S/PV.1812 Security Council

In accordance with decisions taken at the 181 lth meeting, I now, with the consent of the Council, invite the representatives of Morocco, Upper Volta, Nigeria and Somalia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber in order to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation o/the President, Mr. zOfmi(Morocco), Mr. Yao (Upper Volta),Mr. Ogbu (Nigeria) and Mr. Hussein (Somalia) took the places reservedfor them at the side of the Council chamber.

I also invite the President and the other members of the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia to take places at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr: Jackson (President Of the []&ted Nations Council for Namibia) and the other members of the delegation took places at the Council table.

The item on the Council’s agenda today is excep tional from every point of view. It is exceptional first of all because of the scope of the debates to which it has given rise in the United Nations since the inception of the Organ&- non. It iS exceptional also, and especially, because of the number of resolutions adopted in connexion with it and the variety of international bodies which have had to express their views on it. 4. The United Nations, which is directly concerned with the future of a people and of its territory, has not been successful so far in imposing upon a Member State, South Africa, the force of international law. Neither has it succeeded in imposing upon that State respect for the Charter or for the obligations flowing from it. 5. On 27 October 1966, the General Assembly adopted, by 114 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions, resolution 2145 (XXI), by which it terminated the Mandate it had entrusted to South Africa over what was then called South West Africa. In taking that important decision theGenera Assembly put an end to the efforts which it had been vainly exerting for 20 years to make the South African Government respect the commitments it had freely and solemnly undertaken. By refusing, in fact, to respect its obligations, South Africa was unilaterally denouncing the Mandate that had been entrusted to it. Hence, there was nothirig for the Assembly to do but to declare the Mandate that had beeqntrusted to South Africa null and void and consequently to adopt the measures necessary for the transfer of power to the indigenous population of what is today Namibia. 6. By the same resolution the General Assembly established an ad hoc committee of 14 members with the task of recommending practical means by which Namibia should be administered, so as to enable the people of the Territory to exercise the right of self-determination and to achieve independence. 7. The Ad Hoc Committee met between January and March 1967 and submitted its first report to the General Assembly at its fifth special session. In the light of that report, the General Assembly on 19 May 1967 adopted resolution 2248 (S-V), by which it decided: first, that everything was to be done to enable Namibia to accede to independence by June 1968 at the latest; secondly, that until independence the Territory would be administered, with the maximum possible participation of the population, by a United Nations Council for Namibia; thirdly, that that Council would entrust executive and administrative tasks to a United Nations Commissioner for Namibia; fourthly, that 8. Naturally, the General Assembly once again called upon South Africa to comply with the provisions of that resolution by facilitating the transfer of the administration of the Territory. At the same time, the Assembly requested the Security Council to take all appropriate measures to enable the United Nations Council for Namibia to discharge its functions. 9. In accordance with the recommendations in that resolution, the United Nations Council for Namibia,on 28 August 1967, addressed a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of South Africa requesting him to indicate the measures that his Government intended to take to facilitate the transfer of power with the least confusion. 10. On 27 September 1967, the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs replied that his Government had no intention of complying with the provisions of these resolutions, which it regarded as illegal, 11. On 16 December 1967, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2325 (XXII), in which it requested the Security Council to take effective steps to enable the United Nations to discharge the responsibilities it had assumed with respect to Namibia. 12. Since then several other resolutions-76, to be specific-have been adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council, all condemning South Africa for its refusal to co-operate with the United Nations. 13. It was necessary to wait until 1970, more specifically 29 July 1970, before the Security Council, by resolution 284 (1970), decided to submit, in conformity with Article 96 (1) of the Charter, the question to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. 14. I am bound to point out that a first opinion had already been given by the Court in 1950, when Pretoria had refused to submit to the new international system, on the pretext that the Mandates system had disappeared with the League of Nations. 15. In this connexion, the International Court of Justice stated: “Their razkn d’&re and their original object remain. Since their fulfilment did not depend on the entity of the League of Nations, they could not be brought to an end simply because this supervisory organ ceased to exist. Nor could the right of the population to have the Territory administered in accordance with these rules depend thereon.“] 1 Internationaf status of South West Africa. Advisory Opinion: 1.C.J. Reports IPSO, p, 133. 17. In spite of those two opinions of the International Court of Justice and of numerous resolutions of the Genera1 Assembly and the Security Council, South Africa did not feel that it had to heed the appeal of the international community Confronted by this categorical refusal, the Security COUncil met on 4 February 1972 at Addis Ababa to examine the question of Namibia again. 18. At that series of meetings the Security Council adopted resolution 309 (1972), by which it invited ‘6 ..I the Secretary-General, in consultation and close cooperation with a group of the Security Council, composed of the representatives of Argentina, Somalia and Yugoslavia, to initiate . . . contacts with all parties concerned, with a view to establishing 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 self-determination and independence, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. 19. On the basis of this decision of the Security Council, the Secretary-General a few days later made the first move: he sent the text of the resolution to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa. 20. The Secretary-General, on his return from Addis Ababa, received on 7 February 1972 in New York the representative of South Africa, who transmitted to him the text of the statement made by the Prime Minister of South Africa on 4 February 1972. In that statement the Prime Minister of South Africa had said: 66 1 . . . do not wish . , . to anticipate this matter, except to say that if the Secretary-General of the United Nations wishes to come to South Africa to discuss . . . seifdetermination of non-white peoples with the [South African] Government among others, he will. . . find US to be willing partners in the discussion , . . . But if he wishes to come to South Africa to act as a mouthpiece for the extremists of the Organization of African Unity . I I I can tell him in advance that he will be wasting his time.” [S/10738 of I7 JuIy 1972, para. 6.1 21. And yet those whom the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa described as extremists had adopted on 16 April 1969 at Lusaka the historic document called the Manifesto on Southern Africa. 22. 1 should like to point out that that document, prepared and adopted initially by the heads of State of eastern and central Africa, was adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and presented to the United Nations here by His Excellency Mr. Ahmadou Ahidjo, President of Cameroon and at that time the Chairman of the OAU. In the 1 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued F?esence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council kesolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I. C.J. Reports 1971, P.16. 27. If this appeal were to be heeded it would be the first positive sign which would not only lead to the beginning ofa settlement of the dire controversy which sets the South African Government against the international community but also, and in particular, saTeguard peace in Africa and therefore international security. In any event, the United Nations and especially the Security Council must remain vigilant in the future with regard to thedramabeingenacted in Africa that is degrading the human race and threatening the very future of the Organization. 2X. I should like now, Mr. President, with your permission, since I hope this may be the last meetingofthe Council this month, to address those colleagues who are about to leave us at the end of their mandate. &at position surely cannot be described as extremist. That ief historical summary was required, especially since some 11 believe that the OAU and the United Nations have not v’en the South African rigime sufficient time to reflect and adopt an appropriate position. 29. We have all appreciated the contribution which you, Sir, have made as our colleague and friend, as well as the contribution of the representative of Austria to the debates and action of the Council. I should like, as an African and a representative of a country friendly to your own, to tell you how grateful I am for this year that I have spent with you, which has made it possible for me to benefit from your great experience and your knowledge of the problems confronting Africa and the international community. 1. It is only because of the categorical refusal of the South frican regime, only because of its intransigence and its ‘rogant attitude towards the obligations that it is duty Dund to respect, only because of its refusal to honour nited Nations resolutions, that other means have been ied. 3. It was certainly in that spirit that the United Nations :ouncil for Namibia recommended to the General Assemly at its twenty-eighth session that contacts between the ecretary-General and the Government of South Africa be nded. That recommendation was adopted by the Assembly rn 12 December 1973 [resolution 3111 (XXVIII)]. The S~CUity Council also adopted, on 11 December 1973, its resoluion 342 (1973) in which it decided not to proceed to further .fforts on the basis of resolution 309 (1972). 30. Turning to my colleagues and brothers, the representatives of Indonesia, Kenya and Peru, 1 should like to tell them how much I have appreciated the constant support of theif solidarity with us, the logical outcome of the common struggle whiqh our countries are waging not only in the Council but also in all international bodies. That is our common struggle for peace, for equality between men and for the freedom of peoples, I am convinced that your example will go down in the annals of the Council as the example of a man moved by an unshakable faith in the Organization and its ideals of justjce and freedom. Throughout the whole of their mandate they have always tried to serve the cause of mankind, and I can tell them that they have served it well. In conclusion, Mr. President, may I assure you of my Unfailing friendship. ‘5. Too much blood has been shed in Namibia for the Council not to take the decision required of it, namely to 1 elp the Namibian people to recover their freedom, wrested iom them by a r&ime which quite obviously has failed in he mission entrusted to it. Nevertheless we wanted to give .he Pretoria rCgime another chance by asking it to beed the appeals addressed to it by the international community through the Council. 3 1, Mr. NJlNE (United Republic of Cameroon) (interimrariun from French): The international status of Namibia, formally South West Africa, as a country under the Mandate of the League of Nations, should, like that of other colonial Territories coming within the competence of the League of Nations, have been redefined after the Second World War in the light of the new principles that have governed the international community since then. That fact is . not disputed by anyone. 26. The resolution was a very moderate one-what some people called balanced and others called weak-but we hope that the weakness will be compensated by the force represented by the unanimity with which it was adopted by the Council, It should therefore be possible for the South African regime to commit itself to solemn recognition both of the validity of all United Nations resolutions and also of the opinion of the International Court of Justice. That unambiguous recognition by South Africa of the sovereignty of the Namibian people over its national Territory should be followed by the withdrawal, without delay, of’ all occupying South African troops and the transfer to the 32. Speaking in the Security Council the representative of Pretoria himself said [ l8OLJzh meeting]: “The Government of South Africa has always recognized that South West Africa has a distinct international status. We have no designs on it.” How, then, can one explain the persistence of a colonial type of situation in Namibia? j Ofjcial Records of the General’ Assembly. Twenty-n&h Session, Annexes, agenda item 196, document A/7754, para. 12. 34, The United Nations has reacted energetically to such criminal acts. In its resolution 2145 (Xx1) of 27 October 1966 the General Assembly decided to put an end to South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and to bring that Territory under the direct responsibility of. the United Nalions, entrusting the administration of the Territory, until its independence, to the body now known as the United Nations Council for Namibia, 35. When asked by the Organisation what would be the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia, the International Court of Justice replied unambiguously in its advisory opinion of 21 June 197 1 that the presence of the Pretoria regime in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa should be obliged to cease immediately its administration and occupation of that country. 36. In resolution 310 (1972) of 4 February’l972, the Security Council itself strongly condemned the repression prevalent in Namibia and declared that the continued occupation of the Territory by the ,South African Government in defiance of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and of the Charter created conditions detrimental to the maintenance of peace and security in the region. 37, Although, ns usual, the racist Government rejected out of hand the views thus expressed by highly respected organs of the international community, the Security Ctiuncil, in one last effort at conciliation, in its resolution 309 (1972) of 4 February 1972, invited the S&retary-Genera1 to initiate contacts with South Africa and all partics concerned with a view to establishing the necessary conditions to enable the people of Namibia to exercise their right to selfdetermination and independence in accorda,nce ,witl! the Charte?. 38. Later developments more than justified the scepticism tllat had been voiced in various quarters as to the usefulness and purpose of such a dialogue. What happened was that while the Secretary-General-to whom my delegation wishes to express sincere gratitude for the skill and wisdom with which he performed his delicate mission in the circutnstanceswas holding talks with the Pretoria authorities, the fatter saw fit to intensify their policy of the balkanization of Namibia into “homelands” by setting up the notorious Consultative Council, which is nothing other than a divisive tribal organ in the pay of the racists. 39. This system of exploitatidii”whicll has Ieefi -inflicted upon the Namibian people has been strongly denpunced by the International Commission of Jurists in an article entitIed “Bantustan honlelands in Namibia: a new servitude”, which appeared il-1 issue No, 11 of the Commission’s @urnal, dated December 1973. In it. we read that notwithstanding vague 40. During this period, moreover, repressive measures against political movements under the South African Emergency Laws and public floggings of unspeakable savagery reached alarming proportions described in detail in the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia.4 41. Faced with the persistent bad faith of the South African racist Government, which has quite bluntly rcfuscd to recognize the right of the Namibian people to selfdetermination and independence, in his report of 30 April 1973, the Secretary-General reached the conclusion that “ . . . the position of the South African Government is still far from coinciding with that established in the resolutions of the United Nations concerning Namibia” [S/10921, para. 181. 42, Confronted with the de facto annexation of Namibia by South Africa, one cannot attach any credit at all to the statements made by Mr. Botha in the Council on 24 October, when he said that self-determination for Namibia could cbme about within 10 years. So it was very right for the Security Council in its resolution 342 (1973) to decide not to continue the contacts which the racists were plainly seeking .to exploit in order to pursue their dilatory tactics to improve their image in international circles and give themselves respectability they do not merit in the cycs of the world Organization. 43. In the present circumstances the United Nations should fulfil its obligations towards the people of Namibia fully and effectively. There arc no grounds at all Ibr capitulation to the challenge of the racists. The patience of the Namibian people also has certain limits. That people, which has placed such trust in the Organization, is expecting the promises the Security Council has always made it to be fulfilled, and it is looking forward to the day when the racist uypcrs will at last be obliged to transfer power to it. 44. My delegation believes that in view of the aggressive and expansionist policy of the South African rkgime’in Namibia and the extreme patience shown by the Organization towards South Africa, this present debate will give rise to very little controversy; surely no delegation present wishes to deny the Namibian people its inalienable right to self-determination, national independence and protection of its territorial integrity. Those rights were reaffirmed by the Security Council in its resolution 323 (1972) of 6 December 1972. 45. The unanimous vote that has $1~1 taken place in the Council regarding Namibia has given added meaning to what the President of the United Republic of Cameroon said as he recalled the result bf the recent debate in the Security Council on apartheid. President .4hmadou Ahidjo said: “Fully aware of the profound attachment of the peapies of these great countries to the principles of fi-cedom, -- 4 fiid., Twenty-ninth Session. Supplement NO. 24. 52. In this connexion, even some Western papers have admitted that the South African authorities are carving up Namibia in a planned way. They intend to allocate small picccs of sterile land in the northern part of the Territory and elsewhere for the creation of a so-called “independent” Ovamboland, etc., and thereby place the rest of the Territory with fertile soil and rich mineral resources under a white ruling rtgime for their perpetual occupation. In the event of opposition rrom the indigenous people, the white racists are prcparcd to demand a union with South Africa straight away. In discussing this issue, Du Pies&, the head of the Nitti(j[lai Party of South West Africa, who is also the South African Minister of Community Development, openly atlmittcd that the future of Namibia must be determined with the approval of the South African Government and that there was no question of South West Africa being separated entirely from South Africa. 53. On 20 November this year, Dirk Mudge, Member of tlw Excculive Committee of the so-calledSouth West Africa National Party, tabled a motion in the so-called South West Africa Legislative Assembly on the talks about the future of South West Africa. The m&on contained 14 points. Now let us take a look at the essential points of this motion. 54. Point I nfthe motion says that there should be rccognition of the l’act that there were various peoples in “Sotitii West Africa”, and the rights of each should be recognized. On he surface, this appears to be quite fair, but it has complctcly ignored the objective fact as to who are the masters of Namibia and who are the aggressors illegally occupying Namibia. It is closigncd to blur the basic distinction bctwccn occupation and :tnti-occupation, between aggression and anti-aggression, thereby creating confusion am1,Wg the pcopic. 55, In our view, only with the immediate withdrawal of the reactionary South African authorities from Namibia ant1 the removal of that rock weighing down on the Namihian people will it be possible for the indigenous people to become the masters of their own land and for the rights of each people there to be r&pected. Otherwise, the white racists and colonialists will be allowed to da whatever they please, while the broad’masses of the black inhabitants are crudciy deprived of their basic right to subsistence; and such ;m intokrabie state of affairs will continue indefinitely. 56. Point S ol’ the motion refers to the maintenance of law and order in “South West Africa” in the process of moving towards sc!f-determination, and it adds: “therefore, South Africa would not withdraw Ii-OIII ‘South West Africa’ bccausc that would l&i to chaos”. . 57 Point 6 asserts that South Africa could only leave South West Africa once the people asked for it and that no other body or country could replace South Africa. This is . exactly the tone of a slave-owner, as of there simply did not exist a U&ccl Nations, as if the Namibian peopie could not survive without the South African racists. These are nothing 58. The South African racist rCgime has acted so truculently because it has the all-out political, diplomatic, military and economic support of imperialism. In order to strangle the national liberation movements and preserve its enormous economic and political interests in southern Africa, imperialism has tried by all means to sustain the Fascist rule of the South African authorities. Herein lies an important reason why the Namibian question has remained unsettled over the past two decades and more, and why the South African authorities have dared to defy the relevant United Nations resolutions. 59. The Chinese Government and people have always firmly supported the just struggle of the Namibian people. We maintain that the South African authorities must put an immediate end to their illegal occupation of Namibia, withdraw all their military and police forces as well as their administration from Namibia and let the United Nations Council for Namibia take over and prepare for the independence of Namibia. The national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia must be guaranteed against sabotage by the South African authorities; the South African authorities must immediately repeal their barbarous measures of infringing on the political and basic human rights of the Namibian people and release at once all the detained political prisoners. 60. Although the Chinese delegation has voted in favour of draft resolution S/l 1579, we would prefer that, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council resolution immediately call for strong measures to apply effective sanctions against the South African racist rCgime for its persistent gross violation of the Charter principles and refusal to comply with the relevant United Nations resolutions. 61. An excellent situation prevails in the world, even more so in Africa. The struggle of the Namibian people has won not only the support of the African countries and peoples but also the ever broader support of all thejustice-upholding countries and peoples throughout the world. There will yet be setbacks and difficulties of various kinds along their road of advance, but the difficulties cannot stem the progress of the revolutionary struggle of Namibia. We are deeply convinced that so long as they strengthen their unity, heighten their vigilance, persevere in various forms of struggle, including armed struggle, the Namibian people, with the support of all the justice-upholding countries and peoples of Africa and the rest of the world, will certainly drive out the South African racist rCgime from their homeland and win national independence and liberation.

At the request of the African countries and in accordance with the recommendation of 63. The problem of Namibia deeply affects the interests of the whole of free Africa and of the whole of freedom-loving mankind. The just struggle of the Namibian people for its freedom and independence is an integral component of the struggle of the African peoples against the racist and colonialist rkgimes in southern Africa and against colonialism and aggression as a whole. The perpetuation of a hotbed of colonial domination in southern Africa has an adverse effect upon the political situation not only in Africa but in the whole of the world. It creates a threat to international peace and security for the countries of Africa. 64. This situation is against the efforts of all the peaceloving countries which are aimed at the deepening and further expansion of the easing of international tensions and at the strengthening of the process of the restructuring of international relations on the basis of the principles of peacefu1 coexistence. The easing of tensions, which has now become the governing factor in the development of international relations, establishes favourable conditions for the further rise of the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples on the African continent. 65. The breadth of the national liberation struggle is growing in scale all the time, and this struggle leads on to further important victories. A new independent State has been born upon the African continent-Guinea-Bissau. There have been positive changes in the achievement of setfdetermination and independence by the peoples who were formerly under theadministration of Portugal. The continuing unlawful occupation by South Africa of the Territory of Namibia and the existence of South African and Southern Rhodesian colonial racist rigimes in the twentieth century is an anachronism left over from previous centuries-and an end must be put to this state of affairs forthwith. 66. The United Nations has adopted a whole series of resolutions on Namibia whose purpose was the liquidation of the unlawful occupation of that Territory by South Africa. The United Nations has recognized and has confirmed on numerous occasions in its resolutions the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to freedom and independence in accordance with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. By an official decision of the United Nations, the Mandate of the Republic of South Africa to administer Namibia has been terminated. The national unity of the people of Namibia and the territorial integrity of that country have been officially recognized and have been confirmed on numerous occasions, Therefore, any further presence in that country of South African authorities and troops and any attributes of racist domination by the Republic ofSouth Africa is unlawful and is in conflict with United Nations decisions. 67. At the present session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in elaboration and confirmation of the numerous earlier decisions of the United Nations, resolution 3295 (XXIX) was adopted, again confirming the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and 68. The representatives of African States who have spoken here have rightly pointed to the true reason for the challengi% attitude of South Africa in relation to the United stations, the reason why the racists of South Africa arc continuing to be defiant towards the United Nations and towards the peoples of Africa and are continuing to accept a direct confrontation with the numerous resolutions of the Gcncral Assembly and the Charter of the United Nations and are ignoring world publicopinion. The reason is clear; it cannot be concealed or papered over; it resides in the open support given by certain Western Powers to the racist rigime of tho Republic of South Africa. It is precisely this aid trtld this support on the part, first of all, of certain States members of NATO, as well as on the part of the imperialist transnational monopolies, that makes it possible for the racist r&gime 6f the Republic of South Africa to pit itself against the United Nations, against the peoples of Africa and against world public opinion. 169. This support of the racist regime of the Republic of South Africa constitutes a direct violation of resolutions both of the Gcncral Assembly and of the Security Council. 111 other words, we have before us selfishness and selfinterest on the part ofindividual Powersand monopolies,so that by basing themselves upon the racist rbgime of Pretoria they can continue to inflict colonial exploitation on the indigenous inhabitants of Namibia and to appropriate its natural wealth for the purpose of their own self-enrichment. 70. In the documents 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 in the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia, there is a concrete exposition of the nefarious role of the imperialist monopolies which act as they will in Namibia. In one of the documents of the Committee it is officially recognized that “Namibia can be considered as the ‘most exploited Territory in history’, because at least one third of its gross national product is exported as profits by foreign mining companies”.’ 71. Idowever, it is not only the economic interests that are the basis for the support given to the South African r&&e. ~1~ important role is also being played by the designs to block the national liberation movement in the southern Part of Africa. It is precisely those designs which are served by the last racist bastions in Africa, namely, the Republic of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. We are bound to come to the concIusion also that it is precisely for this reason that the close ties of certain Western Powers and Israel with the racists of Pretoria are not limited only to the economic sPh&e. They expand into political and military co- 5 Ibid., Supplement NO. 23, chap. IV, annex, appendix IV, Para. 7. 72. Almost &ee years ago, early in 1972, during the series of meetings held by the Security Council in Africa, voices were heard in support of a dialogue between the United Nations and the rbgime in the RepublicofSouth Africa. The delegation of the USSR at that time expressed serious doubts concerning the appropriateness ofsuch action by the Security Council, considering its unpromising nature in view of the position of the racists of South Africa. Nevertheless, this course was experimented with, inasmuch as some still continued to believe in it naively, However, now all have become convinced, and indeed, life itself has confirmed that dialogue with racists is not only useless but can actually be harmful, inasmuch as it creates illusions of the possibility of coming to terms with racists, Thereby the correctness of the approach of the Soviet Union to the present question was convincingly confirmed. 73. The consistent position of principle of the USSR in the struggle against colonialism and racism is well known. Colonialism, racism, apartheid, Zionism and all other manifestations of heinousness towards man are resolutely rejected by the Soviet Union. Twenty million Soviet people gave their lives in order to liberate mankind from the racist plague of fascism. The USSR firmly and consistently has been following the precepts of the great Lenin and is in favour of total and final liquidation of colonial and racist rkgimes. The Soviet Union, both on a State basis and through its social organizations, has constantly been providing and continues to provide comprehensive selfless assistance and support to the national liberation movements of Africa in their struggle to attain national independence. The Soviet Union supports the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to selfdetermination and independence on the basis of the principle of territorial integrity of that country and non-interference in its domestic affairs, We recognize the lawfulness of the struggle of the people of Namibia by all means at its disposal. 74. The USSR has supported and continues to support all decisions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly which provide for the speedy liberation of Namibia from the domination of racists, as well as recommendations of the implementation of effective and valid measures aimed at the achievement of this just goal. Firmly condemning the policy of racial discrimination and apartheid practised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa, which is also being extended to the Territory of Namibia occupied by South Africa, the Soviet Union does not maintain with the Republic of South Africa any diplomatic, COnSUlar, ecOnomic or other ties whatsoever. 75. The anti-colonial struggle of the oppressed Peoples requires that there be an increase in the pressure of every kind exerted upon the racist rCgimeof the Republic ofSouth Africa in order to isolate it to the utmost in the international arena, That is why the Soviet delegation in the SeduritY Council supported the draft resolution to exclude the Republic of South Africa from the United Nations. The Soviet Union considers that the firmest measures must at 76, The Soviet delegation has supported the resolution adopted today by the Security Council on the question under consideration, the draft of which was introduced by the African countries of Kenya and Mauritania and the United Republic of Cameroon, although, frankly speaking, we would have preferred a stronger text.

The Council meets today in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 3295 (XXIX) which, in its section II: “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 the resolutions of the Security Council and of the’ General Assembly regarding Namibia, to put an end to South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia”. 7X. It gives my delegation deep satisfaction that the Council has been able to respond in such a speedy and effective manner to the request made by the General Assembly under that resolution. Our appreciation goes in the first place to our colleagues and friends from Kenya, Mauritania and the United Republic of Cameroon, who have spared no efforts in order to arrive at a formula which is both effective and generally acceptable. Their deep concern for the plight of the people of Namibia, shared by all members of the Council, and their keen sense of the art of the possible haire been greatly instrumental in bringing about the draft resolution that has now been adopted unanimously by the Council. The statesmanship and spirit of accommodation displayed by all members is a further source of satisfaction for my delegation. 79. In supporting the draft resolution sponsored by the delegations from Africa, my delegation has been guided in the first place by the firm and constant stand that lndonesia has always taken against colonialism in all its forms and guises. The role that Indonesia has played in support of the struggle for independence in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world is well known and needs no further elaboration. As a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Indonesia has a special interest in the speedy resolution of the Namibian problem in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, taking into account the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that South Africa is under the obligation to withdraw its presence from the Territory. 80. AS I have stated on previous occasions; another basic attitude constantly governing the approach of my delegation is that, in regard to matters considered of vital importance to a region, Indonesia is always prepared to be primarily guided by the vietis and interests of the countries in the region concerned. It is Indonesia’s firm belief, one that is shared by all members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, that the countries in the region are more 81. It is the view of my delegation that the resolution adopted by the Council this morning can be characterized as both reasonable and timely. It is not as strong as most of us would have wished. It should, however, offer greater chances of being implemented. By according South Africa a final warning and an opportunity to comply with the various relevant resolutions of the United Nations, the resolution adopted this morning makes every effort to solve the problem of Namibia without recourse to the sanctionary measures provided by the Charter, At the same time, it provides a series of concrete steps by which South African withdrawal from Namibia can be accomplished. lt seeks practical measures by which the suffering of the people of Namibia can be put to an immediate end by requiring the South African Government to implement the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to rclcase all political prisoners, to abolish all discriminatory and repressive laws and freely to permit all exiled Nnmibians to return to their country. In the view of my delegation, the resolution offers both concrete and effective mcasurcs for dealing with the long unsolved problem of Namibia. 82. The latest developments in the South African region offer no justification forjubilation. There seems to be some indication that the racist and colonialist rigimes in southern Africa may now at last begin to feel the prcssurc brought upon them by the international community, making them realize that they can no longer defy at will the wishes of the world community. 83. It is, however. still much tuo early tospeak of a change of heart. The developments there are still too embryonic, too slow and too uncertain. Much more tangible proofis needed to dispel the justified suspicion and the sceplicism of the world community with regard to the words and deeds of the rCgimes at Pretoria and Salisbury in view of their behaviour in the past. We believe, however, that the time has now become more propitious for the winds ofchangc to set their course in the southern part of the African continent. It is the task of the United Nations, and in particular that of the Security Council, to take the ncccssary steps that would accelerate the process towards the linal solution of the remaining colonial problems in Africa. The resolution adopted this morning by the Council is, in my delegation’s view, a step in the right direction. WC therefore voted in favour of the draft resolution in document S/l 1579. 84. This is most likely the last meeting of the Council in which my delegation will participate, as our term of Office will end 017 31 December. Allow me, therefore, to avail myself of this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to all colleagues around this table and to the members of their delegations for their co-operation and good will, which have made it possible for my delegation to make its contribution, for whatever it is worth, to the work of the Council. It has indeecl been a privilege for mc to be so closely associated, on an official as well as on a personal level, with such distinguished represcntativcs of friendly countries. Indone- X5. My pr~~tillldc and tllal 01’ nly delegation goes alS0 CO [lrc Sccrcl~~r,y-c;cncral d his close collaborators assigned to tllc Sccllrlty c’ouncil, to the members of the Secretariat who liavc‘ given such v;ilunblc co-operation during the two ~WI’S ~hnt I~lclot~csia Ilns hecn ;I non-permanent member of hs (‘ouncil. 80, AS III!, clclcgalion is on lhc point a!’ tern1inarin.g its w(~I!-c in 111~ C’OU~C~I. WC arc greatly heiirtened by the fact thrrt the [rl:tcVs to hc v;lGltrci by the live non-perll~ancnt metnbcrs will he occupied by countries known for their dcdicotion and ct~mmilmcnt to the ideals and principles of [III: C’hartcr. I um conl’idcnt that lhc Council, with their p:lr licipatitm, will hc able (0 play, with increasing success, tlu2 Vitill rcllc nssigncd lo it by the Charter as the principal trrpan cntrus~cd with the maintcnancc of peace and security in the worltl. X7. Mr. I’rosidcnl, allow nlc to address a few words to you IWWn;llly. ils I will Wl hnvc the occasion to do so next fricmlli hccause bollt of us will be Icaving the Council at the end of this year. 1 a111 WC rd the many who have been privilcgcd to kn0~ you for qililc ;I number al’ years and 1 h;~t,c Iciil*llcd to like and :ldmirc you. My first professional cc)llt;\ct wilh you was some I5 years ago, during one of the 1oWcr prints in the rclalions hctween our two countries, when you wcrc rhc Ambassador of Australia at Jakarta, You sl~c~w~cl ;I clucp unrlcrrstanding of Indonesia and the IrKlotlesion pcoplc, an undcrsl:mding which you have continued 10 show ever since. Your vision of the relations bo~~ccn 0111’ two countries has been vindicated by the cleveloprncnts, cspccinlly during the lust live lo six years, when tlhl~ rol:ltiuns lravc bccomc very close indeed on the basis of mului~l 11 ttclerslanding, I’ricndsiiip and co-operation. I had lIl1C gWd I’cWtunc that my two YWIX in the Council coincided with yc~rs and I must thank you for the close co-operation ilnd continuccl personal friendship that you have accorded tl:., me during thcsc last two years, within and outside the (Iouncil. In my previous intervention in the COunCil, I have c,qms~d my confidcncc that under your wise guidance our work would ag;lin c~mc 10 a fruitful conclusion. That confi- &ncc W;IS IK.G rnispl;lccd. The Council has managed to c~,n~ludc its d&at6 successfully on two important issues. ~:ty I, on hch:~I!‘~~f’myclelcgation, express our high appreci- :l,tion fc>r the way you have acquitted yourself of your task ’ ilnLi c(~ngr~~lulate y0r.i on the successful outcome. 94. My delegation is convinced that, ever since General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), in which the General Assembly decided to put anend to South Africa’s mandate over Namibia and to .assUme direct responsibility for the Territory until its independence, the Assembly has been ina state of direct conflict with South Africa because of that country’s refusal to respect this and other decisions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council in which those bodies, expressing themselves in many different ways requested South Africa to withdraw from Namibia. My delegation clearly cannot fail to give its SUppOrt to a new resolution. according to which the United Nations would recover the rights which have been denied it to lead Namibia to full independence, l’ronl M;;uri[ania, who has spoken SUCII kind words and r:~I~rcs~cd SUCII kind sentiments about the role which I have played in Ihe Council. $18. Mnv I be pcrmittcd to thank my colleague and brother 9 -” -- that exists in the Council between its members, a relationship which has become the basis for lasting personal friendships. My delegation wishes the Council well and its members every success in their endeavour to main&n and preserve peace and security in the world,

My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution in document S/11579 and wishes briefly to explain some of the feasons for our affirmative vote. 91. There can be very few subjects 017 which the General Assembly and the Security Council have shown such unanimous and continuous concern as they have with regard to the Territory formerly known as South West Africa, later recognized by the General Assembly under the name of Namibia. 92. My delegation has a tradition of solidarity with those who have sought to make that Territory an independent, free and sovereign nation, in keeping with the historical trends which most fortunately have put an end to an era of colonial rule whose last bastions were to be found in Africa. My country has welcomed with great pleasure the attainment of independence by all the new African nations which now sit in the United Nations, and we are glad to have them here today’as frCc andsovcrcign nations and to share with them many of their legitimate aspirations. My delegation wishes to maintain its solidarity in the ,battles that still lie ahead so that those peoples in the African continent still subject to foreign rule may in the near future also enjoy their right to independence. 93. My delegation has followed closely the work of the United Natiohs Council for Namibia and we pay tribute to the praiseworthy performance of its members at various stages of its work. Its thorough reports have described for us the obstacles placed by South Africa in the path of independence for Namibia. 95. My delegation agrees with paragraph 6 of the rcsolution just adopted by the Security Council, according to 96. Mr, DE GUIRTNGAUD (France) (inferpretationfrom French): Mr. President, the French delegation was not surprised that the Group of African States asked you to convene the Security Council for the purpose of examining the question of Namibia. This meeting was provided for by the resolution adopted a few days ago in the General Assembly [resolution 3295 (XXIX)] and, although we had to express certain reservations concerning many of its provisions, we were not opposed to the principle of convening the Council because such a move appeared entirely justified to US. 97. Our reaction could not have been any different, because for many years now we have made known our concern with the situation in Namibia. It is clear that South Africa has not fulfilled its obligation to transform the political status of the population of South West Africa and that it has not promoted that people’s exercise of its right to selfdetermination and independence, a right universally recognized as universally applicable. The result is an abnormal situation which must be remedied. I shall recall that for its part France has favoured the formulation of proposals made with a view to finding a solution, but that South Africa has not lived up to our expectations. This is why, last December, the Security Council had to suspend its work on Namibia after having observed and deplored the fact that no genuine progress had been made in the situation in the Territory. 98. Since then a year has elapsed, important events have taken place in Africa and, now that we are again opening the Namibian file, one observation becomes imperative. Our debate is now taking place at a time when the international situation is very different from what it was at former meetings of the Council. Breaking with years of inflexibility and with the pursuit of a pointless war, the new Portuguese Government has started on the process of decolonization with which we are all familiar, After Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, the Sao Tome and Principe islands and Angola will accede to national sovereignty in 1975. Two new States close to southern Africa of considerable land arca and population will thus now not only take the place which is rightfully theirs within the Organization but will also exercise their influence throughout the whole of the region. These changes may lead to others. We are al] aware that as of a few days ago in the rebel colony of Rhodesia itself the hope for a political solution at last seems to be making its appearance. The beginning of a dialogue appears to be emerging between the leaders of the white minority ant] the representatives of the black majority, The French delegation would not, of course, wish to show too much optimism or to anticipate events, but it does appear significant to us that perhaps a new wind might be blowing in Salisbury. 99. The ties which exist between Rhodesia and South Africa are too well known for us not to draw the conclusion that at Pretoria the need for a change is also being felt. We 100. However, we are bound to note that the former state of affairs has not truly changed much up to now. The public statements that have been made appear to us to be inadequate. They do not dispel certain ambiguities concerning the right of the Namibian people as such to independence in the unity of its Territory. The formula that “all options will be open” to the inhabitants of the Territory, although at first sight not excluding independence, does not really provide us with any explanation of the genuine policy of South Africa, which cannot be freed from its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations. Without losing sight of the facts which affect the sometimes difficult process of decolonization, which we are all aware of, we feel that the reasonable attitude for the South African Government to take would be to indicate clearly very soon what new measures it will take in order to make it possible for the Namibian people freely to take a stand in favour of independence. 10 1. Those are the reasons why we voted in favour of the draft resolution submitted to the Council. Moreover, weare bound to condemn the application in Namibia of discriminatory laws and practices, which we formally censure. Considering, as I have said, that South Africa must speak out unambiguously on the right of Namibia to selfdetermination and independence, in the unity of its territory, we agree that the declaration we expect from South Africa should be a solemn one. 102. Lastly, although certain elements of flexibility have already been introduced concerning the barriers blocking public freedoms, we wish to associate ourselves with the appeal addressed to the South African Government to release political detainees, to abolish discriminatory laws and practices and to allow the return of political exiles. 103. Our affirmative vote was not cast without certain rcscrvations. I shall rapidly pass over the difficulties of principle that we have concerning references to resolutions on which we have abstained. However, I should like to recall, in connexion with the references to the decision of the International Court of 21 June 1971 and the consequences that some draw from it, that our position was made clear in the statement made by my delegation in the Security Council on 5 October 1971 [1588rh meeting]. 104. Having expressed those reservations, we are gratified that the sponsors have found it possible to confirm the principles to which they are profoundly attached, even though they were presenting a draft resolution which to a 105. Sentiment and reason will in future concur in encouraging our work. Our African friends feel deeply a will for equality, justice and dignity to which the whole of our community subscribes very willingly. At the same time, we have the clear impression that the hour of negotiation and of settlement by stages is striking. May that belief be neither disappointed nor compromised by any hasty actions. 106. It might perhaps have been better if at thissession the United Nations had exercised on South Africa the moral pressure which is its principal means ofaction, while refraining from endangering the possibility of useful contacts. No one, surely, believes that measures which are to be taken at last in Namibia and negotiations which are to be conducted throughout southern Africa will produce any results in a few weeks, or even in a few months. Each of us can, however, say to himself that today joint efforts could promote the necessary solutions. My Government has not waited for the current developments to encourage the Government of Soluth Africa to show that it is willing to compromise. It has repeated to the Pretoria authorities the appeals and warnings that 1 formulated at this table on 30 October last [l808fh meeting], It hopes that those representations and that advice will not remain without effect and that the authorities in question will show realism, in order to bring their doctrines and practices closer to the ideals of the United Nations. My Government will continue to act along those lines and to call for the progressive disappearance of something that shocks us so much, in the hope that a frank, rapid and peaceful transformation in southern Africa, and particularly in Namibia, may take place, 107. As I conclude this statement, Mr. President, I am aware that this meeting is perhaps the last that we shall hold this year, the last at which we shall have the pleasure of working under your lofty and well-intentioned authority. May I pay a particular tribute to your wisdom, your competelnce and your talent as a diplomat, which have made it possible both this year and last year, in particularly difficult and tragic circumstances, to overcome successfully obsta- C~S which appeared to be quite dangerous, I express my admiration and friendship for you. 108. I should also like to tell our colleagues from Indonesia, Kenya, Peru, and Austria, who like those from Australia will be leaving the Council at the end of this year, how mtich 1 have appreciated the co-operation established between US during the two years during which they have been members 01‘ our Council. I wish them all the best of luck in their continuing activities in the United Nations.

I thank the representative of France for the very generous. words he has addressed to me. May I say that I reciprocate by looking back on the degree to which ] myself have benefited from his wisdom and experience during these past two years on occasions when we have had an opportunity to negotiate together on some of the difficult issues that’have faced the Council. 1 shall recollect those occasions with great satisfaction and pleasure. 111. MY delegation was profoundly satisfied to note the Unanimity shown on this resolution by the African members of the Council. We interpret that unanimity as a clear demonstration of universal awareness of the intolerable colonial and racist situation in southern Africa, particularly in a Territory that is truly a Trust Territory of the United Nations itself. At the same time we cannot fail to note with interest and cautious hope certain signs in South Africa and Rhodesia which could mean a movement towards common sense and respect for law by those respective rtgimes. Clearly it is for the United Nations to encourage any sign of progress towards liberation of the peoples of southern Africa, but it is important that in so doing it does not lessen its vigilance or slacken its juridical and moral pressure to obtain respect for its resolutions. 112. This is probably the last public meeting of the Security Council in which Peru will participate, since its term of office expires on 31 December. I should not like this opportunity to pass without first stating my delegation’s great satisfaction at the fact that we are being replaced in the Council by a young South American State-Guyana, which, happily is, present today, the youngest of all the South American countries but one of the most active OfthI number on the international scene, where it has with great coherence and much spirit defended its own national interests, the interests of the Latin American area to which it belongs and the interests of non-alignment. ] 13. Secondly, 1 should like to say that our two years of membership in the Security Council have been at once a great pleasure and of great benefit to my Country and, in particular, my delegation. This has been a rnemorablr period, a period of much hard work, in which sensitive issues have been dealt with, issues closely concerning international peace and security: the situations in Zambia and the Middle East in 1973, the situation in Cyprus. the problem of the relations of the Organization with the Government of South Africa in 1974. In respect of those problems, the Council has, as is its prime duty, made use of all Possible means to preserve peace and security, although it has not always succeeded in doing so to the extent desired, for reasons that are understandable and indeed pr(Vr in an Organization that is, after all, not supranational but, rather, an organiation of Governments, one in which Member States jealously preserve their positions and interests. 122. May 1 also avail myself of this opportunity to extend to the non-permanent members of the Council who will soon be leaving the Council, including you, Mr. President, my delegation’s sincere best wishes and our gratitude for having had the valuable opportunity of working with you in amity and in a spirit of co-operation in’the Council. We consider ourselves the richer for theexperience, and we shall always cherish the memories of the eventful year we spent together as members of this august body. 115. I wish to state our gratitude for the intelligent and generous co-operation shown by you, Sir, who are presiding aver our work today with your characteristic brilliance and by the representatives of Austria, lndonesia and Kenya who, like the representatives of Peru, are now reaching the end of their terms of office in the Council. The close COoperation my delegation has maintained with the nonaligned countries and, in general, with the non-permanent members of the Council, has, we feel, been af great benefit to the cause of peace; 123. Mr. TCHERNOUCHTCHENKO (Byelorussian 5 Soviet Socialist Republic) (trans/ationfrom’Russian): First of , all, my delegation wishes to emphasizc that the Byelorussian SSR, in taking part in the work of the United Nations, has always been in favour of the speediest and unconditional eradication of colonialism, and for the speediest granting of independence and freedom to all colonial countries and peoples. We have always been on the side of the fighters for national freedom and independence. This course-has been dictated by the whole of our world outlook; it proceeds from Lenin’s foreign policy, the corner-stone of which is the brotherly union of the forces of socialism with the national : liberation movements and with the peoples that have cast off the yoke of colonialism and semi-colonial bondage. Our solidarity with the peoples fighting against imperialism, racism and colonialism finds its expression in our comprehensive support, both political and material, for their just struggle. 116. We must not overlook the exceedingly beneficial coordination of our work with the distinguished representa- . tives of the five permanent members of the Security Council; all of their countries are bound to my own by close ties of friendship. . 117. My delegation and 1 personally wish, finally, to express our admiration and gratitude to the Secretary- General for his constant co-operation with and respect for die Council. My delegation witnessed this attitude particu- ‘laily when, on two.occasions, ii presided over the Council. I, extend our thanks and admiration also to the Utider- Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs, as well as to the other Secretariat members who have assisted him in his tasks. 11% Mr. ZAHAWIE (Iraq): My delegation ‘voted in . favour ofdraft resolution S/l 1.579 in the firm belief’that the Security i7ouncil should shoulder its responsibility with regard to Namibia without any further delay. The measures enlisted in the resolution are, in fact, long overdue. The General Assembly terminated South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory of Namibia ‘as long ago as 27 October 1966. 124. Our delegation considers it essential also to point out that, through the international detente that has been achieved, a favourable set of circumstances has been produced for the conclusion of the process of decolonization and for the final liberation from colonialism of all countries and. peoples. All this determines our attitude towards the question of Namibia, now being considered by the Security Council. 119. -‘In spite of numerous resolutions adopted over a number of years by the Security Council, and in spite of the opinion of the International Court of Justice to the effect that South Africa is under the obligation to withdraw its presence from Namibia,, South Africa persists in its refusal to withdraw. In addition to its illegal occupation of Namibia, South Africa has further immeasurably multiplied its wrongs and,, violations by inflicting the evils and the 125. More than a decade has elapsed since the question of South West Africa, and then of Namibia, began to appear consistently on the agenda of the United Nations. It would seem that its very permanence imparted to it a character of pointlessness and lack of prospects. But very much indeed has changed since the question of revoking the Mandate of the Republic of South Africa-then the Uniori of South Africa-over South West Africa was raised. degradations of uparfheid upon the inhirbitants of the captive Territory. 120: Too often in the past the Council had resolved to 126. The international balance of forces has changed: meet immediately to consider what action to take if South there has been a gredt growth iri the role of socialist and Africa did not comply with the decisions ofthe Council. The non-aligned countries in international relations. The impleprovisions contained in the resolution adopted this morning mentation of the Declaratipn on the Granting of Indepenserve to show only too clearly that the Council has in fact dence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which was failed so far to take any effective action to extricate Namibia adopted on the initiative of the Soviet Union, has become a and to rescue its inhabitants from the shackles of Pretoria. major historic phase of the struggle being conducted within . . ,..... . 12 ‘, .._. 127* It should be pointed out also that in recent years the Gel-led Assembly and the Security Council began to adopt resolutions Which, had they been implemented, could have contributed to the acceleration of the solution of the question of Namibia in the interest of the people of that Tcrritory. I-lOwever, this has Constantly been blocked by the SoUth African racists, who have enslaved Namibia and created there unlimited possibilities for its domination by the foreign monopolies of a number of Western countries WhiCh are lTXX’Ch!SS~y exploiting the indigenous population and1 plundering Namibia’s natural resources. - - 12% But the struggle of’ the people of Namibia indicates hat the dny iS not far off when that colony, which has sufi‘ercd more than most others, will achieve its freedom and independence. Eloquent evidence of this is the statement of the representative of SWAPO, which, as pointed out in a recently adopted General Assembly resolution, is the genuine representative of the people of Namibia [resolution 3295 (xxrx)]. 125). The Byelorussian delegation, expressing its solidarity with lhc patriots of SWAP0 and with the people of Namibia, wishes them further success in the fierce struggle which thy arc waging, and expresses its confidence that Ihcir jusl cause will triumph. The struggle of the Namibian pcoplc is intimately connected with the efforts and determination of the people of Africa to put a linal end to colonialism, racism and apartheid upon the African continent. 130. In this historic process ofliberation from colonialism, one of the important landmarks is the collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire, In these circumstances, matters Conne’cted with the struggle against the colonialism, racisti’and apartheid of the rCgimes which exist in Southern Rhodesia and in the Republic of South Africa are coming to the forefront of the struggle against colonialism. The struggle for freedom and independence in Namibia is acquiring a special signilicance. I?, 1, The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR strongly condemns the racist authorities of South Africa for their brazen refusal to carry out the decisions of various organs of the United Nntions, including the Security Council, for their continning unlawful occupation of Namibia, for the establishmcnt of the criminal system of upa~tlzeid there and for tt,eir ;lttCnlptS to convert Namibia into a huge reservation, a sort of cemetery for the living, It condemns the terrorism and the rcprcssion inllicted on Namibia’s indigenous inhabitants. Wc arc against the attempts of the South African racists to &troy the unity and territorial integrity of I\lanlibja by proclaiming so-called self-governing regions antl pItlying out a comedy of elections in that Tcrrltory. 132. Tile Bye[oruSsian SSR does not maintain any relations :,t n11 with the racist rkgime of the Repllblic of South Africa, ()ur consistent position of principle against the Poticy (,f racisnl, colonialism and crpurtheid pursued by the Republic of South Aliica was reflected in our vote in the s,pcurity Council for tile exclusion of the Republic of South Africa from the United Nations. However, that decision was 133. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR voted for resOhtiOn 366 (19741, in Spite of its inadequacy. Obviously the resolution that has been adopted marks only one of the intermediate Stages in the complex struggle which is being waged ‘for the freedom and independence of Namibia, Everybody knows perfectly well who is blocking the speedy, just and democratic solution of the problem of Namibia. From the data provided in the documents c&the United Nations we see who are really responsible for the colonial tragedy of the people of Namibia. This also emerges from today’s statements by the representatives of African countries and by the representative of SWAPO. The policy of support to the racist regime in the Republic of South Africa practised by a number of Western countries, and in part& lar by Israel, and the selfish interests of transnational monopolies are what constitute a barrier to that solution. Without the assistance and support of certain circles of NATO, Pretoria would not have decided to defy the United Nations, the people of Africa and world pubticopinion. The Republic of South Africa is a bastion of imperialism upon the African continent. The economic interests of the imperiaiist Powers are closely interwoven with their military and strategic goals. This is what determines the position of a number of Western Powers which arc hampering a just solution of the question of Namibia and the granting of independence and freedom to that much-suffering country. 134. Finally, the delegation of the Byelorussian SSR wishes to state that in standing out boldly for the definitive liquidation of all colonial and racist rCgimes, it continues to support the unconditional right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence and to advocate the territorial integrity of that country and non-interference in its domestic affairs. We recognize the lawfulness of the struggle of the Namibian people against the criminal occupation of the Territory of Namibia, which runs Counter to the decisions of the United Nations. We are against the plundering of its wealth by the racists of the Republic of South Africa and their allies, the transnationai monopolies. 135, The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR C0ntint.m to favour the adoption of the most resoluteand effective measnrcs in this direction. We are for the freedom and independcnce of Namibia. At the same time, our delegation COnSi&rS that the elimination of a hotbed of racism and colonialism in southern Africa will lessen the threat of war and strengthen peace and security upon the African continent. 136. In concluding my statement, may I address myself to you, Mr. President, and to the representatives of the other countries, non-permanent members of the Security Council, whose term of officc is coming to an end this year. As other members of the Sccnrity Council have done. 1 should like to express nlV 5vL,rnlcst feelings to the representatives of Austria, Austr&ja, Indonesia, Kenya and Peru, countries which have taken an active part for two years in the work of the Security Council in carrying out that complex. rcsponsiblc 138. Mr. President, you will perhaps not be surprised to learn I find this general proposition somewhat unacceptable. We were indeed having a very helpful and a useful debate designed to assist the situation, save once again for the contribution made by the representative of the Soviet Union. It is perfectly but regrettably clear that the Soviet Union is more concerned with advocating its now somewhat eccentric brand of propaganda than it is with genuinely helping to find a solution to the very real problems of Namibia and South Africa. 139. The Soviet contributions-since they were twowere irrelevant to our proceedings. They were negative in content and they were ideological in tone. They were well below the level which the occasion and the issue demands, especially from a country as great and as powerful as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was, indeed, almost irresponsible to have made such a speech at such a time when at last there is some real sign of a change of heart in southern Africa. I much regret that it was thought necessary to do so and I suspect the Soviet Union may in due course come to regret it too. 140. The resolution we have just adopted unanimously is important, in our view, on two counts. It is important because it marks, I understand, a welcome return to the way in which the Council has traditionally tried to conduct its business. There were full consultations before the draft resolution was submitted in an effort to accommodate the various points of view of different members of the Council. As a result, we have been able to adopt a resolution which has the full, if not the unqualified, backing of all of us. I believe that the Council’s authority has been strengthened by the way in which this resolution has been adopted. I believe, too, that the resolution itself will be heeded all the more by those at whom it is directed. I am grateful to the sponsors of this resolution, the representatives of Kenya, Mauritania and the United Republic of Cameroon for taking other delegations’ views into account before they proceeded to submit it, A great deal of the credit goes also to our distinguished and experienced President-but I shall have more to say about him in a moment. 141, The second reason why this resolution is so important is that it comes at a time when immense changes are taking place in southern Africa. The news from Rhodesia must encourage all of us who hope for an early and a peacefully negotiated settlement in that country, based on the wishes of That is what we believe we are doing here today. the majority of its population. It is far too early to predict 145. the outcome-and I entirely agree with what the representa- There are, however, certain features of the resolution tive of Indonesia said in this respect-but it is only right that on which my Government has reservations which it is only the Council should take note of the statesmanlike role right that I should make clear. These relate primarily to the played by the African Governments principally concerned, ~ -6 A/9918. 142. Of course we cannot expect changes overnight, noI can changes be delayed indefinitely. Already there are signs that the South African Government is taking a fresh look at its policy in Namibia. I do not think that I riced quote the statements made recently by the South African Prime Minister: they will be familiar to all the members of the Council. But there are also some encouraging signs that the leaders of the white community of Namibia are beginning to rccognize the need for early ‘action. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party of South West Africa, Mr. Mudge, said recently in an interview: “We would have preferred more time, but we dcm’t have it. We South Westers will have to move a great deal faster than many of us would like.” And later in the same interview he said: “Clearly we will have to start talking to South Africa about withdrawal at some stage.” 143. We therefore hope for early change. The exact direction of that change may not yet be clear, but already there is a sense of movement, and we welcome this. Our task, and the task of the Security Council, is, we believe, to try to encourage these developments and also to make clear to the South African Government the need to keep the United Nations fully informed of its future intentions. The United Nations has a natural and a proper interest in the future of this Territory, with its unique form of international status. My Government, for its part, will continue to keep in touch with the South African Government. We shall do everything we can to promote that peaceful change in Namibia. 144. As members of the Council will be aware, my Government recently reviewed its own policy towards Namibia, The details are set out in the letter from the representative of the United Kingdom to the Secretary- General of 4 December 1974: and I need only therefore summarize some of the main points. My Government concluded that the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia could no longer be regarded as being in force, since South Africa had itself repudiated that Mandate and the obligations which it had accepted under and by virtue of that relationship. It follows therefore, in our view, that South Africa’s occupation of Namibia is unlawful and that it should withdraw from the Territory. My Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons: “The Government looks to South Africa to heecl the United Nations calls on it to withdraw from this international Territory, and we shall lend our support in the international community to help bring this about.” the absence of any prior finding under Article 39 of-the Charter that there existed a threat to or breach of the peace 150. Mr. JANKOWITSCH (Austria): When the Security or an act of aggression. Consequently, we cannot share the Council met last year in December to consider the question view that Security Council resolution 276 (1970) imposed of Namibia, it unanimously terminated the contacts obligations upon States Members of the Organization. entrusted by it to the Secretary-General in close cooperation with a group of three Council members. as ore- I 1 146. As the Council will appreciate, these reservations vided for in resol&on309 (1972). Speaking in the debate at touch on matters which go far beyond the particular issue that time [175&h meetitzg], my delegation stressed the hope bel’orc us today. They relate to our view of the way in which that further developments would enable the Council in the the Charter is to be interpreted, and the relationship foreseeable future to deal with the question again on a more between the various organs of the United Nations. This positive note. being SO, it is only right that while voting for this resolution and Supporting it whole-heartedly in relation to Namibia, l should make it clear that in so doing we do not accept any possible implication which might arise relating to the interpretation of the Charter or the jurisdiction of the General Assembly. But I think I have said enough to make it clear that we associate ourselves with the aims of this world body in relation to Namibia, even if there are inevitably differencu of emphasis between us and SOIIIC other Members, When the Council last discussed South Africa, I said [180&h MlCTYi~(fjJ “I hope [South Africa] will recognize the weight of international opinion that is opposed to its policies, I hope it will hcccl the voices we have all heard in this chamber, I trust it will act accordingly.” 147. That remains our hope and our belief, We want the people of Namibia to bc given the chance to determine their o’wn l’uturc freely and at the carlicst reasonable date. We mw look to the South African Government to make the necessary arrangements, in consultation with the United Nations, and in doing so to remedy a situation that has lasted far too long and which has perpetuated a conflict bctwcon South Af’rica and the Organization almost from the day it was founded nearly 30 years ago-indeed before, if nay msmory serves me right, NATO came into existence. 148. Finally, may I refer to the contribution made to the work of the Security Council by the representatives of Austria, Peru, Indonesia and Kenya. All of them have made major and significant contributions to the work of the Council, certainly in the short time since 1 have been on it. 011 behalf of my country and my delegation, as well as on my own behalf, may 1 say that it has been a great personal as well as a public pleasure to have been associated with them in the work of the Council. 149. As for you, Mr. President, my delegation’s appreciation of your skill is somewhat tempered by the realization that this is the last period during which you will occupy the s#eat of President of the Security Council. YOU will shortly be r#eturning to Canberra and retiring from diplomatic life. All of us-and in particular a relative newcomer like myselfhave benefited from your long experience, your friendship 151. Positive developments have taken place during the course of this year in the Portuguese colonies surrounding the Republic of South Africa. The new Government of Portugal has recognized the right of the peoples of its colonial Territories to self-determination and independence, By the end of July of next year two former colonies of Portugal, Mozambique, on the one hand, and Sao Tome and Principe, on the other, will have become independent States side by side with the independent RepubiicofGuinea-Bissau, which has already joined the United Nations. By then we hope provisional Governments will have been established in Angola and in Cape Verde with a view to the attainment by those Territories during 1975 of the goals set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in theDeclaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The winds of change, to which reference has so often been made, have thus begun to blow in southern Africa. 152. NO corresponding trend, however, has become manifest in Namibia. Quite to the contrary, we are bound to state that the conditions prevailing in this Territory have deteriorated. During the general debate on Namibia in the Fourth Committee this year, 82 speakers, Austria among them, elaborated on this subject. The General Assembly, consequently, adopted resolution 3295 (XXIX), urging the Security Council “to take without delay effective measures, in accordance with the relevant Chapters of the Charter of the United Nations and with the resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, to put an end to South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia”. 153. By adopting unanimously today what will be known as resolution 366 (1974), the Security Council calls upon South Africa to make a solemn declaration that it will comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971 in regard to Namibia and that, furthermore, it recognizes the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation. 154. I would like to congratulate the sponsors of this resolution, my African colleagues on the Council, Who SUCceeded through intense consultations in working out a text acceptable to the whole of the Council. This is indeed a 155. AS many speakers have pointed out before me, we are at present witnessing important developments in southern Africa and we are confident that these efforts to bring about peaceful change by peaceful means through negotiations will succeed. Quite independently of the outcome of these initiatives, we have to pay a high tribute already at this stage to those African statesmen, in particular President Kaunda of Zambia, President Nyerere of the United Republic of Tanzania and President Seretse Khama of Botswana, and other leaders, for the humanist spirit in which they have entered these endeavours. 156. It is of paramount importance that the United Nations keep the evolution of events under close and critical scrutiny, because for the first time representative leaders of black and white Africa have found sufficient common ground for a serious exchange of views. A new element of fluidity seems to have been introduced into what has .hitherto been a completely inflexible set of relationships. This is particularly encouraging in the context of Southern Rhodesia where, for the first time in many years, free political life has begun to flourish, thus opening up prospects of a real dialogue between the majority and the m’inority. 157. Let me conclude, therefore, by expressing the hope that the people of Namibia will soon be in a position to realize their right to self-determination and independence in accordance with the principles laid down in our Charter. ‘A heavy responsibility has been placed on the Government of the Republic of South Africa, and we can only hope that its response will be rapid, positive and constructive. 15X. This may well be the last meeting of the Council in which my delegation wili participate before Austria’s term of office on the Council ends on 31 December of this year. I would therefore, Mr. President, ask for your indulgence in allowing me briefly to cross the borderlines of today’s agenda and make a few observations of a more general character. 159. The years 1973 and I974 have been two most signiticant and indeed spirited years in the history of this body. Briefly recalling the most important items will demonstrate the breadth of the work of the Council during these two years, The situation in Zambia was the first question to preoccupy the Council early in 1973 and I myself had the privilege of taking part in a mission to that country together with two most distinguished colleagues, Ambassador Anwar Sani of Indonesia and Ambassador P&ez de Cutllar of Peru, who are still on the Council, as well as Ambassador Abdufla of Sudan, who has left the Council on a new assignment. In March of 1973 the Council went to Panama City for its first historic series of meetings in Latin America. The summer months of .last year witnessed another determined effort to set in motion a process towards a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Yet war broke out in October 1973 and, in its wake, the Security Council spared no effort 160. The events in Cyprus which developed as a result of the coup in July 1974 thrust upon the Council the urgent task of dealing responsibly with the fate of a small country exposed both to a most difficult domestic situation and to military intervention from outside. It is to the credit of all parties concerned that the mandate of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus could be extended only recently, thus continuing to provide an element of security ancl peace to the population of the island. 161. During all this time, as indeed today, the Security Council has addressed itself repeatedly to various serious aspects of the situation in southern Africa, which remains one of the most complicated issues on the agenda, but where some hope for progress now seems co bc justified. 162. My delegation has attempted to contribute to the debates and decisions of the Council in all these fields to the best of its knowledge .and ability. We have done so in the same spirit I sought to define in my first statement before the Council in January 1973 [168&h meeting]. For it was logical that we would endeavour to bring the specific contribution of Austria, a European country, to the work of the Council. In the process it was equally our intention to demonstrate in a new context in what way the concept of permanent neutrality and the independent foreign policy which flows from it can be put to the service of those specific aims and objectives which belong to the Security Council. 163. We have come to the Council in the firm belief that the independent foreign policy of a country dedicated to the concept of permanent neutrality can be ofsuch service. This, as we said earlier, stems from the very origin of neutrality which, in its true sense, is not a concept of inaction, of passivity, or of indifference, but a concept in active search of peace. If during our years of membership in the Council we were able to support a great number of initiatives, it was in the firm beliefthat we could thus bring permanent neutrality tn the pcrmancnt service of peace. WC have endeavoured to formulate our policy in a positive, active and forwardlooking way without departing from the basic principles which have characterized the foreign policy of an independent and sovereign Austria for the past 20 years, It may still be too early to assess properly and fully the interaction and interrelation between the peace policies of the [Jnitcd Nations and the .peaceful functions of permanent neulrality such as those carried out by Austria and a nun~ber of other European countries. WC feel, however, that in a modest way new proof has been furnished not only of the compatibility of these policies but also of their complementary nature. 164. The past two years have provided us not only with this opportunity to demonstrate our concern as a Member 170. The position of my ‘Government on the’Namibian question is clear and unequivocal. We have informed the Government of South Africa of our views on this issue and will continue to do so when appropriate. We believe that there is an urgent need to resolve this long-standing and contentious issue peacefully an&as soon as possible,,, .’ 171. We are encouraged by recent indications that South Africa may be reviewing its policies in Namibia. The South African Government has announced that the people of Namibia will be called upon to decide their own future; that all options, including full independence, are open to them; and that the pebple of the Territory may exercise’their right to self-determination “considerably sooner” than the IOyear forecast made by theSouth African Foreign Minister in 1973. We believe that a peaceful and realistic solution should be sought now, We understand that a meeting is planned between representatives of various groups in the Territory and the leaders of the white population to discuss the constitutional development of the Territory. We believe that no significant element of the Namibian people or of Namibian political life should be excluded. 165. Thcsc, then, have been two most rewarding years for myself and for my delegation-as they would be for any country which had the honour of serving on the Security Council for the first time. May I therefore take this opportunity of expressing my delegation’s profound appreciation of the understanding and co-operation it has received from all the members of the Council. On behalf of the members of my delegation, as well as in my own name, I wish to thank you, Mr. President, and all clelegations for their cooperation and for the spirit of friendship in which this was extended by the five permanent members as well as by the non-permanent members. I hope that the spirit of’ t’riendship, mutual respect and understanding we have established will not only remain in thjs chamber but will also last between those who remain and those who leave it. Our thanks are due in equal measure to tl?e Secretary-General, the Under-Secretary-,General for Political and Security Co,tmcil Affairs and their staff members,by whom ‘we have bpen particularly well served. 172. However, much as we we1com.e the changes in recent South African Government statements on Namibia; we . ; -: wish to state in a11 candour our view that those Statements lack the necessary precision and detail. It is this very precision, along with positive actions, which is required to lay to rest the scepticism with tihitih South African pronouncements on Namibia have been received in many quarters. What is called for is a specific, unequ/vocal statement of ” South ‘Africa’s intention with regard to the Territbry. ‘WC urge that Government to make known as soon as possible its plans to permit the people of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination in the near future. 166. Finally, may I greet the incoming members: first of all our fellow European csuntries, Italy and Swedkn, but also the friendly countries of Guyana, Jepan and the United Republic,of Tanzania, which will, accep! the heavy respo~isi: bilities of Council membership on 1 January 1975. We wish them the best of success in their new functions. 167. My concluding words go to you, Mr. President, as did my first statement this month. This,has been a most gratifying association and I wish to thank you once again on behalf of my delegation for all you have done not only during your two terms of Presidency but also on the many occasions on wl:~ich WC have been privileged to work with you, and to pay the highest tribute to your quiet and patient statesmanship. 173. We favour the development of renewed contacts between the Secretary-General and the South African Government to assist South Africa in arranging-for the. exercise of self-determination, The constructive involvement of the Unitecl Nations and the Secretary-General can be of significant importance in ensuring an orderly transii tion of power in the Territory, which is to everyone’s benefit. We’also believe thatSouth Africa shouldabolish discriminai tory laws and practices and encourage freer political expiession within the whole Torritory. 165. I&. SCALI (United Siates of Amkrica): United Nations concern over the South African administration of Namibia spans the life of the Organization. For the seventh Consecutive year the Security Council is considering this same question. Since the Council met last December to discuss the future of Namibia, political developments of 174. While awaiting further South African clarification of its Namibian policy, the United States will continue to 175. In addiiion, we are pleased that we were able to join together in advance consultations with members of the Group of African States to adopt this important new resolution. 176. Mr. President, in the expectation that this will be our last meeting this year 1 want to reiterate the high respect and admiration with which you are regarded by my delegation. Your work in the Council, especially during two separate and arduous Presidencies, has been in the highest tradition of the Council. If additional evidence were needed, you have proved that Australia in its devotion to the maintenance of international peace al!d security admirably meets the most important criterion for the election of non-permanent members of the Council. 177. To our other colleagues who will leave the Council at the end of the month-Austria, Indonesia, Kenya and Peru-I would like to express my deep gratitude for their hard work, their co-operation, dedication and courtesy and belief in the common ideals which have marked our work together. Even on those rare occasions when we were not in full agreement, we have always shared the common aim of doing our utmost to help to maintain international peace and security.

Mr. President? as I am speaking for the first time since you assumed the Presidency of the Council, allow me tojoin the others who have paid tribute to you. As a newcomer I had heard of your reputation for skill and dedication to the work of the Council, and these qualities have once again been demonstrated since you assumed the Presidency this month. We are grateful to you for all your efforts. Mj, tribute goes also to your predecessor, Ambassador Scali, who presided over our affairs very ably last month. 179. The Council is once again caIled upon to consider the question of Namibia. The resolution referring the case to the Council this time is very clear. It states: “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” [General Assembly resolution 3295 (XXK!g] . 180. We are all agreed, as is indicated by the unanimous vote on the resolution adopted this morning, that South Africa has been in unlawful occupation of the Territory of 181. We have all condemned South Africa’s refusal to comply with the united Nations decisions on Namibia, My delegatioli views with great concern the continued defiance by South Africa of the United Nations. Indeed, it is theview of my delegation that the non-compliance of South Africa with the decisions of the United Nations concerning Namibia is an act of hostility by South Africa against the United Nations which calls for stern measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. 182. Lately we have been hearing concern expressed about the authority and dignity of the United Nations. There have been suggestions that the dignity and authority of the Organization are being eroded. My delegation considers that that dignity is being eroded by such acts as the defiance by South Africa of the decisions of the United Nations on Namibia. What then should the Security Council do in the light of this persistent defiance of South Africa? 183. When the General Assembly adopted resolution 2145 (XXI) terminating the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia, it also placed that country under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. The responsibility for administering the Territory until it became independent was entrusted to the United Nations Cotincil for Namibia, which was established in 1967. The United Nations, through that Council, has attempted on various occasions to enter into arrangements with South Africa for the purpose of the orderly transfer ofauthority from South Africa to the Council for Namibia. Despite the abhorrence by the Africans of the so-called dialogue with South Africa, the African members of the Council were prepared to authorize the Secretary-General, assisted by three members of the Council, through its resolution 309 (1972), to enter into discussions with South Africa regarding this orderly transfer. 184. We know that South Africa acted in bad faith, contrary to the opinion of those who counselled moderation and patience, The Council and the General Assembly terminated the fruitless discussions last year. It is important to note that when the talks were halted there was no sign of conciliation on the part of South Africa; indeed, South Africa assumed an arrogant posture. Its Prime Minister is alleged to have boasted, when campaigning for elections early this year, that South Africa would never surrender Namibia to the United Nations. Indeed, it was not until the now notorious debate on the relationship between South Africa and the United Nations that South Africa onceagain returned to its deceitful path of appearing to be changing or becoming enlightened. 185. I am referring to the statement of the representative of South Africa in the Council [180&h meering] when he said that South Africa should be given time to change. 1 am also referring to the so-called “voice of reason’lattributed to Mr. Vorster, when he pleaded for a six-month period of grace to make changes, particularly in Namibia. My delegation has not been taken in by these utterances,and we believe that the Council and the international community must take suita- 191. As it is our prayer that we do not suffer any misfortune compelling you, Mr. President, to convene another meeting of the Council, we regard this as our last meeting this year. Kenya’s term in the Council also comes to an end on 3 1 December 1974. We therefore wish to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We thank all those who have made Kenya’s contribution to the Council possible. In our list we include all members of the Council, all Members of the United Nations and the Secretary-General and his staff, particularly the wonderful people who sit at the inner table and produce our records, as well as the interpreters. .We constantly think of them when meetings drag on unavoidably for many long hours. 187. The Council and the international community cannot wait any longer. It should be remembered that Namibia was not the only Mandated Territory after the First World War. We cannot believe that the people of Namibia are different from the peoples of the former Tanganyika or Cameroon, for example, who were under the same German oppression before the First World War, but who are now sitting with us as sovereign Members of the United Nations. ‘There were many other Mandated Territories, both in Africa and in Asia, that have become independent and we must ask: why not Namibia, too? This appears to have been a case of the United Nations entrusting the sheep to the wolves. It is a shame. It is a comfort, however, to remember that the will of a people cannot be destroyed for ever. However oppressive South Africa becomes, we are confident that the peoples of Namibia will rise, like those of Guinea-Bissau, and others elsewhere, to crush the forces of injustice. 192. Finally, 1 should like to say that Kenya has gone through a very momentous period in the Council and has made, 1 believe, its modest contribution. We havegreat faith in the United Nations and in thesecurity Council and we do not share the gloom of others. We urge all members of the Council, particularly the permanent members, to have greater faith in the Council and in the United Nations., It should be the commitment of all to strengthen the Organization rather than to look for its faults, or for alternatives to it. We have so much faith in the United Nations that we are inclined to regard the tendency to do the latter not as a malignant ailment but as a temporary fever that will pass away. We can see no alternative to the United Nations but chaos and disaster for mankind. We hope that others will see it the way we do. 188. Speaking now as an African member of the Council, I wish to comment generally on our understanding of the resolution that has been adopted by the Council. The resolution was arrived at after lengthy negotiations with the other interested parties. My delegation deems it a very mild resolution. It does not truthfully reflect the gravity of the issues in Namibia, but we as Africans are prepared at all times to give other people a chance to demonstrate their good faith. It will be recalled that previously we have been accused of presenting resolutions that embarrassed other members 01 the Council. We have also been accused sometimes of introducing resolutions calling for immediate and on the spot solutions of complex issues. We do not of course share the sentiments of our accusers, maybe because we are the wearers of the shoes of imperialism and colonialism and they have been the manufacturers, and, as the saying goes, it is the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches.

Speaking now as the representative of AUSTRALIA, I should like to express, in a very few words, my delegation’s satisfaction that the Council has found itself able to adopt this resolution unanimously, That surely reflects a welcome spirit of moderation and realism on all sides, both within the Council and outside it, which 1 like to think takes account of the new sounds that seem to be emanating these days from southern Africa. At the same time, this is coupled with a firm determination to maintain pressure on the South African Government to acknowledge the will of the United Nations as a whole, and to act accordingly. 189. The Namibian people are entitled to self-determination and independence. The South African Government has no right to be in Namibia, and we ask its friends to counsel South Africa to cotnply with the provisions of this resolution. We also urge those countries that continue to exploit the natural resources of Namibia for the benefit of South Africa to stop such exploitation and to channel their efforts towards aiding the Namibian people to achieve their independence. We are confident that those countries, given the political will, could use their economic interests, in both Namibia and South Africa, in an appropriate way so as to 194. My own Government has made quite clear on numerous occasions its view that South Africa has no lawful right to occupy and administer Namibia and that it has failed to discharge the Mandate given to it 54 years ago. We are entitled now to expect clear evidence of intention on the part of the South African Government to co-operate with the United Nations, without equivocations and reservations, and we look to it to facilitate and not obstruct the future 195. In my capacity of PRESIDENT, I shall now call upon those representatives who wish to exercise their right of reply.

A few words in connection with the statement by the representative of the United Kingdom, Ambassador Richard, It is indeed a strange situation. Whenever the soviet delegation talks about the invidious manoeuvres of’ NATO, the representative of the United Kingdom starts, raises his hand, and says “It is I who am bad, it was the United Kingdom to which the Soviet rcpresentative was referring”. It is ofcourse his right to take upon himself’, and upon his country, all the responsibility for all the invidious manoeuvres of NATO. Rut I personally think this is also a matter of a bad conscience on the part of the United Kingdom representative, 197. He talked here about demagoguery. 1 take that to mean that he WOLIICI like to hear rather more specific figures and to have more specific information as to how the United Kingdom is assisting the racists of the Republic of South Africa. Well, I shall be very happy to give him that satisfaction. 198. According to statistics recently published by the Harvard Business School, 16 per cent of all the affiliates of British transnational monopolies are in the Republic of South Africa, Namibia and Southern Rhodesia. In South Africa alone, British investments have long exceeded $3 billion. The average annual income earned on those British investments runs from 25 to 30 per cent. In individual instances, as Professor Ripley, a well-known student of foreign investment, has indicated, the income earned by British investments in South Africa and directly in Namibia, where the de Beers Company operates, is running at 200per cent annually. That, then, is the economic foundation that constrains the United Kingdom to maintain its relations with the racists of the Republic of South Africa. 199. As far as the military basis is concerned, it is well known that the shooting upon the African population at Shnrpvillc in 1960 was carried out using, among other things, British armoured cars. It is also well known that there is a British military base at Simonstown which is apparently now being abandoned, not so much because there is IJO longer a desire to maintain it but because resources are lacking. 200. In political terms, the LJnited Kingdom has recently shown its support for the racists of the Republic of South Africa by using the veto in the Security Council against an entirely justified draft resolution [S/11.543 of 24 Octobe, 19741 proposed by African countries calling for the expulsion of the Republic of South Africa from the United Nations. Those, then, briefly, are the economic, military and 202. Mr. RlCI-IARD (United Kingdom): The representative of the Soviet Union proves my point. None of the figures hc has given and none of the facts he has disclosed are new in any way, shape or form. 203. The point 1 made earlier on-ancl 1 had hoped it was not too complex-was that in a debate in which the Security Council is agreed, when action is taking place over Namibia, at a time when there is a real chance of change in southern Africa, this kind of ideological skirmishing by the Govcrnment of the Soviet Union is irrclcvnnt, unfortunate and, in our view, inappropriate,

I note that the intervention just made by the representative of’ the United Kingdom did not contain a request to the effect that every time the Soviet delegation refers to NATO, it should include a specific reference to tht: United Kingdom.

My fellow members of the Council whose term on the Council will, like mine, expire at the end of this month have pronounced their valedictions to the Council and have spoken with appreciation of the cooperation they have enjoyed over the past two years with all their colleagues, permanent as well as non-permanent, and with the Secretary-General and his staff. I cannot forbear mentioning the enormous assistance Mr. Kurt Herndl has given me on the occasions when I have been under pressure as President. They have spoken also of the privilege and honour of having served the cause of the United Nations on the Council during this period. 206. As representative of Australia, I should like to join them in expressing the hope that their presumption is not premature. As President I am still very conscious that two weeks remain before the end of December. As President I shall hold myself ready and available and I hope my colleagues on the Council will also be ready and available for action if the Council should find itself faced with, shall we say, a breach of or threat to the peace. 207. If I may, however, be allowed to presume that this is indeed our last meeting of the year, 1 would say that I believe that the Security Council has during the past two years done much to vindicate itself in the eyes of its critics-and, as we know, we do have critics--throughout a crucial period during which it has been callecl upon to address itself to a variety of difficult and critical questions. If my delegation has been able to make a contribution to these activities and these decisions over the past two years, that in itself gives us a sense of satisfaction and of modest achievement. The meeting rose a? (5.50 p.m.