloriial- ist system remaining in the African continent, a system that has arrogated to itself the right to continue to repress the Namibian people and to deny them their right to freedom and sel.l:'determination and to exploit their wealth and natural resources. This is the constant challenge that the international community mustface if it truly wants to preserve the c.-edibility of this inter- national Organization and the principles ofthe Charter ofthe United Nations. Ifthis question remains without a solution, it will lP."ad not only to an explosion of the situation in that region but would also jeopardize the peace and security of the whole of the African con- tinent and of the entire world. 153. The international community has listened atten- tively to all the speeches and has followed all the con- tacts made with regard to the question" of Namibia. All the members of the international community must be aware of the exceptional flexibility and sense of responsibility shown by SWAPO and its leadership, whereas the racist regime ofSouth Africa has displayed beyond any doubt its arrogance and conceit, as well as its disregard ofthe will ofthe international community. To compel that racist regime to submit to the interna- tional will, the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africa was convened in Paris in May 1981. The Conference reaffirmed the importance of imposing comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa in accordance with the provi~ sions ofChapter VII ofthe Charter. Implementation of the recommendation~of that Conference will remain a matter of urgency if we are truly determined to compel the racist regime to submit to international law and withdraw from Namibia in order that the Na- mibian people may decide their own future and fate. 154. My country supports the endeavours undertaken by the Western contact group to achieve a peaceful settlement ofthe Namibian e.uestion. At the same time, armed struggle seems inevitable if South Africa per- sists in its defiance of -;'~le will of the international community and in its denial to the people of Namibia oftheir natural and legitimate right to independence and sovereignty. 155. Speaking in the general debate this year, the Foreign Minister of Sudan stated: ~,;ommunity, with the exception of racist South Africa, has solidified in accepting that Namibia must be free and is a Territory subject to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Further, it comes directly under the United Nations. This is borne out by the fact that the General Assembly has established the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Au~hority for Namibia, even though the Council has been prevented by the racist regime from fully discharging its man- date. My delegation salutes with appreciation the efforts exerted by the Council in difficult conditions. , 163. Thirdly, the international community must face squarely its responsibilities in Namibia. We -remain extremely concerned that the United Nations has been frustrated by the use of the veto in the Security Coun- cil. We are in a situation where those whose efforts for the independence of Namibia have been spurned by South Africa are at the same time the ones that protect South Africa with vetoes from the stronger a\':tioo called for by South Africa's intransigence. Something must be done to.remove that anomaly. 164. We speak in favour of stern measures under the Charter because South Africa has taken similarly stern measures to obstruct the efforts of the international community, and of the United Nations in particular. It should be observed that all the efforts of the General Assembly and the Security Council to resolve by peace- ful means the issue ofthe continuing illegal and colonial occupation of Namibia by SCJth Africa have been fla- grantly and repeatedly defied by the racist regime. 159. Namibia remains a direct trust territory of the United Nations until independence. The obligations and responsibilities assumed under that trust must never be transferred to any authority other than the people of Namibia. This is a grave and heavy respon- sibility which the Organization must fulfil responsibly and justly, with honour and dignity. 160. It is over four years now since the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia was 166. We are aware that in Namibia foreign economic interests exist, in the form of multinational and trans- national corporations and the like; this should not be allo~ed to sabotage the progress of the people of Namibia towards the exercise of their legitimate right to self-determination and independence. Those foreign economic interests are now branded with the shame of exploiting the inviolable heritage of tile resources of Namibia. They continue to carry on their activities under the protection of the illegal colonial adminis- tration, in violation of the Charter and relevant reso- lutions of the United Nations and of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia,6 enacted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974. My delegation considers those foreign economic interests to be illegal in as much as the authority under whose licence they operate is illegal. Their activities constitute an impediment to progress towards Namibia's independence, since their financial and other contiibutions go directly into the main- tenance of the occupying illegal regime's apparatus 'of oppressIon. 167. It is through the devious activities of those foreign economic interests that we find a number of States Members of the United Nations collaborating with South Africa in th~ economic, cultural and mili- tary fields, some discreetly and others openly. In many respects, they have thereby rendered action in the political field impossible. Further, some international organizations· are not guiltless of such collaboration, despite their international character and structure. With this state·of affairs prevailing within the inter- national community, my delegation feels that there exists a need for every State Member of the Organi- zation to dedicate itself anew to answering the call for all States individually and collectively to cease forth- with all dealings with South Africa, in order to isolate it effectively in the political, economic, military and cultural fields. 168. I should like to express my delegation's indig- nation at the continuing arbitrary imprisonment and 173.. Fourthly, the Security Council should act de,:;isively against any dilatory manreuvres and fraudulent schemes of the illegal occupation regime aimed at frustrating the legitimate struggle of the Na- mibi~ people to gain self-determination. 174. Fifthly, the South African military buildup in Namibia, its introduction of compulsory military service for Namibians, its recruitment ofNamibians for the formation of tribal armies and its destabilization schemes and attacks against independent African States must be strongly condemned and brought to a halt. 181. South Africa's repeated acts of aggression against the front-line States and its occ?pation ~y force of part of the territory of the Peopl~ s Rep!lbhc of Angola, in contempt of all the rules of mternatlOnal law have brought about a dangerous situation that has 'doomed the entire southern region of the African continent to insecurity and permanent instability. This insecurity and instability, with visible consequences for the economies ofthe countries involved, are further designed to undermine the efforts of the Southern African DevelQpment Co-ordination Conference a~d to perpetuate the relative dependency ofthe econo~lles ofcertain countries in that region on the South Afncan monster. 182. Not content with its sinister record of violations of human rights, the racis~ apartheid r~gi~e ~oes ~ot balk at violating the sovereignty and terntonal mtegnty of neighbouring States in ·order to sow death and de- struction among defenceless civilians. 183. In such tragic circumstances, when interna- tional legality is flouted, how can we not be alarmed at the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of Na- mibia's achieving independence? How can we not be alarmed at the delaying tactics that have been under- south~rn Africa. Because, while in both past and pres- ent history. the use of force has sometimes subjugated entire peoples, it has, on the other hand, never suc- ceeded in convincing a single human being of the need for, much less the inevitability of, domination. 192. The Namibian people should accede to inde- pendence in a united and indivisible Namibia. The international community, in particular the United Nations, ·must shoulder its historic responsibility in this connection. 193. SWAPO, whose status as the sole legitimate rep- resentative of the people of Namibia is more clear than ever because it has been established by force of arms, wHl continue its armed struggle until a more credible option has been found. 194. The community of nations, on the basis of the principles contained in the Charter, will support that struggle, because it is both JUS! and in accordance with the ideals which we hold in common and which together we have pledged ourselves to defend. 195. Mr. DAVIN (Gabon) (interpretation from French): On the day after t}tt: end of the debate on the policy-ofapartheid and on the eve ofthe consideration of the question of Namibia, the Republic of South Africa, as if the better to defy the entire international community, once again carried out an act of unjus- tifiable aggression against a neighbuu;,!ne country, a State Member of the United Nations, the KlI1~~(\1ll of Lesotho. 196. In the course of the thirty-sixth session, in November 1981, at the time when the General Assem- bly was engaged in considering the question of the policies of apartheid, the Republic of South Africa launched against another African country, the Repub- lic of Seychelles, a destabilization operation con- ducted by mercenaries. Thus,·e~y.,time the Assem- bly deals with problems created by the policy of apartheid or the illegal occupation of Namibia by the Republic of South Africa, the racist, warlike Govern- ment of Pretoria deliberately launches deadly, pre- meditated attacks against its peaceful, unarmed neighbours to emphasize that it has no intention what- soeverofdeferring to international law orofassociating itself with discussions or negotiations designed to find peaceful and equitable solutions, in accordance with law and morality and respecting the purposes and prin- ciples of the Charter of the United Nations. Pretoria continues openly to defy the international community and to flout its authQrity, assured ofits impunity and the immunity it enjoys because of the determined pro- tection and benevolent understanding, if not the active eollusive encouragement, avowed or tacit, ofits power- ful champions. 197. For the outrageous act of aggression against Maseru, the capital ofthe peaceful country ofLesotho, where its hit-men have carried out a horrible massacre of innocents, the diabolical team in power in Pretoria must be publicly branded and placed beyond the pale of the international community. For the crime against mankind constituted by its policy of apartheid, the 202. In regard to security, the Government in Pretoria has extended to Namibia the arsenal of its iniquitous laws based upon the policy ofaparthtdd and has set up a machinery of police repression which sows terror among the black population and is marked by blind brutality, arbitrary arrests r humiliating persecution and cruelty of all kinds. 203. The military forces, several tens of thousands strong-more than 110,000 according to a figure drawn from a document of the United Nations Council for Namibia-patrols all the regions of.the country and wages a ruthless war against the resistance movement and the fighters of SWAPO, whose political establish- ment i~ is trying to disorganize and whose armed resistance networks it is trying to destroy. 204. In spite of the difficulties encountered in the field and the harsh and unequal fighting conditions, the SWAPO fighters are waging a courageous struggle and achieving many successes, some of which have had great repercussions. South African troops are 205. The United Nations should not allow South Africa to feel free to attack openly and with impunity independent African States that are its neighbours. The Security Council, which has reponsibility for main- taining peace, should oppose this adventuristic and dangerous policy and compel South Africa to put a halt to it, if necessary by enforcement measures such f:1S the comprehensive and binding sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. In this regard, we must stress the determining role which properly belongs to the permanent members of the Security Council, and particularly to those of them which are members ofthe contact group entrusted with dealing with the Namibian problem. 206. Those States were assigned, along with others, the task of prevailing upon the Pretoria Government to accept the implementation of Security Council reso- lution 435 (1978), in which the Council approved the plan for the settlement of the Namibian problem. That plan lays down clearly the conditions for a peace- ful settlement of the question, in particular: consul- tation ofthe peopie under the supervision ofthe United Nations for the election of a Constituent Assembly, the withdrawal ofSouth African troops from Namibia, and the freeing of political prisoners and the rescinding of racist laws characteristic of the apartheid regime. 207. The United Nations plan, accepted by all Mem- ber States, remains the only valid basis for a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of the Namibian problem, and that is why we call on the five Powers of the con- tact group to be firm and resolute in immediately and unconditionally applying that plan. 208. In a communique published following the meeting of the foreign ministers of those countries on 1 October 1982, reference is made to an agreement reached between the parties to the negotiations on the constitutional principles drawn up for the Consti- tuent Assembly of Namibia. The communique states that the parties had signified their agreement that the means of voting to be used for the election of the Constituent Assembly should be determined in keeping with-the terms of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). It also states that this question should not give rise to any delay in the implementation of that resolution. 209. Although we take note ofthis information;which seems to give evidence of the good intentions of all the parties concerned, my delegation cannot refrain ••Africa-indeed the whole international com- munity-demands that South Africa withdraw from Namibia so that the people of that country, fighting so heroically, can exercise freely its right to self- determination and accede to national sovereignty with territorial integrity." [18th meeting, para. 148.] 215. Mr. CANDA MORALES (Nicaragua) (inter- pretation from Spanish): Sixteen years have elapsed since the United Nations terminated the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia. Since then, to this day, the international community has systematically con- demned the illegal occupation of Namibian territory by South Africa, as well as the plundering of its natural resources. In the past two years, the question of Na- mibia has been considered in an almost continuous manner, in the United Republic of Tanzania, India, Algeria, France, Kenya, and here at United Nations Headquarters during regular and special sessions of the General Assembly. Indeed, very few contem- porary questions. have been discussed at such great length by the world public. tha~ echoed such views did so in good faith, because they felt we were approaching the first phase of a solu- tion to the Namibian question in keeping with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 217. Today we note with anger and bitterness that South Africa, that dinosaur ofhistory, still flouts world public opinion. We also note that, in these last two years, the whole of Africa has been the scene of inten- sive diplomatic action, the purpose of which was to show that Cuban presence in Angola prevents a rapid solution to the Namibian question. In fact, these last few years have witnessed the comings and goings ofthe special envoys of the United States, inclUding a Vice- President, to various African States, in an attempt to convince some rulers that cl link exists between Na- mibia's future and the Cuban presence in Angola. However, those visits did not yield the expected result&, and it could not have been otherwise. It was not possible to convince sovereign States that a sov- ereign prerogative of two sovereign States, such as Cuba and Angola, has any direct relationship with the Namibian question. 218. World public opinion is still being flouted by the familiar delaying tactics. It is not very difficult, anyway, to determine the nature of the privileged rela- tions that unite Washington and Pretoria-strategic interests of hegemony and domination; that is to say, the same interests as bind the United States to the Zionist Israeli regime; the same interests as fatefully come into play in Central America and threaten to turn our region into an area of general conflict. 219. In the first few months of the present United States Administration, high officials of the Depart- ment of State did not conceal the fact that the United States view ofsouthern Africa is that the defence ofthe free world is closely connected with the need to develop the strategic alliance with Pretoria. By way of example, let me quote the words of Mr. Chester Crocker, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Department of State. Before a Commis- sion of the Congress he said: "If the independence of Namibia is not supervised, if SWAPO, influenced and dominated by world communism, takes power exclusively into its .own hands, it is South Africa, that bastion of the free world, which will founder" . 220. Were we to follow the logical thread of that reasoning we would be tempted to infer that, thanks to the system ofapartheid,South Africa is a bastion ofthe free world, or, which amounts to the same thing, that the neighbouring countries, because they do not prac- tise a similar system, do not fall into the category of bastions of the free world. We should perhaps ask the author of this nonsense the bastions of what world he is talking about. We leave it to the members of the Assembly to draw the obvious conclusions. 222. The pressing need for the loan can be readily understood. The economic situation of Pretoria de- manded it. Its national budget was, in fact, in great jeopardy, because it must maintain the bureaucracy that governs the apartheid system and also because it grants subsidies to the white farmers who are at the root of power, but, above all, because of the development of that formidable military apparatus which has more than 100,000 men and which is used both for internal repression and for large-scale military actions against the front-line States. 223. As we said earlier, we are faced with barely concealed dilatory tactics, the sole purpose ofwhich is to delay indefinitelythe independence of Namibia, but these dilatory tactics also have their own logic. Both South Africa and the United States are perfectly well aware of the fact that a truly free referendum in Na- mibia could only bring as a result the triumph of SWA.PO, which has been waging a heroic popular struggle for almost II·years. 224. We wish to take this opportunity to appeal to those who be~r the serious responsibility for main- taining and supporting the Pretoria regime to be realistic for once and to use their influence to compel South Africa to comply with Security Council reso- lution 435 (1978). We should like to recall the words spoken by a former head ofthe Pentagon and President of the World Bank, Mr. Robert McNamara. Speaking at the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johan- nesburg, South Africa, itself, he stated in a speech that "apartheid threatens to tfead to catastrophic .racial conflict". Mr. McNamara added that "a violent explo- sion is inevitable within ten years". Actually he had discovered nothing new, but because they come from Mr. McNamara these words may perhaps make the Washington policy-makers give the matter some thought. In any event, South Africa's hopes of weak- ening.and even rlestroying SWAPO and destabilizing the Government of Angola must already have been dashed. Both SWAPO and Angola, like the other front-line States and Eke the OAU, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the United Nations it- self, are convinced that we must not yield to pressure' and blackmail until we achieve the total isolation of the racist SQuth African regime. 225. Nicaragua firmly condemns any attempt to destabilize or subvert or to commit large-scale armed aggression such as that systematically practised by Pre- toria, with a green light from Washington, against the front-line States. 239. Jarpaica fully recognizes the fact that the United Nations will bear a special, direct and con- tinuing responsibility to the people of Namibia until genuine decolonization ano national independence have been achieved. In this c(;mnection, my dele- gation reaffirms our support for SWAPO, the aut~entic representative of the people of Namibia, for the states- manship and tenacity which it has displayed in the difficult struggle over the past two decades to achieve the inalienable rights of its people. We equally reaffirm our support for the United Nations Council for Namibia which, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Lu- saka, has discharged with distinction'the mandate en- trusted to it by the General Assembly. 240. I wish, in conclusion, to reaffirm Jamaica's solidarity with the people of Namibia and our unre- served commitment to their just cause. My delegation will therefore fully support the concrete proposals re- commended by the United Nations Council for Na- mibia in its report [A/37/24, para. 786].

Once again we are in the midst of a debate on the barbarous policy of the South African regime, and the United Nations, in the face of South Africa's intransigence and repeated ac,ts of aggression, must discharge its special responsibilities in ensuring the decolonization of Namibia. The Assembly has to examine once again the situation caused by Pretoria's contempt for the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, by the ruthless oppression of the Namibian people and the consequent threat to inter- nationa! peace and security in southern Africa. 242. Every passing year, unfortunately, only adds to the long list of disappointments and of postponed deadlines for the independence of Namibia. At the pre- implementation meeting held at Geneva in January 1981, the objective was to "define the arrangements for the cease-fire and for the implementation of the plan for the peace and independence of Namibia, as approved in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). South Africa tried to evade its responsibilities by accusing the United Nations of partiality. It is obvious that its sole purpose was to attempt to force the United Nations to recognize South Africa's accomplices and puppets among the internal parties and thus reduce 243. Today, South Africa invokes the presence of Cuban troops in Angola to justify its refusal to abide by Security Council resolutiQn 435 (1978). The Pretoria regime's delaying tactics with regard to the question we are considering are quite obvious. The more the international community accedes to its demands, the more Pretoria will increase its intransigence and its faits accomplis in order to make the peaceful solution ofthe Namibian question impossible. The,failure ofthe Geneva meeting on Namibia and the paralysis of the Security Council that followed it make us question the true nature of the present deadlock in the process of decolonizing Namibia. 244. The political reluctance and bad faith of the South African Government can be understood in their true dimensions only ifwe analyse them from the stand- point of the many kinds of support which Pretoria re- ceives from its Western allies and Israel. Pretoria interprets the absence of pressure from these latter as searcely veiled complicity, guaranteeing it impunity in its repeated attacks against Angola, Mozambique, Bot- swana and, most recently, Lesotho. 245. Burundi wj~hes to express its profound sympathy and solidarity with the people and Govern- ment of Lesotho and vigorously condemns the Pretoria regime's aggression against the Kingdom of Lesotho and its illegal occupatien of part of Angolan territory. We should like to convey our most sincere condolences to the families of the victims. My delegation welcomes the fact that the Security Council was able to condemn unanimously the unprovoked aggression by Pretoria against Lesotho. 246. After having obtained last month a loan of $1.1 billion, in spite of the General Assembly reso- lution opposing it, the racist regime has been encour- aged to continue its violation of the Charter of the United Nations and its policy of terror in southern Africa. . 241. We therefore caU on those who possess the means of exerting deci§jve pressure on the Pretoria regime to rise above their immediate self-interest and preserve the interests .of international peace and security and the freedom of the Namibian people. In particuhir, we call upon the five Western States mem- bers of the contact group to discharge' their respon- sibilities in the application of the plan for a peaceful settlement approved in resolution 435 (1978). They should work out a new approach in order to thwart the manipulations and delaying tactics of South Africa in its attempts to make meaningless the decolonization plan of the United Nations for Namibia. 248. The Security Council must fulfil its respon- sibilities by imposing on tl1e racist regime of Pretoria the comprehensive mandatory sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter in order to put an end to the climate of insecurity prevailing in southern Africa 'and to the shameless exploitation of Namibia's natural resources. 264. The international community stood firmly beside the United Nations when it assumed its special respon- sibility for seeing to it that the struggle ofthe Namibian people would lead to complete independence. 265. We are gratified to note with appreciation that the United Nations Council for Namibia, under the experienced and competent leadership of Mr. Lusaka, of Zambia, has fulfilled the mandate entrusted'to it by the General Assembly by discharging its respon- sibilities with diligence and in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. At this juncture, we are happy to commend the tireless efforts of the Council to mobilize concerted international support and action for the promotion of the Namibian cause and to bring an end to the ilkgal occupation ofNamibia by South Africa. We are confident that tl)e ongoing endeavours of the Security Council have contributed a great deal to the efforts aimed at supporting the strug- gle of the Namibian people to attain self-determination and independence. In this respect, my delegation is pleased to concur fully with the conclusions of the Council, and we express our full support for the recommendations contained in the Council's report. 266. The peace-loving forces ofthe international com- munity were relieved when, in an effort to put an end to the intransigence ofthe South African regime and to bring about a peaceful settlement in the region, the Security Council adopted, over four years ago, reso- lution 435 (1978). In that resolution, the Council care- fully set forth the basis for a negotiated settlement ofthe Namibian question. In that resolution, which has _ won world-wide recognition and has been accepted as a genuine basis for a negotiated settlement of the Namibian question, the Council approved a plan for democratic elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and invited the South African regime to co-operate constructively with the United Nations . in effor,ts to prepare the people of Namibia to accede to independence through legally supervised and demo- cratically held elections. The implementation of that resolution, however, has been long delayed, in spite of the concerted efforts of the international community. This is because the South African regime has chosen to frustrate every peace effort and has deliberately 267. Moreover, through its colonial policy of domi- nation and repression, South Africa has disrupted the social and economic potential and structure of the Namibian people. 268. The intransigence and encroachment of the apartheid regime of South Africa did not stop at the borders of the Namibian and South African territories, but has gone beyond them. South Africa has repeatedly intimidated the neighbouring independent front-line States and has waged persistent armed aggression and attacks against them so as to destabilize them and thus prevent them from extending support to the courageous people of Namibia, to the black majority in South Africa and to their liberation movements. The Pretoria regime could not have sustained its defiant repression and aggression against the Namibian peop~e, the South African people and the front-line States had it not been encouraged by the collaboration of certain Western countries and Israel, which, for the selfish reason of safeguarding their short-term eco- nomic interests and the huge profits they extract from the exploitation of the natural resources of the Ter- ritory, had to jeopardize the rights of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence and have thus endangered the peace and security ofthe entire region. . t 269. The Republic 'of Djibouti denounces the repres- sive colonialist policy which the apartheid regime of South Africa has imposed on the people ofNamibia and South Africa and condemns the undeclared war waged against the neighbouring independent front-line States. We also condemn the recent aggression and attacks of the South African defence forces on the territory of the Kingdom ofLesotho, which resulted in the killingof a considerable number of men, women and children and destroyed animals and other material property. We should like at this point to convey our deep and sincere condolences to the families of the deceased who have fallen victim fo this naked aggression. 270. We see no limit to the intransigence ofthe racist regime ofSouth Africaand the dangers that are inherent in it. Every time the international community comes witJlin reach of a peaceful settlement in the area, the Pr,~oria regime intensifies its belligerent behaviour to undermine it with the intention of destroying the aspi- rations of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the South African regime has always sought to under- mine the authority ofthe United Nations and frustrated the implementation of the plan approved in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 271. We"are convinced that, in these circumstances, the peace-loving forces ofthe international community must exert all their concerted efforts to reject all measures taken by the South African racist regime and its allies aimed at blocking the ongoing peace efforts misus~ of the veto power in the Security Council, we reiterate our call to all Governments to comply in- dividually with the provisions for the imposition of '.' comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South A,frica, under Chapter VII of the Charter. Such sanc- tions should include an arms embargo, an oil embargo, economic sanctions and other suitable means, as set forth in General Assembly resolutions ES-8/2 and 36/121 B. 273. We believe that it is only through the application ofthese sanctions that the South Africpn regime can be compelled to comply with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on Namibia. 274. Mr. KOROMA (Sierra Leone): As this Assem- bly meets once again to consider the question of Na- mibia, it is worth recalling that South Africa, against the wishes and interests of the Namibian people, has been occupying and colonizing that Territory since 1915. The General Assembly, by its resolution 2145 (XXI), of 27 October 1966, decided that Namibia had an international status which it would maintain until it achieved independence. The Assembly also declared that the Pretoria regime had failed to fulfil its obliga- tions under the mandate to ensure the material and moral well-being and security of the people and had, in fact disavowed the mandate. South Africa's mandate over the Territory was therefore terminated and it forfeited its right to administer the Territory, which henceforth came under the responsibility of the United Nations. . 275. On 21 June 1971, the International Court ofJus- tice in its advisory opinions held, among other things, that the continued presence ofSouth Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw its administration from that Territory imme- diately and that States members of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the illegality of its acts concerning that Territory. . 276. On 20 October 1971, the Security Council, in its resolution 301 (1971), reaffirmed that the Territory of Namibia was the direct responsibility of the United Nations and that this responsibility included the obligation'to support and promote the rights of the people of Namibia in accordance with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun- tries and Peoples. The Council also declared that South Africa's continued illegal presence in Namibia constituted an internationally wrongful act and a breach of international obligations and South Africa remained accountable to the international community for any violations of its international obligations or of the rights of the people of the Territory of Namibia. 278. As I stated a few minutes ago, South Africa's occupation of Namibia has persisted only b~(;ause of the collaboration it receives from some of its known allies. Such collusion has now even assumed the form of so-called constructive engagement. Under the pretext-ofrenegotiating Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which calls for a disengagement of military forces and for the creation ofUNTAG, South Africa is being encouraged to prevaricate and to consolidate its stranglehold over the Territory, to divest it of its resources, to oppress its people, to dismember it along ethnic lihes, and to set up a so-called tribal army whose allegiance and loyalty will be to its masters in Pretoria. In the-name ofconstructive engagement, the apartheid regime of South Africa. by reason of extraneous con- siderations in certain quarters, is being aided and comforted in its defiance of the world community's desire to see Namibia free. 279. Last year, South Africa, showing its proclivity for prevarication in its effort to undo Security Council resolution 435 (1978), demanded confidence-building measures and constitutional guarantees for minorities before the implementation ofthat resolution. This year, South Africa's ·effort to impede Namibia's accession to independence and statehood has continued, and some of those who have assumed the role of honest brokers have, by a curious linkage of the presence of Cuban internationalist forces in Angola with the issue of Namibia's independence, provided a further pretext for South Africa's subterfuge and vacillation and for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia. 280. Yes, some so-called honest brokers have delib- erately provided a pretext for the Pretoria regime to backslide and to renege on its obligation to set Na- mibia free. Of course, South Africa's illegal domina- tion of Namibia has been going on since 1915, while the p~~sence of Cuban internationalist forces is a com- paratively recent occurrence; there is certainly no direct relationship between the two issues, and my delegation sees none. South Africa's presence in Namibia is one of colonialism and illegal occupation; the presence ofCuban internationalist forces in Angola 287. However slow the pace, the negotiations that are naw being conducte.eJ under the auspices of the West- ern contact group deserve our support. As long as there is a glimmer ofhope, the path of peaceful negotiations should never be abandoned. All parties should make an all-out effort to shun recourse to force. It behoves the international community to encourage all parties to pur- sue the negotiating efforts and, given the fact that Namibia is a Territory under the legal re·sponsibility of the United Nations, to indicate the requirements for an internationally acceptable settlement. I shall confine this statement to expressing our opinion as to those requirements and shall refrain from expatiating on the details of the Namibian case, which are already entirely too well known. 288. The basis and framework for a settlement in Namibia is Security Council resolutio'n 435 «(978), adopted_ in 1978. And, I might add, the South African Government itselfexpressed its acceptance ofthe plan to grant self-determination to the Namibianpeople as endorsed in that resolution. Yet Namibia continues under the yoke of South African military occupation after years of delaying tactics on the part of South Africa that can only give rise to doubts as to its leaders' sincerity in attempting to arrive at a settlement of the question of Namibia. This lack offervour for the cause of Namibia's independence was brought into the open at the pre-implementation meeting held at Geneva in' January 1981. At that time, the willingness of SWAPO to move forward, to set a date for a cease-fire and to participate in free and fair elections under United Nations supervision was not matched by any positive response on the part of Pretoria, whose leaders, on the contrary, chose the path of filibustering and en- gaged in casting aspersions on the United Nations for wtJat they perceived to be the Organization's lack of ir:npartiality. 289. Once convinced that no one could be deceived any longer by this line of argument, South Africa I nation~Uyacceptable settlement. I canfully understand that nobody is particularly happy with the presence of foreign forces in southern Africa, but that circumstance cannot be used to prevent a settlement ofthe Namibian question. 290. In February of this year, the Angolan Govern- ment made it perfectiy clear that once Namibia became independent, the Cuban forces stationed in Angola would be withdrawn. This pledge was reiterated by the Foreign Ministers ef Angola and Cuba in their state- ments in the general debate a~ t.he present session [16th and 23rd meetings]. My country has no reason not to believe in their sincerity. They have thrown the weight of th..:: prestige and honour of their countries behind this pledge. One should realize that, whatever one's opinions may be on the presence ofCuban forces in Angola, the solution of the matter cannot be turned into a pre-condition of granting independence to Namibia in compliance wiih resolution 435 (1978). 2SJ1. I havejust stated that we support the negotiating efforts of the Western contact group and that we are still hopeful that they will SOOI1 yield positive results. Despite South Africa's latest demands and its present attempts to scuttle the negotiations, we are convinced that all the parties involved will be able to find a way out of the present predicament and to convince t'lem- selves of the urgent need to proceed forcefuliy with the implementation of resoluHon 435 (1978). Whatever the odds against, we remain stubbornly optimistic. 292. I could not conclude my statement without a reference to the excdlent .job being done by the United Nations Councii for Namibia under the wise presidency of the representative of Zambia, Mr. Paul Lusaka. The Council's report lives up to its previous one in the seriousness and thoroughness evidenced. I should neverthel'ess like to touch on the subject of the Seminar on the Military Situation in and relating to Namibia, hels at Vnenna from 8 to 11 June 1982. in the Council's repClrt~ it is sta!ed that one expert at the Seminar ••mentioned that NATO strategists had been uiscussing, since ~974, the necessity of creating a 'South Atlantic Treaty Organization' that would unite South Africa with a number of Latin American coun- tries such as... Brazil.. ... [see A/37/24, para. 384]. The purpose ofsuch ~Il organization, the expert said, would be "to neutralize any pcssible repercussions of the clecolonization proces~ in southern Africa on the defence of th~ South Atlantic and Indian Oceans" [ibid.]. On several occa~non5, my Government has denied any Brazilian participation whatsoever in this so-called South Atlantic treaty. Official documei "s of the United Nations mgister the Brazilian Govern- ment's categorical denhls, but for the record I should like once more to stress on behalf of my Government that Brazil has not antk:ipated and will not participate in any agreement Of arrangement of the sort involving South Africa. Brazil is convinced that the South

During the months of July and August of this year, the front-line States and the five Western States of the contact group successfully negotiated on all the issues that had been blocking progress towards implementation of Secu- rity Council resolution 435 (1978). In August, we in- formed the world that we had concluded our negoti- ations with only the electoral system remaining to be agreed by the parties concerned-that is, South Africa 'lnd S\VAPO. 294. Unfortunately, four months later 'we have absolutely nothing n~w or encouraging to report to the Assembly. The state of the negotiations on the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) remains as we described it in August. Surely the Assembly has every right and reason to ask why, and we have the duty and the obligation to answer. 295. The fact ~~ that we are virtually ready to go to the Security Council to ask that resolution 435 (1978) be implemented without further delay, for there is nothing else left to negotiate-that is, nothing else relevant to the United Nations plan for Namibia. We have successfully negotiated even those issues which were not part of the original package. Constitu- tional principles or guidelines artificially added to the original package by the five Western States to attract South Africa's co-operation have been accepted by the parties concerned. Even the non-existent issue of United Nations impartiality or partiality insisted on by South Africa has been resolved to the" satisfaction of the parties. 296. The parties have also in varying degrees of honesty accepted that the United Nations-supervised elections in Namibia will be conducted on the basis of either single constituency or proportional represen- tation. SWAPO has declared its preference for propor- tional representation, while South Africa's intentions remain shrouded in mystery. 297. Why, then, are we where we are if so much has been achieved? What makes it so difficult for us to take the only step ·remaining to be taken, which is the launching of the people of Namibia on the final lap of their long, tortuous journey to freedom and indepen- dt;nce? We will b~ brutally frank in answering those questions. 298. We are facing a stalemate, not because South Africa has not told us which electoral system it prefers, not because the Secretariat has not concluded prepara- tions for the implementation on the ground in Namibia of resolution 435 (1978), and not because the Secu- rity Council is not ready to adopt the enabling reso- lution; but becaus~ an extraneous, provocative and dangerous issue has been introduced into the negoti- ations that we concluded in August. The issue is well known to all. The issue i~ the presence ofCuban troops in the People's Republic of Angola. We are told that Cuban troops which have been in Angola since 1975, at the invitation of the legitimate Government of that front-line State, suddenly have some organic relation- ship with the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). 302. The brutal attack on the capital of the Kingdom of Lesotho on 9 December has given no comfort to any of the countries of southern Africa. It certainly must have caused Angola in particular to think again on the issue ofthe Cuban troops. The attack has demonstrated in no uncertain terms what the future has in store for all the free nations of the region. Inexplicably, the very same Powers that would have no qualms about bringing pressure to bearon Angola to repatriate Cuban troops seem extremely unwilling to proscribe South Africa's acts of aggression against its defenceless neighbours. Even mere condemnation of those acts is uttered with palpable reluctance, as if South Africa had every right to attack its neighbours and its neigh- bours had no right to defend themselves with the assistance of whomever they choose to invite to come to their rescu~. . 303. Namibia is ready for independence. It has been ready for independence since the day it was colonized. Its long-suffering people have had more than enough and are ready-they have been ready for a long time- to start the difficult process of rebuilding their lives and their war-ravaged country. 304. Resolution 435 (1978) is ready to be imple- mented. and its implementation has absolutely nothing to do with other extraneous regional issues. ~sts in southern Africa, are aware that within their grasp lies a golden opportunity to be part ofthe solution ofthe prob1f:m nfNamibia, or to be part ofthe unspeak- able tragedy timt is bound to befall our African sub- continent if resolution 435 (1978) remains. unim- plemented. We urge those that have irredeemably wedded themselves to the linking of Namibia's inde- pendence to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola to think again-nay, to consider the consequences ofthe linkage. We urge them to realize that by refusing to allow the people of Namibia to proceed to inde- pendence and freedom, they are depriving a whole region, a very important region, of the opportunity to begin the process of building foundations for peace, racial harmony and reconciliation. 306. It is time that Namibia should cease to serve as a base for South Africa's military attacks on neigh- bouring States. The independence of the Territory would relieve Angola of the occupation of its southern region by South Africa. The rebels of UNITA8 would be deprived of their rear base and support channels. Southern Africa would move a step closer to total liberation. 307. South Afric'a's friends will, of course, teU us confidently that the choice between peace and war in southern Africa is not ours to make. They will tell us that, in actual fact, the fate and destiny.ofour region lie in South Africa's hands-and in South Africa's ha'nds only-because it is South Mrica which has the military power to determine whether there will be war or peace in southern Africa. And as if history were consciously silent on the matter, we will be told that SWAPO will never defeat South Africa-that if South Africa chooses to fight on, there would not even be a bitter end to the war,. because there would be no end at all to the war. Namibia would forever remain in the hands of South Africa; so they tell us. 308. But history attests to the contrary. It took the people ofMozambique, Angolaand otherformer Portu- guese territories in Africa half a millenium to destroy Portuguese colonialism on our continent. They destroyed it, re.gardless of the length of time it took them to do so. Why should South Africa's colonialism in Namibia and in South Africa itselfnot face the same fate? . 30;. The point as far as we are concerned, however, is not for how long ot short a time Namibians should fight for their freedom or who will win the war in the end. We know on which side victory lies. We are saying that the people of Namibia have alrea'\ly fought long enough and that there is an alternative to the shedding of more blood, the destruction ofmore young lives and the further sowing of the seeds of racial hatred in southern Africa. That alternative is nothing other than the speedy implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and not.hing less than the democraHzation of South Africa itself. 310. Mr. TRAORE (Mali) (interpretation from French): The accession to independence since the acco~'ding to the report that the main victim of the economic weakness is the African population, which ev~n ill t~mes of prosperity for the whitos has no right to even a small share in the we~h:h produced. This dis- 319. Weapons, however powerful and sophisticated they may be, will be of no avail against the res;stance ofthe Namibian people. The representative ofSWAPO confirmed this here when the debate on the Namibian question began. 320. South Africa has responded to each of the pro- posals of this international Organization for the peace- ful settlement of the Namibian crisis with subterfuges and acts of war, the last of wh:ch, the attack on 9 De- cember against Lesotho, is every bit as dastardly and ignominious as the attacks perpetrated against the other neighbours of the Pretoria regime. 321. To conceal its stubborn defiance of the reso- lutions of the United Nations and to be able progres- sively to annex Namibia, South Africa has brought t~.e negotiations on that Territory to an impasse, offering excuses, of w~ich we shall recall only two, namely the alleged partiality of the United Nations and the presence of foreign troops on the territory of a sover- eign State. . 322. By recognizing SWAPO, in 1975, as the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people, and by associating it with its work, the General Assembly did no more than abide by the purposes and objectives of the Charter in order to emphasize eVi~n further the solemn proclamation of the peoples of the United Nations resolved to unite their efforts so \'hat man may live in harmony with himself in a world that has been rid of the torments of war and poverty. 323. Had SWAPO not been the legitimate represen- tative of the Namibian people~ it world already have been crushed by the powerful SoPth African war machine. Had it not been the legal representative ofthe Namibian people, threats, corruption and blackm~il would have enabled tne puppets which PretOl;a 323. Moreover, it s~~ould not be forgotten that the United Nations is founded on the principle ofthe sover- eign equality of alJ its Members and that it opposes interference in the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy. 329. Angola is a sovereign Str'. free to conclude alliances to safeguard its securi·:/. Linkage of the implementation 01 resolution 435 (1978) on Nam~bi8, to agreements co••.;luded by a party alien to that reso- lution cannot be countenanced. :330. The question of Namibia remains a ql!.'esHon ~f decolonization which the 3nternational community must compel Soutb Africa to bring ·to an end. Reso- lution 435 (1978) was adopted by the Council without restriction or reservation. It was not acc.:ompanied by any prior conditions. It must be implemented. Any delay in ~ts implementadon would further strengthen South Africa's beliefin its i:npunity, and would permit it to brandish other weapons against international peace and security. I 331. We still nurture the hope that we can help the N3mibian people to become independent. We must bolster that hope and make it a reality. That is the mandate which our peoples have entrusted to us and 335. In Namibia itself, the Pretoria regime has poured in more of its military forces and increased its ..epres- sion, and it continues to strengthen its illegal internal administration by instaHing a puppet regime in the Ter- ritory. Furthermore, it continues to undermine the territorial integrity of Namibia through its attempts to 336. Compounding all these negative developments has been the posturing of some members of the West- ern contact group, which not only have been incon- sistent in interpreting resolution 435 (1978) t'ut have even gone so far as to Unk extraneous issues to the independence of Namibia and to alter the provisions of the resolution by proposing complicated and un- acceptable formulas for the creation of a constituent assembly for a free and independent Namibia. In this regard, my delegation is in full agreement with the position of SWAPO, which rightly insists on th~ elec- toral sy£tem of Hone man, one vote". 337. It is well known that, whHe paying lip-service to l!he Namibian cause, certain States continue to main- tain economic relat;ons with the Pretoria regime bnd an recent years have increased this economic collabo- ration il) Namibia as well. It is, furthermore, deplorable that IMF ignored the will of the General A!Jsembly by approving a credit of$1 biHion in speciial drawing rights for South Africa, an action which seriously erodes our efforts to isolate !he Pretoria rf~gime. 338. As a membelr of the United Nations Council for Namibia, my delegation has stated in the past and con- tinues to believe that the most expedit30us means of forcing the Pretoria regime to stop its attacks and to negotiate a r.ettlement that ww,)ij bring Namibian inde- pendence i~. set forth in the Arusha Declaration and Programme of Action on Namibia,4 adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia at its extraordi- nary plenary meeting at Arusha on 13 May 1982. It urges the Western contact group to accept SWAPO's proposal for the early implementation of the United Nations plan and to exert firm and genuine pressure on South Africa. 339. Also, we remain in full accord with the final communique of the front-line summit meeting held at Lusaka in September of this year and underscore our support for the rejection of all efforts by South Africa to impose any fraudulent electoral or political schemes, or to introduce extraneous issues which would be in contravention of resolution 435 (1978) and which are designed to perpetuate South Africa's domination over the Territory. Furthermore, we urge ail Member States to adopt comprehensive sanctions against South Africa in line with the Paris Declaration on Sanctions against South Africa.9 We also call upon Member States to participate actively in the International Con- ference in Support of the Struggle of the Namibian People for Independence, to be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris during 1983. We believe that that Conference should discuss and resolve all outstanding issues· in a comprehensive manner. The early scheduling of the Conference may have the additional effect of helping to intensify the current efforts to overcome Pretoria's intransigence. 340. Disregarding resolution 435 (1978), South Africa continues to launch attacks against its neigh- bours, to reinforce its oc~upation of Namibia and to Afri~a's presence in the Territory being illegal, South Africa was under obligation to withdraw from it. Moreover, it has been established and reaffirmed that Namibia is the direct and special responsibility of the United Nations until such time as it attains independence on a fully legal basis. 349~ The Peruvian delegation wishes to reiterate that the question of Namibia is not only the cause of the African people; it is a cause which also calls for the The meeting rose at 8.45 p."'. NOTES I See Officilll Re('()rd,\' of Ihe Secur;IY Cmmcil. Tlrirly-fiflh Y('W', SlIpp!£'/Ilelll for Oclober, Nm'e/llherllnd D('(,.'emb('I' 198(). document S/14266, 2 Ibid.• 111;rly-lhird Y('W', SlIpplemelll fiJl' April, MlIY tllld Jmw 1978, document S/12678, .1 Ibid., ThirI.N;'e\'elllh Yew', SlIpplemelll for JIII.", AII/fIUI (J1lt1 S('pl('mber /982, document S/15287" 4 See Officilll Records of l!l(' GC'llertll Assembly, Th;rly-set'emh S(','Is;ml. SlIpplemC'1lI No, 24. para. 767, ~ LC'/ftll COIl.\'equf?llce,\· for Sla/('S tif Ihe Ccml;lIllC'd P1'(!.\'eIlCC' of SolllJr Africa ;11 NlImib;a (Solllh Wc'SI Afriell) llolwilhsltllld;ll/f Secu- rily COlllldl Re,wllllit)ll 276 (/970). Ad,'i,wry Opi,,;oll. 1.e.J. Reporls /97/. p. 16. 6 Offidal Record,~ of Ih£' Ge"eml Ass('mhly. 111irl."-fifth Sess;o". Supplemelll No, 24. VOl. I, annex 11. 7 See Official Re('(}rds of :!w Secllr;ly Cmll/dl, Thirly·se,'elllh Yc'tII'. SlIpplemelll for OClober, Nm'embc'r am/ D(,{'('",ber /982. document S/15529. 1\ Uniao Nacional para a In1ependimcia Total de Aagola. 'I See Repol'l oflhe lIu('rmll;mwl CtJllj'el'e"cf! 0" Stll/f/;mu a/ftl;",'II SOlah Africa. Pmi.... 20-27 May /98/ (A/CONF.I07/8), sect. X.