S/PV.1497 Security Council

In accordance with the Council’s previous decision, I shall now invite the representatives of Chile and India to take places at the Council table. At the President’s invitation, Mr, F, Maquieira (Chile) and Mr. A. Gonsalves (India) took places at the Council table.

The Council will now continue its consideration of the question of Namibia. 3. Before calling on the first speaker on my list, I wish to inform the members of the Council that a draft resolution, sponsored by Algeria, Pakistan, Senegal, and Zambia, now joined by Colombia, has been submitted and has been circulated to the members of the Council in document S/9384.

Mr. President, I have had an opportunity during the course of this debate to outline fully the policies of the Government of the Republic of Zambia on the subject currently under consideration, but, since I am speaking for the first time under your able guidance, allow me to associate myself with previous speakers who have offered you well-deserved tributes on your assumption of the high office of President of the Security Council for the month of August. I assure you of the fullest co-operation of the Zambian delegation in the discharge of your difficult but noble responsibilities. 5. Let me also express the satisfaction of my delegation at the able and inspiring manner in which Ambassador Ibrahima Boye of Senegal presided over our deliberations last month. I sincerely hope that the representative of Senegal will convey these sentiments of gratitude to Ambassador Boye on his return to New York. 6. The Security Council has been discussing the question of Namibia since 30 July 1969. We have listened intently to what all delegations have had to say about this sad and tragic chapter in the history of our Organization. At the very beginning of this debate I stated: “We are convinced that there is no other way of dealing with this problem but to appIy Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. ‘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.” [1492nd meeting, paras. 43 and 44.1 7. Despite this appeal which was obviously directed at those who have an overriding responsibility to bring pressure to bear upon the racist Government of South Africa to vacate Namibia, we have, as always, heard a million reasons why the permanent members of the Security Council, and especially the Western major Powers, are not prepared to apply Chapter #VII of the Charter against South Africa, without any attractive alternatives being offered us. There is no doubt that the South African Government has been greatly encouraged by these negative pronouncements. 8. Not only has South Africa been unresponsive in a positive sense to United Nations pressure, but it has in fact continued with major legislative and administrative measures intended to give expression to its apartheid system. In the period since 1946, and at an increasing pace since 1948, South Africa has translated its obnoxious philosophy and 9. We are convinced that South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia, if left as it is, will lead to a crisis so bloody and so embittering to the whole population of Africa that it will endanger the peace of the world and permanently deepen the rift between b!ack and white peoples. 10. There are many nations in the world that are deeply concerned about the inability of the Security Council to act in matters which clearly fall within its jurisdiction. The draft resolution [S/9384] which I introduce today on behalf of the delegations of Algeria, Colombia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal and my own, is a sincere expression of indignation and concern, which are shared by many Members of our Organization that strongly feel that South Africa should no longer be allowed to flout the decisions of this Organization with impunity. 11. When the Council adopted resolution 264 (1969) on 20 March 1969, a solemn undertaking was made to the effect that the Council would meet to consider appropriate measures in accordance with the. relevant provisions of the Charter. The present resolution is not the best that could be drafted, but it is the best possible given the obvious limitations and peculiar circumstances which surround all Security Council resolutions. We regard it as a step in the right direction. We set out in stronger and clearer terms to achieve the following: (1) Remind South Africa of its obligations under the provisions of Article 25 of the Charter. (2) Remind ourselves as members of the Security Council of our responsibilities under Article 6 of the Charter, (3) Condemn South Africa for its persistent defiance of the authority of the United Nations. (4) Declare that South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia constitutes an aggressive encroachment on the authority of the United Nations and also a denial of the political sovereignty of the people of Namibia. (5) Recognize the legitimacy of the struggle of the people of Namibia against foreign occupation. (6) Set a date for the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia. (7) Decide that we shall meet again, in the event of failure on the part of the Government of South Africa to (8) Call upon all States to refrain from all dealings with the Government of South Africa, purporting to act 011 behalf of Namibia. (9) Request all States to increase their moral and material assistance to the people of Namibia in their just struggle against foreign occupation. 12. Those are grave pronouncements which will have serious consequences on the Government of South Africa. It is not enough to express sympathy in connexion with the situation in Namibia or to make muffled utterances about repugnance for South Africa’s policies in Namibia. Finn and resolute action is required. We cannot continue the legalistic juggling of phrases simply in order to evade the unpleasant consequences of responsibility. The permanent members of the Security Council have a grave responsibility placed upon them by the Charter of the United Nations to ensure that the people of Namibia exercise their right to self-determination and independence. We sincerely hope that they will assume this inescapable burden which great power demands. 13. With those few words it is my pleasure and privilege on behalf of the delegations of Algeria, Colombia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal and Zambia to commend the draft resolution contained in document S/9384 to the Security Council for its unanimous adoption. In view of the pressjug schedule of the Security Council, the co-sponsors would like to request that a vote be taken on this draft resolution today.

I wish to thank the representative of Zambia for the kind words he has addressed to me. 1.5. Before continuing, I wish to notify the Council that 1 have just been informed that, as the representative of Zambia has announced, the delegation of Paraguay has also become a sponsor of the draft resolution just introduced by the representative of Zambia.

May I welcome the Secretary- General back to our midst and express our very great satisfaction at his recovery? 17. I now turn to the item on the agenda. Although we know that the present draft resolution falls far short of the requirements of the situation in that it fails to commit the Security Council to a specific course of action under Chapter VII of the Charter, which is what is vitahy needed, we have not ceased to view the developments in this case with our usual sense of optimism. In coming to grips with the situation in Namibia, the draft resolution takes the commitment of the Security Council much further than resolution 264 (1969) in many important respects. It sets a time-limit for South Africa’s withdrawal from Namibia; lt

If no representative wishes to speak at this time, I propose that the Council should proceed to vote on the draft resolution in document S/9384. 18. By setting a time-limit for South Africa’s withdrawal from the international Territory, the draft resolution lays the juridical basis for further consideration of the question by the Security Council in the very near future, at which time the permanent members of the Council who oppose action in this regard might perhaps be persuaded to take a positive view of their special responsibility under the Charter. In favoLly: Algeria, China, Colombia, Hungary, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Zambia. 19. This is something which gives us some cause for satisfaction. WC have been trying all along to commit the Security Council, and above all its permanent members, to an effective course of action with regard to the situation in Namibia. We have, furthermore, been trying all along to compel South Africa to adapt its behaviour to conform to the common principles and discipline of the United Nations. Abstaining: Finland, France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The draft resolution was adopted by 1 I votes to none with 4 abstentions. 1

That concludes our discussion on the subject of the situation in Namibia, for the time being. 20. As may be seen from the 8 August issue of the Windhoek Advertiser, the Foreign Minister of South Africa has again levelled charges against the “irresponsible and wild elements in the United Nations”, and served notice that his Government would treat the present resolution with the same contempt with which it has treated all previous resolutions. South Africa persists in its policy of active belligerency against the United Nations. The permanent members of the Security Council have also continued to refuse to rise up to their special responsibility.

Before adjourning the meeting, I wish to inform the members of the Council that I have received a letter from the Charge d’affaires of Lebanon in which he requests an urgent meeting of the Security Council. The text of the letter is already in the hands of the members of the Council in its original English version. Since it has not yet been possible to translate it into the other official languages, I shall read it. 21. So it would appear that our attempts have so far proved futile. But so far as the delegation of Nepal is concerned, we believe, as a matter of principle, in the essential wisdom of the course of action which we have been following. We must never cease in our attempts aimed at committing the Security Council to an effective course of action-action under Chapter VII of the Charter in this case. It is neither wise nor necessary to deviate from those attempts. We must act according to the concept of collective action by the United Nations. We must respect the principle of universality of our Organization. And, [The President read out in English the text of document S/9385/ 25. Following the usual consultations, it has been agreed that the Council will meet tomorrow at 5 p.m. A vote was taken by show of hands. Against: None. Statement by the President The meeting rose at 4.35 p.m. 1 See resolution 269 (1969).