S/PV.1957 Security Council

I should like on behalf of the Council to welcome the presence at the Security Council table of the Foreign Minister of Remania. Adoption of the agenda

1 should like to draw attention to document S/12206 which reproduces the text of a letter to the President of the Security Council from the representative of the United States of America. The situation in Namihia 6. The first speaker is the Commissioner for External Affairs of Nigeria. 1 welcome him, and 1 invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

In accordance with the decisiens previously taken [/95#//1 ~/IL/ 1956th /~wti/~,~s], l shall now invite the President and the other members of the United Nations Council for Namibia, and the representatives of Kenya, M;~l;~gascar, Malawi, Mauritius and Morocco to participate in the Council’s discussion without the right to vote.

Mr. President, permit me to join the speakers who have preceded me in congratulating you on your assumption of the important and responsible office of President of the Council for the month of September. 8. This is a momentous period in the history of Africa. Ail over the continent, and particularly in southern Africa, currents and cross-currents are flowing in several directions. I believe that it would be fundamentally defeatist if we did not accept that these currents could be synthesized into one positive force for the solution of the problem before us. 3- The PRESIDENT: 11~ addition, 1 have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Cuba, Democratic Kampuchea, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Mozambique, Nigeria, Saudi Arabie, Sierra Leone, 9. However, these currents are gathering momentum: some aspects are healthy. some rather ominous. OUI sincere hope, therefore, is that this series of meetings 10. The continent of Africa has indeed been bedevilled for the past three centuries by one plague after the other: man’s inhumanity to man, exploitation of man by man on the basis of colour, power and imposed privilege. Once it was slavery and colonialism; now it is the inhuman and criminal usurpation of power by a privileged few. 1 1. Suffice it to recall the Council’s debate in January of this year and resolution 385 (1976), which called for the application by South Africa of all the legal, human and moral values which the international community holds dem in determining the future of Namibia. Colonialism is anachronistic and unacceptable. The usurpation of the United Nations mandate by the Vorster régime is even more unacceptable. In their performance Vorster and his racist régime in Namibia have been completely oblivious to their responsibilities and obligations and have been unresponsive to the wishes of the international community. 12. It is hardly necessary for me to attempt to evoke here the enormity of the evils of the particular situation we are concerned with today. After all, this body, as well as the General Assembly, has been seized of the problems of Namibia since 1946. Thirty years! We need to celebrate our achievements! 13. The recent scenario, in a nutshell, is as follows. In 1967, almost 10 years ago, the General Assembly in all solemnity-but with innate hypocrisy on the part of many-pronounced itself on and established the Council for Namibia. It appointed the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, charged with administering Namibia following the termination of the Mandate of racist South Africa over that Territory. By some classic exercise in see-saw diplomacy braced with inconsistency, we continue to take decisions and refuse to implement them. This is not out of moral weakness. It is because of the total lack of morals in many of us. We have all contributed to these phantom United Nations institutions in a manner that reflects a unique exercise in hypocrisy-or is it selfdeceit? On the other hand, we continue to take no practical steps to pressure South Africa out of business in Namibia. 14. In January of this year, when the Security Council adopted its resolution 385 (1976), my Government thought that we were at last all determined to apply the final pressure to accomplish the objectives of the international community in Namibia. This we thought was the umpteenth but final resolution. We regret to note that today we are back to appeasement and to glorifying and according respectability to the Vorstei régime, not for moves towards meeting the wishes of 15. In its resolution 385 {1976) the Council took definite decisions on Namibia and called for specific action by South Africa. The South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), the authentic representative of the Namibian people, has called for a number of conditions to be laid down for negotiations for independence, self-determination and sovereignty: first, that SWAPO be a primordial factor in any negotiations regarding the future of Namibia; secondly, that there should be supervision and control by the United Nations; thirdly, that South Africa should release all Namibian political prisoners. In their magnanimity, SWAPO and all African States directly seized of this problem have not insisted on other conditions already determined by the United Nations -namely, the withdrawal of South African troops and the predetermination of a date for independence and SO on, before a meeting could be held with South Africa. 16. But what has been South Africa’s response to these requests? An independence forecast for December.1978-of course, as Vorster’s Government put it, only “with reasonable certainty”, whatever that is supposed to mean, and an expression of, and here 1 quote again, “a firm desire to maintain South West Africa as a unit” [S//?/SO, tr~ne.r]. This, we all realize, is camouflage for the perpetration of the plan to maintain Namibia as a part of the South African commonwealth. 17. 1s this really the kind of response the Council deserves? Even South Africa’s more moderate critics have viewed this latest statement of intention as very much less than a modest step forward. 18. In the mean time, business goes on as usual in Namibia. South Africa continues to consolidate ils military presence, especially along the Caprivi Strip close to the Angolan-Zambian borders. Regular incursions are made into Zambia, as is well known to this Council. In Mal-ch 1976, the illegal administration condemned two Namibian patriots to dent11 and passed various prison sentences on others. Barely four days ago the United Nations Council for Namibia heard from MI-. Bill Anderson a report on some of the atrocities and inhuman treatment of the defenceless people of Namibia.’ 19. Another grave concern of the Government of Nigeria bears on South Africa’s militarization of Namibia, a fact well documented by Comrade Sam Nujoma in his very noble and restrained statement before the Council two days ago [/YShth 111wti~~~1. More particularly, we deplore the use of Namibia DIS a front-line position for aggression against neighbouring African countries. 21, We recognize red herrings. We Will not accept any dialogue with the racist regime of South Africa without its renouncing the policy of (/p(/l’t/~oi~/ in Namibia. We refuse to yield to any attempt to pull the waol over OUI’ eyes. The racist régime of South Africa canaot, on the one hand, prelend to contribute tawards a settlement in Zimbabwe while, on the other hand, it ignores the realities of Namibia and continues to consolidate its r~p~rrthcitl system in that Territory, which it continues to occupy illegally. 26. The deadline of 31 August this year given for South Africa to comply with resolution 385 (1976) is past. The response of the Pretoria régime-through the mockery of a constitutional conference in Windhoek-is an insult to the international community. It is not worth commenting on here, as we all know the facts already. We must now move forward in the spirit of resolution 385 (1976), in the absence of any indications of Pretoria’s wish to respond to the demands of the Council. 22, While we debate Namibia here, bantustanization, the apogee of theql(/1’t/rtJil/ system, continues unabated in South Africa and in Namibia. Six to seven million blacks have already been forcibly moved from their normal abodes into 200 scattereed locations in South Africa that Will be constituted into about eight Bantustan states. Nineteen million owners of the land Will in this process lose their citizenship to about 3.5 million whites and Will be settled in 13 per cent of the land. We must not allow our attention to be diverted from these realities of the situation in southern Africa. 27. In this connexion, we believe it is time to consider introducing mandatory sanctions against South Africa. In addition, in the face of the escalation of the state of war in southern Africa, Nigeria totally endorses the view universally held in the United Nations that the situation in Namibia constitutes a threat to international peace and security and that the Security Council must exercise all its responsibilities in this regard within the framework of Chapter VII of the Charter. 23. While we deliberate here, we are certain that many more innocent children are meeting their death at the hands of well-trained but unfortunately bigoted so-called officers of the Iaw in South Africa. 28. We on our part are determined to give every possible support to SWAPO in its heroic struggle to exercise its right to self-determination and to achieve genuine independence. On this, there cannot, and never Will, be a compromise. 24. 1 cannot end this statement without recognizing the dL;nrn~*k~.s undertaken by certain Western commaaities, particularly by the United States Secretary af State, MI-. Henry Rissinger. As 1 stated earlier, aad on the basis of experience SO far, my Government bas no confidence in any dialogue with Vorster, Rawever, it is not my intention to prejudge any diplomatie initiative taken by any Government in the Pursuit of its own national policies and interests. We wacld wish to see these bilateral initiatives falling within the ambit of United Nations resolutions and not leading to the emasculation of United Nations authoritY and prestige. Put simply, my Government will support such initiatives only as long as they reiaforce the resolutions and decisions of this international forum and do not go back on them. We wait to be Proved right or wrong.

Before calling on the next speaker, 1 would like, on behalf of the Council, to welcome the presence at the Council table of thd Foreign Ministers of Japan and Guyana, 30. The next speaker is the representative of the Yemen Arab Republic, whom 1 invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure and it is a great honour to extend to you, on behalf of my delegation and on behalf of the Arab Group, which my country, Yemen, has the great honour of representing as Chairman for the month of September, my warmest congratulations on the assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of September. 1 should like to tel1 you how proud the Arab Group feels at seeing you presiding over the Council at this very difficult time. 2s* As We see it, the Securjty Council js faced with an iaescapable challenge to its authority, and must act to discharge its solemn obligation to the people of 32. In resolution 385 (1976), the Council voted unanimously to condemn the continued illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia by South Africa. It condemned the illegal and arbitrary application by South Africa of racially discriminatory and repressive laws and practices in Namibia. It condemned the South African military build-up in Namibia, and the utilization of the Territory as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries. The Council demanded that South Africa withdraw its illegal administration from the Namibian Territory, transfer power to the people of Namibia under the auspices of the United Nations, and put an end to its policy of bantustans and socalled homelands. The Council resolution, likewise, called for free elections in Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations, and demanded that South Africa comply fully with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; release all Narpibian political prisoners; and accord unconditionally to ail Namibians currently in exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or imprisonment. 33. None of those demands has been met SO far. On the contrary, the racist régime of South Africa bas manipulated all its power to remain in Namibia, despite the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and despite its condemnation by the world community. 34. The military buildup of the South African racist régime in Namibia and the eternal tribal talks in Windhoek, which are intended only to divide Namibia into many tribals States under hand-picked tribal puppets, are new manifestations of the real intention of the Pretoria régime to perpetuate its occupation of Namibia. 35. The text of the statement issued on 18 August by the so-called ConstitlJtional Committee of the South West African Constitutional Conference in Windhoek [S//Z/SO, CIIIIIPX] reaffirmed the declaration of intent whereby December 1978 could be fixed as the date of independence for Namibia. That statement made no mention of SWAPO as the sole representative of the Namibian people, and did not even approach the requirements for genuine self-determination based on free elections under United Nations supervision and control. 36. It is therefore essential that the Council, with a view to implementing its resolutions, take the necessary measures provided by the United Nations Charter. The delegation of Yemen, on behalf of the 37. We listened very carefully this morning to the statement made in the General Assembly by Mr. Kissinger, the United States Secretary of Stateaz The Arab Group welcomes all sincere and genuine initiatives towards attaining the self-determination and independence of Namibia. The South African régime Will never heed the appeal of mankind unless it is denied the collaboration of some States which give it a false sense of security. Being God’s most intelligent but not noblest creature, man, throughout his long history, has been mentally occupied with his instinctive behaviour, the domination and subjugation of other species, as well as his own. It is only through an Organization like this, and through the implementation of its aims and Princip]es, that man cari establish and enjoy a world order of genuine peace based on equity, justice and human dignity.

Mr. President, may 1 say first of all how pleased 1 am to address the Council at a time when you are President for the month of September. Your guidance of our deliberations based on your vast experience Will, 1 feel sure, be an asset in relation to the present item on the agenda. May 1 also be permitted to thank your predecessor, Ambassador Abe of Japan, for the able manner in which he presided over the Council’s deliberations during the month of August. 39. There is no continent on the globe where there are two internationally condemned illegal régimes, no continent, that is, except Africa. This CounEil today is faced with one of the most blatant examples of disregard for internationally accepted opinion since the end of the Second World War. Despite our manY resolutions and our many exhortations, the illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist minority régime in South Africa continues. African nationalism bas won outstanding victories in the last decade, and now has successfully reached the Cunene and the Limpopo. There has been a contraction of the boundaries of the racists. The valiant people of Namibia and Azania have become the front line of resistance to crprrrlhcid. The catalogue of oppression in Namibia is cruel and long. We have corne to the point where the wcurtkampts in South Africa consider the land to be their Sudetenland and where the grandfather of the late Hermann Goering decimated the Herero tribe and reduced its members from 85,000 to 15,000 in one savage campaign. The victims of the raging on the continent of Africa are not limited to its present-daY inhabitants. The assault on freedom on the continent of Africa is the concern of lovers of freedofl everywhere. 44. Speaking before the Council on Tuesday, 28 ,September [1956th mvtirr,y], the President of SWAPO, Comrade Sam Nujoma, reaftïrmed the very reasonable conditions under which the liberation movement is prepared to negotiate the future of Namibia. SWAPO is willing to talk with South Africa on the transfer of power in Namibia. SWAPO insists that these talks must be held under the auspices of the United Nations. SWAPO demands that Namibian political prisoners languishing in the fascist torture cells must be released before any discussions cari be initiated. And finally, SWAPO demands the commitment that the armed forces of South Africa be withdrawn from the illegally occupied international Territory of Namibia. The Guyana delegation endorses and supports these demands made on behalf of the Namibian people by SWAPO. 41, In January 1976, the Council adopted resolutien 385 (1976), which resolved, inter uliu, that South Africa should end forthwith its policy of bantustans; release aIl Namibian political prisoners, including a11 those imprisoned OI detained in connexion with effeaces under so-called security laws; abolish the application of racially discriminatory and politically repressive Iaws and practices, and accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in exile fat poktical reasons full facilities for return to their country without any attendant risk of detention, arrest, intimidation or imprisonment. Above ah, we decided to remain seized of the matter and to meet on or before 31 August 1976 in order to review South Africa’s compliance with the terms of that resolution and to consider appropriate measures under the Charter, should intransigence and obduracy continue. 45. It is in this context that Guyana sees a potential in the recent efforts of the Secretary of State of the United States to prevent a bloodbath in southern Africa and to enlist in the interests of justice and freedom the possibility of an acceptable negotiated solution. We, however, recognize that when dealing with an intransigent tyrant, the use of the sword bas often induced a climate favourable to negotiation. The tragedy in southern Africa is that the racists. have never yielded an inch or an eh without a considerable expenditure in blood. We in Guyana have no confidence that any dialogue with Vorstei would reach a tneaningful result. Past experience has led us to this position of bitterness. My delegation hopes that the alternative option under the Lusaka Manifesto, reaffirmed at Dar-es-Salaam in 1975, might yet not be fully exercised. No right-thinking person wishes to pursue violence for its own sake. However, very littie time remains. It may well be that the period for debate is closed and that we have renched the stage where, as Thomas Paine noted in 1776, “arms, as the last resource, decide the contest”. 42. In the mean time, the racists in Pretoria continued a posture of constitutional advance in a socalled conference at Turnhalle. This slim gesture to international pressure has been rightly condemned not only by SWAPO, the legitimate representative of the people of Namibia, not only by the United Nations Council for Namibia, but also by all those States which hold dear the right of the Namibian people to pursue its destiny as a free people in a unitary State. Thus, this Council’s modest and reasonable ProPosaIs for action on the part of the illegal occupiez &rd trespasser have been met with non-compliance, non-co-operation and arrog:mt contempt. 43, The South African intentions in Namibia have the merit of being constant and determined. In 1964, the Odendaal Commission” recommended the division of Namibia into bantustans based on the concepts of ethaicity which dictate the perceptions of Pretoria. From this they have never varied, they have nevei wavered, and their recent activities nt Turnhalle are based on this assumption. With deliberate design, they bave, however, also held that the Caprivi Strip must sot he responsible to the authorities in Windhoek but must he directly responsible to the Government in Pretoria. This, of course, puts a premium on militarism krnd betrays the intention to remain a permanent threat t” Pe:rce in the area. My delegation bas never been strtisfied with the /X)/I~/ fr,/rs of the South African régime in its alleged attempts at co-operation for a sokJtion in Namibia. At a momentous meeting at Lusaka in 1969, a strategy was outlined for the 46. The Council must now maximize its use of the little time that, as 1 said, remains. It must crown its efforts, made over long years on behalf of the people of Namibie, by endorsing the recommendations. put forward by SWAPO and applying those provisions of the Charter which would make a reality of those proposaIs. The disadvantaged people of Namibia cari hardIy wait any longer. That is our task; those are our obligations. 47. Guyana believes that liberty has no substitute and that freedom has no frontier. We are committed to making our contribution in the Council. It is a commitment that we are taking very seriously, and we are very honoured and pleased to be able to take part in this debate today.

Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. We are convinced that your persona1 abilities and talents have been and Will be a great asset for the Council in discharging its duties. Allow me also to express our thanks, through you, to all the members of the Council for having made it possible for us to present Egypt’s position on the very important question which is now before the Council. 50. The Council is meeting once again to considel the question of Namibia. The purpose of its meeting this time is to review South Africa’s compliance with the terms of resolution 385 (1976), which was unanimously adopted at the end of the Council’s debate on Namibia in January 1976. The terms of that resolution are well known to all of us; it is equally well known to everyone around this table whether the racist régime of South Africa has in fact complied with any of those terms. SI. But before going into’ the provisions of that resolution, one may wonder whether it was realistic to cherish any hope and expect from the racist régime of South Africa any degree of compliance with a Council resolution. The first response from the South African régime was quite significant in that respect and was evident from the outset in the debate preceding the adoption of the resolution. lt was contained in a letter from the representative of South Africa to the Secretary-General, dated 27 January [S/llY48 lf/l(/ Add./]. With the Council’s permission, l should like to quote from that letter. 52. On the issues of law, the letter stated: “It is conveniently forgotten that there is no legally binding instrument or determination giving the United Nations a right of supervision of the administration over the Territory. Nor is there any legaily binding decision giving the General Assembly or the Security Council the right to impose its Will on the administration of the Territory or on the peoples of the Territory. Neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council cari arrogate to themselves such a power.” 53. With regard to United Nations supervision, the South African letter stated: “The South African Government does not recognize and has never recognized any right on the part of the United Nations to supervise the affairs of the Territory. Moreover, the Government cannot be expected to agree to United NationS supervision of any electoral process as long as the majority of Members of the United Nations continue for theit 54. With reference to South Africa’s attitude to positions taken by the Unired Nations, the South African letter stated: “On the question of South Africa’s withdrawal from the Territory according to the wishes of the inhabitants, my Prime Minister stated: ‘We do not occupy the Territory. We are there because the peoples of the Territory want us there. We do not force ourselves upon the peoples of the Territory and in this regard we take cognizance only of the wishes of the peoples of South West Africa.’ ” 55. In other parts of that letter the representative of the ~rptr~h~~itl régime had the audacity to boast that South Africa had never been a colonial Power. 56. That was the response of the racist régime of South Africa to the Council’s debate on Namibia in January 1976. It was crystal clear that South Africa had no intention whatsoever of changing its longstanding policy of challenging the United Nations and fiouting its resolutions. 57. What was the response of the racist régime of South Africa to resolution 385 (l976)? It was a statement dated 18 August 1976 [S//Z/SO, ~~II/Io.Y], published at Windhoek by the so-called Constitutional Conference, calling for the establishment of a puppet régime in Namibia under the guise of a new constitution and for a fake independence by the end of 1978. 58. No one was fooled by that thinly veiled trick aimed at getting around clear and unequivocal United Nations decisions and conditions for the genuine liberation and inde’pendence of Namibia. The SOcalled proposals of the trptrrtlwid régime were rejected by the African and non-aligned countries, and by the United Nations Council for Namibia. In the introduction to his report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General has stated the following in connexion with those so-called proposals: “1 feel obliged. to say... that it is a matter of regret that these proposals fall far short of the essential conditions stipulated by the United Nations and do not, therefore, constitute an adequate response to the needs of the situation. At this late hour it is essential that South Africa co-operate fully with the United Nations in resolving this matter to the satisfaction of the people of Namibia and of the international community.“” 59. If there is still need to review the developments during the last nine months as to the compliance of the racist régime of South Africa with the provisions of resolution 385 (1976). it is no secret to anybody 64. 1 should like to conclude my statement by quoting from the speech delivered by President Sadat at the Conference I have just mentioned: “The second case is that of the struggle of the African people against the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia. Certainly the escalating struggle of the ,brotherly African people which are carrying the burden of direct confrontation with these terrorist-racist régimes should be met with a definite commitment on our side to support the right of our brothers in those territories to a decent free life. Unless the aggressors feel that the non-aligned coontries’ denunciation of their attitude Will be translated into action and political and military measures, they Will think that they cari continue with their aggression without having to pay the price for it,” 60. South Africa is still going on with its sinistei plan aimed at dismantling the unity of the people of Namibia and breaking up the territorial integrity of Namibia through the sa-called constitutional talks, where it dreanis of using its puppets as a caver to perpetuate its domination over the Territory of Namibia.

The next speaker is the representative of Algeria. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 61. The Security Council’s inability to take effective measures up till now against the racist régime of South Africa bas encourage& and Will no doubt encourage, that régime to continue its oppression of the people of Namibia, and therefore Will prolong the suffering of the Namibian people in their struggle for freedom. In such circumstances the struggle of the African people in Namibia Will continue under the leadership of SWAPO, the authentic liberation movement of the Namibian people. Their struggle Will continue until they achieve their freedom and get rid of the illegal occupation of the aptrrtheitl régime and attain théir rightful independence,

1 should like first of all to express my pleasure and that of my delegation at seeing you, Mr. President, presiding over the meetings of the Council at a time when, once again, it is dealing with the question of Namibia. It was particularly fitting thal this debate, which is of such importance to the African countries, should be opened under the guidance of one of the representatives of Africa in the Council. But in our view it is more significant that it is precisely a representative of northern Africa who is presiding over a debate on a problem of southern Africa, Of course, this is simply a reflection of a reality which cari no longer be disregarded, namely, the mobilization of all African countries in a struggle which is of paramount concern to the future and the destiny of their peoples. In that struggle, we are familiar with the role played by the Libyan Arab Republic and the active support which it unswervingly gives to ah liberation movements on our continent. You yourself, Mr. President, have participated in that support, and the honour conferred on you of guiding this debate is a just tribute to the militant of the past as well as to the politician and diplomat of the present. 62, Egypt, as an African country and as a member of the non-aligned movement, bas always wholeheartedly supported, and Will continue to support, the heroic struggle of the Namibian people to achieve their inalienable right to self-determination and iadependence. 63. ‘fhe area has become an acute hot-bed of tension and a real threat to peace in the African continent and it is the duty of the Security Council, as the Organ entrusted with the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, to act accordingly. TheCouncil should go beyond the simple condemnatien ef the racist régime of South Africa, which has acciJmulated a’ shameful record of condemnations reminiscent only of Israel the racist régime’s ally and ‘“PPorter. The Council should act in a responsible mannerby imposing effective sanctions on that international recidivist, 1 should like to refer here to the resolution adopted by the Summit Conference of the 67. The problem of Namibia is one of the problems which have for SO long recurred on the agenda of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, that we are justified in feeling that its elements are no longer a mystery to anyone. In fact, the evolution of this question is SO well known and there is such 68. The Council, through its decisions and within the framework of its responsibilities towards the people of Namibia, has not failed on many occasions to explain its threefold concern: to safeguard the territorial integrity of Namibia, which must be restered to its people in its totality; to protect the political unity of Namibia by refusing any measure aimed at leading to a parcelling out of Namibia, especially through the creation of bantustans; and, finally, to oppose any extension in Namibia of the trprr~thei~l régime which the long-standing administration of South Africa might be tempted to establish there. 69. South Africa’s resistance to complying with decisions as universally approved as these does not suffice to explain the persistence of this problem and the difficulties which have for many years been preventing the implementation of a solution. 70. It must be acknowledged that, for better or for worse, the problem of Namibia is part and parce1 of the situation throughout southern Africa and, in particular, of the situation in Rhodesia and also of the ,. persistence in South Africa of a system based on trpartheid and determined to ensure its survival if need be against all the rest of Africa. The maintenance of Namibia under the control of South Africa is part of the defence strategy of the Pretoria régime, just as is the consolidation of a white racist minority régime in Rhodesia. Any solution of the question of Namibia necessarily has implications with regard both to the situation in Rhodesia and to the capacity for resistance of the rrpcrrrlz~id system. Inversely, it is impossible seriously to consider a solution of the Namibian problem while ignoring thls context, in which all these questions are placed and SO closely,related. This has become particularly obvious lately, but 1 am taking great pains to stress it precisely in order to refute the reasoning that might be put forward by some according to which, going from the simple to the more complex, it would be useful to consider the different questions separately and temporarily to set some of them aside in order to achieve success in others. This would no doubt be recognizing the components of a situation which is certainly extremely complex, but it would also be disregarding their effects on each other, which condition their combined development. 72. This analysis would be very naive if it did not also make mention, among the elements which add to the complexity of the question of Namibia, those which are based on considerations or interests of a strategic, political, economic or commercial nature and which introduce extra-African factors in to any future development of the situation. We do not want to recall once again the links which exist between South Africa and the great Western Powers and which have undeniably contributed to maintaining the trpor’fheitl régime. We have learned to our cost that international relations are determined by a balance of interests perhaps even more than by a balance of forces. Therefore, it should no longer be necessary for us to wonder about the intentions underlying political attitudes, but we cari no longer be fooled by them, 73. The international situation has never been SO favourable to a solution-so long awaited-to the question of Namibia. That is no doubt a result of the struggle of the people of Namibia themselves, who, under the leadership of SWAPO, have shown their determination to regain their freedom and take their fate into their own hands. It is clear also that the problem of Namibia is now in an entirely new context because of the liberation of the former Portuguese colonies, because of the progress in the struggle of the Africans in Zimbabwe and, finally, because of the revolutionary movement against rrp«rtheiti now developing in South Africa. The situation in southern Africa as a whole obviously poses genuine threats to pence in that region and in the world, because it bas developed to a point where it could bring into plaY factors that are much more important to the international balance. The very interests that have bec? linked to the survival of apru~thAd and the strengthening of the Pretoria régime are now being shaken bY the deep changes that are on the horizon, changes which are gaining more and more momentum. 74. SO it is not just by chance that the problems Of southern Africa are now at the forefront of international concerns. We are following with attention and 78. The situation developing in southern Africa.and the various diplomatie activities undertaken there cannot, in our opinion, change the significance of this debate. On the contrary, it is through the Council’s decisions, through the measures it Will take, that it Will be possible to ensure the success of these initiatives, to keep them directed towards the genuine purposes they should pursue and to see to it that they take into consideration all the elements of a complex situation, a situation that it would be dangerous to approach only through some of its parts. designed only to obtain an additional respite for the l~~d~eid régime or to delay the time-limit which Pretoria must necessarily accept. In the last analysis it is for the Africans themselves, and above all those who are directly concerned in these questions, to see t. it that their true objectives are not sacrificed to immediate but illusory advantages. 79. It is, in fact, up to the Council to provide the central impetus towards the harmonious development of the solution of all the questions of southern Africa, and, since in the last analysis it is on the Pretoria régime that the decisions of the Council must be imposed, this debate is more necessary than ever, since it Will enable the Council to decide upon the measures it must take in exercising the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter. We therefore we urge the Council fully to assume its responsibilities. At a time when it should be more active and vigilant than ever, we expect it to use its authority and all the possibilities which Chnpter VII of the Charte1 places at its disposa1 to force the Pretoria régime finally to implement the resolutions on the solution to the Namibian problem which have been SO often reaffirmed. 75. As to Rhodesia, it appears that we are moving towards the convening of a constitutional conference that would make it possible for the African representatives and the representatives of the white minority to work out the arrangements for establishing a system ofgovernment by the majority. It may perhaps be as well to recall that this is a long-standing demand of the African countries, who made a suggestion to that effect in the Security Council itself. As the African countries requested, this conference Will be placed under the responsibility of the United Kingdom, which Will thus again assume its prerogatives as administrating Power. If my information is correct, ou1 colleague Ambassador Richard-who, fortunately, has just returned to the Council chamber-will preside at the conferencc. Thc responsibility just entrusted to him is no doubt a very heavy one, but it is an expression of the high esteem in which Ambassador Richard is helcl. This appointment is a tribute to him for the qualities that we here have had the opportunity of appreciating, and it is an honour to the United Nations diplomatie corps, 1 should like to digress a bit from the subject of this statement and cxtend to him my person::l congratulations nnd tell him how rnuch hope we place in the success of his task.

The .next speaker is, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kenya. I welcome him, and 1 invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

MI-. President, first 1 wish to thank you and the members of this Council for inviting Kenya to participate in this important debate. May 1 also express to you my delegation’s pleasure and satisfaction at seeing you, a son Of Africa, presiding over the Security Council when this body is once again taking up the question of Namibia, a country of our great continent. Libya, a country with which we bave cordial relations, has been in the forefront in the liberation of Africa. Your personal experience and skill in international matters Will Il0 doubt be invaluable in the current debate. 76, %t SUC~~~S, we are sure, will bave immediate effects in Namibia, where everything still remains to be done. There the United Nations still has full responsibility, and whatever initiatives may be tnken t0 (lefine possible solutions should not in any way &~~Se the Organisation from its obligations. We Iherefore think that the time bas corne for the United Nations Council for Namibia and the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia to play a more active role in the events now taking place, and that it is up to rhem to reaffirm their powers and their duties as representatives watching over the interests of the peoPle of Namibia. 82. Although not now a member of the COlmCil, Kenya wishes to co-operate in this debate to help the Council corne up with a concrete and, we hope, immediate solution to the vexing problem of Namibia. 33. Whcn the Council last met tu cliscuss the situnlion in N;Lmibia it unnnimously ndopted resolution 385 (1976)~ in paragraph 12 of which it decided “to 17. The purpose ol’ this series of Security Council nle%s is clear and precise. It was defined in the 84. In the view of my delegation, the Council made five demnnds on South Africa relating to the Territory of Namibia. 85. The first of these, and probably the most important, was that South Africa take steps to effect withdrawal from the Territory it has been ciccupying illegally since its Mandate was terminated in 1966. As the members of the Council and all of us know, South Africa has persistently refused to comply with this demand. lndeed, the recalcitrant behaviour of South Africa did not begin in 1966. As the Council Will remember, South Africa refused to comply with the request of the Organization to place the Territory of Namibia under the Trusteeship System that came into effect when the United Nations was established. This refusa1 and the administering Power’s persistent denial of human rights to the indigenous people of Namibia led the Organization to seek the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice. The Opinion of the Court is well known. South Africa alone disputes it. We must therefore ask ourselves whether in the interim period since the adoption of resolution 385 (1976) South Africa has taken steps that in any manne1 show the members of the Council that it is prepared to withdraw from the Territory of Namibia. In the view of my delegation it has done nothing. 86. The Council was quite clear in its demands to South Africa on how it was to prepare its withdrawal from Namibia. It demanded that South Africa urgently make a solemn declaration accepting the provisions for the holding of free elections in Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations. That was the second demand made upon South Africa. Kenya has followed the activities of South Africa relating to its responsibilities for the Territory of Namibia in the time that has elapsed since the adoption of the resolution in January, and again it is a matter of great concern and regret that we have not seen any evidence to convince us that South Africa bas made such a solemn declaration. In an attempt to confuse the international community and to continue manteuvering with a view to entrenching the supremacy of the white person in Namibia, South Africa conducted the now very much publicized so-called constitutional talks in Windhoek. But that was not what the Council demanded of South Africa. The talks, which were attended by delegates hand picked by South Africa, were, in the view of my delegation, illegal, as they were organized by South Africa, which was itself illegally occupying the Territory of Namibia. Moreover, the instructions of thc Council were that there should be elections freely 87. The third demand made on South Africa by the Council was that it immediately cesse applying its racist policies of creating bantustans or the so-called homelands in Namibia. The evidence available to us and, 1 am sure, to members of the Council is that the so-called talks had been aimed at preserving the present structure of government-namely, at keeping the indigenous people in their tribal home areas and the white population in the so-called military zone. As is well known by the Council, the legislative organ that was to emerge from those talks and, after that, from elections based on those talks, was to be based on representatives who were to corne from the homelands of the various tribes in the region. It is therefore clear that South Africa has also failed to comply with this third demand. 88. The fourth demand made in this resolution was that, pending the transfer of powers to the indigenous people, South Africa must in spirit and in practice compl)j fully with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, release all Namibian political prisoners, abolish the application in Namibia of all racially discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices, and unconditionally accord to all Namibians currently in exile for political reasons ftlll facilities for return to their country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or imprisonment. As is well known, not only did South Africa bar the return of the exiles-in this case, the true representative of the Namibian people, namely, SWAPO-but it continued to harrass and arrest those people who in any manner disagreed with the South African authorities in the conduct of t’he so-called constitutional talks or opposed the continuing occupation of their land. 89. The last demand that was made on South Africa was that it cesse to make Namibia a military base. We had occasion to condemn South Africa for using Namibia as a military base to attack the independent Republic of Angola. South Africa came to the Council ami tried to defend its position, which was, of course, rejected. It is a matter of great concern to us that even after the Council condemned the behaviouï of South Africa in relation to its use of Namibia to attack Angola, South Africa has seen fit to use lbat same Territory as a military base to attack anothet independent African State, namely, Zambia. And Council debated, not too long ago-in July-the Zambian complaint against South Africa. 90. SO to sum it up, in the view of my delegation, there is no doubt that South Africa completely defiel] the supreme organ of the United Nations-namelY, 97. We have stated on many occasions that the defiance by South Africa of the opinion of the in,ternational corrimunity is eroding the authority of the United Nations and, if allowed to continue, will constitute a dangerous precedent. Article 25 of the Charter obliges all Member States to comply with the decisions of the Council. We would therefore urge that all countries should refrain from ,placing short-term economic interests above human dignity and the ideals of the Organization. 1 am confident that the Council Will discharge its obligations and demand that South Africa fully comply with its demands. And 1 want to observe in conclusion that any intransigent Members like South Africa ought to be expelled from the United Nations. 91, As I hope 1 have clearly shown, South Africa h;ls net complied with the letter of the spirit of the dcmands made by the Council in January of this year. My delegation would therefore like to make the following proposals fol the consideration of the Council on the next steps that should be taken: 92, First, South Africa should, without delay, recognize the authentic representatives of the Namibian people-namely, SWAPO-and enter into negotiations with that organization, with a view to convening a proper constitutional conference under the auspices of the United Nations. SWAPO, being the authentic representative of the Namibian people, should not just be invited to that conference, il should be involved in its preparation. Indeed, SWAPO would act as thc chief political party to cal1 on all the olher small parties to close ranks SO as to present a united platform during the conference.

The last speaker is the representative of Mauritius, whom 1 invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

1 am happy to report that I have received from Mr. Scranton, the representative of the United States, a letter in which, after consultations with Mr. Kissinger, he has replied to the questions I raised here on Tuesday [/95&/? n?r~/il~gj. The letter has been distributed as an officia1 document of the Council [S//2206]. 100. 1 wish publicly to thank Mr, Scranton and the delegation of the United States for having provided me with civil answers to my civil questions. 1 consider that the exercise of raising those preliminary questions at an earlier stage of the debate has been constructive ancl useful. I shall be commenting on those replies at a later stage, and 1 am sure that all members who Will bti participating in the Council debate on the question of Namibia Will bear in mind and take into consideration the replies that have been provided to US by Mr. Scranton. 93. Secondly, the United Nations should, we feel, consider sending a buffer force to Namibia to protect the interests of the Africans, as well as to establish ils presence in the Territory. We feel that this force could be used to help supervise the organization and conduct of the elections. 94. Thirdly, if South Africa refuses to comply with the fïrst proposal-which, in the view of my delega- [ion, would lead to a peaceful transfer of powerthen it is incumbent on the CounciI to recommend economic and other measures of compulsion that Will oblige South Africa to comply with its decisions. Such measures should include a complete embargo on the sale, gift or transfer of arms and other forms of militarY equipment to South Africa. It should also include the cutting off of all economic tics with South *frica. This perhaps would be difficult, but it is a matter that the Council should consider.

The representative of Saudi Arabia has requested to be allowed to speak. Accordingly, 1 shall ask him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 102, Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia): MI-. President, it is superfluous for me to congratulate YOU on assuming the responsibility of the presidency, because I have known you for many years, and, as they say in Arabie, my testimony about YOU will not hold UP in court because of mY affection for your person, aside from your position as the representative of Libya. y& And, finally, we would cal1 on all States to give material and moral support to SWAPO in order for it t” wage an .intensive armed struggle to evict South Africa from Nàmibia. 103. 1 bave personally been seized of mandates since 1922, 54 Years ago, and 1 shall not go into tbe %* Before concluding my statement, I should like to takethis opportunity, on behalfof my Government, to 105. Then a representative, whose nationality I do not want to mention, came up with the idea of the United Nations Council for Namibia. He played on the sentiments of our African brothers and they turned their backs on me and settled for the Council for Namibia. Then I warned South Africa, here and in the Assembly, that it would be just a question of several years before the struggle would begin and then South Africa would have to accede to the demands of the people of South West Africa, otherwise known as Namibia. 106. Now, if we are going to air our views without getting a practicable solution, then I believe that things may take a turn for the worse. May I humbly give you an idea, now that I have spoken with several persons and with my good friend the United Nations High Commissioner for Namibia, an illustrious gentleman. I am convinced that there is a way to accelerate the liberation of South West Africa, otherwise known as Namibia, without further conflict, provided that both parties are willing to collaborate, and when I say bolh parties I mean the Government of South Africa and SWAPO, the representative of Namibia. 107, Succinctly, I would suggest that the Secretary- General preside over an initial meeting between Mr. Vorster, if he wishes, and whomever he wants to accompany him from among the African friends of South Africa, They would form one party. SWAP0 would form the other party. That would be an initial, practical and practicable step: otherwise, negotiations will be protracted and the whole affair will get out Of Ihe hands of the Security Council and of the General Assembly if we meet again on this question. There should be a meeting between Mr. Vorster, or his representative, and SWAP0 representatives, under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General, with oUI friend Mr, MacBride assisting and serving as catalyst. 109. I do not say that those Africans who may accompany Mr. Vorster should riot have a voice; they should have a full voice. But, really, had there been no SWAPO, the Mandate would have continued fol another 50 years. Therefore, there are two parties. Mr. Vorster, if we may say so, and SWAPO-and Mr. Vorster is free to bring with him any Africans who would like to co-operate with him and with SWAPO. The alternative will be protracted Council meetings, leading to nothing, and then innocent people will lose their lives. That is one thing we do not want to see. 1 IO. I am also in favour of two interested parties who are not in the area lending their good offices though not as Governments. They should choose from among their nationals representatives who are known for their integrity to work out a constitution. Somebody suggested that gentleman who is a tower of strength, Mr. Ivor Richard. I think he would contribute greatly because of his integrity. I would not know who the Americans have of equal status with Ambassador Richard. I mean that; I am talking seriously. We have known Ambassador Richard for only a short time but he has gained our confidence. I do not say our American friends have not gained our confidence, but this is an election year and I do not who might be appointed. That is a practicable solution: otherwise, again, again and again we shall be bogged down in interminable bitter debates which may finally end in a protracted struggle. I Il. To sum up, therefore, may I, as an old-timer-I am not a member of the inner circle, I am on the edge of the circle-, ask you to consider seriously what I have told you from my humble experience with mandates and those who operate them, and to ‘follow a line that, I hope, may lead to a practical and practicable solution. 112. I thank you, Mr. President, and the other members of the Council for having afforded me the opportunity to speak again on this subject, in the hope that a draft resolution incorporating some of those ideas will emerge. I 13. The PRESIDENT: The list of speakers has no%’ been exhausted, but, before I adjourn the meet&% I should like, in my capacity as.representtitive of the LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC, to take this opportunity 114, When 1 spoke for the first time in the Council, in January of this year, I said: “We corne to the Security Council without any pretensions. We know that the Libyan Arab Republic is a small, developing country. History teaches us, however, that small nations cari and must play a very important role in international politics and within the Organization. Especially now, in the so-called era of détente, they cari play their role and influence events individually or collectively, in spite of the fact that they are threatened, pressed and blackmailed by some big Powers.” [187Oth nmting, pa/n. 13 I t ] 115. We know that not everyone welcomed OUI election to the Council or our assumption of the presidency for this month. The biased mass media, the evil forces of zionism and of imperialism attacked Libya on the occasion of our assumption of the presidency of the Council. But we are sure that the support th$ we enjoyed from members of the Coimcil and from the membership of the United Nations on our election is proof that the pretensions and accusations of these forces of evil were not true. 117. 1 have just mentioned Ambassador Saint-Lot, a great man from Haiti, who passed away some days ago. On this occasion 1 offer my condolences to his nation and his family on behalf of the grateful people of Libya. 116. Also, when 1 spoke about the role of small nations in history and in our Organizalion, 1 said that because we Libyans have learned from our own experience. In 1949, our cause wus brought before the United Nations. There was an agreement between some European Powers to delay the independence and unity of Libya. The decision passed through the Fiyst Committee. When it arrived before the General