S/PV.1954 Security Council

I have also received a letter dated 30 August from the Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia containing a request to be allowed to participate in the debate in the Council on this item. It may be recalled that on previous occasions, when the Council was considering the situation in Namibia, it had extended invitations to representatives of the United Nations Council for Namibia-most recently at its 1880th meeting on 27 January 1976. Accordingly, I propose that the Council extend an invitation pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure to the Acting Preside& and four members of the United Nations Council for Namibia. 1. Adoption of the agenda 2, The situation in Namibia Adoption of the agenda The situation in Namibia 1, The PRESIDENT: I wish to recall that when the Council considered the question of the situation in Namibia in January it decided in its resolution 385 (1976): “to remain seized of the matter and to meet on OI before 31 August 1976 for the purpose of reviewing South Africa’s compliance with the terms of the present resolution aud, in the event of noncompliance by South Africa, for the purpose of considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter.”

The first speaker is the representative of Madagascar as Chairman of the African Group. I ask him to take his place at the Council table and to make his statement. 6. Mr, RASOLONDRAIBE (Madagascar) (intwpwttrtion ji*om FWIW/I): I am particularly happy to present to you, Mr. President, the warm congratulations of the African Group on your accession to the lofty functions of President of rhe Council. The African Group, which has always enjoyed your solicitude and particular friendship and consideration, wishes you a happy and successful end to your presidency, now that your term of office as President of the Council is alhost over. We are particularly happy that this debate on the question of the situation in Namibia is being held today under your presidency. ln accordance with that resolution and after consultations with the members of the Council, the Council has been convened to consider the question inscribed on the agenda, 2. I have received a letter from the representative of Madagascar, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of African States for the month of August, containing a request to be invited to participate in the discussion in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of Procedure. Accordingly, I propose, in conformity with theus~al practice and with the consent of the Council, tO invite the representative of Madagascar to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. 7. The debate which we are beginning today was decided upon last January, and I know that the entire world has awaited this debate with some anxiety and 8. When I spoke last week on the occasion of Namibia Day, this is what I said: “That Namibia wishes to be reborn to international life and to resume all the attributes of sovereignty after several decades of German colonization and South African exploitation under the tr~~trtheitl regime, that its people is prepared for this end to commit itself to a battle *where the means used are too unequal, reflects but one thing-the futility of measures of oppression, repression and suppression which, even though applied with the frenzy of the South African racists, cannot prevail over the profound aspirations of a people for justice, freedom and national independence.“’ 9. I take the liberty of repeating myself today in order to indicate before this Council that the African Group, of which I have the honour to be the spokesman, understands the struggle of the people of Namibia, is in solidarity with it, gives it its entire support and expresses its admiration for the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) which leads it and for the fighters who wage the good fight. 10. It is an honour for the African Group, at the beginning of the debate today, to be hble to participate at this stage of the struggle, whose objectives are in accord with the broader battle that we are waging wherever there is a challenge to the principles of unconditional national independence, respect for territorial integrity, unreserved support for human rights and the application of democratic rules. 1 I. The self-determination of the Namibian people, which cannot be distorted or confiscated by nonrepresentative groups or illegitimate interests, is of serious concern to us because we are all aware of the difficulties of the problems manifested in the situation in southern Africa. 12. There are difficulties because the racist regime, which we gladly label stupid when it proclaims itself the guardian of Christian civilization in Africa, that regime which we do not take seriously when it claims to be the defender of the last bastion of the so-called free world, that regime succeeds disconcertingly in bargaining with the Western Powers because of its unique geographical and strategic position. 13. There are difficulties because that regime, which has created its power and wealth on the shameless exploitation of African populations, also brilliantly exploits the greed of the imperialist,and neo-colonialist interests with which it has a joint cause and which are always prepared through it to pursue manoeuvres which were carried out in the light of day during the recent Angolan conflict. 15. That regime, which knows it is being challenged, which sees its political foundations crumbling and trembles at the thought of losing power, seeks and finds respite amongs allies which, not content with granting it a semblance of legitimacy and strengthening its economic, military and nuclear potential, alsO carry out on its behalf a political and diplomatic offensive which is as futile as it is desperate. 16. The surreptitiousness with which those countries maintain their position while making statements contrary to their actions has made them lose in our eyes all moral right to speak to us of their solution for putting and end to minority regimes in southern Africa. Gradualism has been proposed without any concern for the urgency which the oppressed peoples attach to their claims. 17. ’ A certain realism has been suggested to us when there is a danger of alienating the Fascist Powers of southern Africa. A dialogue has been suggested despite the habitual bad faith of the Pretoria regime which, furthermore, has the distinction of obstinately refusing to hold dialogue with the genuine representatives of Azania and Namibia, namely, the African National Congress of South Africa the Pan Africanist Congress of Apania and SWAPO. Can one think of a better proposition than the Lusaka Manifesto,* based on this more positive manner of conceiving a dialogue? 18. It appears that people are less and less inclined to believe or hope that there will be a peaceful SOlUtion of the Namibian problem. Is it to be considered an impossible objective? 19. To face the popular battle which is gaining ground, the South African regime has been compelled to introduce in to Namibia armed forces and a Police force of 50,000 men, including mechanized infantry battalions with complete armaments such as tanks and helicopter squadrons. In addition it has built UP an impressive system of fortifications there in the obvious hope that what did not work in the jungles and ricefields of Viet-Nam could work on the more arid land of Caprivi, Ovamboland and Okavango. 20. Such reactions from the racist South African regime do not surprise us. It has always Placed the boundaries of its national security far beyond its physical boundaries; it has always dreamt of msin* taining a protective barrier between South Africa and the independent African States north of the Zamhezi River. 22, Faced with t&s escalation, the African countries WiII not change their attitude because we know that the South African regime is inSllfficientIy armed against our strategy based on the legitimate right of oppressed popul&ns and the solidarity of the nations of the black continent with peaceancljustice-loving peoples throughout the world. Since the Namibian people, under the impetus of SWAPC), has become aware of its rights and requirements for survival as a modern nation, since it is prepared to face the battle, since it knows that the enemy is not invincible and is daily becoming more embroiled in the mysteries of its contradictions, its complexes and its blemishes, we know that the conditions for final victory arc there. The material means and superior weapons of the South Africans will not be a sufficient dissuasive force to divert us from our struggle or to make us change OUI strategy. 23. We know that despite its bravado, its dodging and the insolent attitude it adopts to the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council the South African regime is very much aware of the danger in which it stands from the combined force of the popular struggle and international public opinion. That is why we shall not fail into the trap ofminimizing the role which the United Nations can play in the solution of the Namibian question. 29. Finally, we believe that sanctions can be useful and can contribute to some extent to hastening the cessation of criminal acts and even to redressing the wrongs they have caused. If the effectiveness of sanctions against Rhodesia has been seriously hampered because of the criminal complicity between Mr. Vorster and Ian Smith, that does not mean (I priori that sanctions against South Africa would not be crowned with success. We see rather in this situation an additional reason to show more firmness and more unity in our ranks, provided we all remain committed to the same objectives in southern Africa. 24. We must recognize that it was not without delays and hesitations that the General Assembly arrived, in 1966, at the historic decision [rc.whtiou 2145 /Xx/)1 to terminate South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia. The first corollary of that decision was to place that Territory under the legal responsibility of the United Nations; the second coroI]ary was that the International Court of Justice in 1971 rendered its advisory opinion” whereby South Africa’s presence in Namibia was henceforth illegal. The United Nations decision involved for it the political commitment to implement the revocation of the Mandate and attain the effective liberation of the Namibian people. 30. In resolution 385 (1976), the Security Council called for the holding of free elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control. The resolution called on South Africa urgently to make a solemn declaration indicating that it accepted the principle of such elections, undertaking to comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and with the advisory opinion of the lnternationa] Court of Justice and recognizing the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation. The resolution concluded by stating that the Council would take 25, Beyond the demands, the appeals and the cohdemnations which we have voiced; beyond the disaPPointing experience of the aborted negotiations between the Secretary-General and the Pretoria authorities; beyond the establishmentofseveral institutions-the Council for Namibia, the United Nations P”nd for Namibia and now the United Nations ‘nstitute for Namibia-and beyond the decision to ‘PPoint a United Nations High Commissioner for 27. The African Group favours a policy of sanctions against the Pretoria regime in the context of the Namibian question as well as in that of the questions of Southern Rhodesia and trpartheid. The African Group considers that to belong to any organization means that one is committed to complying with its basic rules. As soon as one member violates those rules in a flagrant and repeated manner, there is no alternative other than to take appropriate sanctions against it, which may go as far as expulsion, unless, of course, the organization concerned denies its right to do so thus signing its own death warrant. 28. Sanctions, in our opinion, can also play an important role since they can bear witness to our solidarity with those who for IO years have been struggling to rid themselves of the domination of the white minority in Namibia and to banish from their country the trparthcid system and its degrading practices, and to put an end to the imperialist exploitation of their labour and of the resources of their country. 3 1. The only reply was a communiqut dated 18 August [S/12/80, WW.~] published at Windh,oek by a committee of the so-called South West African Constitutional Conference. Like SWAPO, the United Nations Council for Namibia lost no time in rejecting the communiquC, and published a statement on the same day which, in part, reads as follows: “The United Nations Council for Namibia strongly condemns the latest ill-advised strategem of the South African administration in Windhoek as totally lacking in legitimacy, ambiguous and equivocal. The proposals of the so-called Constitutional Conference do not even approach any of the requirements for genuine self-determination and independence laid down by the United Nations. These proposals make no mention of the elimination of trpnrtheid legislation. They merely seek to perpetuate the homelands (bantustan) policies with all their deleterious effects on the integrity and unity of the Namibian people. They are also silent about free elections under United Nations supervision and control. They totally ignore SWAPO, which has been recognized by the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations as the authentic representative of the Namibian people. There is no undertaking to release political prisoners or to allow the return of political exiles. The date suggested, that is, 31 December 1978, constitutes an unjustifiable prolongation of the illegal South African occupation. The reference to unity is couched in ambiguous terms without specifically recognizing the territorial integrity of Namibia as a unitary State. The references to the rejection of any attempt to solve the problems of Namibia by force are, to say the least, paradoxical in the light of the institutionalized brutality under the Repression of Terrorism Act and other rules and regulations, which give a free reign to the most blatant and ruthless violation of all principles of human rights and freedoms as proclaimed by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” [S//2/85, u~7~7ex, prrrtr. h]. 32. The African Group endorses the observations of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We conclude that South Africa has not complied with the provisions of resolution 385 (1976) and that the Council today finds itself under the obligation to take the appropriate measures mentioned in paragraph 12 of that resolution. 33. At a time when the Council is about to debate the nature and scope of these measures, I should like, on behalf of the African Group, to offer the two following comments. , 35. Secondly, South Africa, as we have said, is waging a real war in Namibia in contravention of the preamble to the Definition of Aggression annexed to resolution 3314 (XXIX), which reaffirms the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial integrity. In the case of Namibia, this fact is aggravated, on the one hand, by the fact that South African troops are acting in a territory over which South Africa holds no title and,on the other, because of the fact that the territory of Namibia has repeatedly been used as a base for aggression against neighbouring independent countries. We have no doubt of the applicability to this situation of resolution 3314 (XXIX) and, accordingly, of the applicability of Chapter VII of the Charter. 36. On the basis of narrow juridical concepts, some in our Organization refuse to admit that the problems of Namibia, Southern Rhodesia and South Africa from the same root, the same refusal to allow the African majority to assume power, People refuse to recognise that these problems therefore require the same solution; the three situations have evolved similarly this year, in that they have become more serious, while and offensive is being aimed at separating the problems and at concentrating diplomatic and other efforts on Rhodesia rather than elsewhere. 37. By virtue of what criteria has the decision been arrived at to consider that one problem has priority in respect of another‘? At what cost was the understanding arrived at whereby one would first of all attack the peripheral problem of Rhodesia, which is already at an advanced stage of deterioration, instead of striking directly at the core, the Pretoria r%me? Indeed, it is from there that all the nefarious influences which are poisoning the whole of southern Africa emanate. The unholy alliance with the former Portuguese rkgime, the sabotage of sanctions against Rhodesia, military interventions against Angola and Zamblag the manoeuvre for division with regard to the problems of dialogues, the exporting of the qmhcitl system to

The Council will take note of ,the message transmitted to us by the representative of Madagascar. 38. There is an opportunity before the Council today which is derived from this unity, and that is to vote sanctions within the framework of the Namibian question which WOU]~ directly affect the South African rtgime as though they had been voted on within the framework of the uprlrfhcit/ question, Such a decision from the Council at this stage would contribute to refocusing the debate instead of diffusing it, as some have now proposed doing with unseemly pride. Not only the Namibians, but all those who aspire to the genuine liberation of the African continent would be grateful to the Council. 43. Today, 31 August, is the last day of my presidency of the Council and tomorrow the presidency will be turned over to our colleague from the Libyan Arab Republic, Ambassador Kikhia. I should like to express my gratitude to the members of the Council and thei delegations, the Secretary-General and the Secretariat for their help and co-operation in the fulfilment of my duties as President. 39. Having concluded my statement, I should like now to read out the text of a cable we have just received from Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of SWAPO, which confirms a decision taken previously by the African Group with the co-operation of‘ the local representatives of SWAPO: I This statement was made at the 236th meetine of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the official record; of which are nublishcd in Summmv form. See A/AC.13 lLSR.236. “Suggest Security Council meeting held mid- September to enable full pnr’ticipation Foreign Ministers attending General Assembly as agreed OAU Mauritius and non-aligned meeting Colombo.“:‘: + Quoted in English by the spcukcr’. 42. There are no further names on the list of speakers for this morning’s meeting. If no member wishes to speak, I shall adjourn the meeting. Before adjourning, however, I should like to say a few words. NOIPS