S/PV.1956 Security Council

1 wish to inform the members of the Council that 1 have received a letter dated 27 September from the representatives of Benin, the Libyan Arab Republic and the United Republic of Tanzania [S/12205]. The letter reads as follows: 1. Adoption of the agenda 2. The situation in Namibia “We have the honour to request that in the course of the Council’s consideration of the question ‘The situation in Namibia’, an invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Council be extended to Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) of Namibia.” Adoption of the agenda The situation in Namibia

In accordance with the decisions taken by the Council at its 1954th meeting, 1 invite the President and the other members of the United Nations Council for Namibia to take places at the Council table. If 1 hear no objection, 1 shall take it that the Council agrees to that request.

1 should like to draw attention to a number of recent documents that are relevant to the present discussion. Documents S/I2185 and S/i2201 contain communications dated 20 August and 14 September respectively from the Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia. Documents S/12180 and S/12202 contain letters from the representatives of South Africa dated 18 August and 15 September. Document S/12188 contains a letter dated 24 August from the representative of Sri Lanka, transmitting the text of a resolution concerning Namibia adopted by the Conference of Heads of Sti\te or Government of Non-Aligned countries. Finally, document S/12195 contains the text of a letter dated 30 August, transmitting a message to the Council from the President of the Republic of Guihea.

Since the Council’s last consideration of this item, on 31 August [1954t/l /~leetingl, letters have been addressed to the President of the Security Council by the representatives of Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius and Morocco in which they bave requested to be invited to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote. Accordingly, 1 Propose, if 1 hear no objection, to invite these representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 1 of the Charter and ru]e 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. 6. The first speaker is the representative of Zambia, who wi]l speak in his capacity as the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia.

Mr. President, allow me to 3* I invite those representatives to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, 8. We meet here today to consider what is clearly a decisive moment in the destiny of Namibia. The refusa] of South Africa to meet the demands and conditions specified in Security Council resolution 385 (1976) constitutes a challenge to the United Nations which must be met with the full weight of the authority and prestige of this organization. 9. Since 1967, the United Nations, by establishing the Council for Namibia, has been irrevocably committed to assisting the people of Namibia in achieving selfdetermination, freedom, and national independence in a united Namibia. 10. During this last decade, the United Nations has ceaselessly pursued, in accordance with the means available to it, every initiative which could bring closer the day on which the Namibian people Will join the international community as citizens of a united and independent Namibïa. The resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council have systematically demanded South African withdrawal from the Territory which it illegally occupies and exploits. These resolutions have, furthermore, continually appealed to Member States to exercise whatever pressure was in their power to force South Africa to abide by the decisions of the United Nations. Throughout this decade, the issue of Namibia has become the cause of Namibia. Il. At the same time that the United Nations drew the attention of the international community to the illegal presence of South Africa in Namibia, the Namibian people began their armed struggle for national liberation. Since August 1966, the Namibian people, led by their national liberation movement, SWAPO, have increasingly raised the costs of South African occupation of their Territory by their determination, courage and self-sacrifice. 12. Throughout this decade, the liberation struggle has tested the Will of the Namibian people to achieve self-determination, freedom and national independence. The efforts of the Namibian patriots have received support and assistance from friendly countries, and the cause of Namibian independence has gained increasingly in legitimacy thr0ugh the efforts of the United Nations. the "co~~~o~~ strniftriw" of Portuguese colonialism, they carried out their cruel policies without any regard for the views of the majority of the members of the international community. 14. But history catches up even with the most reactionary forces in human society. The collapse of the colonial empire under the protection of which it pursued its reckless policies has exposed the true nature of the illegal South African administration in Namibia. There are no longer any safe boundaries. The sttuggle of the Namibian people gains in intensity as more and more assistance is made available to them. 1.5. In attempting to pursue its colonialist and racist policies, South Africa has resorted to the increasing militarization of Namibia. The concentration of military power in Namibia has served to carry out armed attacks against neighbouring countries with the purpose of intimidating African Governments and peoples which support the cause of Namibian selfdetermination and independence. Such military adventurism is self-defeating. Al1 African peoples are totally committed td the final eradication of ail forms of colonialism and racism from the African continent. In this endeavour they are receiving the active and increasing support of all the peace-Ioving peoples ofthe world. 16. The determination of neighbouring countries to support the right of the people of Namibia to selfdetermination, freedom and independence in a united Namibia is transparently clear from alI recent statti ments made by the leadership of those countries. The joint communiqués [s//.Eo/, ~7171’.ws 1 to /Ml issued after the consultations of the Mission t0 Africa of the United Nations Council for Namibia with the authorities of Angola, Botswana and Zambia also reaffirm their commitment to an independent Namibia under the leadership of the Namibian people’s liberation movement, SWAPO. The Mission of the Council to Latin America also receivecl the full support of the Governments of Peru, Brazil and Venezuela for the cause of an independent Namibia5 17, In January 1976 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 385 (1976), by which it once again demanded South African withdrawal and specified the conditions laid down for a peaceful transfer of power t. the authentic representatives of the Namibian people. A deadline was set for 31 August of this year in order to obtain a response from the South African Government. What has been the response of South Africa? Once again the Pretoria régime is making use of misleading stratagems to disguise its intention of perpetuating its colonial and racist control. It has convened a so-called constitutional conference where hand-picked tribal elemenls and other supporters of ~rporfhrirl have the audacity to claim to be representatives of the Namibian people and prepare formulas that, under a false independence, would ensure the consolidation of racist policies and the plunder of Namibian resources by South Africa and its allies. These manœuvres have been carried out with complete disregard of SWAPO, the authentic representative of the Namibian people, recognized by the Organization of African Unity, by the non-aligned movement and by the United Nations. 20. Are we to pursue this procedure much Ionger? The resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, with the benefit of hindsight, appear as not much more than pious appeals for compliance to a régime which has continuously challenged the overwhelming majority of world opinion. 21. More and more, the Namibian people show their determination to carry out the struggle for the liberation of Namibia by all available means. More and more, the thrust of the liberation struggle threatens to engulf southern Africa in a confrontation with world-wide implications. The Security Council must consider the application of the mandatory sanctions which are outlined in Chapter VII of the Charter as an alternative to even more far-reaching implications of the liberation struggle. 22. Any illusions about the outcome’of the liberation struggle in Namibia Will be paid for with the lives of countless Namibian patriots and Will entail grave implications for the peace and security of southern Africa as a whole. Namibia Will be free. The Namibian people Will fight until the final goals of national liberation are attained. Let no one underestimate the Will and determination of the Namibian people in their struggle for self-determination, freedom and independence. 18. The United Nations Council for Namibia has solemnly condemned such vicious manœuvres in the strongest possible terms. In a statement regarding the so-called proposals of South Africa on the future of Namibia [S/1218.5, trn/rc.~] the United Nations Council for Namibia slrongly condemned the Iatest ill-advised stratagem of the South African administration in Windheek as totally lacking in legitimacy, ambiguous and equivocal. The statement further indicated that the proposa1 of the so-called Constitutional Conference did not even approach any of the requirements foi genuine self-determination and independence laid down by the United Nations. It stated that those ProPosaIs made no mention of the illegitimate apnrtheid legislation. They merely sought to perpetuate the homelands policies with all their deleterious effects en the integrity and unity of the Namibian people. Tbe statement pointed out that the proposals were also silent about free elections under United Nations supervision and control. There was no undertaking to release political prisoners or to allow the return of pclitical exiles. The date suggested, that is, 31 December 1978, constituted an unjustifiable prolongation of the illegal South African occupation. Finally, the statement of the Council pointed out that the reference t” “UnitY” was couched in ambiguous terms without YJecific recognition of the territorial integrity of Namibia as a unitary State. 23. The aspirations of a people to be master of its own destiny, recognized by the international community in the Charter of the United Nations, in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are a historical force against which the mystifications of colonialism and racism cannot prevail.

The next speaker is the representative of Mauritius, who Will speak on behalf of the Acting Chairman of the Organization of African Unity. 1 accordingly invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, 1 thank you and, through you, the members of the Security CounciI for allowing me to participate in this meeting. 1 feel proud that we are meeting under the presidency of a beloved African brother. lg+ The Security Council established a deadline for the gouth African Government to meet its conditions for a Peaceful transfer of power in Namibia. The 26. At the outset 1 wish to reassure members of the Council: 1 am not about to make a dramatic statement. 27. Certain reports have reached me through various channels. While 1 find these reports rather disturbing from a purely African point of view, 1 prefer to seek clarifications on them at this stage before 1 advise the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity and before 1 make a substantive statement on the question of Namibia. 28. My views on Namibia are well known internationally, and in particular at the United Nations. 1 shah not repeat them here, but 1 do recall them. Some are to be found in my statements to the Security Council on 30 September 1971 [1587th meeting], 28 November 1972 [167&h i?zeeting], 21 October 1974 [I 797th meeting] and 27 January 1976 [1880th meeting]. Others are to be found in the records of the General Assembly. 29. Today 1 propose to raise some pertinent questions to which 1 hope prompt answers Will be forthcoming-they could be denials, confirmations or comments. The response cari only help this Council to reach a just conclusion. 30. Southern Africa is becoming the target of greatly increased intervention on the military, economic and political levels, particularly on the part of those who, we are told, are mediating impartially between the racist régimes and the Africans-both of the countries concerned and those elsewhere in Africa. 1s it true that under the pretext of meeting with Mr. Vorster in a neutral place the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger, has managed to involve the chief representative of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), General Alexander Haig, in the so-called dialogue? If SO, it is not surprising that Africans should be asking themselves, first, whether a11 the NATO countries are in agreement with this involvement SO soon after the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Oslo in May which decided that member countries should not use NATO as a shield from political fall-out from defence links with South Africa. Secondly , we are asking about the real meaning of Mr. Kissinger’s venture into the southern African, issue, where the chief NATO representative is reported to be secretly present a’t meetings with the Prime Minister of South Africa at a time of acute interna1 unrest inside South Africa. In answer to our questions we should like to have a response at this Council meeting from each of the member countries of NATO, and we invite the United States delegation to comment. 31. An even more serious issue has been raised with regard to the promises made by Mr. Kissinger to 32. Yet another point which is reported to have been made at Zurich is even more alarming for Africa, namely, that the United States, in certain circumstances, would publicly guarantee South Africa’s own frontiers in return for what has been described as a manipulated solution to the Namibian and also the Zimbabwean issues. If SO, this would, to my mind, constitute great-Power intervention in African affairs, which is completely intolerable, and we respectfully request an explanation from the United States representative. 33. Standing behind the United States, as has been widely reported, is the Government of the United Kingdom. It is therefore imperative that we also examine the motives behind that country’s interest in a settlement, especially in Namibia. It seems to me that the United Kingdom Government is totally committed to the interests of the Rio Tinto Zinc Company, which has invested massively in the Rossing uranium deposits in Namibia and is about to bring the mine into production, in partnership with the South African Government. 1 am informed that since 1970 the United Kingdom Government has held major purchasing contracts with Rossing for uranium, thereby, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, mortgaging its foreign policy and even its own energy policy to the South African occupation of Namibia, or some puppet government which the South africans would help to set up, now with the financial and military support, as it would seem of the Uni,ted States. 1 beg for a comment from the representativc of the United Kingdom. 35, 1 implore the representatives of the States 1 have mentioned to clarify the position of their respective Governments in clear, unambiguous terms at an early stage of this debate, SO that African Members and others may take the views of those representatives’ Governments into consideration when making their statements. 1 have no doubt that we shall be provided with an opportunity to express our appreciation of their co-operation. 41. However, we must recognize that it was not until the birth of SWAPO that this struggle of the Namibian people reached a truly decisive turning-point. Indeed, since the birth of SWAPO the Namibian patriots, now mobilized and organized, have dealt unceasing and ever more lethal blows to the structure of South African colonialism in Namibia. Today, under the just guidance of SWAPO, the people have constantly won victory after victory over their enemies, and the feverish agitation which we see today in imperialist circles is but the reflection of the striking victories of the Namibian people and the imminent collapse of the South African clique. 36, Mr. ALLADAYE (Benin) (i/rtp~p~ctafio/t ./iû/?? f+e&): Mr. President, 1 am very pleased to convey to you my delegation’s warm congratulations on your assumption of the lofty responsibilities of President of the Council for the month of September. Your Young and dynamic country, under the enlightened leadership of President Khadafi, our brother and friend, valiantly conducts a resolutely anti-imperialist policy for the total liberation of the Libyan people from shackles of foreign domination. The positions taken by the new Libya and the political, diplomatie and material assistance it extends to a11 the peoples that are still under colonial domination and occupation are also praiseworthy. 42. The sacrifice to which the Namibian people has consented is great; the sacrifice made by its men, its women and its children, who have agreed to struggle and to die for the freedom of their oppressed people, is worthy of our respect. My delegation would like here to pay a tribute to the Namibian men, women and children who have died as martyrs to colonialist atrocities. We should also like to pay a tribute to the Angolan, Zambian and Mozambican peoples, who, despite the reprisals of South African military forces, have never ceased to support the Namibian cause, a just cause which Will triumph, thanks to the sacrifices of the Namibian people. 37. Mr. President, my country has followed with great interest and satisfaction your unstinting and excellent contribution to the work of thisCounci1 for the period during which you have been representing Yohr ccuntry. Your subtle diplomatie skill, your devotich to the defence of just causes have proved of valusble assistance in the search for solutions of the numercus thorny problems that today confront the international community. I wished by these brief ccmments to recall my delegation’s satisfaction at seeing YOU presiding over the Council’s debate on the imPcrtant question of the decolonization of Namibia. 43. For decades the peoples of the world that prize peace and justice have anxiously followed the distressing problem of Namibia and have supported the Namibian people both materially and politically in its 39. For 91 years first the German colonial régime and then the Pretoria racist régime have organized and practised a systematic policy of intimidation and genocide against the Namibian people to perpetuate their domination over that Territory. Can we forget that already on 20 October 1904 the people of Namibia was the victim of one of the first acts of genocide in memory when 65,000 of its sons were coldly massacred by the German colonial régime? Can we forget the heinous massacres committed in cold blood by the South African army, which savagely killed men, women and children in the south of Namibia in 1922’? Can we forget the massacres of 1959 in Windhoek and of 1968 in the African villages of the Caprivi Strip? 40. But, despite these barbarie acts, the determination of the Namibian people to live free and happy on its ancestral soi1 has never ceased to assert itself. For 91 years the people of Namibia has been valiantly resisting and struggling single-mindedly against first its German oppressors and then its racist South African oppressors. 45. Today people are busily running here and there, bemoaning the unfortunate fate of the peoples of Namibia and trying to find inspired solutions in order to put an end to the shedding of blood in Namibia. But whom would they deceive? From where does South Africa derive its obstinacy, its arrogance and its constant defiance of the international community? From whom does South Afiica receive the powerful war material that it uses to massacre the peoples of Namibia and to perpetrate acts of provocation and aggression against the neighbouring African States? 46. Today the imperialist West is at bay, submerged in the flames of revolutionary war, and it is attempting by subtle delaying tactics to safeguard its trade interests and to prevent the Namibian people from enjoying the fruits of its struggle. If the imperialist West sincerely wants peace to be restored to that part of the world, without further pointless bloodshed, we are certain that the peoples of southern Africa are ready to study with it the conditions for that restoration of peace. But, first and foremost, NATO and the States members of that organization must stop supplying war material to the Fascist and racist Vorster régime; France must stop deliveririg nuclear reactors to South Africa; the United Kingdom must stop supplying military electronic material to the Fascist and racist Vorster régime; the Western Powers must stop giving economic support to the Fascist and racist Vorster régime. If the imperialist West sincerely wants peace to be restored to that part of the world, it Will have to renounce once and for a11 its easilyseen-through plan to turn South. Africa into an imperialist base surrounded by buffer puppet States, from which it could continue to keep a close watch on the independent African States of the region. 48. It is only on those conditions that the United Nations Will be able to assume the responsibilities entrusted to it by the international community-that is, to , organize free consultations leading to the establishment of democratic institutions in Namibia, 49. My delegation fears that if those conditions are not fulfilled, the, Namibian people, under the direction of SWAPO, Will have no recourse but to continue the armed struggle as Iong as is necessary, in order to gain its freedom and national independence, for everyone knows that the dignity and freedom of a people are not negotiable. 50. These are the few comments my delegation deemed it appropriate to make at this stage of the discussion of the question of Namibia.

1 sincere1.y thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Benin for the kind words he addressed to me. As representative of Libya, 1 wish to assure him of the warm friendship and indefectible solidarity of my country with his country. 1 cari assure him of our determination to continue our joint struggle to free Africa. [The specrker continuai in English.] 52. The next speaker is the representative of Malawi, the current Chairman of the African Group of States in the United Nations. 1 invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement,

Permit me, Mr. President, as the Chairman of the African Group for the current, month, to convey to you and through you to the members of the Council our sincere thanks for affording us, as a group, the opportunity to participate in the resumed debate on Namibia. In addition, this being the first time that I have addressed the Council since your assumption of the presidency, 1 wish also to congratulate you on your assumption of that high responsibility. 1 must hasten to decIare my own and nïy Group’s interest in seeing you preside over the Council and therefore to assure you of our fullest support and co-operation during the remainder of your term of office which, incidentally, is fast running out. But, knowing how you apply yourself to the activities of this Organization, it is our sincere belief, that within the short space of time that remains a lot may be accomplished. 54. The African Group wishes to record its &nks and indebtedness to your predecessor and to. the *ht0 remain seized of the matter and to meet on OI hefore 31 August 1976 for the purpose of reviewing South Africa’s compliance with the terms of this resolution and, in the event of non-compliance by South Africa, for the purpose of considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Charter.” fi5, The African Group notes with great satisfaction thRt the Council, supported by the entire international community, has declined to recognize not only the socalled Windhoek consitutional talks, but also the recommendation that has emerged from that source to the effect that Namibia be granted independence on 31 December 1978. 61. In the African Group we believe strongly that Africa has great minera1 and human resources whose exploitation and development are being impeded by the present attitude of the South African Government. The African Group believes that the q.wrt/wid policies of South Africa are divisive and that as a result, they have undermined the development of a cohesive African personality and leadership. Therefore the release by South Africa with the minimum of delay of the international Territory of Namibia in keeping with resolution 385 (1976) would not only facilitate free elections under United Nations control and supervision but would also be indicative of its willingness to accept the popular demand of the international community in general and of the people of Namibia in particular. No doubt this is what Western democracy is all about-Western democracy, in which the Government of South Africa claims to have been reared. 56, In this connexion the African Group was impressed by the Secretary-General’s initial reaction to the South African Government’s communication, when he said, “These propos& fall far short of the essential conditions stipulated by the United Nations.“* We have .taken to heart his warning that until South Africa abandoned its unilateral approach and co-operated with the United Nations no solution to the question of Namibia would be found. 57. During the past few weeks my colleagues and I have had occasion to look at the massive documentation on the various arguments that have been presented either before the Council or in other organs of the United Nations, and the African Group has been intrigued by the persistent international acceptance and recognition of the following facts: that Namibia is an international possession; that South Africa’s Mandate there was revoked several years ago and therefore its continued administration of that Territory is illegal; that South Africa’s use of the Territory as a military base is both unwarranted and unlawful; that its decision to extend to Na&bia the upwtkeid Policies of its own Government are not conducive to Namibia’s progress to independence; and that South Africa’s continued refusa] to hand over the Territory to the United Nations has tremendously contributed to South Africa’s present self-inflicted ostracism from the international community and as a result it is being treated as though it were an international political leper. 62. It Will be recalled that for more than a decade now the African Group has always allied itself with the international community in the task of attempting to facilitate a peaceful transition to independence for the international Territory of Namibia. In that practical alliance the African Group has corne out in full support of all United Nations resolutions on that Territory which have had the effect of lessening tension in that country. It Will further be recalled that each time these resolutions have been adopted, they have had the effect of reducing tension in the area because they have tended to inspire the Namibians. These resolutions have always called for, among other things-and I quote from the statement made on behalf of the Secretary-General on Namibia Day: 5*, South Africa has always claimed to be an African countrY, and, as far as 1 am aware, nobody on the surface of God’s earth bas denied that claim. UnfortunatelY, what the South African Government has done and continues to do in Namibia is very un-African. TherefOre the fight in Namibia, and even in South Africa itself, is not a fight between black and white but rather against the system of government which is Ordained to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the majoritY of the population of both countries. 60. Because South Africa makes so much of its historical origin and because it is a founding Member of the United Nations, it behoves it to heed the myriad international appeals that have been made to it year in and year out to co-operate with the United Nations in resolving the Namibian question, The African Group is of the view that resolution 385 11976) provides an excellent basis for South Africa to co-operate with the international community and to cesse behaving as though it were beleaguered. 6, , ., the withdrawal of South Africa’s administration from Namibia; an end to South Africa’s attempts to compromise the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia through devices such as the establishment of homelands, the creation of the necessary political conditions for the people of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination and national indepen- 63. These are conditions which have over the years reflected the genuine aspirations of the people of Namibia and have been supported unconditionally by the African Group. In view of their popularity and general acceptance by the people for whom they are intended, the South African Government should and must be prevailed upon by the Council, even at this late hour, to accept them and act accordingly in the interest of international peace and stability. TO ignore these popular demands and legitimate aspirations is both undemocratic and inhuman. 64. The African Group is of the view that fear of the black majority by the South African Government has no basis whatsoever. In fact, the South African Government should be the first to concede that the blacks have been known, throughout the African continent, to be hospitable, tolerant and even docile. It is that docility which the former colonial Powers exploited to the full in their relations with colonial Africa. 65. In regard to the Namibian saga, the international community has never had occasion to recognize the South African Government as a colonial Power despite the fact that it was entrusted with the administration of the Territory by the League of Nations. Therefore, South Africa’s refusa1 to move out of that Territory and eliminate the present political tension in the area must have baffled even the few friends it may have on the international scene. 66. Sight should not be lost of the fact that the black leaders who have championed the Namibian cause have gone to great pains in appealing to the South African Government to respect the requirements for Namibia’s peaceful transition to independence and self-determination. These friendly appeals have also fallen on deaf ears. Consequently, those dedicated leaders have now been forced tO back the armed struggle spearheaded. by SWAPO, which appears to be the only language that colonial Powers have been known to understand and appreciate. But bloodshed could be avoided in Namibia if the South African Government persuaded itself to work with the Council and move rapidly towards implementation of ail measures which have been spelled out by the General Assembly and the Council which are regarded as imperative for Namibia’s peaceful transition to freedom and independence.

Before calling on the ‘next speaker, 1 should Iike, on behalf of the Council, t0 welcome the presence at the Council table today OF the Foreign Ministers of Benin, Pakistan and the United Republic of Tanzania. 69. The next speaker is Mr. Sam Nujoma, leader of SWAPO, to whom the Council decided earlier at this meeting to extend an invitation in accordance with rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure. 1 now invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 70. Mr. NUJOMA: 1 thank you, Mr. President, and the other representatives around this table for allowing our movement once again to participate in an crucial debate about our country. 71. May 1, on behalf of the Central Committee of SWAPO for Namibia, the People’s Liberation Army of Namibia and our embattled people, join the United Nations community in expressing heartfelt grief and sincere condolences to the delegation of the People’s Republic of China at the death of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, whose service to China and humanity has been, and Will eternally remain, illustrious and monumental. His revolutionary leadership and his teachings rooted in the experience of the masses of his country have become a mode1 that is being emulated by aIl those engaged today in similar struggles, not least the people of Namibia, under the leadership of their vanguard SWAPO. 72. The Security Council, which is charged with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in the world, has been reconvened today to consider and to translate into practical, positive action the relevant provisions Of resolution 385 (1976). 73. It is very ,clear to us, and it should be equally clear to everybody, especially to the members of the Council, that the illegal colonial régime which ocubies our country by means of brute force has, once again, flouted the clear and categorical demand of this Council. True to type, South Africa has defied the authority of the Council, which had urged that régime to make a solemn declaration committing itself to withdraw its illegal administration from our country SO that the people of Namibia might accede to freedom and national independence. This is the situation that !this august body is faced with today. 80. First, as a result of the expanding successes of the military operations of the People’s Liberation Army of Namibia and of the victories scored over the enemy forces, as evidenced in the opening up of new military operational zones in central Namibia, the enemy bas resorted to a massive military build-up. This military build-up has reached alarming proportions. For instance, the largest military base at Grootfontein in Namibia has been enlarged considerably. According to reliable sources, this base contains more than 15 battalions in addition to air force support units. This base is meant for the supply of the entire northern half, as well as the central region, of Namibia. Moreover, it receives direct supplies from Pretoria by air, road and railway. Apart from this enormous brise with varied facilities for military aggression, there are several other bases at Epupa, Ruacana, Ohopoho, Omahenene, Okalongo, Oshakati, Ondangwa, Onuno, Enana, Nkongo, Hauwanga, Kwangari, Runtu, Andara, Mbwabata, Singalamwe and Katima Mulilo. These bases form a northern belt stretching from the Atlantic along the Angolan-Namibian border to the Zambesi River. There are also other major bases at Keetmanshoop in the south, Walvis Bay in the west, Windhoek in the central region, Gobabis in the east, and Tsumeb and Outjo in the immediate north. Supporting these military bases are training centres at Ogongo in the north, Rooikop near Walvis Bay in the west, Windhoek the capital, and at Okahandja in the central region. It is significant to note here that Okahandja, which was the site of a teacher’s training college until a few years ago, has now been converted into a new military training camp where a puppet army has been trained as part of the Turnhalle tribal exercise to support the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by racist South Africa. 75. I submit here that from now on the Namibian issue must be discussed in the Council only within the context of Chapter VII of the Charter. Eveiything else bas been tried-not once, but many times-and we have got nowhere. 76. SWAPO has prepared a special issue of the NanGr Nc,ljs for this debate; we have made a copy ofthat publication available to each one of the members of the Council. That publication catalogues the acts of political repression and other crimes perpetrated against the Namibian people by the hated illegal, colonial administration in Namibia since January of this year, 77. The same régime, which is brutalizing and murdering people in Namibia daily, has unleashed a new wave of maiming and killing of school children, youth and other innocent people in South Africa SWAPO joins the whole peace-Ioving community of the world in condemning these dastardly acts. SWAPO extends the comradely hand of solidarity and support 10 the heroic militants of South Africa. Their cause, likeours, isjust, and their victory, like ours, is certain. 81. The effect of this militarization of Namibia has been turned to the country into a complete police state, threatening and brutalizing the people of Namibia. A state of emergency under the so-called RI7 proclamation has existed since 1972 in northern Namibia. This repressive measure has, since April this year, been reinforced by the proclamation of martial law ail over the northern part of Namibia which could be applied automatically to any other part of the country. Under this martial law, ,a free-fire zone has been created along the entire northern border of Namibia. Communities have been uprooted and taken to concentration camps, villages have been destroyed, crops have been burned and livestock have been confiscated. Any living being seen in this zone is liable to be shot and killed. These atrocities have been partly, but eloquently, attested to by Mr. Bill Anderson, a formel member of the South African armed forces.J 78. The Vorster régime cannot pretend to be sincere and honest elsewhere when, in fact, it is not serious atall on the question of Namibia, in which that régime isdirectly involved as a colonial and illegal occupation fOrce. South Africa must never be allowed to evade theauthority and clear demands of the United Nations regardin& Namibia. It was through the resolutions and decisions of the Security Council and the General *ssembly, as well as the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19713, that the legal and administrative responsibility of the United Nations waS established. All States Members are therefore bound to respect their own decisions in regard to Namihia and to refrain from undertakings that may, (lirectlY or indirectly, lend legitimacy and credibility l” th$illegal colonial régime in Namibia. 79. TQ demonstrate the continued intransigence of Ihe il1e&l occupationist régime, 1 should like to cite ‘Orne Of the recent repressive measures being used 82. In this regard 1 want 10 underscore two important factors. The first one is that these developments 83. There is an added element to the militarization of otir country, and that is that Namibia is being used as a springboard to commit aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola and the Republic of Zambia. The recently enacted so-called security act, which defines the whole area south of the equator as the South African defence periphery, Will provide further rationale for the Pretoria régime to commit aggression beyond the immediate neighbouring countries. This clearly demonstrates the aggressive nature of the fascist régime of South Africa, which is a threat not only to the peace and security of the area but to international peace and security. 84. Secondly, in the Iight of the foregoitig submissions, 1 should iike to point out that the Turnhalle tribal talks, which have been going on since 1 September 1975 in Windhoek, are a smokescreen hiding South Africa’s real intentions, namely, to turn Namibia into a confederation of tribal mini-States, controlled and manipulated by the South African racist régime for the purpose of retaining and using Namibia as a buffer between South Africa and independent Africa. The elements that are gathered at these tribal talks are nothing but hand-picked tribal chiefs, puppets and quislings who are on the payroll of the racist régime. They are being used as cannon fodder and as spokesmen for the Vorster régime, especially in the western capital% For example, on 18 August last Vorster used the Turnhalle crowd to announce the date of 3 1 December 1978 as the so-called independence date to be preceded by an “interim government”. Needless to say, this crowd has no legitimacy, authority or power to make this pronouncement. In reality, it is South Africa that is speaking through it in order to cause confusion among our people and to placate international pressure and condemnation. 85. Let me state that SWAPO rejects and condemns the Turnhalle tribal talks now and in any other circumstances. In this connexion, 1 should like to cal1 upon ail those Namibians who bave allowed themselves to be used by the enemy against the true aspirations and legitimate interests of our people to disassociate themselves and renounce their treacherous activities against the people of Namibia and identify themselves with the future of Namibia by joining the liberation struggle under the Ieadership of SWAPO. 86. Thirdiy, resolution 385 (1976) unanimously adopted by the Council last January, was clear and 87. Fourthly, despite continued provocation by the Fascist Pretoria régime, SWAPO, being the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia, has always been ready to talk directly with the South African racist régime, with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the Namibian problem. However, I want to state here, once more, that such talks must be preceded by the acceptance by South Africa of the following conditions: first, SWAPO has been and is ready to talk directly with the illegal occupying régime of South Africa regarding the modalities of transferring power to the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO; secondly, SWAPO insists that any talks between us and South Africa must be held under the auspices of the United Nations; thirdly SWAPO further insists that before any talks, all Namibian political prisoners must be released; fourthly, SWAPO demands a commitment by South Africa to withdraw its armed forces from Namibia. 88. Finally, Mr. President, it is a happy coincidence that you, an African son, should be presiding over this crucial debate, Your country, the Libyan Arab Republic, has .proved itself to be a refuge through its generous, concrete assistance to all those who are struggling for liberation, justice and national independence. 89. In conclusion, 1 should like to reiterate SWAPO’s position that we are more than ever committed, determined and ‘resolved to carry out the armed Iiberation struggle wiïh intensity, to liberate every inch of Namibia, including Walvis Bay.

1 should like to assure Mr. Nujoma again of Libya’s indefatigable supportof his country and his nation in their legitimate fight for liberation, independence and progress. 91. No other representatives wish to speak. HO~- ever, two representatives have asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I now cal1 on the representative of the United States.

1 wish to speak briefly in exercise of the right of reply. 93. The United States delegation-and 1 am sure this is true of ail the rest of us-deeply welcomes the high standard of the statements that have been made hy the representatives of Zambia, Benin, Malawi and

First 1 should .like to express my sincere thanks to the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, both of whom have been most gracious in replying to some of the questions 1 raised. 102. 1 wish to make it clear to Mr. Scranton, the representative of the United States, that i did not speak with any convictions, 1 did not make any statement, nor did 1 accuse any particular country. 1 asked questions, 1 asked for clarifications, and 1 invited his delegation to deny, to confirm or to comment, 1 have not received any denial; 1 have not received any confirmation; 1 have received comments. 1 have been referred to the Presidents of the front-line countries in southern Africa. The questions 1 raised are pertinent, 1 maintain. Before speaking in the Council as the representative of the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, 1 consulted my colteagues. We had been briefed by the Foreign Ministers of the front-line countries of southern Africa. 95. As for the motivations of the President of the United States, Mr. Kissinger and others involved in these negotiations, 1 cari attest to these personally: they are the determination to avoid a blood-bath and human carnage in an area of the world that we all prize and to bring about as rapidty as possible majority rule in Rhodesia and Namibia, which is the backbone of the United Nations viewpoint too. They are in truth the same motivations as any decent human being would have in this effort and they are completely in line with the United Nations resolutions and the United Nations actions that have been taken here. 103. 1 have not cast any doubt on the sincerity, purpose or motivations of Mr. Kissinger. 1 have asked for clarifications; 1 have asked for answers to questions that have been raised, to points that have been made and to reports that have been published, with the knowledge of many people. All 1 asked was whether there was any truth in those reports. 1 did it in a very civil mariner. 96, The PRESIDENT: The representative of the United Kingdom also asked 10 speak in exercise of the right of reply.

1 should like to foltow the representative of the United States in ptiying a tribute to the seriousness with which the representatives of Zambia, Malawi and Benin and the representative of SWAPO have approached the debate this afternoon. 1 also listened with great interest to the representative of Mauritius, as 1 do with regularity. Speaking with his customary modesty, he asked me, on behalf of the United Kingdom, to clarify my Government’s policy towards Namibia. 1 shall do $0 in detail when I corne to speak later in this debate. l might, however, be permitted one word of comment on the quite extraordinary speech we heard from the representative of Mauritius. 104. 1 should like to reassure the representative of the United Kingdom, my comrade Ambassador Ivor Richard, that 1 have cast no doubts, on the initiative of the United Kingdom. 1 regret that he should find that my questions were intentionally unhelpful. 1 cari assure him that 1 have not been trying to be intentionally unhelpful to the United Kingdom. But 1 cari assure him that 1 am in duty bound to say, with all conviction and sincerity, that 1 was intentionally helpful to the cause of Africa. 105. As to the comment he made regarding Mauritius’ trade with South Africa, 1 should have thought that the boot was on the other foot. We export to South Africa 20 million rupees’ worth of goods, and we are bound, geographically situated as we are, to import from them about 218 million rupees’ worth. 1 do net think 1 need comment on that any further. Africa knows about the situation and we have not yet received any reproach from any single country of.Africa. It io surprising that this reproach should have corne from the United Kingdom. 98. The abject ofhis speech was-and indeed it could bave had no other abject-to cast doubts upon the good faith and honesty of my country in the recent initiatives taken by the United States and the United Kingdom. It was designed to sabotage rather than to build, to wreck rather than to create. It was intention+ unhetpful.and shoutd be treated as such. g9* As to the specific question he asked me, the United Kingdom bas made no secret of Rio Tinto’s interests in Rossing, just as Mauritius makes no secret