S/PV.1492 Security Council

In a letter dated 30 July 1969, the representative of Chile asked to be invited to participate in the Council’s debate on the question before it. If I hear no objection, I shall consider that the Council agrees to invite the representative of Chile to participate in the Council’s debate, without the right to vote in accordance with the rules of procedure and the practice of the Council. At the invitation of the President, Mr. J. PEera (Chile) took a place at the Council table.

The Council will now proceed to consider the question of the situation in Namibia, submitted by the representatives of eleven States in their letter of 24 July 1969 [s/9359/ _ 1 3. In this connexion, I draw the attention of the members of the Council to document S/9352,1 containing a letter dated 23 July 1969 from the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia addressed to the President of the Security Council and to document S/9204,1 containing the report by the Secretary-General in pursuance of resolution 264 (1969) adopted by the Security Council at its 1465th meeting on 20 March 1969 concerning the situation in Namibia.

Mr. President, before taking up the item on our agenda today, my delegation wishes to express to you its gratitude and appreciation for the able way in which you have presided over the meetings of the Security Council. 5. The repeated refusal of the Government of South Africa to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations, particularly with those contained in Security Council resolution 264 (1969), has led a group of States, Colombia among them, to request this meeting in order to consider the situation created by this defiant attitude towards the lofty interests of international peace and the authority of the international Organization. 6. On 23 July 1969, I had the pleasure, in my capacity as President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, of addressing to you, Mr. President, the letter contained in document S/9352, in which I expressed the grave concern felt by all the members of that Council about the reaction of the Government of South Africa to Security Council resolution 264 (1969). I further stated: “The United Nations Council for .Namibia, which bears responsibility for administering the Territory until independence, finds itself unable to discharge its tasks effectively and to carry out its basic functions under the terms of General Assembly resolutions 214.5 (XXI) and 2248 (S-v) owing to the South African Government’s open defiance of these resolutions and of the United Nations authority in continuing the illegal occupation of the Territory.“2 7. I also conveyed to you our concern about the fact that the Government of South Africa is continuing to adopt measures designed to dismember the Territory of Namibia and illegally prosecute those Namibians who do not meekly submit to the terrorism instituted by the measures of the Pretoria regime. As stated in that letter, since the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 264 (1969), the Government of South Africa has taken fresh measures with a view to establishing “homelands” to facilitate its undisguisable 2 Ibid,, page 136. 9. The item now before us has been extensively discussed in the General Assembly and the Security Council. This case has covered a great deal of ground over the last 20 years and is certainly a good example of the frustrations which still occur where anti-colonialist policy is concerned. 10. The South African Government’s systematic confrontation of the world Organization makes that country a defective Member of this United Nations club dedicated to peaceful settlements, harmony and cordiality. 11. The Government of South Africa does not mereiy confine itself to ignoring the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council but also assumes the right to pass judgement on the United Nations and hold the Organization up to world opinion as being unequal to its responsibilities and the performance of its obligations and duties. 12. Document S/9204 of 14 May 1969 contains the text of the statement made on 20 March 1969 by the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs in that country’s Senate, in which anyone can easily read the grave charges made by that official against the world Organization. He says that, instead of furthering peace, the United Nations sometimes does exactIy the opposite, namely tries to create feelings of enmity and to increase international tension. 13. After reading these views of the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs, we can easily understand the contempt shown in that country for each and every decision of the United Nations. How can there be obedience to the authority of an Organization if, in the opinion of the officials of the Pretoria Government, it does nothing but increase enmity and international tension? It is deplorable that a State Member of the United Nations, such as South Africa, should constantly oppose the principles and provisions of the San Francisco Charter and the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. 14. It opposes those principles because it is pursuing a policy which does not respect the self-determination of peoples, because it employs racial discrimination as a means of political domination and because in these final decades of the twentieth century it is prolonging the worst forms of colonialism. 15. It also chahenges the authority of the United Nations because, impelled by its expansionist aims, it describes as illegal all the acts of the world Organization which may set 16. The General Assembly, in terminating the Mandate conferred by the former League of Nations upon His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa, decided that South Africa had no other right to administer the Territory of South West Africa (now Namibia), and that henceforth the Territory came under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. 17. For this purpose, the General Assembly, in order to assume this responsibility until such time as the population of South West Africa acquired total independence, estab- Iished the United Nations Council for Namibia, composed of representatives of eleven States which have repeatedly encountered the hostility of the Government of South Africa in their attempts to carry out their duties satisfactorily. That Council, in view of its inability to act, has on various occasions turned to the Security Council-an organ which certainly has appropriate means to enforce its decisions, if it so wishes. 18. Unfortunately, the resolutions of the Council have met with no better reception from the Government of South Africa than those of the General Assembly, Its recommendations have fallen into the pit of South African incomprehension and in a way have served only to intensify the bloody methods used by the Pretoria regime against the defenceless, long-suffering and victimized population of Namibia. 19. Heeding the sound suggestions of distinguished members of this principal organ of the United Nations, we have never in the resohrtions adopted by the Council gone beyond intellectual persuasion. Several representatives had maintained that we should not resort to enforcement action because the way still remained open for indirect measures and diplomatic solutions. Nevertheless, the fact is that resolution 264 (1969) has been disobeyed, despite its cordial tone and very lofty objectives. We have therefore reached a point where it becomes necessary to prevent the deterioration reflected in the challenge to the authority of the Security Council and to the United Nations in general. 20. No procedure is more likely to embarrass the Organization and weaken its prestige than the adoption of resolutions which can be violated by any States with impunity. The fact that for 20 years in succession a State can violate the recommendations of the world Organization without incurring the slightest liability is a source of constant concern to those Member States which abide by the principles of the San Francisco Charter in good faith. 22, The Security Council should not allow the armed forces of South Africa to continue their illegal occupation 0f the Territory of Namibia or let the Pretoria authorities violate human rights and irresponsibly foment racial strife, These explosive ingredients heighten international tension and create deep rifts between the members of the human family. 30. My delegation is perturbed by the fact that, although the South African Government is no longer the de jure Government with authority to administer Namibia, it still continues to make the work of the United Nations impossible by refusing to let the United Nations Council for Namibia discharge its duties with the speed and urgency that was expected of it. 23. As the representative of Colombia-a country with a long tradition of c anti-coloni&m, which has built its democratic system upon the irreplaceable foundation of equality of, opportunity and, consequently, rejecting of discriminatory practices-I would not feel at ease if I failed to express my most forceful protest against the reactionary policy of the Government of South Africa or to voice the solidarity of my peopIe with all those who, like the indigenous people of Namibia, are struggling for their independence and for respect for human dignity. 31. This meeting of the Security Council has been called because of South Africa’s defiance of Security Council resolution 264 (1969) of 20 March 1969 and many other decisions of the United Nations. 32. The importance 6f resolution 264(1969) was that, unlike many others preceding it, it represented a step forward in international action against South Africa. It clearly stated that in the event of Failure on the part of the Government of South Africa to comply with its demands the Security Council would meet-which is what we are doing today-to adopt measures that would end further defiance by the Pretoria r&ime. Resolution 264 (1969) in its most generous terms warned the Government of South Africa against certain specific acts of defiance and stated unambiguously that South Africa no longer had authority over Namibia. 24. The meeting we are now holding is the natural consequence of Security Council resolution 264 (1969), which in operative paragraph 8: “Decides that in the event of failure on the part of the Government of South Africa to comply with the provisions of the present resolution, the Security Council will meet immediately to detcrrnine upon necessary steps or measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations c’, 33. However, on the very day that resolution was adopted, the South African Foreign Minister, in an address to the Senate, claimed that the United Nations act of terminating South Africa’s mandatory power over Namibia was illegal and therefore without effect. The Minister also stated that the Government of South Africa would continue to exercise its authority in Namibia as before. 25. The Government of South Africa has already given its repIy to resoIution 264 (1969) and has reiterated its well-known and threadbare arguments on the illegality of United Nations actions, Thus, the Security Council is now confronted with its own promise to determine upon necessary steps and measures that should be adopted in accord&nce with the Charter of the Organization. 34. On the followina day, 21 March 1969, the South African Prime Minister, Mr: ‘jrorster, supported his Foreign Minister’s statement, in the following words: 26. My delegation, in its dual capacity as a member of the Security Council and of the United Nations Council for Namibia, is determined to move forward in defence of the authority of the world Organization, as far as the Security Council itself now decides. “South Africa has a duty towards the inhabitants of South West Africa. We do not plan to leave them in the lurch, nor do we have any intention of allowing ourselves to be prescribed to from without as to where our duty lies and how we should acquit ourselves of it .” 27. Mr. MWAANGA (Zambia): This is the second time in a little over four months that this Council has had to take up the question of Namibia.3 The problem remains unresolved. The world power complex and its economic and military organization still form a hard crust, under which lie the dominated black populations, with all their misery and discontent but obviously determined to dislodge Since then the Government of South Africa has continued its acts of aggression by creating African concentration camps called ‘Dantustans”, thereby destroying the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia. their oppressors. 35, The President of the United Nations Council for 28. This Council has made relentless efforts to solve the Namibia, in a letter to the President of the Security question 0f Namibia; but confronted with the hardened and Council, circulated as document A/AC.131/13 of 23 July 1969, again drew the attention of the Security Council to 3 1464th and 1465th meetings of 20 March 1969. the fact that the Government of South Africa: ‘has taken 36. The developments I have just outlined have made it imperative that we abandon our last illusions and truthfully admit that more effective measures are needed to ‘solve once and for all the problem of Namibia. It is obvious that South Africa has tightened its ugly noose of oppression on Namibia. It has chosen a path of defiance. The problem before us is one of implementation of the many decisions we have made over the past twenty years. We have tried unsuccessfully to induce South Africa to be reasonable; history has taught us it was impossible to do so, 37. The stage has been set before our very eyes. Are we going to let this racist regime, with its policy of apartheid, continue its criminal and plunderous designs? In view of South Africa’s callous disregard for the established norms of justice, our problem, as I said before, is definitely one of implementation. Continued failure to solve this problem in favour of the oppressed people of Namibia will soon-very soon-destroy the United Nations as an effective instrument for the cause of peace and justice for all mankind. Already the inaction we have displayed is dangerously undermining the confidence of many nations, large and small, in the principles of international morality and commitment. Op erative paragraph 7 of resolution 264 (1969) invited all States: “to exert their influence in order to obtain compliance by the Government of South Africa with the provisions of the present resolution”. That paragraph in effect envisaged both economic and diplomatic pressure. It was also an analysis of the apartheid policies, which derive strength from the economic power of South Africa. It is true that some members of the international community have done their best to draw to the attention of the West that the best guarantee for Western interests in southern Africa lies not in the preservation of the status quo but in paving the way to self-determination for all. It is our hope that all Members of the United Nations will assist in efforts of the international community to create a more favourable environment for change without violence in Namibia. 38. The increasing supply of military hardware to South Africa has only assisted in increasing its confidence in being able to continue its suppression of the majority with impunity. The assistance it is receiving from Western European Powers, in both military hardware and technical know-how, has also enabled it to increase its assistance to rebel Rhodesia, in which it has increasingly committed itself in military terms. It is obvious to any impartial observer that, should the conflict between the African majority and the rebel regime grow wider, South Africa would take over the war in Rhodesia. 39. Rousseau once declared: “To be poor without being free is the direst condition into which a man can fall.” It is 40. It must be clear by now that South Africa has not complied with our decisions and will not comply with them unless Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter is applied. The Wzdkoek Advertiser of 21 March 1969, published after the adoption of Security Council resolution 264 (1969), cynically stated: “So the United Nations Security Council has once again urged South Africa to vacate South West Africa at once. . . . Of course its members know full well that this will never happen; so the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union voted together is merely of academic interest. The United States and the Soviet Union knew that by supporting the motion they would be making the right noises as far as the rest of Africa and Asia are concerned without having to make any physical effort or get involved in yet another confusing situation in a dry corner of this continent .” It continued: “Britain and France also have markets in Africa, and, although these markets are valuable, their South African market is larger. . , . So everybody is seen to be making the best of an awkward situation thrust upon them by the group of Afro-Asian countries which made the proposal.” 41. There are three points which a careful reading of that editorial brings forth. Firstly, and perhaps most important, it spells out clearly that South Africa will not comply with any Security Council or General Assembly decisions now or in the future unless the relevant articles of Chapter WI of the Charter of the United Nations are invoked. Secondly, it clearly shows the hypocrisy and lip service some of the Western Powers pay to the cause of Namibian freedom. Thirdly, it also shows that the Afro-Asian and Latin- American nations, genuine in their desire to see Namibia free, have become unfortunate and unwilling victims of imperialist intrigue and sabotage in the United Nations. For while we preach the values of freedom and justice, the importance of stability and peace to economic develop merit, there appear to have developed different standards of judgement as to the right of people to be free. These standards of judgement are based on the colour of the individual. In Namibia, as in the rest of southern Africa, the 44. May I, in conclusion, express the hope that those who oppose our call for the application of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations against South Africa will, in the course of this debate, offer us a more attractive alternative which should inescapably and effectively be aimed at compelling South Africa to comply with the General Assembly and Security Council decisions relative to Namibia. 42. The reaction of the world has been a gloomy catalogue of duplicity and connivance. The objectives of the white minority r&imes are quite clear and the dangers inherent in their approach to life do not need any search. We in independent Africa have clearly indicated our acceptance of a non-racial world as the best approach to the establishment of a decent world order, decency being based on respect for the human individual and his dignity. The responsibility now is for the white people in Africa and indeed in the Western hemisphere to accept the challenge: whether the international community will be colour-blind in its approach to international problems. We regard this as the greatest challenge of the remainder of this century, 4.5. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have no more speakers on my list, 46. The month of July, during which I have had the honour to preside over the Security Council, is now coming to an end. I should like on this occasion to express my profound gratitude to all the members of the Council and the Secretariat for the invaluable assistance they have given me in my task. 43. My delegation regards this meeting of the Security Council as crucial, and it is our hope that it will mark a turning point in the history of the peoples of Namibia and all of southern Africa. We also hope that this meeting will permit us to rededicate ourselves to the principles by which man can be enabled to live a fuller and more human life. Let us build this peace, this freedom, this justice, on firm foundations which will bear the pressure for a change in an 47. Following consultations with the members of the Council and with the President for the month of August, it has been agreed that the next meeting of the Council will take place on Monday, 4 August, at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 4.25 p.m.