S/PV.2097 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2092nd meeting, I invite the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and the delegation of the Council to be seated at the Council table. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/2097/Rev.l) At the invitation of the President, Miss Konie (President of the United Nations Council for Namibia) and the other members of the delegation took places at the Council table. 1. Adoption of the agenda 2. The situation in Namibia: (a) Report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to paragraph 7 of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) (S/12903); (b) Letter dated 24 October 1978 from the Permanent Representative of Burundi to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/l 2906)

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2092nd meeting, I invite Mr. Curirab to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Gurirab (Permanent Observer of the South West Africa People’s Grganization) took a place at the Council table.

Members of the Council have before them the following documents: S/12922, containing the text of a draft resolution submitted by Gabon, India, Kuwait and Nigeria, and S/12916, containing the text of a letter dated 7 November from the representative of Mongolia to the Secretary-General, The meeting was called to order at 5 p. m Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in Namibia: (a) Report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to paragraph 7 of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) (S/12963); (6) Letter dated 24 October 1978 from the Permanent Representative of Burundi to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/12906)

Permit me first of all to congratulate you, Mr. President, upon your assump tion of the important and responsible post of President of the Security Council for this month, when the Council is considering the important and timely problem of ensuring the right to self-determination and independence of one more African people fighting for its liberation. I should also like to express my gratitude to your predecessor in the post of President, the representative of France, Mr. Leprette, who so skilfully and with such consistency conducted the proceedings of the Council in October.

In accordance with the decisions taken at previous meetings of the Council, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Guyana, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yugoslavia and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. 6. The question of the situation in Namibia has been discussed a number of times in the Security Council. However, it would be no exaggeration to say that at the present time consideration of this question has now entered a decisive phase. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Bouayad-Agha (Algeria), Mr. Huq (Bangladesh), Mr. Houngavou (Benin), Mr. Simbananiye (Burundi), Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba), Mr. Abdd Meguid (Egypt), Mr. Boaten (Ghana), Mr. Sinclair (Guyana), Mr. Lobo (Mozambique), Mr. Baroody (Saudi Arabia) Mr. Hussen (Somalia), 7. The people of Namibia have experienced some very gruelling ordeals. A mighty wave of the national kberation movement has rolled across the African continent and 8. In recent years the national liberation struggle of the people of Namibia has achieved considerable success. That sturggle has been headed by the true patriots of Namibia, who are members of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), which enjoys considerable authority both inside the country and well beyond its confines, and has earned the well-deserved recognition from the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations as the sole and genuine representative of the people of Namibia. SWAP0 consistently defends the interests of the Namibian people in their valorous struggle against the South African occupiers and represents them in the international arena. The success of the national liberation struggle of the Nambian people under the leadership of SWAP0 has compelled the authorities of South Africa and their protectors in the West to look for new ways of preserving colonial domination in Namibia for the purpose of continuing their inhumane explbitation of the indigenous population and of the natural resources of that country. 12. Apparently the Pretoria authorities in their talks with the Western Powers have never considered seriously the question of granting independence to Namibia. Clearly they have been counting on the understanding and sympathy of their partners in the “dialogue”. Typically, the Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. Botha, in his statement to the Foreign Ministers of the five Western Powers stated: “The ideals for which the West stands-and I refer especially to those democratic principles of individual and political freedom-are as dear to us in South Africa as they are to YOU.” [S/12900, annex I.] It would appear, therefore, no accident that the South African racist wanted to stress what the racist system of apartheid had in common with the Western world. One and one-half years of talks and manoeuvring around the Western plan for a Namibian settlement have allowed the South African authorities to gain the time necessary for them to prepare and to put into effect their neo-colonialist solution to the Namibian problem-the holding of rigged elections for the purpose of establishing a puppet Government. 9. About three years ago the Security Council adopted unanimously resolution 385 (1976), which provides for enabling the people of Namibia freely to determine their own future by means of free elections throughout Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations. It would appear that the Council enjoys under the Charter the necessary powers to put into effect that decision which it adopted. However, the Western Powers ,members of the Council, although they supported the decision to hold elections in Namibia under the control of the United Nations, in fact have not evinced any serious intention of using the means at their disposal to oblige the Pretoria authorities to put into practice that decision. On various pretexts they have for a considerable period of time been holding up the implementation of resolution 385 (197(j), and have not permitted the Council to take effective measures against the Pretoria r6gime. 13. Now, when the time has come for taking stock of the policy of the new approach to African problems, clearly this policy has led to the most unfavourable consequences for the people of Namibia. In essence, it has served as camouflage for the preparation by the South African authorities of an “internal settlement” in Namibia, the true purpose of which is the preservation of the old system of colonial and racist domination by South Africa under the renewed neo-colonialist label. 14. It is true that the authors of this highly publicized plan of the five Western Powers have asserted that they wanted to avert the holding of these sham elections but were unable to do so. However, who is now hindering or has been hindering them from making use of the existing possibitities of applying sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter to impede this dangerous development of events? 10. Various kinds of plans have appeared designed, we are told, to prevail upon the Pretoria rdgime to agree to the voluntary transfer of power to the people of Namibia. At the same time, in the Security Council and outside it, we have heard various statements about the beginning of a “new policy” toward African problems, about the intention to take into account the interests and aspirations of the African peoples if they for their part demonstrate a 15. No one should be misled by statements to the effect that it would be possible to carry out free elections in Namibia under United Nations control even after the 16. The prospect of the further development of events in Namibia has been clearly shown in the telegram of 23 October from the President of SWAPO, Sam Nujoma, to the SecretalyGeneral, which States: “It is clear in the mind of every Namibian patriot that the Pretoria rCgime intends to create a puppet regime in Namibia through bogus elections in December; such a regime will certainly be manipulated and controlled from Pretoria. There is no doubt that such a puppet regime would ask South Africa to maintain in Namibia its repressive armed forces to continue to suppress the Namibian people’s resistance against oppression, foreign domination and exploitation. . . . The United Nations should not allow itself to be used by the Pretoria racist rigime to legitimize its evil intentions and illegal acts to impose a neo-colonial solution against the interests of the Namibian people.“/S/12913, annex.] 17. We all know what the “internal settlement” in Rhodesia led to. Initially the Western Powers assured us that they would have nothing to do with the illegal regime at Salisbury. But six months went by and the doors of Washington were thrown open to the rebel Ian Smith, and he began to dictate his demands while his troops were carrying out aggressive attacks on neighbouring African States. We should not doubt that the implementation of a settlement in Namibia along the lines planned would considerably complicate the task of ensuring the genuine independence of that country and would cause a serious exacerbation of the situation throughout the region. 18. Many representatives have pointed out quite rightly that the present situation in southern Africa is fraught with the most serious danger to international peace and security. As was stressed, for example, by the representative of Mauritius [209,&d meeting], we have witnessed the beginning of a permanent war in southern Africa which will inevitably spread to other parts of the continent. The other day the Government of Angola drew the attention of Member States (s/12917/ to the new aggressive plans of the Pretoria rigime which intends to use the Territory of Namibia to attack Angola in order to prevent that country from moving towards social reforms. It is clear that those who oppose the adoption by the Security Council of effective measures to avert this threat are acting in a way detrimental to the interests of African peoples and the strengthening of peace in Africa and throughout the world. 19. We fail to understand how in the circumstances it iS possible to favour the holding of any further consultations with the South African authorities and to expect that they will see reason and voluntarily agree to grant Namibia genuine independence after so many years of stubborn refusal to do so. Can we seriously place any hope in the idea that talks between the South African authorities and 20. We are logically compelled to the conclusion that all the talk about new efforts are designed solely to delay matters and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli. Surely there is an already prepared scenario whereby the South African authorities, after holding their sham elections in Namibia and setting up a puppet government there, will then be able to state that henceforth the Security Council will have to deal, not with South Africa, but with a so-called independent Namibia and its so-called sovereign government. And would not the head of that puppet government receive an invitation to visit Washington, just as quite recently Smith was invited there? 21. It is clear to all that the time for persuasion has passed and that the moment has now come for decisive and effective action. The overwhelming majority of speakers in the Security Council have expressed themselves in favour of the immediate application of sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter because of its refusal to comply with the binding decisions of the Council on the granting of independence to Namibia. The Soviet delegation supports that proposal and is in favour of immediately taking a decision on this. Statements to the effect that that proposal should not be put to the vote since it will present difficulties for certain States are, in our view, all just part of the manoeuvring designed to delay the work of the Council and win time for the holding of rigged elections in Namibia. 22. The Soviet delegation has been consistently in favour of the immediate exercise by the people of Namibia of its inalienable right to self-determination and genuine independence on the basis of respect for the unity and territorial integrity of that country. We are convinced that in order to attain that goal an end must be put to the economic and other kinds of co-operation with South Africa and that there must be established political and diplomatic isolation for the racist r&me of Pretoria. Now a decisive moment has come for the adoption in connexion with the situation in Namibia of action under Chapter VII of the Charter, and the Soviet delegation calls upon the Security Council to do its duty towards the people of Namibia and to the whole world community.

My delegation wishes to express its satisfactjon at seeing you, Sir, occupying the presidency during this month of November. Venezuela and Gabon maintain the closest co-operation and association, and we have worked together to strengthen an organization like the OrganiZatiOn of Petroleum Exporting Countries which has played and continues to play an important historical role in the new international co-operation schemes aimed at the achievement of a new international order and a new system of relations based on justice and equity. We pledge You our co-operation and wish you every success in the performance of your functions. 24. At the same time, we wish to express our gratitude to Ambassador Jacques Leprette for the effiCienCY and firm- 26. In his report the Secretary-General stated: “The Foreign Ministers of the five Governments concerned, namely Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, held discussions at Pretoria from 16 to 18 October 1978 with the Government of the Republic of South Africa in regard to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). Texts of official communications issued after these discussions have been circulated as documents S/12900 and S/12902.“[S/12903, para. IO.] In other words, South Africa’s reply is contained in those documents. It is the same reply that the Secretary-General would have received through his Special Representative had the latter journeyed to Namibia or Pretoria. For that reason my delegation does not consider a further visit by the Special Representative to be advisable, since South Africa’s reply, we repeat, is contained in that joint statement. In those circumstances the visit could well be interpreted as an acceptance of the electoral farce fabricated by South Africa. 27. South Africa’s decision to organize electoral proceedings in Namibia without United Nations supervision represents a heavy blow to and a defiance of its authority in the international Territory. Consequently, anything done in that Territory without the supervision of the United Nations as the representative of the international community must be regarded as null and void, 28. The fundamental principles which are at the very root of civiltied coexistence, and among which is to be found the principle of self-determination of peoples expressed through democratic elections, are being shamefully flouted in Namibia. This unilateral action by South Africa is but the last act in that country’s defiance of the United Nations and the culmination of successive violations for which no adequate remedies have yet been found. 29. Now we must not only apply sanctions or effective measures to punish South Africa’s insolence; now it is a question of determining whether the United Nations will abandon Namibia to its own fate or, rather, to its own misfortune. It is now a question of determining whether the United Nations is powerless to act in the face of such an affront, or whether this opportunity should be taken to strengthen its prestige and credibility. 30. When my delegation voted in favour of the plan submitted by the five Western countries members of the Security Council it did so for a number of reasons: first of 31. The premeditated deception reveals yet again the true face of the South African regime, whose arrogance has been stimulated by the courteous treatment that regime has received up to now, which almost turns leniency into compromising complicity. 32. While on earlier occasions, as in the case of resolution 418 (1977), we have adopted measures condemning South Africa’s attitude, on this occasion we believe with greater conviction than ever that we must take the exceptional measures contemplated in the Charter, because of that country’s defiant attitude of the will of the people of Namibia which endangers international peace and security. 33. The Council adopted resolution 216 (1965) condemning the unilateral declaration of independence procIaimed by a racist minority in Southern Rhodesia and imposed sanctions against that regime under resolution 253 (1968) in view of the prevailing situation in that colonial Territory, brought about by a group of rebels against the colonial Power. Namibia is an international Territory, but in the case of Southern Rhodesia it was the United Kingdom which was exercising its power over the Territory. We recall these facts because if those sanctions were applied against the Smith regime for rebelling against a single country, we faiI to understand what arguments could be used not to apply sanctions against South Africa, which has challenged and defied the whole of the international community, legally represented by the United Nations and in particular by the Security Council. 34. Finally, my delegation is ready to vote in favour of any draft resolution which embodies the elements included in our statement.

I have no other speakers on the list and I should like now in my capacity as representative of GABON to make a general statement. 36. If there is one problem which has truly aroused the concern of the international community since 1946 and given rise to the greatest number of resolutions and decisions in the United Nations, it is the question of Namibia. Yet today, while the world has awaited and continues to await a happy outcome of this thorny problem following the adoption by the Council of resolution 435 (1978), the only ideal framework combining all the elements of a peaceful settlement, the Council is compelled yet again to deal with this distressing question of Namibia. It must do so because the dynamics of peace triggered by the adoption of resolution 435 (1978) have been brutaIly brought to a halt and the effective and strict implementa- 37. In the light of this new negative and provocative attitude by Pretoria which destroys any prospects of m internationally acceptable peaceful settlement of the Namibia problem, and which once again constitutes a challenge we cannot ignore and a threat to international peace and security not only for the region but for the entire world, the five Western countries members of the Council have found nothing better to do than to change the spirit and letter of resolution 435 (1978) in the sense desired bY Pretoria in order to help it to save face, 38. In fact, the elements to be found in the joint statement of 19 October by the Government of South Africa and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the five Westem Countries [S/12900, annex IIJ create a situation so new as to turn the statement into a flagrant contradiction of the plan and explanatory statement of the Secretary- General adopted by the Council and thus binding on it. It is difficult for my delegation, therefore, to accept such proposals arrived at outside the framework laid down by resolution 435 (1978), which is the basic document for the true and effective decolonization of Namibia. In a statement. to the press, Mr. Uotha, the South ATricnn Minister for Foreign Affairs, did not fail to say that he W:IS not certain that he could convince those leaders who may be elected on 4 December. This statement is quite clear. It tends to prove that Pretoria opted in favour of an internill settlement, as happened in Zimbabwe, where the African group in power is the one most radically opposed to the organization of an expanded conference as requested by the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, Such a situation is symptomatic and indicative of what would happen were the Security Council to agree to the holding of the unilateral elections on 4 Deccmbcr, 39. My delegation believes that the five Western countries should have brought all their weight to bear in negotiating with South Africa on the ways and means of implementing the Secretary-General’s plan immediately, all the more SO since they explicitly recognized in this very chamber that the plan adopted by the Council was in keeping with their proposals. My delegation, to its great regret, is bound to note that this has been neither their approach nor their concern. 40. On the contrary, the five Western countries hastened to meet all South Africa’s demands, forgetting that they had denied SWAP0 the possibility of amending the report of the Secretary-General when it was before the Council for discussion, by arguing that any amendment to that plan would undoubtedly create a new situation likely to call everything into question. We note that this logic to which we bowed in the long run, has not been carried to its natural conclusion since what was denied SWAP0 appears to have been granted to South Africa with respect to a document that was in fact final and official. 44. South Africa at present offers no guarantee us proof of its good faith. Everything will depend on the goodwill of those who are elected. All these dilatory and fr&ulent tactics GUI therefore be seen to have but one ain1 ulld t1wt is to present us with a fait accompli, thus bypnssing the Council plan in order to enable Pretoria to elu& international pressures and extricate itself from the Namibian hornet’s nest by placing its lackeys in positions of authority while preserving its interest and privileges, So~~t1~ Africa wodd thus rebuild around its borders tile security 1)c1t which had crumbled following the collapse of tile Porluguese colonial empire in southern Africa. 41. With regard to the unilateral elections of 4 December, the avowed purpose of which is to designate local leaders, my delegation is of the opinion that the holding of such elections will undoubtedly endorse the appointment of leaders of an independent Namibia within the framework of an internal settlement which was diabolically forged long ago by the pitiful Pretoria r&me and which excludes one of the most important components in the Namibian equation, namely SWAPO. True, authorized voices have spoken out to condemn and declare null and void the elections of 4 December. These are empty condemnations to which we have become accustomed and which no longer deceive us, since it is those same voices which oppose an effective condemnation of the South African Government by United Nations bodies. 45. All these manoeuvres should destroy the last illusions of those who still believe in the good faith of Pretoria. My delegation categorically rejects these alleged internal clcctions and hopes that all members of the Council will share this position and demand that South Africa should abandon those elections. 46. In the face of all these conditions so dallgerous for international peace and security, the Security Council must face its heavy responsibilities and take another step on the sanctions ladder. It must show itself to be firm and consistent with its own resolutions, in particular resolutions 43. What is most galling is that we were not told that after 4 December those with whom the United Nations nlust dca1 would be those who are elected and that any Ch:lrlf$ in tllc legal position of Namibia would depend on their gOUc1wil1. This assertion is to bc found in paragraph 4 u,f the joint statement of 19 October, and I quote: “The South African Government will thereafter USC its best efforts to persuade them seriously to COllSider ways and means of achieving international recognition” /ibid/. 47. While renewing its support of the sacred struggle of the Namibian people for true independence, my delegation Ilopes that the five Western members of the Council, going beyond the selfish interests which have always guided them in their choice, will join their voices to those of peaceloving and justice-loving peoples in order at long last to compe1 the insipid authorities in Pretoria, who refuse even a simple dialogue, to abide by the decision of the Organization. Unless this is done, one would be tempted to believe that many of the champions of law are concerned with breaches of law only when these are committed by their adversaries. 48. Mr. 3AIPAL (India’): On behalf of the sponsors, I should like to introduce briefly the draft resolution in document S/12922, which was circulated this afternoon. The draft is largely self-explanatory, and I hope that clarifications are not called for. If I may say so, it is action-oriented and the result of exhaustive informal discussions. 49. The main thrust of the draft resolution is, first, the call for the cancellation of the unilateral elections scheduled for 4 December in Namibia and, secondly, the call to South Africa to co-operate with the Council and with the Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 78s70005-March 1980--2,200 50. It will be seen that the ultimate objective of the draft resolution is to ensure South Africa’s compliance with resolutions 385 (1976), 431 (1978) and 435 (1978). In our view, there is no reason why South Africa should not comply with these resolutions. As members know, the Council had been led to expect South Africa’s compliance, since it had accepted the principle of United Nationssupervised elections. Furthermore, South Africa had also agreed to withdraw its presence from Namibia and to facilitate the independence of the Territory, In view of these solemn pledges, the Council has every right to expect South Africa’s compliance with its resolutions. 5 1. We hope that, in view of these facts, it will be possible, even at this late stage, for South Africa to reverse its steps and return to the path of legitimate action in conformity with the Charter, in order to lead the people of Namibia to genuine independence. 52. We trust that the Western members of the Council who have been dealing with South Africa will impress upon that country the seriousness with which the Council will regard any situation that may derive from South Africa’s refusal to comply with the Council’s resolutions mentioned in the present draft resolution. The meeting rose at 5.50 p.m.