S/PV.1827 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken by the Security Council at its 1823rd to 1826th meetings, I shall now invite the representatives of Bulgaria, Burundi, Cuba, Dahomey, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, India, Liberia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber in order that they may participate in the current discussion without the right to vote. When any one of them wishes to address the Council, he will of course be invited to take a place at the Council table.

In accordance with a further decision taken at the 1823rd meeting, I now invite the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia to take places at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Fonseca Martinez and other members of the delegation of the United Nations Councilfor Namibia tookplaces at the Security Council table. 3. The PRESIDENT? I wish to inform members of the Security Council that I have received a letter dated 4 June 1975 [S/f1710 and C0rr.Z) from the representatives of the United Republic of Cameroon and the United Republic of Tanzania, requesting the Council to extend an invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure to the Reverend Canon Burgess Car-r of the All-Africa Conference of Churches. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 to him. At the appropriate time I shall invite the Reverend Canon Burgess Carr to make his statement.

The first speaker is the representative of Bulgaria and I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

The head of the Bulgarian delegation, Mr. Grozev, deeply regrets that he is not in a position to express the views of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the important question which is on the agenda of this series of meetings of the Council. Owing to a temporary indisposition, Mr. Grozev has appointed me to tender his apologies to the Council. I shall therefore proceed to read out the statement which Mr. Grozev would have delivered before the Council today. 6. Mr. President, I should like first to extend my thanks to you and to the other members of the Council for giving the Bulgarian delegation this opportunity of expressing the views of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on the question of Namibia. I should like at the same time to address my warmest congratulations to you personally, Mr. President, the representative of Iraq, a country with which Bulgaria has established and is developing friendly relations and the broadest co-operation. We are convinced that under your skilful guidance the Council will be successful in adopting a decision which will assist the people of Namibia 7. Namibia continues to be one of the most striking, and at the same time the most intolerable, examples of colonialism and racism. The United Nations has adopted many resoultions condemning ,the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, the colonial policy of the Pretoria tigime and the apartheid system which it is endeavouring to entrench in Namibia. 8. Guided by the understanding that there can be no compromise where the sacred right of the peoples to independence and self-determination is concerned, the United Nations has long since confirmed the right of the Namibian people to be free and independent and to exist as a national entity in a single territory. 9 . The United Nations has also long recognized the legitimacy of the struggle of the people of Namibia for the exercise of its right to independence under the guidance of its sole representative, the national liberation movement, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO). 10. We are all familiar with the efforts of the Secretary-General to facilitate the solution of this important international problem. 11. We also recall that, for its part, the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971,’ did in fact confirm the resolutions of the United Nations by stipulating that the continuing occupation of Namibia by South Africa represents an illegal act and that South Africa is obliged to withdraw from the territory and to terminate its occupation. 12. The Security Council has adopted many resolutions clearly and unequivocally recognizing the guilt and the heavy burden of responsibility of South Africa and also the importance of demanding an accounting from that ~country. As far back as 1972, in its resolution 310 (1972), the Council noted that the persistent occupation of Namibia by South Africa was not only at variance with the Charter and the decisions of the United Nations, but that South Africa’s behaviour created conditions which represented a grave danger to peace and security in that region of the world. Furthermore, in its most recent resolution on Namibia, resolution 366 (1974), the Council explicitly required that South Africa formally declare its willingness to pay attention to the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations as well as of the views of the Intemational Court of Justice and to declare that it‘recognized the territorial integrity and the unity of Namibia as a nation. 13. The right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence, the role of its liberation movement, SWAP0 and its capacity to represent the Namibian people have been repeatedly reaffirmed by other international forums enjoying unquestioned 14. The attitude of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) which supports the people of Namibia and SWAP0 with characteristic firmness in the struggle against colonialism is entirely understandable. The declaration adopted by the Council of Ministers of the OAU at its Ninth Extraordinary Session, held at Dar es Salaam from 7 to 10 April 1975, testifies to the political maturity of the African countries which have worked out their strategy and their tactics at the present stage of the struggle against colonialism. 15. The participation of a large number of African countries in this debate is significant. It testifies to the urgency of the problem and the grave concern of Africa over developments in Namibia. The statements made by many Ministers for Foreign Affairs, who have come especially to take part in this debate, and the statements by the heads of the other African delegations clearly reflect that concern. 16. Africa is once again looking to the Security Council, thus expressing its faith in the Organization and its desire to look to the United Nations for assistance in arriving at the only just solution of an international problem which should long since have been resolved and which can brook no further delay. 17. We have heard the voice of the people of Namibia in the person of its devoted son, the President of the national liberation movement of Namibia, SWAPO, Mr. Sam Nujoma [1823rd meeting]. The weight of irrefutable evidence he presented to the Council proves one thing alone, namely, that South Africa is continuing its policy of colonization and occupation of Namibia, refusing to recognize the lawful rights of the people of that country and offering a permanent challenge to the demands of the United Nations. In these circumstances, the people of Namibia have no choice but to step up their national liberation struggle under the guidance of SWAPO. 18. The situation in Namibia and the debate in the Security Council so far have very clearly shown that South Africa is continuing its illegal occupation of Namibia, establishing the theory and the racist practice of apartheid which has been recognized by the United Nations as a crime against humanity, and attempting to divide the people of Namibia, to break its territorial integrity and to trample underfoot its right to selfdetermination and independence. 19. By so acting, the Pretoria rbgime is demonstrating an unprecedented contempt for the clearly expressed will of the international community. South Africa’s behaviour vis-a-vis Namibia, as well as vis-a-vis its own people, represents a crime against humanity. 20. It was quite rightly that the representatives of the African countries and the President of SWAP0 rejected the most recent attempt by South Africa to present its policies as acceptable to Africa and to the United Nations. The South African regime, which by its very nature is incapable of understanding what the sacred right of a people to self-determination and independence means, is doing everything possible to gain time by endeavouring to engage in “deals” with the United Nations regarding that right of the people of Namibia. 21. There is no question but that these attempts are doomed to failure. The pity of it is, however, that there are forces which in practice are supporting South Africa and encouraging its policy of imperialism, racism and apartheid and which are preventing the Security Council from taking the necessary actions and measures against South Africa. 22. The last bastion of colonialism in Africa, the Pretoria regime, cannot long hold out, because no one can stem the irresistible onward march of human civilization. 23. The development of the world situation in recent times and the process of the reduction of tension in the world have greatly assisted the intensification of the national liberation struggle and of the struggle for international peace and security, for democracy and social progress. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire following the courageous struggle of the peoples of Mozambique, Angola and the Cape Verde islands, as well as the victory of the Portuguese people over fascism and the forces of reaction, has opened the way to the rapid and complete elimination of colonialism in Africa. Neither South Africa nor those who support it can impede this process. There is no doubt that, thanks to its self-sacrificing struggle, the people of Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, will win the final victory and obtain its freedom. The United Nations must play its deserved part in that struggle in order to respond to the ideals and the principles of the right of people to self-determination and independence and the complete elimination of colonialism. 24. That is why the question now before the Council and the question before world opinion is the following: is South Africa going to be allowed still more time on the insistence of those who have always opposed the just demands for the application of stringent measures against the Pretoria regime? More time for what purpose? So that this antipopular r&ime can continue its attempts to break the unity of the people, to dismember its territory and to trample underfoot its right to be free, so that it may continue to massacre its sons? 26. It is only the united front of all these forces throughout the world that can compel South Africa to bow to the decisions of the United Nations. This is particularly important today, when a unity of aspiration and of action on the part of the African peoples is more than essential to bring about a just solution of the problem of Namibia and to the other problems of Africa. 27. We join all those who most categorically condemn South Africa for its refusal to comply with the decisions of the United Nations and for its persistent and illegal occupation of Namibia, because it tramples underfoot the right of the Namibian people to selfdetermination and refuses to recognize the sole representative of that people, SWAPO. 28. We unreservedly support the people of Namibia and SWAP0 in their struggle for freedom, against the colonial yoke of South Africa, and shall continue to do so. Accordingly, we warmly support the just and urgent appeal for the Security Council to impose an embargo on deliveries of all types of military equip ment and material to South Africa and to impose mandatory economic sanctions against that country. Furthermore, it is essential for all countries to break off their relations with the Pretoria regime. And, if all that should prove insuffrcient to produce the desired results, we shall have to think about applying the most stringent sanctions provided for in the Charter of the United Nations in order to extirpate once for all that source of colonialism and racism and to put an end to that direct threat to world peace and international security. 29. If South Africa in its present policies continues brutally to trample the rights and freedoms of the people of Namibia and refuses to comply with the many resolutions of the Organization, then the question of its continued presence among us will inevitably arise, and with even greater urgency than before. 30. May the Security Council respond to the faith of Africa in the Organ&&ion by adopting a categorical and concrete decision, a decision which can make an effective contribution to the effort of the Namibian people to achieve without further delay their freedom and independence.

I regret that the Permanent Representative of Bulgaria was unable to attend this meeting. I wish to convey Mr. Grozev our best wishes for a speedy recovery. 33. Mr. ALARCGN (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): First, I should like to say how pleased we are, Sir, to have this opportunity to appear before the Security Council under your presidency. We are pleased for two reasons. First, we are well aware of your personal qualities. Secondly, you represent a country, Iraq, with which my country has the most fraternal relations. Iraq has always followed an active and positive line of conduct in support of the emancipation of peoples still subjected to colonialism and racism. 34. We should like to extend our greetings, too, to the delegation of Guyana. It has always made the most constructive efforts in the United Nations in defence of the cause of the oppressed peoples of the world, and in particular in defence of the cause of Namibia. Those efforts have been epitomized during the present debate by the activities of Mr. Ramphal and Mr. Jackson. 35. In the circumstances of the present discussion of the item before the Security Council, long speeches are not required. It is not necessary to repeat arguments in support of facts already known to everyone, nor to reiterate the well-known principles and positions of each Government. We are taking part in this series of Council meetings not to reopen the eternal debate on Namibia which began with the very creation of the Organ&&on, but because we believe that the debate in the Council has reached the point where the Council must now, in accordance with past decisions, take certain practical steps to follow up the discussion on Namibia held here in December 1974 36. We believe that the Security Council has rarely met in circumstances such as these, where the situation before it could not be clearer, and where the action it should take has been worked out beforehand, with the agreement of ail the members of the Council. We need only read again Security Council resolu- tion 366 (1974) to realize that the task facing the Council today is a very specific one. 37. In that resolution the Council declared that South Africa’s occupation of Namibia was illegal and arbitrary. It called upon the Pretoria regime to take a number of specific steps in connexion with that Territory. It gave that regime a time-limit within which to submit South Africa’s reaction to the resolu- tion. It even indicated the form in which that reaction should be presented. It decided to meet five months after the adoption of the resolution to consider the appropriate measures to be taken if South Africa had not complied with the decision of the Security Council. 38. For that reason we believe that, in procedural terms, the task now before the Security Council is 39. I believe that there would be very few, if any, members of the Security Council or Members of the United Nations as a whole that would dare to assert that South Africa had fulfilled even part of the condi- tions laid down last December by the Security Council. The South African tigime has not made the solemn promises it was asked to make. It has not sent any solemn declaration to the Security Council that it will do what the Security Council has asked it to do. Instead, in a communication that has been distributed to members of the Council and that contains the most recent statement by the Government of South Africa [see S/11701], it has denied that the United Nations has any right to deal with this matter. South Africa has not taken the necessary steps to withdraw from Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Namibia, nor has it indicated when or how it proposes to do that. It has complied neither in spirit nor in practice with the provisions of the Universal Decla- ration of Human Bights. It has not released political prisoners. It has not abolished the application in Namibia of all racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices. It has not given any guarantees for the return of the persons exiled for political reasons. 40. On the contrary, in the statement of the Govem- ment of South Africa, to which I and a number of other speakers have referred, it is clear that South Africa intends to pursue in that Territory certain colonialist manmuvres designed to weaken the principle of self- determination of the Namibian people. It is persisting in the promotion of its policy of Bantustan homelands with the aim of dismembering the Territory and dissolving its territorial integrity. That is a poiicy of great cynicism if one recalls an historical fact-namely, that the problems and tensions which have existed among the Namibian people were caused by the European invasion of that Territory and came about because of the social problems arising from the seizure of land and livestock in that country by European colonizers, who were at the origin of all the conflicts, that, fomented by Europeans, broke out towards the end of the nineteenth century. 41. The only guarantee for the territorial integrity of Namibia, the sole guarantee for the maintenance of the national unity of that people, lies in the elimina- tion of the regime imposed by European colonists and the removal of the foreign presence in that Territory. 42. In summary, my delegation would venture to say that South Africa has not fulfilled the conditions which the Council unanimously decided upon. Therefore the 43. As regards the practical action the Security Council should take at the present time, we have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by various representatives of African countries. We should like to say that we fully agree with the concrete proposals they have made recently. In particular I am referring to the statement made a few days ago by Mr. Mwaanga [1824th meeting], head of the Zambian delegation, and that made yesterday [182&h meeting] by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr. Malecela. 44. We believe that looking logically at the conduct of the Security Council in relation to resolution 366 (1974), no one can deny the rightness of the proposals put forward by African delegations, nor the fact that they are in accordance with the letter and spirit of that resolution, and whatever efforts of imagination we make, that can hardly be said of other suggestions put forward in this body by some western Powers. 45. We believe that the Council can reach some kind of compromise with those delegations traditionally sympathetic to South Africa only if those delegations accept the basic underlying principle behind these meetings of the Council. They are taking place as a direct consequence of the decision adopted last December. Therefore an agreement must be reached on the basis of at least the following elements. 46. First, the Security Council must reaffirm what it decided in resolution 366 (1974) and, consequently, it must reject the letter distributed on behalf of the Government of South Africa-because it does not correspond to what was requested of South Africa and because, in addition, it implies a show of disrespect for this body and for the entire United Nations system. 47. Secondly, the members of the Council must agree at least on what is the minimal action acceptable to everyone at the present time. 49. Finally, the Council should establish a date for a reassessment of developments in the Territory, in order to decide whether to repeal measures it might now resolve to impose upon South Africa, because the situation has changed in the way prescribed by resolu- tion 366 (1974), or, if the present state of affairs still obtains, to adopt sanctions against .the regime of South Africa. 50. I am aware that some may feel that the Council is not in a position at the present time to adopt the necessary effective practical action against the regime of South Africa and that this body once again, because of the position of a minority in the United Nations, may be prevented from taking the kind of action which the overwhelming majority of the international com- munity has been requesting with regard to South Africa for many years now. In that case, we be- lieve that the African States, which have borne the brunt of the struggle against colonialism and racism within the United Nations, should not stand idly by. If the Security Council fails to act in accordance with what was decided upon five months ago, and if the Security Council, because of the action of certain Western Powers which have supported apartheid and the illegal occupation of Namibia, were to be unable to discharge the great historical responsibility which falls to it today, nevertheless, we believe that many possibilies would still be open to us within the frame- work of the United Nations and that they should be thoroughly explored by the anti-colonialist and pro- gressive forces in the Organization. Were the Council to fail to perform its duty, we believe that the socialist countries, the non-aligned countries, and all those of us who are truly interested in the emancipation of the Namibian people, should give serious consideration to the possibility of further action in the course of this year which might allow us to achieve the goals we are all pursuing in connexion with Namibia. 51. We believe that what is most important, what is truly decisive, would be the adoption of concrete measures to provide every type of assistance and practical, wide-ranging co-operation with SWAP0 in an effort to help it in its liberation struggle in that Territory, including the adoption of the necessary steps to enable the Namibian national liberation fuIly represented in the Organization, but which agree with the anti-coIoniaiist States in our aims with regard to Namibia. We should do everything possible in the United Nations, %I the Genera! Assembly and in the various bodies working against colonialism and racism in the Organization, to mobihze world public opinion through the various workers’ organizations and the -~ organizations of intellectuals and students, so as to induce them to impose sanctions, with the support of the masses of the entire world, and to compel the application of those effective measures which it might be difficult to achieve through this body. World public opinion should also be mobilized to impose the appropriate moral sanctions against those States, interests and corporations which are contributing to the mainte- nance of the regime of apartheid among the Namibian people. We should not forget that even within those States which .are we11 known in the United Nations as supporters of the policies of apartheid, there are institutions and organizations which ever more openly repudiate the policies of South Africa and those of their Governments which are favourable to Pretoria. 52. It would be best, of course, if the Security Council were able to discharge its responsibility. But if that is not possible, then Member States in the Organization must discharge theirs. This year, two anniversaries will be commemorated which compel us to recah the plight of the Namibian peopIe and should encourage us to take all possible international action to help it to achieve its emancipation. 53. Thirty years ago, the world saw the defeat of fascism in Europe. From the ashes of that Nazi regime, the oppressor of many nations, there arose the intema- tional Organization. It is obvious that the most elementary duty of the United Nations in this anni- versary year of the defeat of fascism is to see to it that no trace of that system shah persist in certain parts of Africa, as indeed it does today. We must mobilize all those forces throughout the entire world which 30 years ago were united in bringing about that victory to ensure that a handful of fascists does not continue to impose that same racist policy,-that same unacceptable philosophy of the superiority of one race over another, that same desire to enslave the majority for the benefit of a handful of supposedly “superior” men. 54. This year, likewise, we shah be celebrating the fifteenth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Conntries and Peoples [resolution Generuf Assembly]. To celebrate it in the best possible way, all States that support the principles of that resolution should endeavour to see to it that it is truly implemented everywhere in Africa, and that it prevails over the

Sir, my delegation wishes first of all to congratulate you on your accession to the presidency of the Security Council. Under your skilful guidance I am sure that the work of the Council will proceed in a most smooth and constructive manner. 57. I wish also to pay tribute to the delegation of Guyana for its services to the Council in May. My delegation wishes to express its appreciation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ramphal, who honoured us by coming to New York to preside over the opening discussions of the important question with which we are now concerned. We wish also to express our appreciation to Mr. Jackson, who presided at the meetings earlier in the month. 58. My Government has consistently maintained the following basic position regarding the question of Namibia. First, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia is illegal, and South Africa is under obligation to withdraw from the region immediately. Secondly, the United Nations has direct responsibility for Namibia, and it should have the primary role during the tmnsition to independence. Thirdly, the question of Namibia should be solved peacefully by realistic, constructive and effective approaches. My delegation is examining this most important question in accordance with the position I have now stated. 59. South Africa’s reply to the Council [see S/11701] once again fails to recognize the authority of the United Nations over Namibia and does not agree to South Africa’s immediate withdrawal from Namibia and.the transfer of power to the people there. 60. In view of the position that my delegation has taken over the years, we are disappointed with South Africa’s reply. Our disappointment is all the greater because Prime Minister Vorster’s statement last fall, and his subsequent contacts with some African leaders, kindled the hope that his Government might at last be willing to adopt a less rigid position regarding southern African questions, and in particular the question of Namibia. 61. My delegation deplores the fact that South Africa has not responded to the Council’s demand for concrete commitments regarding its withdrawal from Namibia and the transfer of power to the people there. South Africa’s reply to the Council, in the view of my delegation, fails to satisfy the terms of Security Council resolution 366 (1974). 63. It should be noted, however, that the United Nations has assumed direct responsibility over Namibia, and therefore it is the United Nations, not South Africa, which would be called upon to deal with any situation that might develop as a consequence of South Africa’s withdrawal. 64. Moreover, I would remind the Council that resolution 366 (1974) addressed four specific demands to South Africa, including the release of all Namibian political prisoners and the abolition of the racially discriminatory Bantustans and homelands, pending the transfer of power to the people of Namibia. South Africa’s response was vague and equivocal. 65. Despite the negative elements in South Africa’s reply regarding most of the vital issues in the Namibian question, there are some parts which might be worthy of careful study and thorough examination. First, the reply recognized the international status of Namibia and the right of its “peoples” to selfdetermination. Second, it referred also to the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia. Third, the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to discuss the progress and developments in the Territory with the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Special Committee of the OAU and also with the personal representative of the Secretary-General. 66. My delegation sincerely hopes that South Africa will spare no effort to assist the people of Namibia in achieving independence as a unitary State under one government and that it will not take any action which threatens the territorial integrity and unity of the Territory pending the transfer of power. 67. We wish to emphasize that elections to enable the people of Namibia to determine freely their own future must be held under the auspices of the United Nations and under its supervision. In such elections SWAPO’s participation must be assured. An act of free choice by the people of Namibia from which the United Nations is excluded is unacceptable to my delegation. 68. My delegation has taken note of the South African Prime Minister’s statement that his Govemment is in agreement with the most important aspects of the United Nations point of view and that it has no quarrel with the OAU’s position on self-determination, independence and the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Territory. In addition to his willingness 69. Provided that there is some indication that common ground exists for a discussion of the transfer of power to the Namibian people, it might be worth exploring these offers. It would also be useful for the Security Council to seek clarification through such discussions of the ambiguous points in South Africa’s reply and in fact to ascertain whether we can depend upon South Africa’s good faith in helping to achieve the aims of the United Nations in Namibia. 70. The recent important developments in southern Africa, particularly the emergence of new independent States from Territories previously under Portuguese administration, deepen our conviction that a peaceful and just solution for Namibia will be achieved. 71. Last year, by unanimous vote, the Security Council adopted resolution 366 (1974). In the event that the Council should decide on appropriate measures under the Charter to induce South Africa to comply with this resolution, it would be desirable that the Council again take unanimous action, thereby consolidating the advance made last year. My delegation is prepared to give its co-operation to this end. 72. Bearing in mind those two points, my delegation suggests that the Security Council consider the following course of action: first, reaffirm Security Council resolution 366 (1974), in particular its confirmation of the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence, and respect for the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia; secondly, with a view to ascertaining the intentions of South Africa regarding compliance with resolution 366 (1974), authorize an appropriate body to initiate contact with South Africa; thirdly, request all Member States to provide their assistance and co-operation for this purpose; fourthly, meet before the end of January 1976 to examine the report by the body entrusted with this contact and, in the event of noncompliance by South Africa, to take furtherappropriate measures under the Charter; fifthly, combined with such contact, adopt a new resolution or reaffirm previous Security Council resolutions, calling upon all States, in particular the major arms-exporting States, to refrain from the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition and military equipment to South Africa until it complies with the Council resolutions regarding Namibia. 73. In conclusion, I wish to state that we are fully aware of the gravity of the situation in Namibia. We hope that the Security Council will take appropriate measures which will help induce South Africa to accept the aims of the United Nations for Namibia. Ramphal, who so actively and with such good results conducted the work of the Council last month. 75. Pursuant to its earlier decision, the Council is once again discussing the problem of Namibia, in order to ascertain whether South Africa has complied with the provisions of resolution 366 (1974). As we know, in that resolution the Security Council resolved that, if South Africa should fail to comply with the provisions of that resolution, it would consider what further measures should be taken in regard to South Africa in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This decision was adopted by the Council unanimously. 76. The international political significance of the question of Namibia is widely known. It is further indicated by the active participation in the Council’s present consideration of the question by the representatives of such a large number of African and other States Members of the United Nations, a number of which have been represented at a high level, by their Ministers for Foreign Affairs. The Security Council has also heard the parties directly concerned, in particular the representative of SWAPO, Mr. Nujoma 77. The substantial statements of the African repre- sentatives have merged into a single, powerful and convincing voice, the voice of Africa, on the substance of the problem of Namibia. It is a voice of protest and of just condemnation of the racist regime of South Africa. 78. The thorough explanation of the essence of the problem and the convincing arguments adduced in the statements we have heard have made possible a comprehensive consideration and a better under- standing on the part of the Security Council of the present state of the problem of Namibia. It is perfectly clear what situation today confronts the Council as regards the racist policies and practices of South Africa vis-a-vis Namibia. In its resolution 366 (1974), the Council demanded that South Africa offtcially declare that it would implement the United Nations decisions on Namibia. Today it is clear to one and all that South Africa is openly and cynically ignoring those decisions of the United Nations and is refusing to implement them. In its resolution the Council demanded that South Africa should recognize and respect the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia. In response, the South African leaders have 79. The Security Council in its resoiution demanded that the South African authorities should withdraw from Namibia their administration and police, whose presence there was illegal. The reply to this was a categorical refusal on the part of South Africa to comply with the Council decision that it should withdraw from Namibia. 80. Consequently, the South African racists who are illegally occupying Namibia, exploiting its natural resources and oppressing its people, have refused to comply with that decision of the Security Council and with its most recent warning. Such is the true state of affairs in Namibia and such is the appraisal of the present position of South Africa in this matter by the African countries. 81. The representative of SWAPO, Mr. Nujoma, described South Africa’s reply as a direct refusal to comply with resolution 366 (1974). He declared that this refusal “was nothing more than a reiteration of South Africa’s determination to go ahead with the imposition of Bantustans on the Namibian people so as to ensure Pretoria’s domination and economic exploitation of Namibia” 661. The fact that South Africa’s reply is unsatisfactory and unacceptable and that it is completely rejected by the African countries has been stated here by the repre- sentatives of all those countries. 82. The United Nations Council for Namibia, as was stated by its President, the representative of Zambia, Mr. Banda [1823rd meeting], likewise came to the conclusion that South Africa has virtually rejected the key provisions of the Security Council resolution. This position of the African countries is in complete accord with resolution 23 (IX) on Namibia that was adopted in Africa this year by the Council of Ministers of the OAU at its Ninth Extraordinary Session. That resolution noted that the racist regime of Pretoria was continuing its policy of systematic and violent repression of the national liberation movement and was continuing to interfere in the domestic affairs of neighbouring independent African States, making use of terror and subversive activities. 83. It is therefore entirely justified, right and proper that the African States, owing to the refusal of South Africa to implement resolution 366 (1974) and other decisions of the Security Council on Namibia, have now in full compliance with those decisions raised the question of having the Council take new and more effective measures with respect to South Africa in accordance with the Charter. It is also perfectly logical that they should expect the Council to take such decisions. 84. It is not persuasion that is needed, but rather effective measures against South Africa; not exhorta- 85. One cannot but agree with Mr. Nujoma when he said that since the time-limit for receiving a reply from South Africa concerning its intention to withdraw from Namibia has now expired and since South Africa is continuing its unlawful actions in Namibia, there is now a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of the members of the Council. Mr. Nujoma emphasized that the world today expects decisive action from the Council. 89. The maintenance of a racist, colonialist preserve in Namibia is a dangerous anachronism against the background of the great historical changes that con- tinue to take place on the African continent. We are all witnesses of-and, if you will, participants in-the process of the collapse of the last colonial empire on the continent of Africa. The 86. There are, however, official representatives of certain countries who have come to the Council and sung soothing lullabies to rock us to sleep. They are attempting to appease Africa and for that purpose attempting to discern an alleged change in the position of South Africa with respect to Namibia. On that basis they decolonization of Territories under Portuguese administration is drawing to a close. As a result of the collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire under the assault of the African national liberation movements, with the active support of the socialist countries and other freedom-loving countries, both within and outside the United Nations system, and also as a consequence of the democratic revolution in Portugal itself, there has been a radical change in the balance of power in southern Africa, where the last remnants of centuries-old colonial rule and oppression had continued for so long. call for further studies of South Africa’s reply and for the continuation of dialogue with the racist leaders. But it is perfectly obvious from the statements of those representatives that they have a clear desire to create illusions, both in their own minds and in the minds of others, that they wish to see in the reply of South Africa something that really is not there at all and thereby distract attention from the real state of affairs by figments of the imagination. 90. The racist regime of Vorster, with the support of only an insignificant group of his protectors, has in fact found itself facing complete international isola- tion. As reaffirmation of this we have the just proposals of the African States, justified by the Charter of the United Nations, that South Africa be expelled from the United Nations and the decision adopted at the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly that the delegation of South Africa should be excluded from participation in the work of that session. What is important is that the United Nations and its principal organ for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council, should not slacken in their continuing pressure on the South African racists but, rather, that they should step up and intensify this pressure. 87. Everyone knows perfectly well that the question of dialogue with the racist regime in Pretoria is not a new one. Those who are attempting to distract the attention of the United Nations and the Security Council from the real state of affairs with the assistance of illusions have done so as far back as 1972 at the series of meetings of the Council in Addis Abeba [1627th to 1639th meetings], where they did everything possible to prod the Council and the United Nations into a dialogue with the racists of Pretoria. At that time the delegation of the Soviet Union expressed serious doubts and spoke out against dialogue with the racists of South Africa, fulIy realizing that it was a futile and hopeless undertaking. Events and sub- sequent developments have fully vindicated the position taken by the Soviet Union in that regard. The idea of dialogue is merely a convenient pretext for the racist regime of South Africa and its protectors in the United Nations to postpone endlessly and to put off indefinitely any solution of the problem of Namibia’s independence. At the insistence of the initiators of the idea of dialogue, the Secretary-General was also at one point involved in this hopeless under- taking. The fallaciousness and the unreality of the idea of dialogue with racists on the question of Namibia’s independence is now obvious to all. 91. In the Council’s consideration of this question, we must also bear in mind the detente that has now become a decisive factor in the development of intenia- tional relations. It is detente that creates auspicious conditions and prospects for the further successful deployment and the culminating stages of the national liberation struggle of oppressed peoples on the con- tinent of Africa against colonialism, neocolonialism and racism. freedom- loving and progressive forces of the world, against this last bastion of racism is in keeping with the task of strengthening international dttente and extending it to all continents, including the continent of Africa. 93. The unanimous appeal of all Africa to the Security -Council on the question of Namibia is an expression of Africa’s faith in the United Nations and the Security Council, a faith that stems from the understanding that racist violence in Namibia and racist violence visited upon its people is radically opposed to the purposes and principles of the Charter. Africa has appealed to the Council on this matter for the further reason that under Article 25. of the Charter, the Members of the Organization have undertaken to submit to the decisions of the Security Council and to implement them. 94. Voices are sometimes heard alleging that the Charter is at fault because thus far the decisions of the Council on Namibia and on a number of other important questions have not been implemented. But it is not in the Charter that one should seek the reasons why many important and useful decisions of the United Nations on international issues have remained on paper and continue to be a dead letter. It is not the fault of the Charter if the shameful, open wound of colonial and racist rule has not yet been healed and if in a number of regions of the world there continue to be hotbeds of tension and military danger. The fault for this rests not with the Charter but with those States Members which fail to observe the provisions of the Charter and act contrary to and in violation of the lofty and humanitarian principles and purposes proclaimed in the Charter. 95. If the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa has yet to be brought to an end, if Namibia has not yet acquired its independence as a single, sovereign State, it is not the fault of the Charter. It is because the racist Government of South Africa refuses to carry out the obligations it has undertaken under the Charter; and, in turn, this happens because certain Member States also see fit to disregard their obligations under the Charter. In fact, they attempt to conceal and to justify South Africa’s failure to observe the Charter, and it is this that enables the racist regime of South Africa to set itself at odds with the Security Council and the United Nations at large, against the countries of Africa and world opinion. What must be done, therefore, is to compel the racist r&me of South Africa to respect and to implement the deci- sions of the United Nations and to compel the States concerned to refrain from lending support and patronage to that racist rbgime. %. So far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it consistently supports the inalienable right of the people 97. The victory over Hitler’s fascism-the thirtieth anniversary of which was solemnly celebrated on 9 May 1975 by the peoples of the Soviet Union- represented a deathblow to the ideology of racism and racial or national supremacy. The decisive contribution to that world historic victory was made by the Soviet Union, its heroic people and its valorous armed forces. The victoriouS conclusion of the Second World War opened the way to the freedom and independence of all colonial peoples. Scores of new independent and sovereign States have appeared on the map of the world. We welcome and fully share the following view expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zambia, Mr. Mwaanga, in his statement to the Council on 2 June: “[The African countries] have no quarrel with the Socialist countries, because they have always given practical support to the struggles of the African people [for freedom and independence]‘* 98. We the people of the Soviet Union are entitled to take pride in the fact that it was the Soviet Union that initiated the adoption by the United Nations in l%O of the historic Declaration- on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The anti-colonial struggle of oppressed peoples requires that everything possible be done to step up pressure on the racist tigime of South Africa with a view to its maximum isolation in the world arena. Accordingly, the Soviet delegation in the Security Council supported the draft resolution

Members of the Council will recall that at the beginning of this meeting it was Cat-r is present and is prepared to make his statement. I therefore invite Canon Car-r, in accordance with the Council’s decision, to take a place at the Council table in order to make his statement. 101. Canon CARR: On behalf of the All-Africa Conference of Churches I bring greetings to the Security Council, meeting on this solemn occasion, this awesome moment in our history. I am most honoured, also, in extending to you, Mr. President, our congratulations on the able manner in which you have conducted this debate. I extend also to the representative of the Republic of Guyana and to his Minister for Foreign Affairs our felicitations on their contribution to this debate. 104. We in the All-Africa Conference of Churches take the view that the use of violence as an ultimate course of action is legitimate when the established authorities are instruments of injustice and oppression. That is the situation in Namibia today. At the same time we have reached agreement that the indiscriminate use of violence for the achievement of 102. I am privileged to have been given this opportunity to put forward the position of the coliective vengeance or personal gain is never justified. Con- sequently we have consistently endorsed and given moral and material support to the armed liberation struggle against colonialism, white racism and its odious manifestations through settler colonialism and All- Africa Conference of Churches on the matter of the continued shameful and illegal occupation of Namibia by the Republic of South Africa. Ever since our organization was constituted, 12 years ago, we have subscribed to the view that in order to effect change in the situations of racism and colonialism in southern Africa, situations which are obstacles not only to peace on our continent but to world peace, it has to be demonstrated that white racism, which constitutes the nexus of the problem in the region, is not just an expression of immoral or emotional prejudice; it is a system nurtured and strengthened by an international network of economic, political and military structures. crpurthcid in southern Africa. 107. But we have remained unwavering in our commitment to mediation and reconciliation, to which the churches have an inescapable commitment. Let me hasten to say, however, that by reconciliation we do not mean a balancing or compromise between the interests of those who are exploited and their exploiters. Nor do we mean appeasement with oppression and evil. Reconciliation is never a cover-up for injustice. Reconciliation is, rather, to be understood in relation to the fact that the divine solicitude favours the poor, the humiliated and those who because they are deprived of their inherent human rights and dignity, with which they were endowed by their Creator, must fight for justice. 103. African Christians, therefore, have protested loudly and clearly against the misuse of the Christian message to bolster this sytem of exploitation and oppression. We are more than aware that it has been and still is very largely Western elements of Christian forms of thought and organization, developed through the history of the Church and in the history of European theology, which has favoured the oppressive structures in southern Africa, structures which constitute 108. The goal of Christian reconciliation is liberation and redemption for both the oppressed and their oppressors. It is only in so far as the churches actively support the liberation of the oppressed black people in southern Africa in their just demand for the redistri- bution of power. and wealth that we shall gain the credibility to redeem the white minorities in the region from the stigma that .a stumbling block to national independence, unity and human freedom. 104. We meet here under the clouds of ominous threats, fears and frustrations. The Security Council does not need me to tell it that this could well be its last opportunity to serve as a midwife for non-violent change in Namibia. The unequivocal voices of previous speakers have given cogent testimony to Mr. Vorster’s own prediction that the alternatives to peaceful change in southern Africa are too ghastly to contemplate. characterizes them as racists and oppressors. 109. There is one further consideration which condi- tions our attitude towards the matter under discussion by the Council. Even while we continue to fight injustice and terrorism against the masses by the minority regimes in southern Africa, we feel that the words spoken by President Kenneth Kaunda last 105. I come here to speak today in the name of the Christian Church in Africa, because too often we continus to make that country a pariah in the world of decent and wholesome society. 110. The changes brought about in what has been described as petty clpcrrtheid, evidence of which I have seen this morning on the press wire, and the changes South Africa says it is prepared to make, are peripheral and only remotely marginal to the complete restoration of the inherent dignity and personhood of black people in South Africa and in Namibia. 111. What do black people demand? A few months ago, just at the time the Council was giving its ulti- matum to South Africa, we heard the authentic voices of the oppressed in South Africa in a black renaissance convention organized at Hammerskraal. This event demonstrated that the goals of the movement for liberation outside South Africa are not lost to the emerging generation of young intellectuals and workers and the masses of the people inside that country. The struggle of the liberation movement continues to expose the inconsistencies of apartheid and especially of Mr. Vorster’s dialogue and detente manoeuvres. 112. Because of the liberation movement a spirit of black consciousness has developed and is spreading like wildfire throughout that country. It was that spirit that was the immediate inspiration behind the black renaissance convention. The convention condemned the separate development policy of which the Ban- tustans represent the final solution. Three hundred participants dedicated themselves to striving for a totally united and democratic South Africa free from all forms of oppression and exploitation, a society in which all people participate fully in the government of the country through the medium of “one man, one vote” , a society in which there is an equitable distribu- tion of wealth and power, an anti-racist society. 113. They went on record as declaring legalized racism in South Africa a threat to world peace, and therefore they called upon all countries in the world to withdraw all cultural, educational, economic, manpower and military support for the existing racist Government and all its racist institutions. They also called on the Government immediately to recognize African trade unions and urged workers and peasants organizers were black churchmen, pastors and priests. I underline this fact in order to demonstrate that our support in the All-Africa Conference of Churches for the iibera- tion movements outside South Africa is based on the grass-roots support those movements enjoy among the broad masses of the people inside that country. 114. Whether they are outside South Africa or inside it, black people are unanimous with regard to the ultimate objectives of the liberation struggle. They demand freedom now. They want their land. They want political and economic power, and they want to be the masters of their own destiny. In other words, they want revolution, a complete and radical change of the system. 115. The All-Africa Conference of Churches is fully committed to doing everything possible to promote the black consciousness movement inside South Africa as a means of furthering the noble objectives of the armed liberation struggle being waged by the liberation movements. 116. It is these two aspects, the building of awareness among the oppressed within South Africa and moral and material assistance to the liberation movement, that we believe will create conditions favourable for forgiveness and reconciliation in South Africa. 117. An identical set of dynamics is also at work in Namibia. At about the same time as the black renais- sance convention was being held in South Africa, there was a corresponding “Blacks, let’s unite” conference in Namibia. Here 50 blacks came together -to quote from the objectives of the conference- to “reaffirm our standing in our fatherland, to reaffirm our objection to neo-colonial rulers, and above all, despite our so-called ethnic differences, to think of a future, a common future for us all”. 118. They were inspired, in this first conference of its kind; to search for and to find, among themselves, an intense desire on the part of all blacks to unite in their endeavour to shake off the yoke of crpwtheid. The Chairman of this conference said, in his opening speech: “Yes, we do recognize that we have been born Coloureds, Hereros, Damaras, Namas, Ovambos, Okavangos, and you name them, but our common history of suffering, our common experience of oppression, and our common fatherland, can and must mould us together.” 119. While we hear so much from Mr. Vorster and his apologists for the Bantustan policy about separa- tion, ethnicity, native nations and tribalism, it is both 123. With this background, it is no wonder that the “Blacks, let’s unite” conference began the process of radically restructuring the defunct national conven- tion which Mr. Vorster was setting up and promoting as an alternative to SWAPO. It established the Namibia National Convention, overthrew the celebrated chief of the 120. Recently I was in Swaziland, where I picked up a South African newspaper which carried an article with the caption “Urban Blacks Are Upset”. The article began: Hereros, along with his advocacy of the Balkanization of Namibia, and elected a new Executive Committee whose membership includes two from SWAPO. They fully endorsed the conditions put forward by SWAP0 to the South African “Most urban blacks are firmly against the idea of their interests being represented to the authorities by the homeland leaders when they have their own seasoned leaders.” Govem- ment as the basis for any talks or any search for a negotiated settlement for the problem of Namibia. 124. We all know these demands. They call for the release of all political prisoners, whether they are held in Namibia or in South Africa. They call for the lifting of the banning order against the President of SWAPO. They call for the setting aside of the R-17 Emergency Regulations still existing in the north of Namibia, which were brutally enforced during the recent elections in Ovamboland. They call for all It went on: “South African black observers see the claimed success, if any at all, of the detente bandwagon, not only as specious but also highly misleading as long as such detente is not encouraged at home. And until white South Africa understands this truism, the Prime Minister’s journey towards meaningful detente with black Africa may be a difficult one.” Er’amibians, of whatever political organization, now in exile, to be able to return freely to their home country without fear of arrest or other form of vic- timization. They call for the withdrawal of South Africa, of all of its troops, police and political admin- istration from the Territory of Namibia: and they call for an immediate end to the proceedings against the National Chairman, David 121. The point I am endeavouring to stress here is that it is not the factors of ethnic origin that provide the watershed for African identity in South Africa or in Namibia; rather, it is blackness. But let me quickly add that blackness in this context has no colour connotations. As the protagonists of the black consciousness movement would themselves quickly point out, the obsession with colour as ascribed to blackness is a white phenomenon. In black conscious- ness thought, black people are a group of people formed together by a common experience of suffering and of struggle against suffering. It is something positive, shaking off the negative Mereru of SWAPO. 125. These actions were taken inside Namibia, and I mention them here in the hope that we can lay to rest once and for all the objections of those who would try to confuse us by claiming that there is a difference between the position of SWAP0 inside Namibia and SWAP0 led by our esteemed and distinguished brother, Mr. Sam Nujoma, outside Namibia. characterization of non-white. It also implies a search for new values, rejecting everything that dehumanizes them as Africans and forces them into regarding themselves as non-beings. Black consciousness transcends the particularities of culture, since culture was never meant to serve as a basis for discrimination or polarization, but rather as an enriching factor, something dynamic and enabling, adapting itself to the forward march of the human race. 126. That is absolutely false, and for those who may not be fully informed it could be dangerously divisive propaganda. The strongest and most persistent voice in Namibia calling for an end to South Africa’s illegal occupation has been, and still is, that of SWAPO. The men and women linked to SWAPO, inside and outside Namibia, are the ones who have paid the tremendous price for their witness for freedom. 127. The Security Council does not need to be reminded by me of the public floggings, the political arrests, the torture of prisoners, the constant embar- rassment and harassment and intimidation that SWAP0 members have undergone. It is they who are the martyrs in the pursuit of independence for Namibia, and their words must be heard as the authentic voice of the Namibian people. It is a voice that we all know 122. This is not all esoteric. The “Blacks, let’s unite” conference in Namibia represented a con- siderable step forward in politicizing the black con- sciousness movement, making it one in which black people can become aware of the potential power they wield as a group, both economically and politically. It is a call to unite in order to resist oppression and 128. It is not my intention to &ke a long address, but it is important to recognize that one of the things that South Africa is still trying to protect for itself are the vast mineral riches of Namibia. In its exploi- tation of the patrimony, the wealth and the people of Namibia, South Africa has as its partners the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and many other great Powers, some of whose use of the veto in the Council has prevented you from taking the kind of decisive action that this question requires. 129. The search for profit has been made the first priority for those nations. Consequently, the right of Namibia to be free and independent has been given a very low priotity. Even though the United Nations has repeatedly called for an end to South Africa’s occupation of Namibia, and has called on States not to give any legitimacy to the occupying Power, we see numerous companies that have received contracts from South Africa to mine its minerals and to search for its oil. Simply by signing a contract with South Africa, those companies and their nations give credi- bility and legitimacy to South Africa, as ifit had a legal and moral right to administer the economic life of that land. Their activities serve as a signal to South Africa that “business as usual” will continue, and this has aided and abetted the racist regime in Pretoria in its intransigence and obstinacy in flouting the moral will of the international community as reflected in the resolutions that have been adopted time and again by the Council. It is a signal that the Council must reverse. 130. It must be made clear to South Africa now that it cannot expect “dollar and cents diplomacy” to continue, any more than it .can expect political diplomacy to sanction its illegal occupation of Namibia. 131. In this regard, I have the honour to report some small but significant victories that have been won in this area. Inspired by the call of the World Council of Churches and the All-Africa Conference of Churches, United States church bodies, both Protes- tant and Roman Catholic, have worked over the last three years to get American oil companies exploring off-shore in Namibia to withdraw. As a result of numerous conversations with management, public statements, resolutions at stockholders’ meetings, submissions to the Council for Namibia and other such actions, by February 1976 Continental Oil, Phillips, Getty, Texaco and Standard Oil of California will all have withdrawn from Namibia. I wish I could report the same for companies operating in European countries. Several of those companies have noted that in their explorations that the issue of “sovereignty” 132. This is an important precedent for other foreign investors in Namibia to emulate. SWAP0 has called for ail investors to withdraw immediately from Nami- bia. The decree on national resources of the Council for Namibia has forbidden the mining or distribution of Namibia’s natural resources without that Council’s permission. We urge support from the Council for SWAPO’s appeal, and an endorsement of the declara- tion on national resources of the Council for Namibia. 133. There is a cruel injustice and blatant burglary occurring in Namibia. For more than half a century, that country’s mineral wealth has been robbed by South African and foreign companies, while massive profits have been streaming out, as the backs of its people bleed, bestowing opulence upon those claiming to be their benefactors. The African peoples of Namibia are victims of starvation wages, discriminatory treat- ment in their places of work, separation from their families and every other manner of inhuman expioita- tion. Africa will find it hard to forget this rape of its land and its peoples. 134. Let me conclude with the observation that the clear frustration which characterizes white politics in Namibia at the present time is, for me, a sure sign that the international community is on the verge of a ghastly catastrophe. 135. Mr. Vorster’s “New Deal” for Namibia is, in the words of a prominent Namibian church leader, “a New Deal to safeguard what can be saved for the whites in the political chaos which is prevalent in our country”. He went on to say: “Mr. Vorster has said that the people of the country will decide their own future. But, we ask, who are these people? The black man in Namibia has become used to being told that he is not included among ‘people’, and therefore the logic speaks for itself that what Mr. Vorster means here is that it is the white people of Namibia who must decide upon their future and the future of the other ethnic groups in that Territory”. This is a nuance which I consider it important to emphasize, especially because it is voiced from within Namibia itself. 136. You have heard in the Council appeals for patience, for time to cultivate better relations between the races, appeals for dialogue to allow for meaningful change to occur-appeals which all sound well. But, we ask, what is the motivation behind these appeais? And we answer that as long as this demonic system prevails, no such dialogue can bring about the change requisite and necessary to affirm the full humanity, dignity and freedom of the Namibian people. stiil raw and festering, and that black people in Namibia, under the leadership of SWAP0 and inspired by the churches, have reached a stage where they can in no way be expected to be satisfied with a few rights dished out to them by the “boss”. 138. Therefore we urge the Council to call upon the Republic of South Africa to withdraw immediately from the Territory of Namibia. We urge this Council to take measures that would put into effect all the articles and recognize that the Council means business this time. We urge the Council to insist upon immediate indepen- dence, full territorial integrity and an immediate halting of the Bantustanization of Namibia.