S/PV.1811 Security Council

I have also received a letter, dated 16 December, from the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, which reads as follows: “Taking into account its special responsibilities for the international Territory of Namibia as set forth in General Assembly resolutions, the United Nations Council for Namibia wishes to participate in theforthcoming meeting of the Security Council on the question of Namibia. The Council will be represented by the following delegation: Ambassador Rashleigh E. Jackson of Guyana, President of the Council: Mr. Zimba of Zambia; Mr. Vlasceanu of Romania: and Mr. Budhiraja of India.” Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/Ml) 1. Adoption of the agenda 2. The situation in Namibia: Letter dated 13 December 1974 from the Permanent Representative of Upper Volta to the United Nations addressed to thk President of the Security Council (S/l 1575) 4. It may be recalled that on previous occasions when it was considering the situation in Namibia the Council extended invitations to representatives of the United Nations Council for Namibia, in particular at its 1628th meeting on 28 January 1972, at its 1656th meeting on 31 July 1972 and at its 1756th meeting on 10 December 1973. Accordingly, I propose, if I hear no objection, that the Council extend an invitation, pursuant to rule 39 of its rules of procedure, to the President and the other members of the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia. The meeting was called to order at 11.1.5 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. 7he situation in Namibia: Letter dated 13 December 1974 from the Permanent Representative of Upper Volta to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/11575) At the invitation of the President, Mr. <Jackson (President of the United Nations Council for Namibia) and the other members of the delegation took places at the Council table.

A letter has been addressed to the President of the Security Council by the representative of Morocco which contains a request that his delegation be invited to participate without the right to vote in the discussion of the question on the agenda in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. Following the usual practice, I propose, if I hear no objection, to invite the representative of Morocco, in accordance with his request, to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

I wish to inform members of the Council also that I have received a letterdated 17December from the representatives of Kenya, Mauritania and the United Republic of Cameroon [S/11580]. This letter contains a request that the Security,Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of the provIsIona rules ofproccdure to Mr. Peter Mueshihange, Secretary for Forcjgn Relations ofthe South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAP()). As I hear no objection, I take it that 11~ Council is agreeable. I therefore invite Mr. Mueshihsnp~ to take the place reserved for him at the side uf‘ the Council chamber. At the appropriate time 1 shall request him to make his statement. 2. In view of the limited number of seats available around the Council table, I now invite the representative of Morocco to take the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that he will of course be invited to take a place at the Council table when he is scheduled to speak. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mueshihangr tooA the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber. “Urges the Security Council to convene urgently in order to take without delay effective measures, in accordance with the relevant Chapters of the Charter of the United Nations and with resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly regarding Namibia, to put an end to South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia;“. 7. In addition, I want to draw the particular attention of the members of the Council to document S/11579, which contains a draft resolution sponsored by Kenya, Mauritania and theUnited Republic ofCameroon. In the course of the consultations which we have had on this matter, the common wish was expressed that the Council proceed first to the vote on the draft resolution before hearing any statements. 8, Accordingly, unless any member particularly wishes to make a statement at this time, and if I hear no objcction, it is my intention to put the draft resolution contained in document S/I 1579 to the vote at this stage. A vote was taken by show of hands. The draft resolution was adopted unanimously. I 9, The PRESIDENT: The first speaker is the President 01 the United Nations Council for Namibia, Ambassador Jackson. I now call on him.

Mr. President, it is a great privilege for me, as President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, to speak in this debate in the Security Council on the question of Namibia and 1 wish to thank the mcmbcrs of the Council for permitting me so to do. That I do so at a time when you, a distinguished son of Australia, sit as President for the month of December is indeed a great honour. For it is not without significance that you, whose wisdom, patience, tact and dedication are so well known, should at the very end of this term of Australia’s membership of the Security Council superintend its deliberations on so important a question. 11. Fourteen years ago, a former British Prime Minister, while on a visit to Cape Town, spoke apocalyptically of the “winds of change sweeping through Africa”. Indeed, for some time thereafter winds of change did sweep through Africa bringing to the vast majority of countries then under colonial domination independence ‘See rcsnlution 366 (1974). 12. For a time it appeared that the winds of change had lost their momentum. Those of us who yearned and laboured for freedom and who vigorously advocated a speedy end to colonialism engaged in a long vigil. One lesson history teaches us is that people under a colonial yoke will always rise up-the majority of them-against tyranny, And so it was-and so it is-in southern Africa. 13, As the Pretoria-Salisbury-Lisbon axis became consolidated, so did the liberation movements intensify their struggles for freedom, fired by the justice of their own cause and encouraged by the positive support they received here at the United Nations, as well as outside it, from the vast majority of the members of the international community. 14. The success of these combined efforts has led us to a situation where today we can realize those hopes, which some have frustrated, for the prospects for freedom throughout Africa. Guinea-Bissau now sits as a Member of the Organization. And in Mozambique, Angola, Sao Tome and Principe and Zimbabwe the pace of decolonization has visibly accelerated. Now, by a curious twist of history, those “winds of change” are blowing hard on the dominion of that unhappy country where-some may say, somewhat unexpectedly-Mr, Harold Macmillan spoke so prophetically. 15. Six weeks ago the Council undertook an historic debate on the future relationship between South Africa and the United Nations. The Council, as we are well aware, took no decision but remains seized of the matter. In the course of that debate South Africa’s reprehensible conduct in regard to the international Territory of Namibia was fully exposed. The brutally repressive measures, the systematic elimination of the most elementary political freedom, the complete denial of fundamental rights, the ruthless exploitation of the natural resourcesin short, the sustained campaign of terror, intimidation and repression based on grotesque concepts of racism which characterize the behaviour of the Pretoria gang operating in Namibia were fully catalogued in the condemnation of South Africa which took place in this chamber in October. South Africa pursues this course Of action in open, flagrant and perverse defiance of the Charter of the United Nations, of its resolutions and decisions, and of international law. This contemptuous conduct appals the conscience of the overwhelming majority of mankind. 16, The question of Namibia is one to which the United Nations has given prolonged and especial attention, and the long record of South Africa’s persistent defiance Of all our efforts is clear for all to see, 21. The question of Namibia next engaged the attention of the Security Council at its historic meetings at Addis Ababa in 1972. At those meetings, two resolutions, 309 (1972) and 310 (1972), were adopted, The first, inter alia, reaffirmed the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia and invited the Secretary-General “ . . . to initiate. . . contacts with all parties concerned, with a view to establishing the necessary conditions so as to enable the people of Namibia . . . to exercise their right to self-determination and independence”. 18. In 1969, by resolution 264 (1969), the Security Council called upon South Africa “to withdraw immediately its administration from [that] Territory” and once again promised to meet immediately, in the event of non-compliance by South Africa with the provisions of the resolution. Later that year, by resolution 269 (1969), the Council condemned South Africa for its refusal to comply with the Council’s earlier resolution 264 (1969) and reiterated its call upon the Government of South Africa to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and in any case before 4 October 1969. The Council once again indicated its intention to meet immediately, if South Africa did not comply with the provisions of the resolution. 22. In the second resolution, the Security Council once again strongly condemned the refusal of South Africa to comply with the resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council pertaining to Namibia, declared again that the defiant attitude of South Africa towards the Council’s decisions was undermining the authority of the United Nations, reiterated its view that the continued occupation of Namibia by the Government of South Africa created conditions detrimental to the maintenance of peace and security in the region, once more called upon South Africa to withdraw from Namibia and, significantly, after a lapse of a few years, again declared that “ . . . in the event of failure on the part of the Government of South Africa to comply with the . . . resolution, the Security Council shall meet immediately to decide upon effective steps or measures, in accordance with the relevant Chapters of the Charter, to secure the full and speedy implementation of the . . . resolution”. 19. In January 1970, at its 1529th meeting, the Security Council took further decisions on Namibia [resolution 276 (1970)]. The Government of South Africa was strongly condemned for its refusal to comply with General Assembly and Security Council resolutions pertaining to Namibia: the continued presence of the South African authorities was again declared illegal; and the defiant attitude of the Government of South Africa towards the Council’s decisions was recognized as undermining the authority of the United Nations. Later that year, in July [resolution 283 (1970)], the Council noted with great concern the continued flagrant refusal of the Government of South Africa to comply with Security Council decisions demanding the immediate withdrawal of South Africa from the Territory, and the Council agreed to remain actively seized of the matter. At its 1550th meeting, the Security Council, in its resolution 284 (1970), submitted the following question to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion: 23. The results of the Secretary-General’s efforts are well known. As many anticipated, the dialogue with South Africa was a dialogue with the deaf. It was therefore not surprising that the Security Council on 11 December last year, on the basis of the Secretary- General’s report, decided by resolution 342 (1973) to discontinue the contacts which had earlier been initiated. This, then, is the first occasion within a year on which the Security Council has substantively considered the question of Namibia. “What are the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia, notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970)?“. 24. Three principal factors informed expectations ofthe outcome of the Council’s deliberations: the record of Security Council decisions over the years, the Council’s debates two months ago in so far as they related to Namibia and the recent developments in southern Africa. 20. We are all aware ofthe terms of the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice on 21 June 19712 and of South Africa’s categorical and complete rejection of the Court’s findings. However, when th.e Security Council took up the matter in October 1971, it adopted resolution 301 (1971), which condemned all moves by the Government of South Africa designed to destroy the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia. It 25. I have endeavoured earlier to give a synopsis of Security Council decisions on Namibia from 1968 to 1973. I believe that the conclusion is inescapable that South Africa has contemptuously flouted theauthority of the Council. 26. As a consequence, many analysing this record would assert that the Security Council should, now more 2 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Prmem d Sold Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Securily C$IC” Resolution 276 (1974 Advisory Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 1971. P. . 27. South Africa’s defiant attitude towards the Security Council, the Council for Namibia and the General Assembly, indeed towards world public opinion, is a matter of public record. We must, however, recognize that when subjected to intense international pressure South Africa always counters with gimmickry. Let US remember that when the Council sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, South Af*rica proposed a referendum; when the International Court of Justice confirmed the illegality of South Africa’s presence in Namibia, South Africa proposed discussions with the Secretary-General; when faced with the prospect of expulsion a mere two months ago, South Africa proposed sham constitutional discussions between so-called ethnic groups-one group, be it noted, strategically composed entirely of whites, irrespective of their national origins. Recently, spokesmen of the racists in South Africa have propagated, in their characteristically deceptive manner, the notion that the stage of selfdetermination for the Namibian people can be reached much sooner than 10 years, as they had earlier envisaged. 28. The record of South Africa’s treatment ofthe people of Namibia for over 50 years, its contempt for the Council and for the views of the vast majority of the world’s people is nothing short of what could aptly be called white-mail. The time has long passed for such contumacious practices to be brought to an end. 29. I believe that there are certain principles and positions on which all members of the Security Council are agreed. First and foremost is the inalienable and imprescriptible right of the people of Namibia to selfdetermination and independence and their right to proceed to that independence on the basis that Namibia is B territorial unit in and for itself. The second is that South Africa has no legal authority whatsoever to administer Namibia. Quite simply, South Africa’s occupation of the Territory is illegal-or, as some would say, unlawfuland as such must be terminated, Indeed the withdrawal of the South African usurpers is long overdue. The third principle is that the United Nations has a direct responsibility for the administration of the Territory, a responsibility which has been entrusted to the Council for Namibia. The Fourth principle is that the Security Council, as evidenced by its previous dispositions, has -. 31. The Charter provides for the application of measures, including those in Chapter VII, and it may have been timely for a signal to have been given that the Council will not be hesitant in employing them, if required. 32. There is much comment abroad about the disaffection and cynicism of peoples with regard to the United Nations. I believe that the quality of vigilance which the Security Council exercises on the question of Namibia can give the Council its chance to dispel those apprehensions. The people of Namibia-the people of the world-watch and wait.

Before calling upon the next speaker, I wish to inform the Council that letters have n6w been addressed to the President by the representatives of Upper Volta and Nigeria. Those letters contain requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the question on the agenda, in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the assent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. In view ofthe limited number of places available at the Council table, I request the representatives to take the seats reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be invited to take places at the Council table when it is their turn to speak. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Yao (Upper Volta) and Mr. Ogbu (Nigeria) took the places reservedfor them at the side of the Council chamber.

The representative of Upper Volta is the next speaker and I now invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

By an accident of automatic alphabetical order, to borrow a term now current in the United Nations, I have the honour of speaking here on behalf of the Group 40. Throughout that period the United Nations spared no effort to bring South Africa to reason. Resolutions, Special committees, missions, negotiations, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice-nothing helped. Everything ran into a wall of arrogance and contempt. With cruel obstinancy, and taking advantage of the fundamental weakness of the Organization-the absence of any real enforcement machinery-or, quite simply, because it was aware of the reluctance of the most influential States to have recourse to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, South Africa brought the Territory under the dreadful shadow of apartheid, Various attempts were made to annex all or at least part of the Territory. So far as concerned the inhabitants of the Territory, whose material and moral well-being and social progress represented a “sacred mission” for the Government of South Africa, repression and exploitation was their daily lot. 36. This problem is certainly not new to the members of the Council. Indeed, in certain respects it is even older than the Council itself. But we have no intentionofdrawing the Council into ttie tortuous byways of the unhappy history of this question, though there may be some need to make certain brief historical references, 37. The question the Council is about to debate is, indeed, clear-cut. On 13 December last, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3295 (XXIX), on the question of Namibia. Section II of that resolution reads as follows: 41. It was in view of that state of affairs that the General Assembly in 1966 took the historic decision to terminate South Africa’s Mandate over South West Africa, which it brought under the direct authority of the Organization. That decision was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 21 June 1971, according to which South Africa was obliged to withdraw from Namibia. “Urges the Security Council to convene urgently in order to take without delay effective measures, in accordance with the relevant Chapters of the Charter of the United Nations and with resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly regarding Namibia, to put an end to South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia”. In brief, the Council must now seek ways and means of putting an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. 42. That decision of the General Assembly, also contemptuously rejected by South Africa, was followed by other efforts by the Organization to bring about a peaceful transfer of power to the people of South West Africa through the United Nations Council for South West Africa-which in 1968 became the United Nations Council for Namibia-and thereby to put an end to the South African administration of the Territory. 38. As all members of the Council will recall, that illegal occupation has now been going on for more than eight years. It was on 27 October 1966 that the General Assembly, by its resolution 2145 (XXI), terminated the South African Mandate over the Territory of Namibia, which henceforward came under the direct responsibility of the Organization. That decision was not taken lightly. The South African Mandate over Namibia, which at that time was known as South West Africa, lasted 46 years, from 1920 until 1966. From the beginning ofthat period, South Africa administered the Territory in flagrant contradiction of the principles and objectives of the Mandate, which made the achievement of the well-being and development of the population of the Territory a “sacred civilizing mission”, to use the language of the time. 43. In its report to the General Assembly at its twentyninth session, the Council for Namibia says that: “Since the General Assembly, by its resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966, terminated South Africa’s right to administer Namibia, and decided that the United Nations should assume thereafter direct responsibility for the country, no less than 37 resolutions on the question of Namibia have been adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council.“4 44. All the appeals addressed to South Africa in those resolutions have remained dead letters. By reason of the intransigence and bad faith of the South African authorities, the mission entrusted to the Secretary-General under resolution 309 (1972) of the Security Council has been thwarted. In 1973 [resolutjuiun 342 (1973)1, the Council decided to make no further efforts on the basis of that reso]ution. Thus it has become more and more obvious 39. Notwithstanding the criticism and condemnation of the international community, discriminatory rUkS were applied and annexationist inclinations were given free rein. Although one of the founders of the Organization, South Africa refused to recognize the authority of the United Nations over the Territory and refused to Place that Territory under United Nations trusteeship; still more, it simply ignored all the purposes and principles of the Trusteeship System as established by the Charter, of which it was one ofthe original signatories. From the date 4 Ibid,., Twenty-ninth Session, Supplement NO. 24, VO/. 1. PWa. 196. 45. Each day that dawns in Namibia is another day of suffering for the Namibian people, The over-all political situation is deteriorating from day to day. The racist minority regime of Pretoria is applying its shameful policy of apartheid with the utmost rigour on the basis of a body of legislation which is the very negation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Sabotage Act, the Terrorism Act, the Immorality Act and so on, as well as the pass system, represent the main pretexts for mass and arbitrary arrests and for scandalous travesties of the political process, 46. The minority racist rCgime has even carried barbarism to the point of inflicting such degrading treatment as public whipping. Torture and humiliation of every kind is the current practice in the prisons. Under the over-all system of repression, even church and press figures are not spared, Hounded, persecuted and exploited in their own country, which is given over to foreigners, many Namibians have been forced into exile. Furthermore, notwithstanding the many resolutions adopted on the subject, South Africa is attempting to fragment the Territory into various “homelands”, in the hope of breaking the unitary and nationalist spirit that strives to create a free and united Namibia. The greater part of the Territory-and also the richer part-has been reserved for the whites, whereas blacks and other Coloured people, who represent the vast majority of the population, arc confined in arid homelands and condemned to languish wretchedly in a subsistence economy. 47. I could continue at great length describing in these terms the inhuman conditions in which the people of Namibia are constrained to eke out their existence; but that would be an otiose exercise, since all members of the Council are certainly aware of the facts. There is no shortage of documents on the subject. I might mention, in particular, the excellent reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the reports of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Eyewitness reports also are not wanting; a number of petitioners have described in minute detail the daily life of the Namibians. Better yet, the valiant freedom fighters of SWAP0 have repeatedly addressed the Members of the Organization in various organs of the United Nations. The stubborn resistance of the Namibian people, organizcd and mobilized by SWAPO, is one of the outstanding features of the situation. The African Group wishes once again, through me, to hail the heroic struggle of the Namibian people, led by SWAPO, the authentic representative of the aspirations of the people. 48. The African Group did not come here today to start arguments or to engage in controversy. In requesting this meeting of the Security Council on the question of 49, A solemn commitment on the part of South Africa on this point would be particularly encouraging. In order to create a propitious atmosphere for negotiations and to ease people’s minds, certain transitional measures need to be taken right away by the illegal South African regime, such as the freeing of political prisoners, the abolition of the laws and practices of apartheidand the return ofexiles to their homes. 50, The situation in southern Africa is changing rapidly. The new Portugal has renounced its blind policies of earlier years and courageously committed itself to decolonization, to the great satisfaction of the entire international community, and particularly of the African States. The news from Zimbabwe holds out hopes of new and important changes in the near future. In this atmosphere of renewed hope, South Africa’s challenge to the Organization cannot be left unanswered indefinitely: the United Nations must throw its full weight into the scales to tilt the balance in favour of freedom and justice. In so doing, it will have helped to avoid further unnecessary bloodshed. The Council faces the famous dilemma of the olive branch and the gun. Our heads of State, at Mogadiscio, charged us to call on the Council to find ways of bringing South Africa back to the path of reason. Otherwise, no one will be able to predict where the outbreak of violence in that region will lead us. 51. We do not doubt that the Security Council, on which the principal responsibility for the maintenance of peace devolves, will take the necessary measures to spare present and future generations in southern Africa, and, above all, those of Namibia, from the scourge of war,

The next speaker is the representative of Nigeria, whom I now invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, you are presiding over a meeting which, in the opinion ofmy delegation, is a momentous one. We observe that the draft resolution that the Council was to consider has been unanimously adopted, with the speeches following, an indication that the Council is indeed seized of this problem and is anxious, under your presidency, to make a positive contribution towards the cause of settling the situation in Namibia. Your experience in international affairs is well known, and the commitment of your country and Government to the cause of freedom will now be very much appreciated and welcomed. 54. The Security Council is meeting again to consider the situation in Namibia. As the United Nations looks 55. South Africa, which obtained the Mandate after a solemn undertaking to promote the well-being of its inhabitants, has flagrantly violated its obligations, and has continued its illegal occupation even after the Man-, date was terminated by the international community. It continues its manoeuvres to dismember the Territory and to dispose of it according to its apartheidideology and the interests of the white minority it represents. -First, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia is illegal and South Africa is under an obligation to withdraw its administration from Namjbja immediately and thus put an end to its illegal occupation of the Territory. There can be no question of the South African rigime determining the means for the exercise by the Namibian people of their right to self-determination and independence. 56. The United Nations, which has taken over the responsibility for the people of Namibia, has a sacred duty to enable them to achieve self-determination and independence without any compromises and without any further delays. This matter must occupy the utmost attention of the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as of all Member States loyal t,o the principles of the Charter. -Secondly, the right of the people of Namibia to selfdetermination and independence is inalienable and imprescriptible. They must be enabled freely and with strict regard to the principles of human equality to exercise their right to self-determination and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and under the auspices of the United Nations. -Thirdly, the principle of the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia cannot be subject to any conditions. The establishment of bantustans and the forcible removal of Namibian people from their homes must stop. In the past year since the adoption of resolution 342 (1973), the South African rigime has shown no willingness to abide by these principles or any positive sign that it intends to do so. 57. As a first step, in the opinion of my delegation, the Security Council should take effective measures, as requested by the General Assembly, to put an end to South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia so that the United Nations can assist the people of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination and independence. 58. More than a year ago, the Security Council discussed the situation in Namibia in the light of the reports of the Secretary-General on the results of his efforts, under a mandate from the Security Council, to find means to establish L‘ . . . the necessary conditions so as to enable the people of Namibia, freely and with strict regard to the principle of human equality, to exercise their right to selfdetermination and independence, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” [resolution 309 (1972)]. 62. The South African representative, in his statement of 24 October before the Security Council, during the discussion of the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa [180&h meering], tried again to mislead the Council. Let me say that we take note of the declaration that the South African rCgime recognizes that the Territory has a distinct international status, that it has no designs on the Territory and that it is for the inhabitants of the Territory themselves to decide their own fyture. I must hasten to add, however, in this connexion, that we deny that the South African rCgime has any right to decide that Namibia is not one nation but consists ofmanypeoples according to the convenience and the whims of that rtgime. We must condemn any attempt by that rtgime to divide the Territory and its people. 59. The contacts by the Secretary-General with the South African rCgime in 1972to 1973 showed clearly that the South African rCgime was not prepared to respond positively to the conciliatory approach by the United Nations, They showed that the South African rtgime was not prepared to accept the basic principles laid down by the Security Council for a solution of the situation. Instead, that rkgime attempted to use the contacts to deceive the world and consolidate apartheidin Namibia. It proceeded with the establishment of bantustans and the forcible removal of people so as to destroy the unity of Namibia. Contrary to the assurances it gave to the Secretary-General and his representatives, it proceeded to institute brutal repression against all those who demanded the withdrawal of the South African administration and the right to self-determination and independence for Namibia as a whole. 63. Mr. Botha went on to say that those who have left the Territory may return to participate in elections and discussions provided they do so in peace, and that they may propagate any constitutional changes they like within the requirements of “law and order”. We know very well what kind of elections the South African rtgime has in mind and what kind of “law and order“ it seeks to maintain. 64. In flagrant defiance of the United Nations, that regime is again planning elections in the bantustan of Ovamboland-where the last elections were boycotted by 98.4 per cent of the people. It continues to enforce repressive legislation which denies all freedom to the Namibian: including the notorious Suppression of Communism AC and the Terrorism Act, as well as the emergency regulation! No one can even hold a meeting without the permission c the authorities. Hundreds of people have only recently fle 60. As a result, the Security Council decided unanimously, in resolution 342 (1973) of 11 December 1973, to discontinue the mandate of the Secretary-General under resolution 309 (1972) and requested him to keep the Security Council 66. Mr. Botha complained that South Africa was expected by certain United Nations Members to do all the compromising without the United Nations conceding anything. That statement shows the present mentality of the South African rtgime. It seems unable to appreciate that the rights of the Namibian people are inalienable and that there can be no deals on these rights. 67. The South African regime has violated the sacred trust placed in it by the world. It now wants the United Nations to betray the sacred trust it has assumed. 68. We should like to emphasize that the United Nations can discuss the modalities of enabling the Namibians to achieve their rights-within the context of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice-but it can never and should never concede on the principles. It can never allow the South African regime to supervise the exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Namibia, who have been so long oppressed by South Africa, in violation of its sacred obligation. 69. The developments inside Namibia during the past year, as reported by the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee on decolonization,5 belie the efforts of the South African regime to mislead the world. It was only a few months ago, in June 1974, that it announced that it had sent its army to the Caprivi Strip in defiance of the world. It has resorted to an intensification of repression in Namibia so that hundreds of people have fled from the Territory. It has taken no steps to stop the brutal flogging of the leaders of the people under orders from the puppet chiefs, in spite of the horror and indignation expressed by the world community. 70. A number of leaders of SWAP0 and its Youth League have been detained and kept in solitary confinement for many months. Several have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for demanding the implementation ofunited Nations resolutions. One of them, Mr. Komati, a 22-yearold youth, was detained for 132days in solitary confinement with no charges and then accused of scratching political slogans on the wall of his prison cell with a spoon. 71. Instead of signs of conciliation, there has been an increase in the number of political prisoners, and in the persecution of all those who seek genuine freedom for Namibia. We are gravely concerned over reports that some prisoners are seriously ill. I made an appeal in the plenary 5 Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of’ the Declalation on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 73. We should like to make a special appeal to the three permanent members of the Security Council and to other countries which have continued and maintained relations with the South African regime to co-operate in this respect. They have indeed a special responsibility. It is because of their past collaboration that the South African rkgime has been able to resist and defy the United Nations, to oppress the people of Namibia and to exploit the resources of the Territory. We ask them to cease such collaboration and to exert all their influence in the interests not only of the Namibian people but of the United Nations itself.

Members of the Council will recall that at the beginning of our meeting we decided, in accordance with the request made by the representatives of Kenya, Mauritania and the United Republic of Cameroon, to extend an invitation, under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure, to Mr. Mueshihange. In accordance with that decision, I now invite Mr. Mueshihange to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 75. Mr. MUESHIHANGE: Before I take up the item under consideration here, I should like very much, on behalf of our national movement and also on behalf of all the valiant people of Namibia, to convey to you, Sir, and through you to the members of the Council our sincere thanks for having been given this opportunity to address once again this august body of the United Nations. 76. The Security Council is seized once again of the problem of Namibia. Indeed, it is a tragic problem which has been before the United Nations for the last 28 years without any solution. With every passing day and year, this problem goes from bad to worse. Now, today, the situation in Namibia is most critical and constitutes, in our view, a threat not only to the well-being of all those in southern Africa but also to. international peace and security. 77. For the last 28 years the tragic and brutal story of our beloved fatherland and the daily sufferings of our people has been brought repeatedly before various organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. Yet, today, Namibia remains still the most exploited colony and our people the most oppressed and dehumanized in the whole world. This situation has been allowed to continue and deteriorate further because those who could lift their hearts and arms in defence of freedom and justice would not do so because they value economic profits more than human life. Thus, though many times concerns and apprehensions have Ir Official Record.y of the General Assembly, Twenty-ninlh Session. /Yenary Meetings, 2320th meeting. 78. However, we have never asked for mercy or pity from the Organization or from anybody, for we know that the price of liberty is suffering, and often loss of human lives. We have long committed our people to use all means at our disposal to free ourselves, with support and assistance from the United Nations-but, if need be, by ourselves. 79. This time, as in the past, we appear before this august body to reaffirm our faith in the principles and philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations. We appear also to reaffirm ourselves-our inalienable rights to freedom, to life and to an independent political existence as one sovereign people, as masters in and over one united Namibia. 83. In this connexion, it is now up to Vorster to do right. The matter that the Security Council is still seized ofnamely, the relationship between South Africa and the Organization-in our view involves three broad areas in which the Pretoria rCgime is obdurately defying international law and the authority of the United Nations. The first one is the obnoxious policy of apartheid itself which is brutally being imposed as a matter of law and policy by a racist minority upon the indigenous African majority. No change is in sight here. Secondly, there is South Africa’s interference in Rhodesian affairs through its military presence there and otherwise through the breaking of economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed by the Council against the illegal rtgime in Rhodesia in 1968. Thirdly, and lastly, there is the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, a country for which the United Nations has direct responsibility. In each one of these cases, and in others as well, it is the defiance of the Pretoria regime and the recalcitrance of certain members of the Council which exasperate the already strained relationship between Pretoria and the Organization. 80. After many years of impassive confrontation and hostility between the forces of national liberation and the forces of colonialism and racism in southern Africa, supported and abetted by certain powerful members of NATO and others, there seems to be a prospect of forward changes in the field of decolonization in that region of the African continent. Recent events in the Portugueseadministered Territories resulting from the successful struggle of the liberation movements there have demonstrated conclusively that the march of the oppressed and colonized peoples towards freedom and independence is an inevitable and logical process of history. No amount of repression or tyranny can forever reverse this process, 81. It is therefore timely that the illegal rCgime of Pretoria in Namibia fully recognize this historic imperative: that Namibia shall be free, as Guinea-Bissau is and as Mozambique, Angola and others soon will be. We all desire a just and peaceful solution of the political problems in Namibia, but we do not want peace at any price. No. We shall continue to struggle to ensure that Namibia achieves freedom and independence as one country and as one people. On this we shall never compromise. It is for Vorster and his agents in Namibia to recognize this and desist at once from doing anything by design or default that will violate or ’ destroy the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation. 84. Thus, while we jubilantly welcome the initiatives of the new Lisbon authorities in regard to Portugueseadministered Territories and look upon the recent positive developments in Zimbabwe favourably, and while we remain convinced that victory inevitably will be ours in Namibia as well, we regret the fact that the illegal rCgime of Pretoria still persists in disfiguring the territorial integrity and national unity of Namibia, notwithstanding appeals, recommendations, condemnations and warnings by the overwhelming democratic majority of the world. All these efforts appear to have fallen on deafears. It is said, “There is none so deaf as he who will not hear”. 82. At this point in time, I do not wish to recount the substance and details of the Namibian problem-the criminal repression and murder of our people under Vorster’s illegal, brutal and tyrannical system. This we have already done in the past and recently here and elsewhere. This time, during this debate of the Security Council on Namibia, I seriously wonder aloud, in the light of the realistic response of the new Government of Portugal vis-A-vis Mozambique, Angola, Sao Tome and Principe and more recent developments in southern Africa, whether there is any basis for hope that the illegal rtgime of Vorster in Namibia is prepared to commit itself, at last, to accepting the resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council as well as the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971, all of which together form a basic 85. Mr. President and members of the Council, I am launching a serious appeal to you and particularly to those members of the Council who are listened to by Vorster and his cohorts to use your good offices to convince that criminal group to comply with and commit themselves to the resolutions and the decisions of the United Nations, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of June 1971, In the name of peace and justice, it may be necessary for the friends and allies of Pretoria to scream into the ears of the Vorster group, though this may be inconvenient for that group’s eardrums. We still think it is better that way than the other way, which is to bring them to their 86. The cardinal objective of our struggle is not-is not, I repeat-to come to terms with colonialism and white supremacy and bantustans in Namibia; rather, it is to eradicate all this from our soil and to establish a new democratic society under majority rule where all, black or white,all Namibians, natural or naturalized, can contribute individually and collectively to the best of their abilities towards the general well-being and prosperity of a united Namibia. 87. We feel that if the racist leader of South Africa intends to convince black Africa and the world, he must first and foremost start by accepting his obligations under international law in respect of Namibia and in that context comply fully with al1 the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the recommendations of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971. This means a commitment by that rCgime to withdraw from Namibia so that we, the people of Namibia, can attain freedom and independence as soon as possible. This is where Vorster must start, for Namibia is one place where he clearly has no business. We say so. The United Nations said so. And so did the international tribunal. 88. The New York Timesof today’s date carries an article in which Vorster is reported to have suggested ‘*a plan to settle the prolonged Rhodesian crisis”. If this means that Vorster has finally decided to disengage from Rhodesia so that the problem there can be solved by the people of the area, and so that a majority rule can be established, this would be a most welcome change, If, however, this is but another example of Vorster’s double talk or a sinister scheme to confuse the situation in southern Africa, then, of course, this action must be exposed, condemned and rejected. Vorster must be told seriously and categorically that if he wishes for peace and co-operation with the rest of Africa he must openly table a plan to withdraw from Namibia and another plan for South Africa itself which will, in time, effect a majority rule there as well, Then South Africa might expect not only good will and generosity from the rest of Africa, and indeed from the world, but also perhaps acceptability at last. 89. Instead of fulfilling these obligations and recommendations regarding Namibia, the racist leader of South Africa is practising repression and brutality in Namibia on our people. Then he continues to utter warnings and threats against our people and black Africa, as he did recently in a broadcast on 5 November 1974, from which I quote: “We will not tolerate any threats of violence, Order must be and will be maintained in South West Africa”. Now, who is using threats and violence? Is not the Vorster regimethe one which is illegally occupying Namibia? Is it not Vorster and his agents in Namibia who are daily brutalizing, imprisoning and even murdering our people? Is it not Fascist South Africa which is violating the territorial integrity of the neighbouring African republics? Who is this group trying to fool? Not us, and we hope not this august body. 91. In conclusion, Mr. President, we thank you and your colleagues once agam for this opportunity to address the Council. It is significant that you, Sir, a distinguished representative of a new, progressive and dynamic Government and country, Australia, are presiding over this debate. You are an old hand in diploma’cy and international affairs. We trust that your experience and personal commitment to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations will ensure that justice is finally done with regard to Namibia and the Namibians.

The next speaker is the representative of Morocco, and I now invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement. 93. Mr. ZAi’MI (Morocco) (interpretation from French): Ambassador Slaovi, representative of Morocco, had intended to participate in this debate in person, but he had to return to Rabat for urgent consultations and he has asked me to read out the statement he had prepared. 94. My delegation, which is addressing the Council today on behalf of the Group of Arab States and of the Kingdom of Morocco, would like first of all to express to you, Sir, and to the members of the Council our deep gratitude for having allowed us to participate in this debate on the crucial problem of Namibia. 95. Twenty-nine years have elapsed since the United Nations began to concern itself with this problem. In that time it has never recorded any true progress, that is to say that the Organization has not succeeded in obtaining from the Government ofSouth Africa which illegally occupies the Territory of Namibia the slightest commitment regarding the evacuation of the Territory. The question of Namibia is, therefore, nothing new and it is not my intention to dwell at length on its various aspects. Nonetheless, it may not be amiss on my part to recall briefly certain facts which may serve as points of departure. 96. I should like to remind the Council, for example, that at the very first session of the General Assembly the Government of South Africa went so far as to dare to call for the integration of Namibia into its own territory. This fact in itself is implicit but clear recognition of United Nations competence in the matter. But this surprising request was rejected by the General Assembly, and rightly so, and South Africa was invited to transfer its Mandate over Namibia to the Organization. All peaceful means were invoked, but in vain, in our attempt to reach a solution with the Government of South Africa that would allow the people of Namibia to exercise its right to self-determination and independence. 103. As SWAP0 has emphasized in a letter dated 26 September last, addressed to the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, this was “a well-calculated and deliberate political manceuvre aimed at misleading world public opinion”, 98. This brief historical review of this question that we are dealing with here today was essential if only to demonstrate that, despite all the efforts made over the decades by the Organization, and in particular, by the Security Council, South Africa has always rejected all co-operation with the United Nations to reach a solution that would enable the people of Namibia freely to exercise its right to selfdetermination and independence. 104. Moreover, in his statement to the Security Council [18ooth meeting], the representative of the racist rdgime of Pretoria added: 99. However, following upon the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, for the first time South Africa agreed that the Secretary-General should visit Namibia. That aroused a faint hope in all ofus that we might finally see South Africa engaged in a dialogue with the United Nations on the question. We thought, though not without reservations, that the opening of the door to dialogue might lead to a change in the attitude of the Pretorian rdgime; but that glimmer of hope, that illusion, was shortlived. The conversations which the Secretary-General and his representative had with South Africa were broken off very abruptly, and on 11 December 1973 the Security Council was compelled to adopt resolution 342 (1973) whereby it decided not to pursue further efforts on the basis of resolution 309 (1972). We are confronted here with a fallacious and hypocritical statement. The reference made to the diversity of cultures and social levels is to us confirmation of the stubborn determination of the racist rCgime of Pretoria in pursuit of its policy of fragmentation, called “bantustanization”. 105. During this period the situation in Namibia has steadily deteriorated, as is emphasized by the Secretary-General in the introduction to his report to the General Assembly.’ The tragic fate in which the Namibian people finds itself is described in a report prepared by the Special Committee, which notes that “during the past year, . + there has been an escalation of police terror and intimidation of Namibians both by the illegal rCgime of South Africa and by the authorities of the so-called ‘homelands’“.8 100. South Africa alone bears the resporsibility for this situation because once again it has demonstrated evident bad faith. It was clear, in fact, that the racist regime of Pretoria had used contacts with the United Nations for internal political purposes in order to try to emerge from its isolation and to advertise its own idea of self-determination, a concept that has as its goal the domination of the Namibian people and the perpetuation of the unlawful occuPation of the international Territory of Namibia. 106. In their respective reports, the Special Committee and the United Nations Council for Namibia denounce all measures of repression, whose victims are the people of Namibia, the Territory where the illegal rtgime of Pretoria is pursuing its illegal policy of apartheid and “bantustanization”. 101. Although contacts with South Africa have not lived up to our expectations, the fact nonetheless remains that the mission of our Secretary-General and his representative to Namibia made it possible to clear up certain doubts. On the one hand, it demonstrated, as has already been emphasized, that the policy of South Africa remained unchanged and that this racist rbgime intended to maintain the Namibian people under its domination; on the other hand, that same mission had the merit of demonstrating to those who were still in doubt that the Namibian people, one and indivisible, had expressed its firm determination to exercise its right to self-determination and independence in a united Namibia. 107. In the face of such pitiless repression and in view of the illegal occupation by South Africa of an international Territory-which constitutes a typical act of aggressionthe Security Council is duty bound to find the means tc, Put an end to that situation, particularly since the United Nations has assumed responsibility for the defence of the Namibian people and the future of this international Territory. Some would like to have us believe that the Organization is powerless in the face of such a situation. For our part, 102. rile arrogant attitude of the Pretorian rkgime was expressed once again quite recently in the statement of the “The administration of the Territory has been directed towards achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of the Territory’s peoples. And they are exceedingly disparate as to their cultures and development. “ * . I “It is not for South Africa nor for the United Nations but for the peoples of the Territory themselves to decide upon their political future. And all options are open to them in this regard,” 7 Ibid., Twellty-ninth Session. Supplemen NO. IA. P. 6. 8 Ibid., Supplement No. 23, chap. IX, pm. Il. 108. The Arab peoples who themselves are the victims of Zionist occupation can only, out of justice, manifest their full solidarity with the valiant Namibian people, which is carrying on a legitimate struggle against the racist South African occupiers. Here, we would like to assure this heroic people and its authentic leaders of our active and continuing support. 109. It should also be emphasized that the collaboration of certain Powers, in various areas, with South Africa, and foreign investments in Namibia, are harmful to the cause of the Namibian people and constitute a source of encouragement to the racist rCgime to flout the resolutions of our Organization. As was pointed out some time ago in Foreign Affairs Magazine, “the role of international investments has consolidated the programme of the National Party with a view to maintaining white domination”. 110. Accordingly, we should like to appeal to those Powers to put an e’nd to all co-operation with the Pretoria rCgime and to exercise pressure on the companies under their authority in order to compel them to cease investing in Namibia and exhausting the natural resources of that Territory. 111. We are convinced that the Council, which has assumed responsibility for the future of Namibia and the defence of the people of that Territory, will be able, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, to find effective means for putting an end to South Africa’s challenge to the Organization and to regain the international Territory of Namibia, We would like to believe that the members of the Council-all its members-will know how to shoulder their responsibilities in order to put an end to the serious situation prevailing in Namibia, which constitutes a serious threat to international peace.

I wish to inform the Council that I have just iedeived a letter from the representative of Somalia requesting that Somalia be invited to participate in our discussion, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council wishes to grant that request and shall accordingly invite the representative of Somalia to participate in our discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr, Hussein (Somalia) took a place at the Council table.

I now call on the representative of Somalia.

Mr. President, permit me lirst of all to express to you, on behalf of the Chairman of the 115. I am most grateful to you and to the members of the Council for this opportunity to address the Council on the question of Namibia. This question was given particular attention at the summit conference of the Organization of African Unity held in June this year because the African States are acutely conscious of the fact that the situation with regard to that Territory has reached a critical stage. The situation is critical because no one can pretend any longer that South Africa needs more time in which to comply with the United Nations resolutions on Namibia. The African heads of State took the realistic view-and this is reflected in the, important resolution on Namibia adopted by the summit ,conference-that the Security Council must be prepared to implement its decisions on Namibia, if necessary through the enforcement measures provided under Chapter VII of the Charter. 116. It is nine years since the General Assembly terminated South Africa’s Mandate over South West Africa-a decision which has been repeatedly endorsed and reaffirmed by the Security Council. It is four years since the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion that South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia constituted an illegal occupation of the Territory, and during these years the main organs of the United Nations have repeatedly condemned this illegal occupation and called on South Africa to withdraw from the Territory. 117. For two years the Secretary-General, at the request of the Security Council, made a special effort to find common ground with the Pretoria regime for the implementation of the United Nations decisions on Namibia, but, as we know, even the superficial changes that were promised have not been forthcoming. Indeed, far from moving towards the establishment of a just and free society, the rCgime has tightened its oppressive hold on the Namibian people, The South African Government has continued to carry out its plan to keep the Namibian people politically handicapped and permanently cheated of their natural resources through the imposition of bantustans-an arrangement long condemned by the United Nations as being fundamentally inequitablepolitical repression has become more brutal and the uniquely inhuman racism of apartheid is continued in violation of the human rights of the people of the Territory. 118. It is obvious that the hope of achieving progress through reasoned discussion and peaceful negotiation was an illusion. Also illusory was the hope that the NATO Powers on the Security Council would demonstrate in practical ways the support for United Nations decisions on Namibia which they have expressed in theory. Their nationals continue with impunity to exploit and plunder the resources of the land and people of Namibia; the arms embargo, which was recognized by the Security Council as having significance for the question of Namibia, is flagrantly and continuously violated, and the recent triple veto of the proposal to expel South Africa for its repeated 122. If it continues in its intransigence and its contempt for the Organization, then the Security Council will be faced with the inescapable duty of resorting to those means which it is entitled to use under the Charter. It must enforce its decisions in the interests of international peace and security and for the preservation of its authority and credibility, for it cannot be denied that South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia, in defiance of the United Nations and of the International Court of Justice, is an act of international aggression. Primary responsibility for ending this situation rests with the Security Council. If the Council were to remain impassive in the face of South Africa’s open defiance, then it would be tantamount to the abandonment of the world Organization’s collective responsibility for the Territory and people of Namibia and a tacit endorsement of the continued usurpation of their land and rights by South Africa. 120. The course of action open to the world community is clear. In order to give effect to its decisions on Namibia, the Security Council must demand from South Africa, ante and for all, a clearand unequivocal commitment to a speedy withdrawal from Namibia. It must demand, too, that immediate steps be taken to end political repression, policies of racial discrimination and efforts to destroy the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia. 123. My delegation trusts that the Security Council will ‘face up to its grave responsibilities with regard to ‘Namibia, with regard to the preservation of the authority of the United Nations and with regard to thepreservation of international peace and security. 121. During the historic debate in October 1966 which led to the termination of South Africa’s Mandate, the Somali representative warned, even then, that the United Nations would have to bc prepared to take all steps The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.