S/PV.1588 Security Council

Nicaragua feels honoured today to be assuming once again the Presidency of the Security Council. The Council may remember that we were gratified to preside over this same body last July. 2. Since this is the first meeting we are holding in the month of October, I am happy to extend a greeting to you all, distinguished members of the Council, while at the same time reiterating my feelings of highest regard and cordial friendship. I hope that I can rely on the same generous and able co-operation and assistance that you so kindly rendered to me last July in order that we may make fruitful progress in our work,

In accordance with previous decisions taken by the Council 3. I am happy to convey to Ambassador Nakagawa of during its consideration of this question, I shall proceed to Japan, our most distinguished colleague, the sincere tharh Invite those deIegations participating in this debate to take and congratulations that he deserves from us all for the the places reserved for them in the Chamber, on the especially intelligent skilful and tactful manner in which he understanding that they will be invited to the Council table exercised his presidential duties during the month of when they wish to speak. take a seat at the Council table. no other analogous case exists, for this is the last of the League of Nations Mandates, Al the ~n~it~~lon of the &esident, Mr, M. ~hultd (Sudan) aftd Mr. E. 0. O&U, &&dent of the United Nations Cmnci~ for Namibia, took p&es at the Security Council table; and fi. T. Mabnnen (Ethiopia), Mr. H. Muiler (%tlth .MW, Mr. J R. Grimes (Liberia), Mr. S, S. Ram- P&l (Gt?YanQ/, Mr. B. Hassane (Chad)j Mr. 0. Atikpo (Niserial and Mr. R. Ramphul (Mwitiu~} took the places reserved for them in the Council mm&r. 9. The MESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): Before calling on the first speaker, I wish to inform the Council that the delegation of l&homey has added its name to the bst of signatories of the letter addressed to the President of the Security Council by a considerable number of representatives of African States/S/10326].

Mr. President, in keeping with established tradition, we shall refrain from expressing to you pubbcly our high regard for you as well as for your predecessor, but we wish to assure you that our silence is not inadvertent. 11. The issue before us is unusual in every respect. This is brought out by the very presence in our midst of President MokIar Ould Daddah, whose great ~noral dignity and vision WC have long admired, as well as by the attendance of an impressive delegation of eminent African ministers. 12. This question is exceptional first of all because of the extent of the debates to which it has given rise in the United Nations since the very beginning of the Organizatjon. I remember participating myself in these debates almost 11 years ago in the Fourth Committee on the item that was then called “The. question of South-West Africa”. It is exceptional also by reason of the number of resolutions which have been adopted on it and the variety of bodies that have been catled upon to give their views on this question. But it is also exceptional by reason of the very nature of the Territory under discussion, the Only Territory in respect of which a Mandate of the League of Nations was not changed into a United Nations Trusteeship. It is a well-known fact that even though the architects of the Charter in San Francisco did not write into this document a strict obligation making it incumbent upon the mandatory Powers to transform their Mandate into a Trusteeship, there is not the slightest doubt that meY intended that such a change would be requested by the countries concerned. 13. As was expected, all the mandatory Powers, including ourselves, negotiated Trusteeship Agreements-all except one, SOU th Africa, which remained deaf to all en treaties. That is how this anomaly arose-a source of endless and sterile legal debate: a Mandate of the League of Nations has continued to exist outside the United Nations Trusteeship System and, due to the erroneous interpretation Of this Mandate by South Africa, it has continued to exist outside the Organizatjon as a whole. 15. However, despite the exceptional nature of this problem, on which my Government expressed jts views in detail in a report jt addressed to the International Court of Justice, the Court set forth a number of general considerations on the jurisdiction of the General Assembly and the Security Council which go far beyond the question of Namibia and we refuse categorically to endorse them. 16. We shall merely exercise our normal prerogatives vis-&vis what is but a consultative opinion and not a judgement, although some delegations have shown a tendency in the COWS of this debate to regard it as such. This opinion comes to us not only in the form of a set of conclusions but it is also accompanied by a detailed account of the reasoning which led the judges to that decision. Moreover, alongside the majority opinion, which contains a number of important qualifications, we find an account of the dissident opinjons, which obviously did not prevail but which are no less worthy of our attention. 17. Having thus carefully consjdered the advisory opinion1 as a whole, we feel duty bound to voice our criticism of its analysis of the powers of the General Assembly. Thus, we read in paragraph 105 of the opinion: ‘I * . . it would not be correct to assume that, because the General Assembly is in principle vested with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting, in specific cases within the framework of its competence, resolutions which make determinations or have operative design.” In other words, according to the Court, in the cases mentioned in paragraph 105 of its advisory opinion, the General Assembly might not only make recommendations but also take decisions binding on States on the sole condition that it keeps within the very vast framework of questions w*hich it is empowered to discuss. We categorically reject such a view, which would make the General Assembly the parliament of a world super-State. In fact, save for the very special instances of which a complete list is given, such as the admission or the expulsion of a Member State (Articles 4 and 6), the vote on the budget (Article 17) and the drawing up of the rules of procedure {Article 2I)-cases that are irrelevant to this debate-the Charter contains no provision, and certainly not in Article 10, investing the General Assembly with the slightest power of decision. 18. Sirt-&uly, we wish once again to emphasize that the Security Council is empowered to take decisions binding on all States. But such decisions are limited to cases of a threat 1 Legal Consequences for Slates of the Continued Presence of Soutjl Africa Qt Namibia (South West Africa1 rzotwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970]? Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16. 19. Having mentioned both the exceptional nature of what is called the question of Namibia, and certain erroneous Interpretations of our Charter as contained in the advisory opinion of the Court, my delegation wishes to stress that the impatience of the whole of the international community, though, of course, above all that of our African Friends-is perfectly legitimate In respect of this problem whose legal vicissitudes continue without the least progress being made, 20. We must strive to be concrete and constructive. In any event, that is the position to which my Government Intends to adhere. 21. That leads us to an observation and a proposal. The observation is that, above and beyond IegaI controversy about whether the Mandate is still in force or has been revoked by the General Assembly, the concept of a Mandate is repudiated in practice by both parties. South Africa-which has violated the obligations thereof in a constant and reprehensible manner, not only through the enactrnen t of its annexationist legislation and racist regulations but also by attacking the unity of the Territory-has announced that the Mandate is nulI and void. As for the General Assembly, it claims to have revoked it. Namibia, I should Iike to express to this important body of our Organization my feeling of gratitude for being given the opportunity of speaking on behalf of Africa, thus discharging the mandate entrusted to us by the Organization of African Unity, under the high leadership of its present President. President Moktar Ould Daddah of the Islamic 22. Inasmuch as the two opposing parties are in agreement Republic of Mauritania, and for the high sense of responsithat the Mandate does not exist, one would be tempted to bihty evinced by this Council, enabling us to make heard say that the question dealing with the continuance of this the voice of the African victims of the greatest injustice of Mandate would no loncrer have anv meaning if there did not our time. flow from the concept”of a Mandate a cap&I obligation for South Africa. It is the obligation to negotiate in good faith 31. The Pretoria authorities claim that it is in the name of with the United Nations for the establishment of an Western civilization and the moral principles which underlie international rbgbne enabling the people concerned freely that civibzation-that is to say, in the name of the to choose their destiny. principles of generous Christianity-that they subject the black populations of Southern Africa to the apartheid 23. This is an obligation which we do not intend to allow South Africa to shirk, We are prepared, for our part, to make this known to South Africa. It goes without saying, however, that a collective effort by the international community and, above aII, by the countries whose vast means entail special responsibilities, is highly desirable. 24. In truth, this appears to us to be not only the reasonable course but the only possible course. Whatever the impatience and the weariness that the obstinacy and-to speak frankly-the ill-will of Sou th Africa may arouse in US, we must be no less determined to caIl upon South Africa to fulfil its obligation to negotiate. 25. In the present state of affairs, this is undoubtedly the only means of safeguarding the prestige of the United Nations and of preserving the interest of the people whose fate must remain our principal concern. We shall add nothing to that since that is what Is essential. We, for our part, are ready to comply with this earnest appeal by the President of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. 27. If South Africa were to fail to abide by its strict obligation to negotiate with the United Nations for a new international regime for South West Africa,France would draw its own conclusions about the illegality of an administration maintained under such conditions, 28. Based on the above considerations, my delegation will state its position at the time the vote is taken on the proposals placed before us.

The next speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chad. I invite him to take a place at the Council table.

At the outset, in this modest contribution which I plan to make to the debates of this Council on the problem of system. 32. Among the voices raised in the world and in the United Nations against this abject system, which is a true denial of the quality of a human being, we find those of representatives of countries which, for the principles of Christianity and those underlying other rehgions, have the most worthy and most absolute respect. 33. As far as we know, none of the respectable religions of this world makes man responsible for the colour of his skin, and it has never been scientifically proved that the colour of the skin has anything at all to do with the degree of inteIIigence of a human being. On the contrary, everything seems to point to the fact that, given similar conditions, all men are the same. Do the white men of Pretoria have a sense which other human beings do not have? DO they reahze that, through their obstinacy, they are about to “The South African Government is committed to the pticW Of self-determination no less than any 0f.h Member of this Qrganization; and it is our conviction that the peoples Of South West Africa wish us to continue to administer the Territory until they have achieved full self-determination under our guidance,” 11584th meeting, para 137.1 35. Is he trying t0 tell us that the populations of Namibia willingly accept to be treated as they are treated at present by the advocates of the apartheid n?gime, arc ready to decide that they wish to be kept within a community of States governed by this system and, therefore, to abandon any idea of true independence? 36. If this is SO, why does South Africa not agree to withdraw from the international territory of Namibia to enable the population of that Territory to prove this desire by freely choosing ita own representatives who would then, in all sovereignty, decide to joinSouth Africa? 37. How is it that the Pretoria authorities and the United Nations cannot agree on the meaning of the expression “self-determination of peoples”? If this comes from the difference between the content which the United Nations gives to this principle and the one given to it by South Africa, we sincerely believe that it is up to South Africa to accept the interpretation of this principle given by the General Assembly and the Security Council. 38. When the United Nations agreed that the Mandate exercised under the control of the League of Nations should continue to be exercised by the Union of South Africa in the name of Hia Britannic Majesty and under its control, it never had thvidea of entrusting the fate of the population of this Territory forever to the South African authorities for them to do with it what they saw fit. 39, The Mandate was created “in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international objective: a sacred trust of civiIization,“a Refusal by South Africa to discharge the obligations pursuant to the terms of the. Mandate made necessary, and even compulsory, the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), deciding that the Mandate had come to an end and that South Africa did not have the right to administer the territory. 40. In addition to numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council de&ring illegal the practice of the apartheid system in that mandated Territory, in particular resolution 2145 (XXI) of the General Assembly, putting an end to the Mandate exercised by South Africa, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971~made necessary by the 2 See! ~nternutional Status of South West Africa, Adtjimry Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p, 128. 4 1. We have such respect for the decisions of our Organization that we think no politician responsible for the fate of a people could have the idea of adhering to the principles of the Charter or of any treaty without having thought twice. Those responsible for international relations in our respective countries are not so irresponsible that they accept to sanction an important decision with so many legal implications without having tbougbt of the Iegal and political consequences of the decision which they would have our Organization take. Our Governments carefully studied the situation then existing ln South-West Africa. They carefully studied the way in which the Government of South Africa was discharging the mandate entrusted to it by the United Nations. And it was because they fully understood the annexationist designs of the Pretoria au. thorities regarding the mandated Territory in violation of the right of self-determination of the people of that Territory that they decided to ask that an end be put to the exercise of that Mandate over South-West Africa by the Republic of South Africa. Thus, resolution 2145 (XXI) of the General Assembly of our Grganization, nomatter what our critics say, was a result of careful and objective reflection on the part of delegations fully aware of their responsibilities under the spirit of the Charter and their obligation for the maintenance of international peace and security. 42. If the Republic of South Africa had the slightest respect for our Organization and the principles of the Charter-and this respect flows from its position as a Member State-if it had the slightest respect for the principIes governing the political Organlzation of which we are membere Member States among which there are some which have the same civilization as that because of which it claims to defend its apartheid system, it would have respected the spirit of the first resolution stating that it had failed in its duty imposed by the Charter in discharging the Mandate for which it was responsible and which it had to discharge honourably, having in mind the fundamental objective of ensuring the well-being of the populations of the mandated Territory. It would have spared us the need to adopt so many resolutions and the need to resort to the International Court of Justice after the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI). 43. The attitude of flagrant defiancelalways shown by that Member State towards the resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council and the arrogance always shown towards the Advisory Opinions and decisions of the highest judjcial organ of our Organization are such that we could have not the slightest illusion about the way in which it was to react to a just and courageous decision of the court. 45. We must also remind the Council that it was two years after having recognized the validity of GeneraI Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), and having asked in vain that South Africa withdraw from Namibia and having set as a deadline 4.0ctober 1969 for that withdrawal, that the Security CWIC~J decided to ask for the advisory opinion of the court. 46. Is it nqcessary to remind members of the Council that the Security Council by resolution 269 (1969) decided: “that the continued occupation of the Territory of Namibia by the South African authorities constitutes an aggressive encroachment on the authority of the United Nations, a violation of the territorial integrity and a denial of the political sovereignty of the people of Namibia”? Is it necessary to remind members of the Council that the same Council in resolution 276 (1970) declared “that the continued presence of the South African authorities in Namibia is illegal and that consequently all acts taken by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal . . a”. 50. In reply to the question of the Security Council, the Court rendered the following opinion in paragraph 133: 47. Thus, members of the Council, your important body is today concretely confronted with the heavy responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations in the name of mankind. “(2) that States Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognize the illegality of Squth Africa’s presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Govemment of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration; 48. According to us, one of the Council’s main objectives should be at the end of these debates to ensure the strict application by all States of its resolutions on this matter, as well as complete respect for the Opinion which, pursuant to your unanimous request, the highest international judicial organ has rendered about the legal consequences for States of the continuing presence of South Africa in Namibia despite resolution 276 (1970) of your Council, (3) that it is incumbent upon States which are not Members of the United Nations to give assistance, within the scope of subparagraph (2) above, in the action which has been taken by the United Nations with regard to Namibia,” 49. Pursuant to that request, the Court said the following in paragraphs 122 to 125 of its advisory opinion: “ . . . member States are under obligation to abstain from entering into treaty relations with South Africa in all cases in which the Government of South Africa purports to act on behalf of or concerning Namibia. With respect to existing bilateral treaties, member States must abstain from invoking or applying those treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which involve active intergovernmental co-operation. With respect to multilateral treaties, however, the same rule cannot be applied to certain general conventions such as those of a humanitarian character, the non-performance of which may adversely affect the people of Namibia. It will be for the competent international organs to take specific measures in this respect. 51. Namibia is not the first nor the only Territory under niandate which the United Nations has had to help to accede to national independence, but it is the only one which has given rise to so much concern in our Organization. 52. It is no secret for anyone that this is due to various foreign influences of a political, economic or other character which encouraged the South African Government in maintaining its defiant and contemptuous attitude towards the world Organization. What is even more disappointing, is the fact that this encouragement comes from Powers which, by dint of their importance, are primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. - “ *.. member States” have ‘+the obligation to abstain from entering into economic and other forms of relationships or dealings with South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which may entrench its authority over the Territory. “In general, the non-recognition of South Africa’s administration of the Territory should not result in depriving the people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international co-operation, In particular, while official acts performed by the Government of South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory.” “(1) that, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory; 54. Many times we have had to critic&z thhe activities of non-Member States running counter to resolutions of our Organizations. It is therefore necessary to say that this compliance or non.compIiance of non-Member States with their obligations towards Namibia shhall be considered 8s relevant factors when we have to determine their quali!ications as possible Members of this Organization. 55. By accepting fully security Council resolution 283 (1970) and the legal opinion ofthe Court, pursuant to resolution 284 (1970) of the Security Council, I declare that we agree with all orooosals in oarts A and 6 of the report of the Ad l&c * Sub-Cohmittee on Namibia lS/IU330]. 56. WC have therefore come to ask the Security Council, on behalf of the whole of Africa, to assume the full share of its responsibilities as a guarantor of international peace and security by effectively putting ‘an end to the presence of South African administration in the international territory of Namibia, by adopting measures in conformity with the Ch-k?r. 57. In the search for a solution to the problem confronting the Security C%nc& its first duty ia towards the population of Namibia. This Council must be constantly mindful of the fact that this problem has to do with the fate of this population and that it is the way in which it discharges its obligations toward that population will determine the confidence and the hopes for peace that the international community-and especially defenceless peoples-places in the Security Council and, through it, in the United Nations, 64. This impressive record was crowned by the recent advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice. The Court’s opinion, though it does not add new fmdings or* indictments, represents an important legal enunciation that completes the estrangement of the South African @me by all United Nations organs: the legislative, the administrative and the legal.’ South Africa now stands condemned in the eyes of the civilized world: condemned for its transgression of the law of nations; condemned for its disdain of the principles of the Charter; and, indeed, condemned for its callous disregard of the Imperatives of universal wisdom. All the right-thinking elements of international society have since associated themselves with the findings of the Court, including some of the majorpowers. And we are confident that others wffl follow suit, for it is the c8use of jusfice that stands to gain by such a rally. I am son-y to say that the statement we just heard from the representative of France does not help us a great deal in t& particular direction, We too do not want to engage in a sterile juridical discussion. We can produce a forest of legal opinions and interpretations regarding the competence of the Council and the Assembly; that would not help. The 58. I should like most respectfully to appeal to the conscience of the permanent memben of the Security Council ‘and to state that the special position and the privileges which they enjoy in the adoption of the most important international decisions are in keeping with the heavy responsibilities entrusted to them by the internationd community. Therefore, there can be no serious pretext to justify the refusal to exercise these responsibilities and in these circumstances to take the specifti measures which are mandatory, especially after the state ment heard by the Council from the representative of South Africa /15’84ih meetirig] after .the legal opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice which I have just mentioned. 62. And if we come here, fNe African Foreign Ministers led by a prominent African Head of State, we do this to awaken the world to the reality of African concern and consensus on this question, the question of Namibia. It is not my intention to elaborate on a case, nor is it my intention to adduce arguments in suppoti of a cause. The case of Africa was very ably expounded by President Moktar Ould Daddah and its arguments very skilfully marshalled by my learned friends Makonnen, Grimes, Arikpo, Pratt and Ghalib. 63. But is it really necessary for us to go through this painful exercise? The Council knows orily too well that in no other issue before the United Nations have the minds of all the representatives in this Organizatlon been at one. The record of 88 General Assembly resolutions and 7 Security Council resolutions speaks for itself. 66. Today Africa looks to this Co&il for dedsive action, It looks to this Council to put into operation the whole mechanism of redress against an unlawful aggressor, It looks, in particular, to the big Powers of the West to end all continuing activities and relations, be they political, military, diplomatic or economic, that would enable South Africa to continue its unlawful trespass in Namibia or clothe its presence in that Territory with a semblance of legality. 67. And in this connexion we give credit to those countries that have so far respected the edicts of the United Nations on the arms embargo, on economic sanctions, on the discouragement of investment and on the cessation of a consular presence, 68. We do not want to believe that the great Powers which continue to aid and trade with South Africa can go on sacrificing moral responsiblity for the sake of material gain or strategic interests. Rut even if we have to be cynical and say that, to some, goid is Cod, still those people would be better advised to think in terms of their interests elsewhere. There is also more at stake north of the Lirnpopo. 69. We know that considerations of national interests are major factors in policy formulation. But we also know that the role of any Power is to weigh national interest against international responsibility and to weigh material gain against moral commitment. After all the whole process of government is, in the last analysis, a weighing of relative social and moral values. 70. Of late we have been told that a ferment within’south African society might soon result in a change of heart in that country. I am sure that in listening to Mr. Muller, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa, the other day /158&h meetirz~, many people were hopefuhy awaiting evidence of that change. But here he came, not to plead but to accuse, not to explain but to confuse, not to submit to judgement but to challenge authority, not to heed the wise counsel of the world but to defend a repugnant policy that has justifiably earned the inexhaustible contempt of mankind. 71. Mr, Muller, with unparalleled audacity, has also come here not only to challenge the legality of the Court’s ruling, but also to question the integrity of that great international legal oracle. To him, the Court’s verdict was a result of politicat manoeuvres rather than objective jurisprudence. 72. And as for facts, what did Mr. Muller have to tell us, armed with his home-made statistics? That his Government is making determined efforts to bring the people of 73. Mr. Muller talks of self-government for the peoples of %mibia. What peoples of Namibia does he refer to? Should we look for the answer in his constantly revealing references to white and nonwhite population? White and non-white-that is the sort of adjective that does not exist in the United Nations lexicon; it does not exist in the United Nations Trust Territories. The United Nations, if Mr. Muller needs to be reminded, is simply colour blind. 74. South Africa, in its vain endeavour, seems to be inspired by the overblown maxim of ancient empire builders: divide and rule. The reason behind these divisive methods is to make easy South Africa’s repressive control of the people of Namibia. We would be taking leave of our senses if we believed that this policy was one that would guide Namibia towards self-government. 75. With regard to Namibia’s economy, Mr. Muller has tried to tabulate an impressive record of achievements in economic development-thanks to God and South Africa, or perhaps the reverse. But Mr. Muller did not choose to relate this impressive development to the realities of life in Namibia. He did not relate it to the so-called police zones, comprising the soutbem developed region and two-thirds of the Territory-occupied, need I say, by whites. He did not relate it to the underdeveloped, so-called outside, zones that fit so well the description by Gladstone: “. . . this waterless waste in South Africa”. He did not relate hisper cap&r incomes to the slavelabour contract system of the South West African Native Labour Association (SWANLA), under which a Nsmibian worker earns a wage of seven rands a month, compared with a minimum wage of 150 rands earned by a white worker. 76. Mr, Nuller continues to produce evidence of his country’s efforts to promote the general welfare of the people of Namibia, The name of Ovamboland occus many times h his statement. And since Mr. Muller has a lot of faith in news reports and features about South Africa, let me refer him to one. Let me refer him to what The New York Timer had to say of Ovamboland in its issue of 23 June 1971: “Clearly aiming at making it into a showcase, South Africa has over the fast few years appropriated sizable funds.. . to give favoured Ovambo groups water, roads, hospit& and the beginning of small industries.” Thus, what South Africa intends-to hold out a typical economf&y advanced area of the Territory of Namibia is revealed to be nothing but a window-dressing designed to conceal the real economic situation in the whole Territory. We are not therefore to be hoodwinked into accepting South Africa’s propaganda by the sweet reasonableness v,itJr which it attempts to sell these half-truths. 77. Mr+ Muher also chose to speak on education-a field in which me Oovernment of South Africa has displayed and 78. The South African Foreign Minister has sought to impress us with numbers of pupils and schools, maintaining silence on the gross inequity in the treatment accorded to white and African children as regards educational facilities, the number and ratio of school enrolment and completion of studies, the quality of education dispensed and the amount of money allotted. In 1970, for example, the average per c@ta expenditure for white children was eleven times the amount spent per capita for African children. In 1969, only 47,000 out of an estimated 102,OCX) school-age African children were attending school. Even grimmer statistics may be noted. Of those attending school, 91 per cent were enrolled In lower primary classes, 9 per cent at the higher primary level, and only 0.3 per cent in secondary classes. This “wastage” is not only a feature of African education in Namibia, but it is also the result of a deliberate policy. The system itself is structured to perpetuate such wastage, 79. As far as health services, are concerned, Mr. Muller again produced statistics from his Government’s books. Checked against the evidence of those who have lived and continue to live in the misery of the reserves, those statistics seem to speak of a paradise long lost. This is what Katuutire Kaura, a Narnibian witness, told the Ad Hw Working Group of Experts of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights: “It is my turn to take you to the outskirts of the Kalahari Desert, where young men are relegated to early graves because they happen to have caught a common cold and there is no wdical clinic around”? 80. Mr. Muller sought to use statistics for hospital beds to persuade this Council that his country is dispensing proper medical services. We should have been more impressed if we had been given the ratio of doctors to patients among Africans. 8 1. The wind of change that some of the members of this Council were awaiting and are still awaiting in great expectation is not yet blowing frori the direction of Pretoria. What we were subjected to in this Chamber by the South African Foreign Minjster was indeed, as mY friend Mr. Makoraen said, “the incredible spectacle of the arch law-breaker of our time posing as the ardent advocate of international rule of law. /lS87th meeting, par@. 104 SO let us not be diverted by dilatory tactics; let us approach the problem with resolve. 82. I wish to teU this c~und that, in coming here, we were not driven by an impulse of instinctive solidarity but 3 A Principle in Tonnerlt: III-The-~flatiorls and Namibfa (United Nations publication, Sales No.: E.71.1.41, P. 11. 83. In the face of SouthiAfrlcan intransigence the Council can no longer continue to be an irresolute author of decisions. Let us move to endorse the Court’s mling in toto, Let US reaffi our past decisions and resolutions. Let us take measures that will compel States-all States-to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations, discharge their responsibility towards the people of Namibia and deny to South Africa all the help and opportunities that enable it to continue its aggression, Let us take a further step: let us, as is indeed our duty, take the necessary action envisaged under Chapter VII of the Charter, 84. At its 1583rd meeting the Council heard the solemn voice of the whole of Africa in the speech of one of our great Presidents-President Moktar Ould Daddah. Today the Council may wish to hear the voice of Namibia, through the words of a simple African, Toivo, a teacher and regional secretary of SWAPO, defending himself at one of the historic trials in Pretoria. His voice haa since been muzzled by the repressive machine of South Africa. Toivo is now serving a 2O-year sentence in the fascist gaols of South Africa. He had this to say to his judge, or rather to his inquisitor: “ .I. 1963 for us was to be the year of our freedom. From 1960 it looked as if South Africa could not oppose the world for ever. The world is important to us. In the same way as all laughed in Court when they heard that an old man tried to bring down a helicopter with a bow and arrow, we laughed when South Africa said that it would oppose the world. We knew that the world was divided, but as time went on it at least agreed that South Africa had no right to rule us. I‘ a.. we feel that the world as a whole has a special responsibility towards us. This is because the land of our fathers was handed over to South Africa by a world body. It is a divided world, but it is a matter of hope to us that it at least agrees about one thing-that we are entitled to freedom and justice”, t Many people like Toivo-millions of people-are awaiting us back home; and alI of them, like him, are clamouring for freedom and justice. 85. listening to President Ould Daddah the other day, I could not resist the temptation of being carried away to a j distant past and far-away place-to 30 June 1936 and to the Assembly of the League of Nations meeting in Geneva. The resonance of the fhm and dignified speech of Emperor , Haile Selassie of Ethiopia claiming justice for his people was perhaps too strong to resist. What was most resounding in that speech was the Emperor’s closing appeal: “Representatives bf the world, I have come to Geneva to discharge in your midst the most painful of the duties of the Head of a State. What answer am I to take back to my people? I’ 86. Let US not once again prove to the world the decay of in temational virtue. 87. The PRESIDENT (interpretdon from Spanish}: I wish to remind the Council that at its last meeting, held on 30 September, it agreed that in due time It would accede to the request contained in the letter from the representatives of Bumndi, Sierra Leone and Somalia fS/10346/ and would extend an invitation to Mr. Nujoma under mle 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. I believe that it is appropriate to hear Mr. Nujoma’s statement, in keeping with the decision taken on 30 September by the Council. 88. If I hear no objection, I shall now call on Mr. Nujoma. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sam Nujomu took a place at the Council table. 89. Mr. NUJOMA: There are privileges in life that should be accompanied by particular solemnity. The privilege that this august body has bestowed upon me as the first freedom fighter to be accorded this opportunity, is indeed one such privilege. Aware of the stupendous task that rests uponmy shoulders today, Mr. President, allow me to express my most sincere debt of gratitude to you, and through you, to the distinguished members of the Security Council. 90. This session of the Council has been convened to discuss ways and means of enforcing previous decisions of the General Assembly, as well as those of the Security Council, in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971. The International Court gave an unequivocal ruling when it stated in paragraph 133 of the opinion: “, . . the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being ilIega1, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory”. 91. Discussing this opinion, 7%e NW York Times stated: “With this historic 13 to 2verdict, the Court has cleared away the legal and political fog that for years obscured the status of the former German colony.” Thus the Namibian people and the peace-loving people of the world have won the legal contest. Now it is UP to the Security Council to live up to its responsibility. 92. The United Nations is confronting the most determined and most serious onslaught on its prinC$es since the Organization was set up, Therefore the Security Council, as an organ which has been assigned the Primary EsponsibiIity for the maintenance of international Peace and security, should and must not fail to take authoritative and decisive action. 94. Who can doubt that these conditions are now prevalent? Who can doubt that a case has arisen for the Security Council to take action as provided in Articles 40 and 41? The only people who doubt this are the major Western Powers. They do so, not because the situation in Namibia does not threaten international peace and security, but because they want their agents in South Africa to continue providing them with cheap labour, which results in enormous profits For their investors. How long will these people who profess to be the champions of equality, democracy and free speech pursue their insatiable greed for material things and ignore the value of human life? How can the situation in Namibia be described as peaceful when South Africa is arming itself to the teeth with the most advanced weapons of destruction? How does one explain the fact that the South African army is today fighting in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe? How does one explain the constant threats made against independent African States? For instance, Vorster threatened President Kaunda of Zambia in the following terms: “We will hit you so hard so that you will not forget it”. Lastly, what is to become of international law if the countries represented here can ignore with impunity any interpretation of law that is not in their favour? Where are the advocates of ‘law and order’? 9.5. We welcome the stand taken by the Government of the United States in accepting the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as stated by the Secretary of State, Mr. William Rogers, in the General Assembly. [195&t+ pletzqj meeting]. We hope the United States will follow up this responsibility with appropriate measures to end South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia. 96. The South African Foreign Minister gave “facts and figures” on the economic devefopment of Namibia which, if’ one does not read between the Iines, imply that ’ South African presence in Namibia confers rewarding economic and other benefits on the black majority and the white minority alike. Lest the members of this Council and the world at large be bamboozled, we should like to point out two very important factors which must be borne in mind with respect to the situation in Namibia. 97. First, we wish to make it perfectly clear to the world that the African majority does not manifestly benefit either fmancially or materially from the economic development of Namibia. If there is indeed any benefit at all, it is only marginal or latent and certainly not on a level with that enjoyed by the whites. Hence all those impressive “facts and figures” so dramatically revealed by the Foreign Minister have no bearing on the economic conditions of the African population. 98. Secondly, everything in Namibia, as well as in South Africa, is geared towards benefiting the white section of the Ligures meant ti, pmvh ta &s world how mu AMcan Government fs daN for $he Africtis of hospitals, schools, rad& at&low, t&d ~4 clerks, bookkeepers, truck driven ‘and so forth, meant to show how much Pretoria has done for &, ~4 want It to be perfectly clear to the world that we w+t independence-and I underline that fact: we want pendence. We want South AMca to relinquis+ its occupation of Namibia. We shall never be wooed by roada, hospitals, schools and so forth, ti long as South Af%oa remains on Namibian soil. Again, we want the world to appreciate this fact for what it is. 100. The South African Foreign Minister stated that his Government ‘is making determined efforts to bring the peoples of South West Africa toward sclf-govermnent.” /lSMth meeting, para. 134*J 7% & B gross abuse of the noble concept of self-determination and a euphemism for upmiheid or Bantustan or Homeland, I think ft is appre @ate for me to quote what our people at home had tosay about Bantustans. Bishop L, Auala and Pastor P. Gowaseb in their statement to their congregations made the fob lowjng points: “The Government, by the application of the Homelands Pobcy, constitutes the creation and continuation forever of the division between the races. It is stated that this policy is intended to lead the races to self-government and independence. But our small race groups cannot really be aided by separation. .Ibey wili be isolated and denied the chance to take a proper part in the develop ment of the country.” 101. In another incident, a group of students of Ondangua stated that: “. . . Ovambos would rather suggest to Vorster and his company to onate ‘Whitestans’ for Gen’nan~, Afrikaners and English elsewhere, but not in Namibia.” 107. In Namibia society in all its spheres-the sphere of education included-is organized on the basis of race rjis&nination. This is the very basis of apartheid. It is therefore shocking to hear the representative of the white section of the society contending-contraIy to the very phiiosophy of apartheid-that whites and blacks receive the same education in Namibia. In fact, the assertion implies that whites ‘and blacks receive the same educational opportunities in Namibia. What then is Bantu education’? Mr. Muller conveniently omitted to mention the system of Bantu education. It was conveniently avoided for very obvious reasons. The fact is that education for whites is free and compulsory, whereas the same cannot be said of the education of the Afticans. 102. There are factors militating against and, indeed, precluding the successful implementation of Bantustans. The economic realities of our time require large expanses of land and massive populations to provide the base for markets. Thus, a five-year development plan for Ovarnbo land, in isolation, is an illusion of hope. It is economically unfeasible, and therefore politically unrewarding. The social and economic expectations of the people of this region will most certainly override the fantasies of apartheid. 103. The spokesman for the white people ofSouth Africa further stated that “per capita income is amongst the highest in Africa” [ibid, pam. I43J. Economists have long admitted that this jumbling of figures in order to arrive at a so-called per capita income is the most inaccurate way of measuring the real income of a person. It may OdY approximate reality in a country where there is an equal distribution of national wealth. It is completely map plicable in the case of Namibia, where there is such a disparity in incomes. Namibians are among the poorest Africans I have seen, I wish to inform Mr. MulIer that he log. II-I the more than 40 years of its maladministration Of Namibia the white Gove:nment of South Africa has dismally failed to prepare our people by providing them with a meaningful education which would enable them to ain a modern government when Namibia becomes indelendent. Bantu education certainly cannot prepare US to landle the complexities of modem establishments. 109. That dw not mean that we ourselves have been idle. m plea& to state here that SWAF’O of Namibia, in its IO I._ “The system’ [of e&cat&j ?n South west &Ii&.& dirsCt& in fine with the modem approach $0 schooli$ i& Africa, the emphasis being on the importance of Af3can vultures in ti education of African youth;” /Ibid, paru 1594.. 105. There is absolutely no truth whatsoever in Uris assertion. Indeed, the philosophy of education wMch governs the education of Africans in Namibia is based on the notorious policy statement of the late Dr. Verwoerd, when he was Minister of Banta Administration and Education, that the “black child’s education must be geared towards pnparing him for a subservient position in society. , . not to give false hopes to want to aspire to the position of the white man, who must remain his master”. Nothing has happened in the past twenty years or more to prove that this policy has been scrapped. On the contrary, there is ali the evidence to prove that education of the African in Namibia has deteriorated. 106. The Foreign Minister stated, inter alicr, that “The standard is the same as that of the whites in South and South West Africa”[lbid.J 110. Mr. Mulier further stated that “it is our conviction that the peoples of South West Africa wish us to continue to administer the Territory until they have achieved full self+determination under our guidance,“[Bld., para. 137,] 116. Again, let me cite another example of the country. wide protests against South Africa’s illegal presence in Namibia. This time, I refer to the anti-Government demonstrations by secondary as well as high school students in many parts of the country. 111. The truth is that the people of Namibia have never accepted and will never accept the administration of South Africa. in this respect we can do no better than cite some of the recent developments inside Namibia which categorically prove our people’s outright rejection of the South African Government. Again, for obvious reasons, Mr. Muller did not mention these developments. 117. When the Foreign Minister of the all-white South African Government addressed the Security Council the other day, he mentioned the Ongwedtia training institute in Ovamboland, which he described as “an impressive complex comprising three institutions in one-a high school, a teachers’ training centre and a trades centre” [ibid., para. 1 &I]. 112. As we stated earlier, the people of Namibia enthusiastically welcomed and approved of ffie advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971. Perhaps the most significant development following the Court’s advisory opinion has been the position and the stand taken by the African Church leaders in Namibia. The Church occupies an esteemed position among our people, and its leaders are no less esteemed than the political leaders of our country, most of whom are either in gaol or detention or in exile today. 118. What the Foreign Minister failed to mention was that the Ongwediva training institute, since its establishment, had been nothing but a perennial source of trouble for the South African occupation authorities. There have been so many anti-Government demonstrations at this training institute. The biggest of these occurred after the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice when the South African Government was forced to close down the institution. Hundreds of students were expelled because of this political demonstration in favour of the Court’s opinion. It was therefore perplexing to hear the South African Minister talk in such laudatory terms of the institute, which is indeed the centre of protest for the young generation of our country. 113. Two very influential leaders of the Ovambokavango Lutheran Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, following the Court’s advisory opinion, addressed an open letter to the Prime Minister of white South Africa on 30 June 1971. That letter is a historic document of farreaching consequences in our struggle for freedom and independence in Namibia. Copies are being circulated in the United Nations and, therefore, I am not going to quote it in lid. However, I shall quote some relevant parts of it for the information of the Security Council. 119. Not only is Ongwediva a symbol of new nationalism n Namibia, but it was also from there that many students Mere expelled because they refused to accept the Afrikaans anguage as a medium of instruction. This came as a lrofound shock to the South African authorities. Similar lemonstrations have taken place at the Augustineurn High ;chool at Windhoek, where 70 students were expelled only ast week. “We believe that South Africa in its attempts tc Develop South West Africa has failed to take cognizance of fiuman rights as declared by the United Nations in the year 1948 with respect to the non-white population.” Furthermore, the letter goes on to state: “The Church Boards’ urgent wish is that in terms of the declarations of the International Court and in COoperation with the United Nations of which South Africa is a Member, your Government will seek a peaceful solution to the problems of our land and will see to it that the Human Rights Declaration be put into operation and that South West Africa may become a self-sufficient and independent State.” 20. We have cited these important examples to demontrate to the world that, contrary to South Africa’s claim hat our people wish to remain under its administration, the eople want an immediate end to South African ride. It is ecause our people want an immediate end to South .frican rule that the Court’s opinion was accepted with lch enthusiasm by our people. 123. Another fallacy ohen proclaimed by Sbuth Africa is that the economic structure of Namiiia will collapse once its administration is replaced. Nothing could be further from the truth; for the interests of Namibians dictate that the economy must be strengthened and expanded in order to ensure the well-being of its citizens. The only possible source of disruption is the South African Government, which could sabotage the economy of Namibia; there is no prospect of this happening in any other quarter, 124. I wish to declare, in the name of the people of Namibia, that unless this august body acts decisively to S~CWC the withdrawal of South Africa from the international Territory of Namibia, we shall have no alternative but to continue the armed struggle with greater intensity. We do not love bloodshed, but when we are dealing with a Government like that of South Africa, which believes in violence and bloodshed, we must be prepared to meet it on its own terms. Our struggle may be long and protracted; OUT struggle may be bloody and costly in terms of human life; it is a price we are prepared to pay for our independence. 125. In conclusion, I should be failing in my duty if I did not express our gratitude to that illustrious son of Africa, the President of the Isl&ic Republic of Mauritania, for the moving address which he delivered on behalf of the Organization of African Unity [1583rd meeting]. May I also avail myself of this opportunity to extend our sincere thanks to the five Foreign Ministers who accompanied him and, through them, to the entire OAU membership. 126. I should like to inform the Council that we have in our possession a documentary fdm called “SouihY West Africa” which shows conclusively whom the people of Namibia will choose-South Africa or the United Nationsif and when they are given a choice. We should like the Council to see this film at a convenient time as material evidence.

The next speaker is the representative of the Soviet Union. The representative of Sierra Leone wishes to speak on a point of order.

I beg the indulgence of the representative of the Soviet Union.

The representative of the Soviet Union was kind enough to allow the representative of Sierra Leone to put forward his proposal. As I understand it, his proposal that the fdm be shown before tomorrow’s meeting is acceptable. 13 1. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Rusrinn): I am prepared to defer my statement until tomorrow, and perhaps we could see the film today. That is an alternative proposal I should like to make.

I understand that this film is not long; but considering the hour I would suggest that we see it tomorrow when we are quite refreshed, before the Council’s meeting begins.

It is quite possible that the representative of the Soviet Union will not insist, and he may be willing to speak today. First the representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor, and I now recognize him. 134. Sir Colin CROWE ‘(United Kingdom): Although Mr. Nujoma is quite free to offer to show to any member of the Council any film that he wishes, I wonder whether the showing of the film is quite appropriate at a formal meeting of the Security Council, or whether it should be made available to be seen elsewhere. 1 wonder whether a showing of a fti in the Security Council falls quite within the understanding on which we heard him.

On the same question, perhaps a clarification might be in order. If I understood you correctly, Mr. President, you suggested that the film might be available for those who would be interested in seeing it prior to the meeting of the Security Council tomorrow. On that understanding I think we would have no objection.

This matter is quite simple and I shall try to sum it up. I was about to call on the representative of the Soviet Union, the first speaker on my list, when the representative of Sierra Leone asked for the floor on a point of order. He requested that the film mentioned by Mr. Nujoma be shown before the first speaker takes the floor tomorrow. 137. It seems to me that this is a matter of courtesy; whoever wishes to see the film may do so. That is what we have been invited to do. This is not a matter relating to the meeting itself. The representative of France has asked for the floor. 139. Tk! pRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): The representative of Sierra Leone has asked the Chair whether before tomorrow’s meeting begins whoever wishes to see the film may be given an opportunity to do so. Is that correct? 148. The fact that the Organisation of African Unity as a body-that is to say, in effect, the whole of Africa, practically all the countries of the African continent-has approached the Security Council with a request for immediate consideration of this important matter, as well as the participation in these meetings of a representative delegation of the OAU, headed by the Chairman of the Eighth Assembly, Mr. Moktar Ould Daddah, President of Mauritania, and the personal participation in the debates of the Foreign Ministers of a large number of African countries, are all indicative of the great significance which, Africa attaches to the question of the liberation of Namibia and of the hopes placed by the African peopIes in the Security Council and in the United Nations in general.

Yes, Sir.

The matter has now been resolved satisfactorily.

I do not quite understand the concern of some members of the Security Council, Those who do not wish to see the film will not be dragged in to see it, and those who wish it will go ahead and see it. I see no grounds for discussion. 149. The debate in the Security Council on this issue has developed into a kind of international trial of the racist criminals. In the dock are the South African racists, and their friends and protectors, while the role of the stem prosecutor is played by the whole of Africa, its States, its Government and its peopies! 143. As far as my statement is concerned, I have no objection to deferring it until tomorrow, in view of the feelings of members of the Security Council about the lateness of the hour. 150. The statement by the head of the delegation at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly /1938zh rneeting/ and here in the Security Council /1583rd meeringj, and the statements by other representatives of African States, confirm once again the danger to peace resulting from the situation created in southern Africa by the South African racists’ brutal and high-handed disregard and non-implementation of United Nations resolutions calling for an immediate end to the occupation of Namibia.

The film will be shown tomorrow before the Council’s meeting; those who wish to see it may do so, accepting the invitation of the representative of Sierra Leone. I now invite the representative of the Soviet Union to speak this afternoon. He is the last speaker on my list.

If that is the President’s wish, I accept his ruling. - 151. For the United Nations, the essence of the question of Namibia is clear and incontrovertible. The United Nations has long since recognized that the South African racists’ seizure of that country is illegal. The General Assembly and the Security Council have repeatedly called for South Africa’s unconditional withdrawal from Namibia. The resolutions adopted by the United Nations with a view to putting an end to South Africa’s occupation of Namibia are well.known. The Security Council, in resolution 269 (1969), actually set a deadline for the withdrawal of South Africa’s administration from Namibia-a deadline which has long since expired. 146. Before making a statement on the substance of the question under consideration, I should like, Mr. President, on behalf of the Soviet delegation, to congratulate you personally on your assumption of the high office of President of the Security Council, and to express the hope that you will be successful in your work and that positive decisions will be adopted on the matters discussed. I should also like to convey our appreciation and sincere congratulations to your predecessor, the representative of Japan, who had a very strenuous period of activity, especially after the beginning of the General Assembly session, when we had to combine work at the plenary meetings simultaneously with work in the Security Council. In this connexion, we departed somewhat from previous practice. In the past, the practice was that when the Security Council met, there was no meeting of the General Assembly, and vice versa. But now, in view of the urgency of the matter and because of the request made by the whole of Africa, the Security Council has acted quite correctly in finding time, despite the plenary meetings of the General Assembly, to discuss this very vital question which is of immense significance both for all Africans and for the entire world. 152. The advisory opinion of the International Court, which upholds the United Narions decisions, also states that South Africa’s continued occupation of Namibia is illegal and that South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia and to put an end to its occupation of that court@. Notwithstanding alI these United Nations decisions, the South African racist regime is still doing its utmost to maintain its illegal presence in Namibia, and to exercise dominion over that Territory and Entrench itself there. It is applying methods of mass terror 15% Mr. Makonnen, who spoke in the Security Councfl 88 a member of the DAU delegation and as the representative Of Ethiopia /1587th meen&, referred to the racist+ Prosecution of the Dean of the Anglican Church in Johannesburg on the pretext that he had violated the so-called Suppression of Communism Act. Thus, to the South African racists, even the servants of the Church rank as communists if they speak out against the odious theory of racism and the practice ofapartlreid. 154. We communists glory in the fact that all who fight against racism and apartheid and for the freedom and independence of peoples are regarded by the racists as communists. This means f.hat even the enemies of corn. munism are forced to admit that communists are genuine fighters for the equality of all peoples, for their freedom and national independence without distinction as to nationality, race, sex, language or religion. However, the racists, in their fascist blindness and their hatred for the Africans forget that the demands for the equal rights of men and women for the equal rights of nations large and small, and for respect for human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, are key provisions of the United Nations Charter. Consequently the communists fighting far the equality of all peoples and against racial discrimination are not only pursuing their lofty humanitarian communist ideals but are’ also carrying out the pro~isio~x of the United Nations Charter. It follows therefore, that if the racists call the fighters against racism “communists”, they could with equal justification cd them “UN-ists”-in other words, respecters of the United Nations Charter. u* 160. ReIying on the economic and military co-operation of the imperialist forces and enjoying the moral and political support of the most reactionary Western circles, the South African racists are steadily increasing their military and economic potential and the size of their armed forces, which ‘are used not only to maintain the racist rdgime inside the country by force of arms but aho to suppress the national liberation movements of the enslaved African peoples in Namibia by fire and sword and to assist the Portuguese colonialists in their war of extermination against the African freedom fighters in the countries still suffering under the Portuguese colonial yoke. The militarization of racist South Africa is also a serious and real threat to be freedom and independence of all the African count&s which have liberated themselves from colonial rule. 155. In cynically rejecting the decisions of the United Nations on Namibia, the South African racists are hurling the same sort of challenge at the Organization as the Zionist racists of Israel who are frustrating a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. In this situation, the Security Council and all States Members of the United Nations are in duty bound to take the necessary effective measures to curb the racists, restore justice and grant them independence to the People of Namibia. 156. 111 order to determine the main’ways and means of enforcing the past resolutions of the Security Council-and this is precisely what Africa demands and expects of the cancg-it is essential, of course, to analyse the basic reasons which impede the implementation of these resolutions and which paralyse the United Nations when it comes to settling this vital international problem, as well as many other problems. 161. It is fie political, military and economic assistance and support of the Western countries, and especially of the United Kjngdom, which inspire the South’African racists to continue their policy of apartheid and tyrannical enslavement of he African population, which arouse the disgust and condemnation of the entire world and the resentment and indignation of the whole of Africa. The continuous 157. l’he USSR delegation has already had an opportunity to louch on the reasons for the South African racists’ defiant attitude, but we must repeat them again and again+ This will help US to understand the Situation more clearly 159. When questions of decolonization including the question of the liberation of Namibia are discussed, some members of the Security Council try to evade this point, to gloss over it, to divert the attention of the members of the Security Council from the essence of the problem, But if we wish to make progress in solving the problem of Namibia, it is impossible to refrain from drawing attention to South Africa’s trading, financial and economic partners, to those who invest foreign capital in its economy and those who supply arms to the South African racists. 162. JntcmathtJ monopolies have invested thousands of muions in the economy of South Africa and Namibia and M’C EaPhg huge profits &mounting to millions and millions of pounds ad dohu, as was reported to the Council by tf~ NunWan pohtM leader, Mr, Nujoma, the President of SWAJ.W, that selfless fighter for Namibia’s liberatton whose aWznent preceded mine. He has provided the Security Council with authentic and convincing facts and information of a kind which he alone could have. These profits come from the plundering of Namibia’s natural resources and the merciless exploitation of the labour of its people. It is sufficient to recall that investments by United Kingdom monopolies in the economy of South Africa, including Nauribia, exceed $3,500 million, while United States investments amount to more than $l,ooO million. 163. It is easy to see that the international imperialist monopdics are cbnging tenaciously to the resources of Namibia and employing every means in concert with the racists, to prevent its liberation. 164. Such co-operation with the racists and assistance to Ihem are a direct violation of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions condemning co-operation of any kind with tile. racist regime of South Africa. The well-known United Nations resolutions aimed at putting an end to and prohibiting deliveries of arms, military equipment and military vehicles to South Africa are also being ViOlilLCd. The very important Security Council resolution 283 (1970) of 29 July 1970 on Namibia is also not being implemented. That resolution contains an appeal to ab States not to recognize any authority of South Africa with regard to Namibia, to discourage their companies and rmtjonals from investing or obtaining concessions in Na mibia, amI to review all bilateral treaties between them- SCIVCS and South Africa. 165. We often hear about the ineffectiveness of t,be United Nations, about its incapacity and impotence in me matter of resolving important international problems. Those who pOSC such questions do not always produce the answers to other questions such as: Who is responsible? what is the reason? Who and what is paralysing the work of the United Nations? The discussions that have taken place in the United Nations bodies on problems relating to decolonization give a very clear and precise answer to these questions. The main culprit responsible for the ineffectivcncss of the United Nations, for its paralysis in carrying out decisions on the most important questions concerning the strengthening of peace and security, as well: as OII the problems of decolonization, is imperialism and its repulsive progeny, nco-colonialism and racism with its anti-human policy of apartheid. That is the straight answer to a straight question. 166. A partnership to exploit and plunder the indigcnons African population of South Africa and Namibia, the joint extraction of superFprofits, racist philosophy and Iydtred of the Africans-these are what unite the South African racists 168. There should thus be no ambiguity or disagreement about precisely who ia responsible for violating United Nations decisions on Namibia, and for frustrating then implementation by the South African racists. 169. The responsibility of those States and intematjomj imperialist monopolies which help to frustrate the United Nations decisions on Namibia has become far heavjer since the United Nations declared the presence of the south African adminjstration and its troops in Namibia to be illegal, and since the International Court, for its part, confumed the rVegaIity of South Africa’s occupation of that Territory. Those who support the South African racist regime share in full measure the responsibility for its criminal activities against the Namibian people. 170. The Security Council should condemn in the strongest temrs the support given to South Africa and should demand that co-operation of any kind with its racist regime should cease. 171. Yesterday’s announcement by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, in his statement in the General Assembly /195&k plenary meetingl that the United States accepted the International Court’s findings on Namibia must obviously be understood as meaning that the United States will now be prepared to co-operate and participate in the implementation of the United Nations decisions on Namibia. Mr. Rogers also told the Assembly that assurances had recently been given in Washington by the Government of the United States to the OAU delegation headed by President Chtld Daddah, that the United States supported “practical and peaceful means to achieve self-determination and end racial discrimination” [ibid., para. 24/. The Council is entitled to expect that practical steps will be taken by the United States of America, following that official statement made from the august rostrum of the General Assembly at its twenty-sixth session, to implement the United Nations decisions on the liberation of Namibia from the tyranny of the South African racists. 172. The South African racists have recently been engaging in ~JI manner of stratagems and political manoeuvres in order to maintain and consolidate their rule in Namibia and to mislead Africa, the United Nations and world public opinion. One means to that end is the idea peddled by Pretoria of holding a “plebiscite” in Namibia. The representative of Ethiopia, speaking in the Security Council, very +$,fly described that plebiscite, which was to be organized and conducted by the repressive machinery of the South African racist regime, as a “mockery of the democratic process of self-determination” [J587tk meet@, Para. 37/. Another piece of demagogy perpetrated by the racists to X79, The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Par? of the So&t. Union, Mr. Leonid llyich Brezhnev, in hh statement at the recent Twenw Fourth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the Party’s and country’s programme for the struggle for peace and international co-operation and for the freedom and independence of the peoples, declared on behalf of the entire Soviet people that the Soviet Union stood for the full implementation of United Nations decisions concerning the elimination of the remaining colonial regimes, and that manifestations of racjsm and upurrhsid called for universal condemnation and boycott. 173. But these stratagems and manoeuvres will not yieid the results expected by their racist authors, The Oganization of African Unity and all ant.Ecolonial forces have had no difficulty in seeing through the manoeuvre in respect of both “plebiscite” and “dialogue” alike, and they decisively reject and condemn it. 174. The delegation of the Soviet Union expresses its full solidarity with the delegations of the African States which call for the immediate liquidation of the colonial racist regime in Namibia. There can be no possible argument in favour of or justification for maintaining and continuing that r&me+ 180. The Soviet Union wholeheatedly supports the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council concerning the problems of southern Africa and is implementing them to the letter, What is required is that these resolutions should be implemented by all States, that they should be put in to effect and become a reality. 175. We vi&orousLy support Africa’s demand for the immediate granting of independence to the people of Namibia, for the expulsion from its territory of the South African troops, police forces and administration, and for the immediate termination of the South African racists’ illegal presence in Namibia. 181. We agree with the view expressed by the esteemed President of Mauritania, Mr. Moktar Ould Daddah, that the time has come for the Security Council to go beyond declarations and resolutions on the question of Namibia and to adopt the effective measures cnvisagcd in the Charter of the United Nations in order to make the racists of Pretoria respect and implement the decisions of the United Nations. 176. The imperialists, colonialists and racists, who have joined forces in southern Africa in order to maintain and consolidate tire rule of racism and the imperialist monopolies in Namibia, are the worst enemies of the national liberation movements of the African peoples. Neither the peoples of Africa nor their friends throughout the world will ever reconcile themselves. to the prospect of the perpetuation of colonialism and racism on the African continent, The total elimination of the remaining centres of colonialism and the eradication of the scourge of racism in Africa are in the interests of the maintenance and strengthening of world peace and security for all peoples. 182. The Soviet Union proclaims its full solidarity with all the African countries and peopfes of southern Africa in their just struggle for freedom and independence, and is actively participating in the United Nations in the discussion of problems relating to the struggle against colonialism and apartheid. 177. The basic intcrest%of the peoples of Africa, as of all freedom-loving peoples throughout the world, require the further strengthening of solidarity and co-ordination of action of those who cherish freedom and national Jndependence, peace and social progress, A great contribution is being made to that noble task by the Organization of African Unity; the enemies of Africa would like to split and undermine that Organization and force it to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards the maintenance of cola nialism and racism in the southern part of that sorely-tried continent, The stronger that unity becomes, the greater will be the rebuff suffered by the imperialists and racists, and the sooner the day of the liberation will come for the peoples still languishing under the yoke of colonialist and racist regimes, 183. The USSR unwaveringly supports the legitimate desire of the people of Namibia for independence, and upholds all the basic decisions of the United Nations on the question of-Namibia, in particular the General Assembly and the Security Council resolutions recognizing the termination of South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and demanding that the South African Government withdraw its administration from that country. 184. As has already been stated during the discussion of the question in the Security Council, the Soviet Union maintains no diplomatic, consular, economic, military or other relations of any kind with South Africa and has no economic or other interests in Namibia; no bilateral agreements have been concluded between the Soviet Union and South Afrjca. 178. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, its consistent policy in favour of the liberation of all peoples from colonial rule and the total elimination of colonialism and racism is common knowledge. It flows from the very nature of socinhst s(.)c‘iety, from Marxist-Leninist ideology, which is incompatible wit11 the exploitation of man by man and discrimination by one nation against another, and conl- 185. The USSR is prepared, in concert with other countries, to bend its efforts towards seeking effective ways and means of promoting the speedv achievement of freedom and independence by the Namibian people.