S/PV.1883 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken previously [1880th-1882nd meetings] I invite the. representatives of Algeria, Cuba; .Egypt; Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Yugoslavia to ‘take the places reserved for them al 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. I also invite the President and members of the delegation of the United Nations Council .for Namibia to take places at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Rahal (Algeria), Mr. Alar&n (Cuba), Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Camara (Guinea), Mr. Jaipal (India), Mr. Marpaung (Indonesia), Mr. Hall (Jamaica), Mr. ‘Sharaf (Jordan), Mr. Minikon (Liberia), Mr. Cisse’ (Mali), Mr. El Hassen ‘(Mauritania), Mr. Ramphul (Mauritius), Mr. Harrimari(Nigeria), Mr. Jaroszek (Poland),

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Bangladesh requesting that he be invited, in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, to participate in the discussion of the question now before the Council. Accordingly, if there is no objection, I propose, in conformity with the usual practice and with the consent of the Council, to invite the representative I have just mentioned to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. It was so decided.

I invite the representative of Bangladesh to take the seat reserved for him at the side of the Cotincil chamber, on the usual understanding that he will be invited to take a place at the Council table when he addresses the Council. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Karim (Bangladesh) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

The Security Council will now continue its consideration of the item on the agenda. 5. . Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation @om&Russian): The delegation of the Soviet’Union, at the thirtieth session of the General Assembly, fully supported the proposal of the African States that the Security Council urgently consider the matter of Namibia in order to take effective measures to end the illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist rkgime of South Africa. We did this, first of all, in accordance with the principle of solidarity with Africa which, in itself, is totally natural. Solidarity with the peoples and States of Aftica in support of their just struggle for the elimination of the last vestiges of colonialist, racist rkgimes from the African continent ,and for the affirmation of the genuine freedom and independance of African peoples is the principled foreign policy course of the Soviet Union. 6. We have done this, secondly, because the question of Namibia has in recent times become signifi- , 7. While the process of detente is gaining strength and taking on broader scope and when the world liberation movements have achieved new, outstanding successes and victories under its favourable influence -as is acknowledged by those who earlier frightened African peoples with talk that detente would be an obstacle to the success of the national liberation movement-the problem of Namibia, like the question of the liberation of the peoples under the domination of the racists in South Africa, cannot cease to concern the peoples of the world as a whole. The south of Africa has been turned into the last bulwark of racism. and apartheid and into a preserve where human rights are violated and where mass crimes are committed against mankind, into a hotbed of military danger for all States in Africa and into a direct source of threats to world peace and security. 8. The racist regime of Pretoria illegally occupying Namibia has been flagrantly violating the legitimate rights of the Namibian people and stubbornly disregarding United Nations resolutions, including those of the Security Council, which demand that the Government of South African immediately put an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia, withdraw from that country all its military forces and police, pull out its admi&tration and to transfer power to the leg3ymate representatives of the Namibian people. In answer to the repeated decisions and urgent appeals of the Security Council, we have received only the cynical replies of the racists to the effect that they apparently do not intend to leave the country. 9. Continuing to ‘plunder the natural wealth of. Namibia and mercilessly to exploit its people, the South African racists have turned it into their own strategic spring-board for the organization of acts of aggression and interventionist provocation against neighbouring African .countries. By disregarding the many decisions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, the racist regime of South Africa is defying the United Nations, thus proving the unlimited adventurism of the Vorster regime, which still claims full rights as a Member of the United Nations. 10. In the light of the foregoing, the African ‘countries were.right when at the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly and at meetings of the Security Council in- 1974 they proposed to exclude this criminal regime from the United Nations. The Soviet delegation, as is well known, held and continues to hold a principled position with regard to this question. It 11. It is totally obvious that the major goal of the South African regime is to postpone its withdrawal indefinitely, to slow down the initial development of the national liberation movement throughout southem Africa and especially in Namibia, and to preserve in that area a citadel of neocolonialism and racism against the peoples of Africa. Working as a strike force for imperialism in southern Africa, the racist regime of Pretoria is pursuing its own goals as well. As was pointed out on 22 January this year in the statement of the Special Committee against Apartheid, South Africa’s goal is not only to strengthen its racist policies but also to extend its harmful policy of apartheid, exploitation and oppression to the entire southem portion of Africa. 12. As is well known, at its thirtieth session the General Assembly in its resolution 3399 (XXX) on the‘ question of Namibia strongly condemned that racist regime’s policy and urged the Security Council to take up again that question and to take measures for the implementation of Security Council resolution 366 (1974) of 17 December 1974. The Security Council considered the problem of Namibia a little more than half a_year ago [see 1823rd-1829th meetings]. Unfortunately at that time it was not able to take any decision, because of the obstruction made by three permanent members of the Security Council, who cast. a triple veto in the voting on the draft resolution submitted by African countries. At that time one member tried to explain its obstructionist position with regard to the decisions of the Council by saying that the situation in Namibia was not a threat to world peace and security. Can anyone among the friends and kindred spirits of the racist regime of Africa venture to say that in that country and around it peace and calm reign and that the policy of the racist regime of South Africa represents a poszve development in t&e directTon of* detente and the establishment of relations of good neighbourliness and co-operation with African States? The answer to that question cannot be equivocal. At the present time no one, not even the friends of South Africa and those who think along th_esame lines, can hide the md%putable fact of the political adventurism of the South African racists, which has caused a flagrant violation of the United Nations decisions and a continuation of the illegitimate and tyrannical occupation of Namibia. 13. Moreover, the whole world now knows of the invasion of South African troops into a neighbouring African country-Angola. Efforts are also being made to put forward the thesis of the so-called defence of the Western world to act as a smoke-screen and a justification for the racist policy of South Africa. In actual fact, the racists of southern Africa are working 14. The report of the United Nations Council for Namibia submitted to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session’ adduces even more recent facts concerning the rapacious role of the transnational corporations in long-suffering Namibia. In paragraph 117 of this report, it is stated that by the beg& ning of 1975 about 50 per cent of the entire gross national product of Namibia was extracted by foreignowned companies in the form of profits because of their fast-growing investments in that country. 15. There are other. reasons that explain why the racists of South Africa have become friends and kindred spirits of the developed capitalist countries and reigning monopolistic capital. One of these reasons is the pathological anti-communism and antisoviet feeling of these racists. Just as the fanatic racist Hitler once was kind to and became a friend of reactionaries of all stripes, with his pathological anticommunism and anti-Sovietism, so the South Africans here have become the kind friends of all anti- Soviet circles. This has been well known for a very long time. However, very recently as important an expert in capitalist economic problems as the Assistant Editor of the London magazine The Economist, Mr. John Greenmount, also spoke of it. He wrote in an article in The New York Times in January 1976 that “gold, diamonds and profit-making investments, together with colonial relationships and links and also flagrant anti-communism in the strategic situation between the Atlantic and Indian Ocean, have turned South.Africa into too important a country for the West.” From this cynical and very sincere quotations from such an authoritative source we can see that the pro-imperialist forces of the West appreciate South Africa not only for its gold and diamonds but also for its strategic situation and because of its malicious, pathological anti-communism and its anti- Sovietism as well. 16. A new affirmation of this anti-communism and anti-Sovietism on the part of the racists of South Africa is the anti-Soviet statement made in the Security Council on the question under discussion by the reprksentative of racist South Africa. The explanation of it lies in the efforts of the transnational iinperialist monopolies and individuals who are trying to preserve and to perpetuate this regime and to secure for it eve- 17. In these, the true international conditions of today, the international community and all progressive forces of the world cannot but respond to the appeal of the United Nations, OAU and all African States by giving the necessary assistance and support to the Namibian people in its just and legitimate struggle for national freedom and independence. 18. At the Dakar International Conference on Namlbla and Human Rights, which took place in January of this year in the capital of Senegal, the representative of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), the national liberation organization of South West Africa, Mr. Sam Nujoma, rightly noted in a statement that the Namibian patriots in their struggle relied not only on the determination of the people of Namibia to defend its freedom and independence, but on the broad support and solidarity of all the democratic and progressive forces of the world. That solidarity and support is totally justified and legitimate in contemporary international life. It has been recognized in practice and legitimized by many decisions of the United Nations on the question of Namibia. 19. The efforts of the friends and sympathizers of the South African rigime to present the view that support for the just arid legitimate struggle of the people of Namibia goes beyond the framework of the easing of international tensions are devoid of any foundation. On the contrary, the easing of international tensions, or, as it has come to be called, dktente, ‘does not mean freedom of action for aggressors and oppressors. It does not mean the preservation by the 20. The many and well-considered statements on the question under discussion made in the Security Council by the representatives of SWAPO, OAU and African States show convincingly that the colonial and racist order in the southern part of Africa, and in particular in Namibia, is a direct threat to peace and security on the African continent. This was justly and convincingly stressed also by many leaders of African countries at the recently convened twelfth ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAV. The Security Council, as the principal organ of the United Nations responsible for maintaining and strengthening peace and security and preventing threats of aggression, has the right and the duty to take urgent and effective measures against the main culprit in the tensions and threats to peace prevailing in the southern part of Africa. The Council must take measures for the immediate end to the aggressive adventurist activities of the racist regime in southern Africa, in order to strengthen and perpetuate peace and security in that area on the basis of respect for the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to freedom and independence. ’ 21. The Soviet Union fully supports the decisions of the Dar es Salaam extraordinary session of the Council of Ministers of OAU regarding the immediate liberation of all of southern Africa from racist tyranny, including an earliest possible end to the illegitimate occupation of Namibia by South African racists. 22. The Soviet Union also actively supported and continues to support the appeal made by the General Assembly at its thirtieth session and by all the States of the African continent to the Security Council to undertake decisive and effective measures with regard to the racist regime in South Africa, up to and including the imposition of mandatory sanctions against that.regime as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. 23. The delegation of the Soviet Union is convinced that the further struggle of the United Nations and of the entire international community against the last 24. The delegation of the Soviet Union appeals to the representatives of those countries, which at the close of the thirtieth session of the General Assembly from its lofty rostrum called for respect for human rights, to turn their gaze towards the regime of colonialist-racist tyranny in the southern part of Africa, and particularly in Namibia, to support the people of Namibia in its struggle for liberation from that tyranny and to ensure for that people the opportunity freely to enjoy the fundamental human rights and to achieve freedom and independence. 25. The delegation of the Soviet Union has carefully studied the working paper on the question under discussion prepared by the group of representatives of African countries, and offtcially states that it supports all the provisions which it includes. 26. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interp&alion from French): When the Security Council met six months ago to consider the question of Namibia once again there was a new element in the tile. After the dbmarche carried out at Pretoria in the month of April 1975 by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, the South African Government made its attitude known. Its statement included some rare positive elements in so far as the South African Government accepted the position of OAU regarding seifdetermination, independence and territorial integrity for Namibia and was also prepared to establish contact with the representatives of the Secretary-General and of OAU. 27. But above all it appeared that, despite certain clarifications, the response of South Africa was ambiguous in many respects, particularly with regard to the unity of the Territory. We especially deplored the fact that Pretoria rejected any idea of United Nations supervision during the process of self-determination for Namibia, a rejection which was an ill omen for the fruitfulness of contacts with the South African authorities in the extremely restrictive conditions which they set. What has happened since the month of June last ? 28. On 23 October the South African Government was again jointly approached by France, the United States and the United Kingdom, which once again emphasized the importance they attached to a speedy settlement of the Namibian question. The Government of France, as we stated in the course of the thirtieth session of the General Assembly, considers that .this settlement should be based on the following fundamental principles: -First, within a short time, all Namibians should be able to express their views on the political future -Secondly, provision should be made for the transfer of powers and for withdrawal by South Africa without delay and in accord with the democratic choice of the population. -Thirdly, all political groups in Namibia without eception-that is to say, including SWAPO_should be authorized to campaign so as to be able to express their opinions and participate in political activities during the. process of self-determination. -Fourthly, the territory of Namibia should not be divided in the application of a policy contrary to the wishes of the population. The Namibians must be able to exercise their right to self-determination and independence within the framework of a single State. We consider that the Government of South Africa should pronounce itself clearly on all these matters. These desiderata seem to us in fact to meet the essential concerns expressed in Security Council resolution 366 (1974). 29. As the representative of the United Kingdom indicated in his statement [see 188fst meeting], the nine countries of the European Community in their turn felt that they should make known to the Govemment of South Africa their positions on the problem of Namibia; a de’marche to this effect was carried out at Pretoria. The main outline is stated in the letter of 26 January to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the Acting President of the European Community [S/11945]. 30. I should, however, like to comment on the criticism of the nine members of the European Community addressed to the constitutional conference held at Windhoek. The delegation of France is fully aware of the condemnations of the conference expressed by both the United Nations Council for Namibia and the General Assembly. However, some consideration seems to be called for on the subject. 31. First of all, the very fact that it was held indicates that South Africa-whatever the reasons that inspired it-has become aware of the need to abandon the rigidity which has characterized its policy in respect of Namibia in the course of the last 25 years.’ Further, in the major provisions -of the declaration which was published at Windhoek on 12 September, we note the intention of ending racial discrimination and of guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We further note that a constitution for South West Africa-a single one-will be drafted if possible within a period not to exceed three years. Although that is still too long, nevertheless that timetable seems to 32. Those few encouraging elements cannot, however, make us forget the largely negative balance of the other aspects of the conference, and my delegation can do no better on the subject than to endorse the conclusions of the nine countries of the European Community. The nine members of the Community consider that, since representation in the conference was limited to ethnic groups and the political forces were not all able to participate, that conference does not appear to guarantee the fully democratic character of the process of self-determination. Furthermore, the conference still does not appear to provide for the constitutional future of Namibia to be determined by the Namibian people through a single referendum organized on a Territory-wide basis. 33. That means that, on the whole, the Windhoek meetings do not respond to the concerns expressed by France on several occasions to the Government of South Africa within a framework of bilateral and multilateral contacts. I am bound to add that the statements made here by the representative of South Africa have unfortunately not dispelled all the outstanding ambiguities. 34. It follows from most of the statements we have heard so far that the balance-sheet is not encouraging. We do not challenge that. But it does appear to us that since South Africa has taken certain initiatives -even t_hough they do not appear to us to be satisfactory-it behoves the international community to maintain its pressure in an effort to guide the actions of the Government of Pretoria. However, as we see it, pressure should be exercised realistically, taking into account what is possible without of course sacrificing the fundamental options of the United Nations, which the delegation of France endorses. 35. It is on those*conditions and with the intention of supporting and energetically confirming at the level of this responsible institution, the Security Council, the numerous efforts which France has undertaken for years in other forums that my delegation favourably welcomes draft resolution S/l1950 prepared by non-aligned countries ‘and others. The concern that we all share-that a free and independent Namibia should come into being as early as possible-should be stated in a text which is clear and contains the necessary emphasis. 36. To conclude with some brief remarks on the more obviously shared ideas, I should say first of all that the requirements for free elections in Namibia with the participation of all parties, including SWAPO, meets with the approval of my delegation all the more since we ourselves proposed it in June last. 38. I have stated the views of my delegation. I said that we were neither happy about nor encouraged by the wholly insufficient developments that have occurred inthe situation in Namibia over so many years. Mr. President, as the representative of the United Republic .of Tanzania, you expressed here the day before yesterday the “hope that... it is possible using the instrumentality of the Organization to try to find a less violent solution to the Namibian problem” [1881st meeting, para. 2541. 39. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, Mr. Sauvagnargues, did not express himself very differently when on 26 September last he stated before the General Assembly that “South Africa must respond to the appeal of the international community; it must realize that little time remains for it to satisfy by concrete action the legitimate aspirations expressed both inside and outside that country’“.

Before I call on the next speaker, I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Kenya and Kuwait containing requests that they 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 representatives of Kenya and Kuwait 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 was so decided.

I invite the. representatives of Kenya and Kuwait 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. Maina (Kenya) and Mr. Bishara (Kuwait) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.” 43. It is with a heavy heart that my delegation is speaking once again on this question, on which everything has been said and resaid. In my delegation’s opinion, the question before the Council is not to determine whether or not South Africa still has the right to remain in Namibia. It is even less to decide whether or not its continued and persistent presence in this international Territory is legal or not. It is a question of whether the Council is able to take such measures as will result in the speediest possible withdrawal from Namibia of this abject apartheid regime so shamefully championed by a handful of white racists installed at Pretoria, so that. this Territory’s population may freely exercise its right to selfdetermination and independence. The question which arises is whether those who have always been ready to support the madmen of Pretoria-of whom we saw a sad specimen only two days ago-will be able to draw lessons from the past, from the insolence and arrogance of the South Africa racists, and give the Council a free rein to take decisive action, with the interests of the Namibian people first and foremost in mind rather than certain private selfish interests. 44. Nothing at the present stage of our debate would allow us to reply in the aflirmative, especially when one looks at the conclusions of the debate of May and June 1975 onthis same question [1823rd-1824th meetings] when three permanent members of the Security Council rushed to the rescue of this regime which nevertheless continues to taunt the Organization and especially the Security Council. 45. It is not ironic to hear one of the mentally retarded members of Vorster’s band come here before the Council and preach his faith in Africa and his desire to save the black African from foreign domination, while in fact he cares little about the fate of the oppressed blacks of the Republic of South Africa and while he grants himself the right to remain in Namibia in spite of the many resolutions of the General Assembly and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice’, subjects the Namibian people to the most barbarous slavery ever seen in the twentieth century and imprisons Namibian nationalists or subjects them to the most ignominious torture in history. Is it not ironic to see these specimens of a bygone century coming to tell us that, instead of the United Nations putting South Africa in the dock, it is rather 46. After the offhand attitude of the wraiths that appeared before the Council two days ago, my delegation feels that those who supported them before should no longer play the role of devil’s advocate, because now Pretoria can be indicted on many counts. My delegation ventures to express its belief that Pretoria’s traditional allies were acting in good faith even if they were in error. However, after the grotesque show and the insults levelled at Africa and the international community by Botha, whose attitude before the Council only deserves Africa’s disdain, they will no longer have any excuse. They will no longer have any excuse because the representative of the South African racists has not hidden the intentions of his Government to confront the Organization with a fait accompli. They will no longer have any excuse because they know that, if South Africa has armed to the teeth, it is not only to protect the route around the Cape. They know that, if South Africa has been armed to the teeth, it is not for reasons of simple internal security, but because it has aggressive and annexationist intentions and ambitions. 47. My delegation has as proof-something which Botha has himself confirmed here-the militarization to the hilt of Namibia, a Territory which does not belong to South Africa and from which it does not have any intention of withdrawing, in order to use it as a bridgehead to accomplish its ignominious designs. Everyone knows that yesterday it was Zambia and certain other acts of provocation against independent neighbouring States. Today it is Angola, where the South African rdgime had the gall to bring in troops and dares to call for the establishment of a democratic regime. They no longer stop at anything, for why do the South African racists dare to interfere in the young Angolan republic? They no longer have an excuse because South Africa’s acts of aggression lead all Africa to wonder whose turn will be next. 48. We have said, and we cannot repeat it enough: Africa is not racist. It would have desired a peaceful solution to the problem of uparrh&f and to the presence of the South African regime in Namibia. It would have wished to live in peace and understanding with this white minority, which unfortunately is too blinded today by its chimera to see clearly. But faced with the exactions of South Africa and its thinly 49. We say this for those who do not wish to understand the danger the aggressive schemes of South Africa pose for peace in Africa and perhaps also in the world because of the interests which are at stake. We say it so that those people will be careful and so that they should face certain realitie’s. We say it so that they might understand the incalculable consequences involved in their wanton support, which they give without a second thought to the Vorster regime if only to receive such infinitesimal concessions from it or to justify their conduct which is being increasingly questioned’by their community. The statement made by the representative of France has given us some encouragement, and we should like to stress this. 50.’ As was so rightly stated here by our .brother, Moses Garoeb of SWAPO, Namibians have never requested that the South African regime come to their aid. They want to be left to govern themselves, and badly if it must be. In such circunstances we might wonder: What is the South African regime concerned about? The Council must act now. The need for and the urgency of action by it no longer need to be demonstrated. We must achieve, of course with the co-operation of its traditional allies, the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia initially followed by the organization of free elections, under the supervision of the United Nations, in which the entire Namibian population will participate. This means that political detainees should be freed and that exiles should be authorized to return home in order to participate freely in the electoral campaign. 5 1. The Security Council must face up to its responsibilities; even if a certain tendency towards lethargy was shown in the beginning, since the statement made by Botha we need increased vigilance. The future and credibility of the Council is at stake, and consequently the future and credibility of the United Nations because, rightly or wrongly, the world is wondering if those who helped to create the Organization want and are trying to have the Charter respected. If this is so, how then can we not, short of having to use force, find in the provisions of the Charter the means of making a recalcitrant Member listen to reason, especially when it refuses to recognize the authority of. an organization of which it claims to be a member and whose resolutions it continues to trample underfoot. We do not have the right to undertake a hypocritical policy, which would be to shed crocodile tears over the fate of political prisoners in the world while we show little or no fear for the fate of blacks in South Africa and in Namibia who have been murdered and who are confined to bantustans or to homelands. 52. Members of the Council who are determined to bring unconditional support to South Africa: How

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

Mr. President, I would like at the outset, to express the admiration of my delegation for the manner in which you handled the debate on the.Middle East and for your performance at the present one. The question of Namibia is acutely painful and underscores the fact that the United Nations has become an arena in which general principles are reaffirmed but never implemented. Member States nowadays find comfort in reasserting principles to please their consciences, but have never displayed the will to implement the principles in which they profess to believe. As a result, faith in the Organization has remarkably receded. 55. The Security Council had unanimously adopted its resolution 366 (1974) calling upon South Africa to withdraw from Namibia, but this resolution was relegated to the archives of the United Nations without any additional effort to see it carried out. No doubt the responsibility rests on those upon whom the Charter confers special obligations to fulfil the will of the international community. South Africa is an abnormal phenomenon in the world of politics at the present time: It is so not only because of its political philosophy based on apartheid, but also because of its attempt to isolate itself from the rest of the world. It wishes to convert itself into an island encircled by waters. .But being unable to remap the geography of the world, it is concentrating instead on creating buffer zones. It is a cause of great regret that Namibia should be the victim of this obnoxious strategy. One should ask why South Africa is frantically working on buffer zones. The answer lies in the fact that it wants to go ahead with the application of an odious and obnoxious policy of apartheid, regardless of the wishes of the international community or of the right of neighbouring States to question this policy of apartheid. It wants in its pursuit of the application of apartheid to be accountable to nobody, as if it were plaintiff, judge and jury in its own court. We all know that South Africa is not only the accused but the one that has chosen to live outside the pale of law. 56. One may ask, further, what is the policy of apartheid? With all due respect-and I have little know- 57. The formidable enemy of South Africa is the pan-Africanism that exists in the fibre and blood ,of every African State save Pretoria. This is so simply because South Africa is not, as presently constituted, an African State. It exists in Africa by virtue of settlement but certainly not as an African State. Namibia is a buffer zone that prevents the advent of pan- Africanism within the confines of South Africa. This is the theory of Mr. Vorster and it is the progenitor of apartheid. Moreover, Namibia provides South Africa with the required facilities to intercept the infiltration of freedom fighters who have been waging an armed struggle for the cause of equality inside South Africa. The adherents to the principle of equality, . such as the supporters of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and the African National Congress, are being hunted inside Namibia. References have been made to South Africa’s plunder of the natural resources of Namibia. Such references are true but they do not constitute the fundamental reason behind South Africa’s attachment to Namibia. That attachment emanates from the desire to be encircled by sleepy, weak and haggard territories that have no ability to question or oppose what goes on in South Africa. 58. The representative of South Africa was right, I assume, when he mentioned in his lament the other day that South Africa has no territorial claims to Namibia. But he did not say why apartheid is applied therein, why the Territory is fragmented, why obso- 59. What is the responsibility of the United Nations? In all .faimess, we do not except an unusual ‘act of bravado from the Security Council. We vividly remember the triple veto to prevent military santions from tieing applied against South Africa [see 1829th meeting]. The President of the United Nations Courtcil of Namibia, Mr. Kamana, asked the Security Council to condemn South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia, call on South Africa to withdraw from the Territory, terminate repressive and discriminatory laws in Namibia and support the call for free elections under the supervision of the United Nations [see 1880th meeting]. .These are worthy and modest demands. The Council should heed them and act accordingly. But this is-not the end of the road. In the absence of action under Chapter VII of the Charter to compel South Africa to comply with decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, the people of Namibia will have no alternative but resort to armed struggle. South Africa should no ,longer enjoy a Roman holiday in Namibia. Thus, if the Council fails to act, the people of Namibia will realize that only by armed struggle through Swapo can they obtain their independence. They know as well as we do that independence, unlike the quality of mercy, does not descend from heaven but could be acquired by force. We in Kuwait support the struggle of SWAPO. We endorse its cause., We back it in its endeavours to bring down the sinister edifice ofapartheid in Namibia. 60. We align ourselves with their fight for self-determination and independence. Their plight is not only African, but surely international. All peoples of the world embrace their hope and espouse their struggle. It is imperative to arrange for the process of selfdetermination to. take place under the supervision of the United Nations. But let us bear in mind the fact that Namibia is the captive of the political system of South Africa--I mean the .philosophy of aparfheid. With all due respect to some of the greceding speakers, I cannot imagine the achievement of independence for Namibia by peacefur means without making a substantial dent in the edifice and structure of apartheid inside South Africa itself. That is the reason behind the nature of the links already forged between SWAP0 in Namibia and the freedom fighters inside South Africa. 61. Indeed South Africa has so far succeeded in hijacking the Territory of Namibia, but it should not

Thirty years ago the people of Pakistan themselves were engaged in their struggle for independence and national identity. In april 1946, a year before that goal was finally attained, the Muslim League, meeting under its President and founder of the country, Qaad-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, adopted a resolution on the affairs of South Africa expressing sympathy for the similar struggle which was being waged by the majority of the peoples of southern Africa and condemned the South Africa regime for denying them every right and constitutional expedient in the regulation and conduct of their own country. The resolution stated: “The conscience of the world cannot turn a deaf ear to the groans of the oppqssed, wherever they may be located and however closely they may be guarded, because the rooting out of injustice is not a domestic affair, but the common business of all ‘the peoples of the world.” The resolution went on “to recall the white people of South Africa to a realization of the rules of morality and decency by which the lives of nations must be regulated in. the modem world”. 63. Pakistan’s pol$y continues to be guided by the same principles and considerations as Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto recalled in his message on Namibia Day last year. He said: “Ever since they achieved independence through the exercise of the iIght of self-determination, the people of Pakistan have been .consistently in the forefront of the historic endeavours to eliminate colonialism and exploitation from all parts of the world. Indeed, the very basis of our policy identifies us wholly with the aspirations of the people of Namibia, and impels Pakistan to assist them morally and materially to secure the independence of their country and maintain its territorial integrity.” 64. Sixteen years ago the United Nations adopted its Declaration on the- Granting of Independence to 65. The Territory of Namibia fell into the hands of South Africa in the shape of a Mandate at the end of the First World War. After the Second World War all Mandated Territories except South West Africa were converted into Trust Territories and few of those now remain under “Trusteeship”. The system of Mandates itself came to an end. Long before that the South African regime’s disgraceful exploitation and misrule had removed any moral title it might have claimed to keep ‘the Mandate. On the legal plane, General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) of 1966 formally terminated South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory. The opinion handed down by the Intemational Court of Justice in 1971 removed whatever shred of legalistic pretext South Africa might have had for continuing its domination of the Territory. Hence the South African representative was reduced to describing the Court’s opinion as having been the result of “political manoeuvring”. Aware no doubt of the threadbare nature of this sort of assertion, he went on to add that the Court’s opinion was in any case only advisory and did not constitute law. 66. What then is the law? Under what sanction and under whose authority does South Africa continue to rule the Territory? We are dealing here not with some dusty litigation over property rights but with the rights, fundamental and basic, inalienable and imprescriptible, of a people whose destiny was placed, by accident of history and fortunes of war, at the mercy of a regime which, it should have been clear even then, was singularly unsuited to attend to their well-being and development as a “sacred trust of civilization” -to use the quaint expression and notion of the time. 67. We wete told that South Africa’s role in the Territory is to promote agreement between its peoples 68. The representative of the United Kingdom [see 188lst meeting] saw a step forward in the convening of the so-called constitutional conference in the Territory, and he managed even to see some sign of hope in the fact that the Declaration of Intent [see S/I 1948 and Add.11 talks about “a constitution”, and not constitutions in the plural. The statement of the South African representative here must surely have dashed any such hopes. He spoke invariably of “ethnic groups” and “different peoples” of Namibia. There are many countries in many parts of the world where such diversities exist, and not in Africa alone, but also in Asia, Europe and America. Why does South Africa make so much of the heterogeneous character of the Namibian population? Why does it refuse to accept a straightforward election in which all the inhabitants of Namibia can return their elected representatives? 69. The representative of South Africa said here that “while the United Nations calls for the territorial integrity of the Territory-although... the Charter does not preclude the peoples from deciding otherwise--South Africa has declared all options to be open to the inhabitants” [1881st meeting, para. 1001. That sounds most reasonable indeed, but in fact South Africa has weighted the options heavily in favour of fragmentation by making it impossible .for the one political organization which stands for the integrity and freedom of the Territory to participate in political activity in any meaningful way. It has put behind bars, as f said, all those leaders of SWAP0 on whom it was able to lay hands. 70. Nor can one take at face value So.uth Africa’s solicitude for Namibia’s ethnic variety when one looks at the implication of the so-called “homelands” policy. The President of the United Nations Council for Namibia told us in his statement that 43 per cent of the land, in which were included most mineral reserves, all urban centres and seaports was reserved for whites. The manner in which the constitutional conference has been set up and its composition give no reason to expect that the outcome of the exercise has not been predetermined. 71. Almost seven years ago, in 1969, the Security Council, recognizing the Madate’s termination, stated in its resolution 264 (1969) that South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia was illegal. It called on South Africa immediately to withdraw its administration. It further stated that actions designed to destroy territorial integrity through the establishment 76. We consider that South Africa should be put on notice against attempts, whatever shape or disguise they are given, to fragment Namibia. We must call on it accordingly to refrain from going further with the so-called constitutional conference and make it clear that the decisions of that conference will, in any case, have no validity in the eyes of the Council members, collectively and severally. Provision should be made instead for the holding of free elections in the Territory as a whole under United Nations auspices. 72. Did South Africa comply? The answer is no. Has the Security Council met to decide upon necessary steps? Yes, it has, regularly every year. With what results? None. 73. Subsequent decisions of the Security Council have been treated with the same disdain and received with similar equanimity by South Africa. The latest is contained in Security Council resolution 366 (1974), unanimously adopted on 17 December 1974 in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 3295 (XXIX). It called on the South African regime to recognize the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia and to take the necessary steps to transfer power to its people; pending such transfer, to release political prisoners, abolish racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices, desist from its policy of creating bantustans and homelands, and accord full facilities for the return of all Namibians in political exile. The South African response was inadequate and misleading and, as I had the occasion to point out when I addressed the Council on 5 June last year [1828rh meeting], amounted to a rejection of the resolution. 77. There is not much reason to hope that South Africa will listen to the voice of the Council But we do expect that Council members themselves, specially those upon whom rests the primary responsibility for the peace and security of the world, will not, by act of commission or omission, by word or by silence, in any way make it easier for South Africa to flout the Council’s authority. 78. In an eloquent and defiant speech from the dock in 1967, Mr. Toivo ja Toivo, one of the founders of SWAPO, declared: “I know that the struggle will be long and bitter. I also know that my people will wage that struggle whatever the cost. Only when we are granted our independence will the struggle stop. Only when our human dignity is restored to us as equals of the whites will there be peace between us.” 74. Everything that has happened since then has confirmedthatopinion. South Africa continues to flout the decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council with impunity, secure in the knowledge that it will be shielded from censure within the Council. The three vetoes which were cast here in June last had the effect of blocking positive action by the Security Council and may have further emboldened the Pretoria regime in going ahead with its schemes for the Territory. In. the circumstances, what action can the Security Council take at this stage which would be appropriate and effective? 79. The struggle of the people of southern Africa is -- _ _ nowhere near its end. It would be a mistake to view the situation with complacency. What is happening in neighbouring Angola should be a warning that considerations of expediency or the greed and cupidity of some should not be allowed to override fundamental principles and the larger interest. My delegation devoutly hopes, for the sake of the people of Namibia but also for the sake of the United Nations and of the international community and, above all, for the sake of all the people of Africa whatever their colour or race, that the Security Council will not fail to show the wisdom, the moral courage and the political will to pursue faithfully the implementation of its own unanimously adopted decisions. 75. We are glad to see that there is a measure of agreement on a number ofimportant points. We attach particular importance to the declaration of the nine countries of the European Community that South Africa should withdraw from Namibia as soon as possible. On this expression “as soon as possible”, my delegation shares the doubts of others about the use of this phrase so beloved of diplomats and bureaucrats. One would think that nine years after the adoption of a resolution which terminated the Mandate of South Africa in Namibia that action was long overdue. We welcome, none the less, the declaration of the European Community that South Africa should withdraw from Namibia and that its inhabitants be given the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination and independence and to pronounce on the future of the Territory as a whole through a fully democratic process under United .Nations supervi-

Before I call on the next speaker, I should like. to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Burundi 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 Burundi to participate in the discussion, in conformity with the usual It was so decided.

I invite the representative of Burundi to take the place 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. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mikanagu (Burundi) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

The Security Council has before it four basic questions as it ponders .what constructive steps it may take regarding the future of Namibia. These four questions are as germane and timely today as they were a half-year ago-indeed, as they were almost a decade ago when, as many of my colleagues have remarked at the Council table, the General Assembly declared that South Africa had forfeited its mandate for Namibia. 83. These four questions are; first, whether there is a real commitment by South Africa to a course of selfdetermination for the people of Namibia and respect for their rights; secondly, the timing of steps towards self-determination once that principle is accepted by South Africa; thirdly, the question of whether all Namibians-of whatever colour, political affiliation or social origin-would have their voices heard in determining the future of their nation; and, fourthly, the United Nations role in the process of self-determination. 84. Over the past year there have been indications from the South African Government that it is finally recognizing its international obligations in Namibia and the need to implement a process of self-determination in that Territory. Statements by the. South African Government suggest that South Africa may finally be beginning to heed the international outcry against its continuing illegal occupation of Namibia. The United Nations Commissioner for Namibia -who is present in the Council chamber-has told us that he too senses that the difference over Namibia have narrowed, are narrowing and can continue to narrow. 85. For our part, the United States delegation has every expectation, given the temper and tone of the debate we have had so far and the constructive nature of the suggestions that have been made, that we will emerge in agreement with a resolution that will indeed constitute a further narrowing such as the Commisio- . ner has envisaged, and I would not like to let this opportunity pass without expressing the enormous respect in which the United States Government holds the work of Mr. MacBride. 87. This past September South Africa convened a constitutional conference at Windhoek to decide on the future of the Territory. While representatives of ethnic groups took an active part in this conference, significant groups in Namibia were not allowed representation. Political groups, including SWAPO, the Namibian National Convention and others having the support of significant portions of the Namibian population, were not permitted to participate. No United Nations observer was able to monitor the proceedings of the conference. For our part, the United States finds that this conference as at present constituted cannot be regarded. as a definitive exercise of self-determination. We have told this to the South African Government in clear and unmistakable terms. 88. However, the constitutional conference at Windhoek was a start. The constitutional history of my own country goes back some two centuries, and I believe that we have learned from that history to pay respectful attention to any beginning, whatsoever its patronage, howsoever uncertain. Nor is the United Nations today comprised of nations whose Governments can boast such an impeccable constitutional pedigree as to warrant our collective disdain for whatever has so far occurred in Namibia. There is no democracy there. There is no democracy in most places. Still, in Namibia men an women travel hopefully. This is no small thing. Indeed, it is a great thing, and the United States, for one, looks forward to weicoming them to the company of free peoples and devoutly hopes to see their freedom flourish. 89. We believe accordingiy that now more than ever it is incumbent on South Africa to announce a straightforward and unambiguous plan by which Namibians will be allowed to make a free choice of their political future. The United States believes that a single electoral process should be held throughout Namibia with the careful supervision of the United Nations to allow the Namibian people to decide on the future constitutional structure of their country. Recognizing the wide ethnic and political diversity of Namibia -a condition in which that nation is by no means singular, but a condition none the less-such a decision could come only after a period in which all the people of Namibia and all the political and ethnic groups were allowed to elaborate their views and to campaign for 90. My Government has made this position clear to the Government of South Africa at the highest levels. We have tried to impress on the South African Government the urgency of resolving the Namibian question quickly and peacefully. Most recently, on 23 October, my Government, in co-ordination with the Governments of the United Kingdom and of France, outlined such an electoral process to the South African Foreign Minister. While continuing to press South Africa through diplomatic channels, we have also continued to sustain our present policies towards South Africa. We continue to discourage United States investment in Namibia. We continue to withhold United States Government protection of American investments, as we have done since the 1966 resolution 2145 (XXI) of the General Assembly terminating the South African trusteeship. In addition, the United States Government continues to prohibit. the shipment’ of American arms and military equipment to South Africa. We continue to enforce and observe this embargo out of our own commitment to the cause of ,the people of Namibia, and not because we are required to do so by an international enactment. We are not. We continue, however, to invite all nations which so desires to join us in this voluntary policy of denying arms to the South African Govemement which is our policy. 91. I also wish to put to rest at this point the bizarre suggestion which we have heard with some frequency in these halls, though happily not at this Council table, that the United States is in some way interested in establishing military bases in Africa, even in that part of Africa where Namibia is located. These are suggestions that invite incredulity as a response, but as they continue to be made they arouse not a little suspicion that there is some quality of what psychoanalysts call “projection”, which is to say that there may be people who, themselves desiring to establish bases, assume that everyone else does as well. .Well, the United States does not. 92. In conclusion, let me say that the United States believes that the Security Council has a serious and unique responsibility for Namibia, and a singular opportunity. We believe that it is incumbent that the Council reiterate the shared views of its members on the future of Namibia. It is our duty to foster a peace-

I understand the representative of Saudi Arabia wishes to speak, and accordingly, with the consent of the Council, I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

I hope that if it is not too late we could ask the guard to tell my illustrious colleague Mr. Moynihan that I have some words to say to him. That is why I asked to be allowed to speak. But I am sure that Mr. Sherer will tell him what I have to say. 95. It is overdue that someone should make it clear to our friend Mr. Moynihan that he cannot treat members of the United Nations in such a cavalier manner as to imply-more than imply, to say-that most of them do not have democratic Governments, as if to emphasize that only the United States is a democracy and that it looks at others, through him, from the high vantage point of a professor giving us lessons in democracy and in government. 96. He has been using this approach-not inside the United Nations but in cables and letters-in order to show the American people that only the United States is righteous. We love the pe~ople of the United States, but they would be misguided if, by repetition and through the emotionalism that Mr. Moynihan has been arousing, they were finally to end up having their minds conditioned to such misconceptions. 97. As one who has served the Organization for about three decades, I think it is high time I put things in the proper perspective. Democracy is not a monopoly of the United States or the Western Powers or the socialist countries. or any group of countries for that matter. Unfortunately-I shall not cite namesdemocracy has been institutionalized and ritualized. In many countries-and I do not name them-it has been reduced to a wooden or metal box and a sheet of paper that is placed in it by people who are conditioned by the mass media, by the press, to elect representatives, and in fairness to the representatives I must say that even if they have made certain promises they may, because of the circumstances, sometimes do exactly the opposite of what they have promised. 99. I come now to .the technicalities of the statement of our good friend, Mr. Moynihan. I feel now like an African, and I think you will adopt me, Mr. President, as an African, because I feel like an African, and not only like an African but like a human being. Every human being, whether he hails from Asia, Europe, Latin America or any continent for that matter, should identify himself with those who have been deprived of their liberty. Our friend, Mr. Moynihan, mentioned that the gap-1 am paraphrasing-was narrowing. Is it narrowing by inches or centimetres? These are semantics, figures of speech. He says that the United States and other Western countries have been remonstrating, sending letters to South Africa, telling it that they do not approve of its policy. Many of us lived under mandates and we know those tricks. Letters can be sent day in and day out to appease the gullible, but here in the Organisation it is an insult to the intelligence of Members to say, “we are doing paper work, writing letters.” In these days of penicillin-and this great country is famous for its antibiotics-Mr. Moynihan is trying to treat the African fever by using, instead of antibiotics, the rind of the watermelon. This is no treatment. This is lip service. Of course, we do not take issue with his Government. It may have its problems. We know that the balance of power is still important and power politics are still prevalent. They shape the policies of the major Powers. Therefore I appeal to the major Powers to keep out of Africa; regardless of their ideologies. Then the African people and we, the Asian people and the Latin American people, will be happy. We can manage our own affairs. We may be clumsy but at least we would be sincere. We cannot beguile the time with empty promises. 100. Fifty-three years and there is still the Mandate. I mentioned that in my speech yesterday. South West Africa is still under a Mandate. Why is it still under a Mandate? Because of certain interests. I mentioned them: economic, strategic and racial. “Racial” I put at the end. What are the major Powers doing? Of course, we understand that the Soviet 101. It cannot go on like this in Namibia. Namibia should within a year become free. Two years ago in my draft resolution [ss/1/547[ I said, “two years or less”. Here is the illustrious gentleman whom we all concur in praising-the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. MacBride. Let him be the coordinator. Let the United States and all the major Powers bring pressure on South Africa to transfer power in stages and within two years or less bring the question here to the Security Council, with Mr. Mac- Bride, the Commissioner, as the co-ordinator. We do not trust South Africa. That is why I mentioned that if they have goodwill they will accept two co-administrators to accelerate the process of self-determination. Otherwise they are fooling not us but themselves. They have lost their credibility. We cannot accept anything less than having two co-administra: tors. Let them be Europeans, white like them, but honest like the Swedes, like the Austrians, neutral like the Swiss, we leave it to the sagacity of the Secretary-General to appoint two co-administrators and, if they are honest, South Africa will accelerate the process of self-determination. 102. Ethnic groups were referred to by Mr. Moynihan. What ethnic groups? South West Africa was a German colony. It was all African. Not until the Mandate of the League of Nations was transferred-I think, in 1922 or 1923-by Britain to South Africa did they come under the thumb of the white man. They are indigenous people. What ethnic groups? 103. Constitutionality was mentioned. We know that during the days of their rule in India the British always told Gandhi that the constitytional processes should be observed, but the British did not have a constituti,on. They ran their country by precedent, by common law and by statute laws. Whom are they fooling? Constitution! Those are Harvard terms -political science and .theory. We like Mr. Moynihan, we revere him, but he cannot fool us any more. And let him beware not to throw mud and aspersions at Members of the United Nations and at their form of Government. We are entitled to our form of Government. Roes he know, for example, that in Islamic law the King is subject to the law? He is not above the law. Mr. Moynihan does not know that because he is immersed in his American way of life, American constitutional law and this and that. We respect the Americans and we raise our hat to their war of liberation. This is the two hundredth year since 1776, when the Americans fought tyranny. Have they become smug, rich and wealthy and do not want to

I invite the representative of Tunisia to take the place 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. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Driss (Tunisia) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that 1 have just received a letter from the representative of Tunisia containing a request that he be invited, in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, to participate in the discussion on the item on the agenda. Accordingly, if there is no objection, I propose, with the consent of the Council, in conformity with the usual practice and with the relevant provisions of the Charter, The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m. Notes -. . HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may bc obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consulr your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LJ3S PUBLICATIONS DES N+lONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupr&s de votre libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Units, Section des ventes, New York ou Gen6ve. KAE IIOJIYVEiTb EI3AAHIIB OPI-AHHBAUHM OribEANHEHHhIX HAUHH Maaanwfl Oprannsaunw ~'b~J.WHeHHbIX HaqwB ldOrnHO KytlHTb B KHWXHbiX Mark+ 3mxax w arewrcmax ~0 HC~X pationax tdwpa. HaBOAWTe CnpaBKH 06 HJAaRHRx 13 aaulehs KHHXHONI MaramHe HJIW mmme no anpecy:OpraHH3awiR 06%eAHHeHRbtX Hat&+, Celcsm no nponaxe maamik, HMO-Tfoprc HIIH Xtenesa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estAn en venta en librerias y casas distribuidaras en todas partes del mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Seccibn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York oo400 83-60801-May 1984-2.200