S/PV.1880 Security Council

I invite those representatives to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the usual understanding that they will be invited to take a place at the Council table when they address the Council. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Ruhul (Algeria), Mr. AhdelMquid(Egypt), Mr. Cutnuru (Guineu), i Mr. Murpaung (Indonesia), Mr. Hall (Jamaica), Mr. Harriman (Nigeria) and Mr. Petrie (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

I have also received a letter dated 23 January 1976 from the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, which reads as follows: “With regard to the forthcoming meeting of the Security Council on the question of Namibia, the United Nations Council for Namibia, at its 228th meeting held on 21 January 1976, decided that its delegation to the Security Council would consist of the following: Mr. Dunstan W. Kamana, President of the United Nations Council for Namibia; Mr. H. Talvitie (Finland); Mr. H. Abduldjalil (Indonesia); Mr. V. Montemayor CantG (Mexico)“. 4. It may be recalled that on previous occasions when it was considering the situation in Namibia the Security Council extended invitations to representatives of the United Nations Council for Namibia, most recently at its 1823rd meeting on 30 May last year. Accordingly, if there is no objection, I propose that the Council extend an invitation, pursuant to rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure, to the President and the aforementioned members of the United Nations Council for Namibia. It WNS so decided.

Since the Council agrees to my proposai. I invite the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and his delegation to take places at the Council table. At the invitution of the President, Mr. Kumunu (President of the United Nutions Councilf%r Numihiu) und the rncjrnht>rs of the delcgution-Mr. Tulvitie (Finlund), Mr. Ahduidjulil (Indonesiu), Mr. Nicin’ski (Polund) und Mr. Montemayor Cuntli (Mexico)-took pluces at the Security Council table. It was so decided.

I shall invite Mr. Garoeb at the appropriate moment to make his statement. 8. The Security Council will now proceed with its consideration of the item on the agenda. As the item indicates, this meeting has been convened in response to the terms of resolution 3399 (XXX) adopted last November by the General Assembly and brought to the Council’s attention by the Secretary-General in his letter of 16 December 1975 contained in document S/l 1918. 9. The first speaker is the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Mr. Kamana, to whom I give the floor.

I wish, first of all, to express the sincere pleasure and satisfaction of the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia at seeing you, Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, distinguished representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, preside over the Security Council as it once again takes up the question of Namibia. It is indeed a happy coincidence that you should be the President of the Council at this particular point in time, for your own personal commitment to the cause of the Namibian people, your dynamism, your extraordinary talents and your diplomatic skill will certainly be invaluable in the deliberations on this all-important African problem. Moreover, you represent the United Republic of Tanzania, a country which is in the forefront of the struggle against all attempts to deprive colonial countries and peoples of their right to self-determination and independence. 11. I would also like to thank the members of the Security Council for this opportunity afforded the United Nations Council for Namibia to participate in the deliberations concerning Namibia and indeed to be the first speaker this morning. This is a fitting recognition of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the organ established by the General Assembly with the mandate to administer Namibia until the Namibian people achieve their independence. Indeed the mandate established by General Assembly resolution 2248 (S-V) of 19 May 1967, which has been reaffirmed at all subse@ent sessions, was endorsed 12. The question of Namibia is now, without doubt, one of the perennial issues on the agenda of the Security Council. It was last considered in this very chamber as recently as June 1975 [see 1829th meeting]. What happened then is a matter of public record: negative votes by three permanent members of the Security Council prevented the adoption of a broadly supported draft resolution. As far as the Security Council is concerned, matters have since stood at that. But that has not been the case with South Africa. The stalemate in the Council was apparently interpreted by the authorities in Pretoria as an encouragement for them to consolidate South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia. Alarming and most disquieting events have since taken place in the Territory. 13. It is in the light of the deteriorating situation in Namibia and the comfort South Africa appears to have taken from the non-action of the Security Council last June that the General Assembly was prompted at its just-concluded thirtieth regular session to urge the Council, in its resolution 3399 (XXX), to take up again the question of Namibia “and to act to give effect to its resolution 366 (1974) of 17 December 1974”. I might add that the General Assembly resolution was adopted by an impressive majority of Member States-no doubt a reflection of the growing concern about South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its obnoxious policies in the Territory. 14. I cannot overemphasize the significance of Security Council resolution 366 (1974). In that resolution, adopted unanimously, the Council demanded that South Africa make a solemn declaration that it would comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations regarding Namibia and with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 1971’ and that it recognize the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation. Moreover, the Security Council demanded that South Africa take the necessary steps to withdraw its illegal administration from Namibia and transfer power to the people of Namibia with United Nations assistance. 15. The reply of South Africa to resolution 366 (1974) [S/1170/] was negative and is on record and indeed familiar to all members of the Council. It was the subject of critical analysis at the meetings in May and June 1975 [1823rd-1829th meetings]. I shall therefore not repeat here the well-known views of the United Nations Council for Namibia on it. Indeed, there appeared to be a consensus of opinion in the Security Council when that reply came up for consideration to the effect that it was totally unsatisfactory, both in spirit and in substance. If anything, it was an attempt by South Africa to hoodwink and confuse international public opinion regarding its designs to perpetuate the illegal occupation of Namibia. 17. Since the situation in Namibia was last considered by the Security Council, the people of Namibia have continued to suffer under the illegal South African occupation. The Pretoria regime has continued to escalate its police-State measures against Namibians through killings, mass arrests, detentions, floggings and other repressive actions. Its continued illegal occupation of Namibia has been reflected in the expanding application of apartheid and the. attempts to carry out the bantustanization of the Territory. This is indeed in keeping with a notorious and shameless State policy of establishing so-called homelands adopted in 1968 following a recommendation of the Odendaal Commission.* 18. In this regard, South Africa decided to set aside 40 per cent of the land, the least desirable and least developed parts, as separate so-called homelands for each of the non-white groups, other than those identified in their racist jargon as “Coloured”. This is being done without due regard to the massive dislocation and suffering of the majority population. In South Africa’s sugar-coated propaganda, those so-called homelands are promised some eventual self-governing status, a self-governing situation in which the uprooted African population will find no valuable economic resources to serve their material needs and which will have resulted in the fragmentation of their land and the destruction of their territorial unity and integrity. 19. At the same time, this repugnant scheme is intended to maintain South African control over a so-called “white area”, consisting of 43 per cent of the land in which are included most mineral reserves and all urban centres, seaports and transportation facilities. Another 17 per cent of the total area of Namibia covering all unsurveyed lands and the two key diamond areas on the south-western coast would pass directly to South African control. 20. Clearly, the aim of South Africa in pursuing the so-called homelands policy is the perpetuation of its illegal occupation of Namibia and the ruthless exploitation and plunder of its resources, while at the same time it subjects the majority of the population to the most despicable forms of deprivation, oppression and repression. The so-called homelands policy is nothing but a divide and rule policy. 21. In this connexion, I need not point out that South Africa has been deliberately encouraging tribal 22. That bogus constitutional conference has adopted a Declaration of Intent [see S/11948 and Add.11 which in essence indicates that Namibia will obtain some sort of “independence” by 1978 as a loose confederation of ethnic States, with the white settlers retaining the most valuable land areas. That Declaration is blatant in its violation of the rights of the Namibian people; it does not recognize Namibia as a unitary State and makes no reference to majority rule or to the institutions of a central government. SWAP0 has already decisively rejected this mystification. The United Nations Council for Namibia has also naturally condemned the so-called constitutional conference. Moreover, the United Nations Council for Namibia has reaffirmed the territorial integrity of Namibia as well as the inalienable and imprescriptible right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence. 23. But the so-called constitutional conference and the killings, mass arrests, detentions and floggings of Namibians, to which I referred earlier, have not been the only recent acts by South Africa designed to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia. The racist regime has gone further than that; it has decidedly embarked on the militarization of the Territory. In this regard, it has built in Namibia perhaps one of the most modem and sophisticated military bases in the region. This South African military build-up in Namibia has been accompanied by the forceful removal of Namibians from the northern border in order to free that area for military purposes. The upheaval, loss and privation resulting from this is simply enormous. 24. The persistent refusal of South Africa to terminate its iIlega1 occupation of Namibia, which, as can be seen, is maintained by force of arms, has left the people of Namibia with no alternative but to struggle for their right to self-determination and independence by all means at their disposal. There is no doubt that they would have preferred a peaceful resolution of the problem of Namibia. This is amply demonstrated by the goodwill and co-operation that their national liberation movement, SWAPO, has displayed not only towards the United Nations Council for Namibia, which is an instrument for peaceful change, but also towards the United Natiohs as a whole. It is only 25. The United Nations Council for Namibia is firmly convinced that violent change in Namibia can be avoided only if South Africa reckons with the realities of Namibian nationalism. This means that the South African regime must respect the genuine aspirations of the Namibian people as expressed through their national liberation movement, SWAPO. South Africa must accord due recognition to SWAP0 and accept to deal with it in any act genuinely designed to shape the dest.iny of Namibia, which, indeed, can only be independence through the process of self-determination of the people of the Territory. Continued encouragement of ethnic leadership can only be an act of self-deception on the part of South Africa-an act which inevitably advances the dreadful prospect of a racial conflagration and violent change in Namibia. 26. When my predecessor, the then President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, spoke before the Security Council on 30 May 1975 [see 1823rd meeting] at the start of the debate on South Africa’s compliance with resolution 366 (1974), he challenged South Africa to agree to the convening of a national _ election in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control. I should like to repeat this challenge today. The United Nations Council for Namibia believes that there is still a chance for peaceful change in Namibia. This chance lies only in the convening of a national election in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control. Such an election, in which all the political parties of Namibia, including SWAPO, must participate on an equal footing, would constitute a genuine act of self-determination by the people of Namibia. 27. It is important that the election take place under United Nations supervision and control, for this is the only way that we can guarantee fair play. Past experience shows that South Africa cannot be trusted to create the necessary conditions for the unhindered expression of the popular will. Acts of intimidation and the manipulation of the electorate have been habitual practices of South Africa in its ill-concealed attempts to perpetuate its control over Namibia. But of even more overriding importance is the fact that the United Nations is the legal authority in Namibia and that South Africa is occupying the Territory illegally. The United Nations therefore has a duty to live up to its responsibilities over the Territory. 28. The people of Namibia have suffered for too long under the illegal South African occupation. Yet theirs is a unique case in the whole process of decolonization. In no other case has the United Nations assumed similar responsibility. Surely, we 29. The United Nations Council for Namibia trusts that the Security Council will seize this new opportunity to make a decisive contribution towards the resolution of the question of Namibia. In the view of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the Security Council must, at the very minimum, do the following: first, strongly condemn the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and demand that South Africa comply with the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions calling upon it to withdraw from Namibia; secondly, strongly condemn the attempts by South Africa to divide Namibia into so-called homelands and its application of racially discriminatory and repressive laws and practices in the Territory and accordingly demand an immediate end to all such abominable acts aimed at violating the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia; thirdly, strongly condemn the South African military build-up in Namibia and the recent convening of a so-called constitutional conference in the Territory; fourthly, declare and direct that, in order that the people of Namibia may be enabled freely to determine their own future, free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations be held for the whole of Namibia as one political entity; and, fifthly, demand that South Africa urgently make a solemn declaration accepting the requirement for the holding of free elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control, undertaking to 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 recognizing the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation. ‘ + 30. I wish to stress that, pending the holding of the national elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control, it will be imperative for South Africa to do the following: first, comply fully in spirit and in practice with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; secondly, release all Namibian political prisoners, including all those imprisoned or detained in connexion with. offences under so-called internal security laws, whether such Namibians have been charged or tried or are held without charge and whether held in Namibia or South Africa; thirdly, abolish the application in Namibia of all racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices, particularly those relating to Bantustans and homelands; and, fourthly, accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or imprisonment. 38. It is a fact of history that South Africa is the arch-enemy of the liberation struggle, not only in Namibia but in the entire subcontinent of southern Africa. And of late South Africa has been using Namibian territory as a spring-board to commit aggression against neighbouring African countries. Let it be known that the acts of unprovoked aggression and incursion into neighbouring territories by South Africa are not so recent as some would have us believe. It is a matter of historical record that the Security Council not very long ago debated a complaint brought by the Republic of Zambia when South Africa committed aggression against that country in 1972 [see 1687th-1694th meetings]. And even in this case that aggression was committed from Namibian territory.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have just received a letter from the representative of Mauritius containing a request that he be invited in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. I propose, if I hear no objection, to invite the representative of Mauritius to participate in the discussion, in conformity with the usual practice and with the relevant provisions of the Charter and the provisional rules of procedure. It MJUS so decided.

I invite the representative of Mauritius to take the seat reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber on the usual understanding that he will be invited to take a place at the Council table when he addresses the Council. 39.. In recent months a new aspect of South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia has finally surfaced. Here I refer to the total and complete militarization of Namibia by the illegal South African regime. For many years now, indeed as far back as June of last year, SWAP0 has been warning the world of the intensified militarization of Namibia, but again we have also warned that last year many of the troops which had been withdrawn by the racists from Rhodesia were being redeployed in Namibia. The purpose was essentially twofold: first, to counter the increasing activities of SWAP0 inside Namibia and, secondly, to prepare for the extraterritorial incursions into neighbouring countries. As the Council is very well aware of developments in the subcontinent, members will know that our charges and our warnings at that time have indeed been confirmed by the very actions of South Africa. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Ramphul (Muuritius) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chumher. 34.. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the Administrative Secretary of the South West Africa People’s Organization of Namibia and accordingly I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement. 35. Mr. GAROEB: Mr. President, my delegation is gratified to extend to you personally comradely felicitations and goodwill upon your assumption of the high office of the President of the Security Council for this month. Similarly, Mr. President, for us in SWAPO, and for Namibians, it is indeed a source of great satisfaction and inspiration that the question of Namibia should be considered by the Council under your able and industrious superintendency. 40. The militarization of Namibia has not been limited to the reinforcement and redeployment of the racist regime’s regular armed forces in Namibia. Indeed -perhaps more importantly-it also involves the establishment of new army and air bases at strategic points ‘throughout Namibia. As has been stated here, one of the biggpt army and air force bases in the whole of the African continent is to be completed sometime next month at the town of Grootfontein, which is approximately 230 kilometres south of the Namibian-Angolan border. 36. May I also express our thanks and appreciation to the rest of the Council for the opportunity accorded my movement, once again, to testify before this august body. 37. This meeting of the Security Council takes place against the background of grave military and political developments in southern Africa which, in our view, constitute a threat to international peace and security, not only for that troubled region but for the rest of the international community. Namibia is part and parcel of the subcontinent of southern Africa. Hence it goes without saying that Namibia is inevitably caught up 41. It is, of course, inevitable that this militarization of Namibia has led to increased repression and indiscriminate killing of the Namibians by the South African racist troops. During the last quarter of 1975, hundreds of Namibians-men, women and childrenwere killed when the racist troops decided to clear 42. This, in our view, is proof enough that South Africa, contrary to its pretentious statements to the effect that it does not want an inch of Namibia and would be glad to get rid of it, is in actual fact bent on entrenching its illegal occupation on every inch of Namibian soil for an indefinite period. We are not convinced by the statement of the racist regime of South Africa making it appear as if it were about to give in and to withdraw from Namibia, and we never shall be convinced. 43. Perhaps more disturbing than the foregoing, and bearing particularly in mind South Africa’s recent extraterritorial incursions into neighbouring countries, is the ugly reality of South Africa’s becoming a nuclear Power. Those who have been following the world press must be aware of the collaboration that South Africa has received from the Western Powers in this exercise of becoming a nuclear Power. So we may very well ask who can guarantee that South Africa cannot, in the not too distant future, precipitate a nuclear war in the subcontinent of southern Africa, just as it is currently involved in extraterritorial excursions into the neighbouring territories. This is food for thought for the African countries, because there is no guarantee that South Africa, if and when it does become a nuclear Power, will not commit acts of aggression against the rest of Africa. 44. The Security Council is meeting now at. the request of the General Assembly, which in its resolution 3399 (XXX) urges the 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 General Assembly, to compel the illegal occupation regime of South Africa to withdraw its administration from Namibia. This meeting of the Council is expected to give full meaning and, above all, concrete expression to that solemn request of the Assembly. It is the exclusive responsibility and duty of the Council to ensure the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and in doing so to bring about the restoration of the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence. 45. We have sought to demonstrate how far the illegal occupation regime in Namibia has gone in aggravating the political and military situation not 46. There are certain members of the Security Council who could but, unfortunately, will not adopt effective measures to reach an amicable solution to the Namibian problem. Security Council resolution 366 (1974) of December 1974 provided an opportunity and an excellent basis for such a solution. Unfortunately, South Africa, consistent with its defiance of the United Nations, not only flouted the spirit in which the Council addressed that resolution but rejected the demands expressed therein. Naturally, the logical question the Council addressed itself to was: what next? 47. The point is that we in SWAP0 felt then and still feel today that the Western permanent members of the Security Council, through their traditional ties with South Africa, are in a position to bring their influence to bear on South Africa to comply with the Council’s resolutions. The Western permanent members of the Council had a golden opportunity to exercise their influence on South Africa, especially in May and June 1975, to comply with the Council’s resolutions. Regrettably, that opportunity was lost because the Western Powers decided to treat Africa and indeed the world to a triple veto [see 1829th mcvting]. SWAP0 of Namibia cannot help but deplore in the strongest terms the triple veto cast then by the three Western permanent members, namely, the United Kingdom, France and the United States.’ We do so with a very clear conscience, knowing full well that the overwhelming majority of the world agrees with us. 48. We in SWAPO, and indeed the people of Namibia, have long accepted the historical imperative that we are our own liberators. We believe very strongly that the liberation of Namibia can be brought about only by the Namibians themselves. We in SWAP0 also believe that that liberation can be achieved only through armed struggle. We come to the United Nations and indeed to the Security Council because we believe that they have an obligation to help us, but, perhaps more importantly, we believe that the Couucil and the relevant institutions of the United Nations and ourselves are partners in the exercise of the liberation struggle, and it is this obligation, more than anything else, that the Council must live up to. The viability and effectiveness of the United Nations may be tested once and for all on the question of Namibia. 49. For another thing, we maintain that all the relevant chapters of the Charter of the United Nations 6 . JO. My delegation has requested this timk for a hearing before the Security Council to make a humble and solemn submission, with the kind indulgence of the members of the Council, without prejudice to all the previous resolutions of the United Nations, that the Security Council should make a declaration that, in order that the people of Namibia may exercise their right to self-determination and independence and to express themselves freely on the constitutional processes and political development, free national elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations should be held for the whole of Namibia as a single political entity. Many times the South African Government has claimed that SWAP0 does not have national support in Namibia. When we make this proposal in fact we issue a challenge to the South African Government, hoping that a peaceful solution can still be found, to conduct national elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations, so that we might prove to the world, and, kyrhaps more importantly, to South Africa, that. SWAP0 does command national support throughout Namibia. SWAP0 proposes this course of action here in the face of the deteriorating situation in Namibia which now constitutes a threat to international peace and security and which is a direct result of the triple veto which was cast in this chamber. 56. Having heard the brilliant stateinents of the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and of the representative of SWAPO, I feel that the task entrusted to my delegation will be easy, for the question of Namibia has a long history and the position of Africa is sufficiently well known. While not wishing to dwell ‘on the painful situation before the Security Council, I should like, however, to highlight certain events and to make certain brief comments. . 57. For 30 years now the United Nations has been discussing the question of Namibia. As early as 1946 the South African tigime refused to place Namibia under international trusteeship and proceeded to annex that Territory on the basis of the shameful consultations held with tribal chiefs whom it had chosen itself. In resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966, the General Assembly decided that the Mandate of South Africa over Namibia, which at that time was known as South West Africa, was terminated and that that Territory henceforth would be the direct responsibility of the United Nations. 51. Before I conclude; I should like to undersdore our insistence on United Nations supervision and control of any elections that might be conducted in Namibia. We could not accept elections under South African control and supervision, because the very presence of South Africa in Namibia is illegal, and giving South Africa an opportunity to conduct any elections wouid mean tacit approval of South Africa’s presence in Namibia. 58. We all recall how immediately thereafter, namely, on 19 May 1967, the General Assembly decided to set up a Council which would administer that Territory until independence and which would immediately make cdntact with the South African authorities in order to establish procedures for the transfer of administration over the Territory. We ,a11 :know what the Pretoria Gqvemment has done since that time. Throughout the years it has continued to defy the authority of the international community, which has constantly stressed that the continued occupation of Namibia by South Africa is illegal. 52. Finally, we wouId also insist that, prior to the holding of any elections in Namibia, South Africa must withdraw its illegal administration. Then and only then can there be free elections and fair play. 53. In conclusion, Mr. President, we thank you’and the other members of the Security Council f& giving us this opportunity to state our case on behalf of SWAP0 and the people of Namibia. 59. The General Assembly, like the Security Council, then endeavoured to work out principles for a solution. Thus almost 10 years ago the United Nations put an end to South Africa’s Mandate and assumed direct responsibility for the Territory and for the people of Namibia. Throughout all those years the General Assembly and the Security Council adopted many resolutions which have remained dead letters.

The next speaker is the representative of Guinea. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to niake his statement. 61. The Vorster regime not only rejected those demands, which the Security Council unanimously considered minimal, but it also began acting in violation of the resolutions of the United Nations by viciously applying its Bantustan policy. That very same regime organized a so-called constitutional conference with its puppets and rejected the principle of national elections held under the auspices and supervision of the United Nations. However, to our deep regret, in June 1975 France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America used their right of veto to prevent the Security Council from taking a decision. Thus they opposed an embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa under the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter. The Security Council then faced a situation in which its position on Namibia was indeed very clear, but in which its authority was attenuated because of the hesitation or refusal of certain Powers to take effective action against the South African regime under the terms of the Charter. The need for such action has been proved now that South Africa, strengthened by encouragement from the West, is using Namibian territory as a base for aggression against the new State of. Angola. 62. At its twelfth ordinary session, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, demanded that South Africa withdraw its illegal administration from the Territory of Namibia. It also demanded that South Africa respect the right of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence, that South Africa respect 63. OAU also condemned the strengthening ,of the military establishment of South Africa-in Namibia, as well as the so-called constitutional conference which the illegal administration in Namibia had imposed on the Namibian people. OAU made an appeal to all member States asking them to comply strictly with the the decision of the United Nations to prevent any investment in Namibia under South African occupation. 64. At its thirtieth session, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3399 (XXX) in which it recognized that the situation in Namibia was a threat to intemational peace and security and proposed a number of measures to enable the United Nations fully to assume its responsibility for the Territory and for the people of Namibia. The General Assembly urged the Security Council urgently to take up again the’ question of Namibia and to take the necessary measures to implement its resolution 366 (1974) of 17 December 1974. 65. We should like to believe that the Security Council will assume its full responsibility by taking effective measures to maintain the territorial integrity of Namibia and the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence;

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

In its resolution 3399 (XXX), the General Assembly called on the Security Council to resume consideration of the question of Namibia and to take the measures necessary to implement. resolution 366 (1974). 68. In implementation of the latter resolution, the Council had already met from 30 May to 6 June 1975, but had been unable to take any decision since the only draft resolution which was then submitted to it for its approval, as we know, met with the negative votes of three permanent members. 69. The unanimity which was revealed in favour of resolution 366 (1974) had nevertheless given rise to some hope that the Council was at last in a position to assume the responsibilities assigned to it under the Charter of the United Nations. We know that there is absolutely no need for us to recall the nature and the scope of those responsibilities. Some of the principal imembers of the Council have already and on several occasions had an opportunity to specify them and emphasize their importance. Our disappointment was all the greater on noting the paralysis of the Council 70. The problem of Namibia actually has been of concern to the Organization since its establishment. There is therefore no -need to proceed to a tedious repetition of its various elements. What is clear in this question is that, by a decision of the General Assembly, confirmed by the Security Council, South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia has come to an end, and thus South Africa’s presence in that Teiritory is illegal. This is what was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 21 June 1971. Accordingly, in. many of its resolutions, including of course resolution 366 (1974)., the Security Council has demanded that South Africa “take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal.. . of its illegal administration maintained in Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Namibia with the assistance of the United Nations”. 75. .However, the problem for the Security Council is no longer one of becoming convinced of the harmful and odious character of apai-theid policy or of the need for respect for the rights of the African population of Namibia. The numerous resolutions already adopted by the Council on the subject are sufficient. to reveal that the opinion of the Council is totally in accord with that of the international community. The problem which is of concern to us, and which primarily of course is of concern to the members of the Council, is what measures should be adopted to compel South ,Africa to comply with the decisions which have already been adopted. The very authority of this institution and its credibiliiy among all members of the international community are at stake. 71. South Africa, by refusing to comply with this request, first of all fails to fulfil the obligations it freely entered into on becoming a Member of the Organization, in particular those arising out of Article 25 of the Charter. The fact that it persists in this negative attitude, despite unanimous and vigorous disapproval expressed throughout the entire world, ultimately reflects a feeling of scorn for the international community and of defiance with respect to the Organization. 76. After having appealed in vain to South Africa to withdraw from Namibia and to hand over to the United Nations the Mandate is received from the League of Nations, the Security Council attempted to weaken Pretoria’s obstinacy by entrusting the Secretary- General with a mission of information and negotiation. Unfortunately, we know that the sole effect of that operation was to give the Council further proof of the stubbornness of South Africa in defying the resoiutions of the Organization and in pursuing a policy the culmination of which would in fact be the merging of Namibia with the South African Republic. 72. Furthermore, we know that the behaviour of the Pretoria authorities with respect to the United Nations is but a projection of their stubborn resistance to all decisions intended to combat the odious rkgime of upurtheid. In truth, South Africa thereby placed itself in the position of an outlaw vis-%-vis the interna: tional conimunity at the very moment when, expressing its support for the Charter of the United Nations, it pledged to respect the spirit and the letter of the Charter and to participate in the efforts of all peoples to create a more just world in which fundamental human rights, the dignify and value of the human person and the equality of rights between men and women would be respected. 77. Throughout the years, the Security Council, with the aim of exercising pressure on the South African Government, has adopted various measures directed in particular against its economic interests. Thus; in various resolutions the Council has called on all States to refrain from having any relations with South Africa which would indicate recognition of its authority over Namibia, to see to it that their companies or companies under their control cease all relations which they might have had with commercial or industrial compar$es or concessions in Namibia, to grant no loan, credit guarantee or other financial support which their citizens or companies might use to facilitate relations or trade with Namibia, to discourage their citizens or companies from making any investmGnts In Namibia, to grant such investments ,in Namibia no protection against possible claitis made by any future legal Government of Namibia and to discourage tourism and emigration to Namibia. 73. South Africa’s occupation of Namibia is not only illegal, it is dangerous. It is dangerous first because it offers a field for developing the policy of crpartheid, to which the population of a Territory not a part of the ‘South African Republic ‘is subjected. This policy of racial segregation, there as etsewhere, has as its sole purpose, as we all know; to ensure that the white population enjoys a pdsition of supremacy in exploiting the riches of the country for its exclusive benefit. 74. But the presence of South Africa in Namibia, by enabling the Pretoria tigime to extend its military 78. What can we say about all these measures save that in the end they had no effect. Not that they 79. The General Assembly, for its part, has from year to year endeavoured to express its condemnation of the policy of South Africa in Namibia as well as of its policy of apartheid. These reprimands had no effect, so at its twenty-ninth session the General Assembly decided not to allow the South African delegation to participate in its work. This decision, which was adopted by the vast majority of the Assembly, nevertheless has been criticized by certain countries, among them, of course, those which have so far refused to abide by the resolutions of the Council. Whatever may have been said about this attitude of the Assembly, and whatever might still be said, now this decision to place South Africa under quarantine has so far been the only concrete measure taken by the Organization in accordance with its principles and regulations which is likely to bring about real effects and to command respect for an institution which itself had begun to have doubts about its mission. 80. This measure adopted by the General Assembly is necessarily limited in scope. But the Charter makes provisions for other far more effective measures to be applied in order to ensure compliance with international law. In fact, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to resort to such measures. We can understand the hesitation of certain members of the Council to resort immediately to the extreme measures contained in the Charter. We understand them in so far as this reticence is not a cover-up for concealed complicity with the delinquent State or for selfish interests which are given primacy over the higher interests of the international community. 81. But in the case of Namibia these hesitations, this reticence seem to us to have no justification whatsoever. Condemnation of the attitude of South Africa was unanimous in the Security Council, and the terms of resolution 366 (1974), which was also adopted unanimously by the Council, set a very specific objective for the action to be undertaken. And yet, last June the permanent members opposed a draft resolution the purpose of which was precisely to reflect in concrete measures the provisions of resolution 366 (1974). 82. Are we going to find ourselves once again in the same situation? We believe that, a repetition of what has already occurred would be extremely embarrassing to the very dignity of the Council and for the future of international relations. The countries which adopted resolution 366 (1974) but which used their veto against the draft resolution for implementation must no doubt

The next speaker is the representative of Mauritius. I invite the representative of Mauritius to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

First of all, Mr. President, I would like to thank you very much indeed for allowing me to speak and, through you, the members of the Security Council. We have grave responsibilities before us as we consider the question of Namibia, which has been the lengthiest of the disputes before the international community today and is at the present time one of the most urgent. We all know the long history of the attempts by the League of Nations and the United Nations to fulfil their responsibilities to the Namibian people, first under the Mandate and then in terms of the opinions of the International Court of Justice, which in its advisory opinion of 21 June 1971 declared that the United Nations was directly responsible for the Territory. 85. It is no secret that the United Nations and the people of the world have been frustrated in their attempts to carry out these responsibilities by the obstruction and use of force on the part of South Africa. In recent months we have witnessed the biggest military build-up ever seen in Namibia, which is aimed both at crushing popular resistance to the illegal occupation regime inside Namibia and at the same time at armed intervention in the neighbouring independent and sovereign country of Angola. We may recall that the League of Nations Mandate expressly forbade the militarization of any part of Namibia. This provision has always been flouted by the stationing of South African troops at the Namibian town of Walvis Bay and at the Katima Mulilo base in the Caprivi Strip. However, this pales into relative insignificance in comparison with the massive buildup of South African armed forces, particularly in the northern part of Namibia. New bases have been created, the biggest at Grootfontein, used as launching pads and supply facilities for South African troops 86. This use of the illegally occupied Territory of Namibia to carry out aggression in Angola creates a situation in the area which is a threat to international peace and security, particularly since it greatly aggravates the degree of foreign intervention on all sides in the tragic conflict within Angola. It was the intervention in November of an armoured column, which we now know to have been organized, equipped and directed by South African armed forces operating from Namibia, that suddenly upset the balance of forces established prior to independence and determined predominantly by the Angolan people themselves, a balance which had resulted in the establishment of a strong and responsible government at Luanda which my Government, along with the majority of the members of OAU, has recognized as the legitimate Government of Angola. In the view of my delegation, South Africa committed a blatantly illegal and aggressive act against an independent and sovereign country on the borders of Namibia, an act which makes extremely urgent the elimination of its illegal and forcible occupation of Namibia itself. Until that is achieved, Africa will be under a continuous threat of South African aggression. 87. I wish to bring to the attention of the Security Council the Declaration of Dakar on Namibia and Human Rights, adopted by the Dakar International Conference on Namibia and ,Human Rights earlier this month. I particularly wish to stress certain parts of the Declaration which underline the urgency of dealing with South Africa’s occupation of Namibia. The Declaration states, for example: “Maintenance of the occupation of Namibia by South Africa and of the system of apartheid is a continuing threat to peace and security in southern Africa, the whole of Africa and the world... “The recent reinforcement of the military presence of South Africa in Namibia must be condemned as a means of consolidating the illegal occupation of that country and of repressing the legitimate resistance of the people of Namibia. What is more, the use of the Territory of Namibia as a base for intervention in the internal affairs of African countries, as is at present the case in Angola, aggravates the threat to international peace and security and must cease immediately... “The military and economic assistance furnished to South Africa by certain States must also be openly denounced and manifestly combated by all the forces of progress. Arms sales, nuclear co-operation agreements... in South Africa or Namibia constitute acts of sheer complicity with the policies of uparth~~id.” [S/17939, rrnncx.] 88. A number of countries have serious charges to answer in relation to the supply of arms and equip- “It is high time for the States of Africa to make it clear to the, countries which are supporting South Africa in this way that they cannot continue to do so while claiming the friendship of the peoples of Africa.‘* [f&f.] 89. In the past few days there have been unconfirmed reports that South African troops would withdraw from the Angolan conflict. While we welcome such a possibility and urge that it be realized immediately, there are disquieting reservations that we have to make on this issue. The first is that a withdrawal by South African troops back to Namibia is in no sense a solution to the serious threat to peace in this area. South Africa must withdraw totally both from Angola and from the illegally occupied international Territory of Namibia. 90. However, it is likely that South African forces, if they do withdraw from the present battle zone-or non-operational area, as some call it-have no intention of withdrawing even as far as the Namibian border. Persistent reports in’the South African press and elsewhere, monitored by the United Nations Secretariat, indicate that the South African Govemment intends to annex a large area of southern Angola, on the pretext that it has the right to occupy the area of the Cunene Dam scheme and to secure the Namibian occupation against armed resistance by SWAPO, the Namibian liberation movement. To that end, plans have been drawn up for the deportation of perhaps 60,000 people from the frontier region. 91. It is vital that the Security Council consider this apparent intention of the South African occupation tigime and stand ready to condemn it if the plan is 92. The Security Council has already called on all States to refrain from investment in the occupied territory, and to discourage their companies and nationals from doing so. I need hardly add that the acceleration of mining operations to plunder the irreplaceable resources of Namibia is in direct violation of previous Security Council resolutions and also of Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia in 1974.’ 93. I therefore wish to stress that not only is the Cunene Dam scheme a further challenge to the authority of the United Nations and international law in Namibia, but the South African intention to occupy the area of Angola surrounding it is a blatant provocation. We must be alert to the plans of the South African regime to perpetuate such illegal occupation, and it must be clearly stated that such occupation of Angola stands condemned by the international community, just-as does the illegal occupation of Namibia. 94. I should like to conclude by assuring you of my Government’s full support for the draft resolution which will be introduced shortly. In the light of the urgency of effecting South Africa’s removal from Namibia as from Angola, it is imperative that the Security Council show a united front in support of the ideals of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental concepts of international law. We are calling for elections in Namibia, under United Nations supervision and control. This has been carried out extremely well by the United Nations in various different contexts; all that could prevent such elections in the case of Namibia is the intransigence of the South African occupation regime, using all the force at its disposal, and possibly with the collusion of other Governments. The vote on the draft resolution to be introduced, I submit, will be an acid test for the commitment of Governments to the cause of democracy throughout the world, and to freedom and selfdetermination in Namibia. The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m. Notes HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section. New York or Geneva. COMMENT- SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES / Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans ks librairis et ks agences depositaires du monde entier. !nformez-vous aup& de votre libraire ou adreasez-vous & : Nations Unies, Section des ventes. New York ou Gen&. KAK ~OJlYPNTh V3AAHKJl OPrAHHIAl&AH QIihEAHHEHHhIX HAUNR M3nanm OpraHmaunn OCVbemmexHblx HaqnR UO*HO icynqm a K~~H)K~+IX marawinax H aremcmax ~0 acex pafionax uwpa. I-Iaaonnre cnpaam 06 uwawvix n mawens miwcnos4 sfarmune xm nnmme no anpecy i Oprami3amin OtYbenwnenxb*x H~uHR, Cerun~ no nponazue nmanwfi, Hblb-tIOpK tin&i )Keneaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas e&n en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partea de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccidn de Ventas, Nueva York o C&bra. Litho in United Nations. New York 00300 83-60801~May 1984-2,200