S/PV.2273 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2267th meeting, I invite the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and the delegation of the Council to take places at the Security Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Lusuka (President of the United Natioru Council for Namibia) and the other members of the delegation took places at the Council table. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in Namibia: Letter dated 10 April 1981 from the Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/14434)

In accordance with the decision taken also at the 2267th meeting, I invite Mr. Peter Mueshihange to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation qf the President, Mr. Mueshihange took a place at the Council table.

In accordance with decisions taken at previous meetings [2267th to 2272nd nlcetings], I invite the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Senegal, Sierra LeolIe, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Togo, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. 19

The first speaker is the representative of Burundi. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, the delegation of Burundi would like to congratulate you warmly on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of April. The acuteness of the problem which is currently being debated and the hope placed in this debate by the international community as a whole called for a statesman of your wisdom, far-sightedness and diplomatic experience to preside over these deliberations. Your thorough knowledge of the Namibian issue and your dedication to an appropriate end to the Namibian crisis will certainly impart to these deliberations the dynamism and energy called for by the seriousness of the question before us. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Benyahia (Ak’eriuJ, Mr. Josge (Angola), Mr. Kaiser (Bang- ‘adeJlz), Mr. Houngavou (Benin), Mr. Cow& da Costa (Brazil), Mr. S’ 1 rm x~nauiye (Canada), Mr. M (Brrrundi), Mr. Morden n [ mierca (Cuhu), Mr. Ashtal (Demo- ~atic Yemen), Mr. Gedle-Giorgis (Ethiopia), Mr, Jelomk ~Fdwl Republic (1.f Gemrrny), Mr, ~oun~hms.sa 7. Finally, we wish to thank all the members of the Council for their generosity in allowing us to participate in this historic debate on Namibia. 8, South Africa’s constant refusal to abide by the resolutions of both the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as the judgment of the International Court of Justice’ enjoining it to put an end immediately to its illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia; Pretoria’s rejection-which has now been demonstrated-of any dialogue aimed at peacefully leading Namibia to independence; the strengthening of its repressive machinery against Namibian patriots; the highly explosive situation inherent in such brutality-all those elements together explain sufficiently well the urgency of once more seizing the Council of the question of Namibia. 9. The failure last January of the Geneva meeting on Namibia, the new public outburst of sympathy from certain quarters for the policy ofupmtheid, the political closed-mindedness and the further manifestation of the arrogance of the racist South African regime as natural consequences of that new support, require from the Council and the entire international community a thorough reassessment of what therapy is needed to treat the virus of trpcwtkeid. 10. Now that the illegality of the occupation of Namibia by Pretoria no longer needs to be demonstrated, now that the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people and the fact that that people is represented solely by its national liberation movement, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), have won universal endorsement, the time has come to wonder about both the true reasons and the underlying motives for the present impasse in the process of the decolonization of Namibia, as well as about the relevance of the strategy used thus far to end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. 11 a Similarly, the hotbeds of tension, the permanent instability and insecurity which Pretoria is fostering and sustaining in the region and the punitive murderous raids which South Africa is repeatedly carrying out against the front-line States oblige us today to remind the Council of its primary responsibility as the principal organ charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. 12. Now that the legal basis for the decolonization of Namibia has been clearly laid down, the maintenance of the South African occupation in Namibia makes sense only if we put it within the framework of a manysided geo-political struggle where the economic, ideological, strategic, military and racial factors explain Pretoria’s stubbornness and the complicity of its allies. 13. Not being able to base themselves on law or morality in this case, they had but one way out to soothe their conscience, namely, to persuade the rest of the world community of some alleged imminent danger of communist invasion in the region. Pretoria wished in that way to get a tacit mandate from its allies to throw the menacing hypothetical demons of communism back into the sea. By thus transforming the genuine problem of decolonization into a false ideological conflict, Namibia remains, because of the abundance of its mineral wealth and its exploited manpower, the milch cow of the transnational corporations. 14. Since Pretoria’s defeat in Namibia would sound the death-knell for this disgraceful exploitation, one can easily see how clever South Africa’s allies are in piling up solutions to the Namibian question, one less credible than the other. 15. The so-called internal solution which would confer legitimacy on the traitors of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) still haunts Pretoria and its allies. Recognition by the international community of mini-groups of DTA would, according to the latter’s supporters, meet a concern for democracy, justice and equity, The ulterior reason none the less remains true: such recognition would have the sad merit of weakening SWAPO, dividing the Namibians, making Namibia’s independence illusory and thus perpetuating its present exploitation. 16. That South Africa is today intensifying its intransigency by burdening the negotiations with a new element-the phantom of DTA-means that it places some hope in a Muzorewa-style internal solution. That did not succeed in Zimbabwe; it has no reason to succeed in Namibia: for the same illness, the same cure. 17. ,The convening of the Council now would hardly have been justified if South Africa had not replied to the appeal by the international community at the Geneva meeting on Namibia with political closed-mindedness, with false leads, with exaggeration and with blackmail, which have always characterized the South African attitude in any negotiation on the Namibian question. In so doing, of its own will it closed the door to any dialogue. 18. South Africa had no other ambition at Geneva than that of having the United Nations approve the legitimacy of its slaves in DTA, the very ones whose request to participate in the present debate has been 19. If South Africa had been able to carry out its macabre strategy at Geneva, it would have had a free hand to fashion Namibia in its own image, to complete the dismemberment of that Territory by the savage exportation of bantrrstanization, thus putting an end for all time to the very existence of the Namibian nation. 20. The resistance of SWAP0 and the United Nations to this machiavellian plan, the rejection of the representativeness of the puppets of DTA explain the wrath of South Africa and the undue, ill-considered charges brought against the United Nations-cavalier charges of partiality and irresponsibility. 21. The intransigence and arrogance of Pretoria spring from the many-sided support of its allies and from the flabbiness and indulgence of the Council when it is a question of applying to South Africa the economic sanctions required in such circumstances by Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Such a procedure, we were often told, sins by being unrealistic, inoperative and harmful to the very ones whom we are trying to save from South African tyranny. 22. The only viable alternative, we were then told, is that of negotiation and non-violence. We accepted that game, hoping that those who gave us such counsel would use their influence with Pretoria to bring it back to reason and legality. 23. The debacle of the Geneva meeting on Namibia will have at least had the merit of unmasking the inconsistency of speaking with a forked tongue: on the one hand, providing Pretoria with capital and strengthening its war machine and, on the other, offering nothing more than an olive branch in the form of a negotiation that is still-born because Pretoria has always opposed it. 24. In presenting itself as the region’s guarantor and defender of the interests of the Western world, Pretoria today finds itself the subject of new outbursts of sympathy on the part of certain Powers. Now, in the name of safeguarding those interests, Pretoria’s access to the capital and arsenals of those same Powers is not only guaranteed but further strengthened: hence the constant attempt of Pretoria to extend its murderous reach as far as its firepower will allow. The front-line States, the constant targets of its wrath, whose only crime has been to harbour refugees fleeing from clpcrrtheid~ find themselves attacked with regularity. They will have to bewail their dead, contemplate the ruins of their infrastructure, while the Security Council remains indifferent, paralysed by the very ones who are arming South Africa. 26. Such a notion on the part of Pretoria’s allies is neither in keeping with their long-term interests nor faithful to the teachings of their own history. The experience of some in the matter of decolonization, the attempts of others to subject entire peoples to their will, have proved to them in the rather recent past that a people’s thirst for freedom, dignity and sovereignty is at the same time irresistible, irreducible and irreversible. The struggle of the Namibian people, as painful and as long as it may be, is that kind of struggle. The Pretoria rigime, by its obstinacy and its refusal to face reality, carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. 27. We have not come here today to prove the illegality of South Africa’s occupation of Namibia. The General Assembly and the International Court of Justice did that in the past, Nor have we come here to expose the hideousness of the apartheid regime. A long time ago, the General Assembly described rcpnrtheid as a crime against humanity. We have come here to ask the Council to measure up to its responsibilities and to apply against South Africa the sanctions it deserves because of the illegality of its behaviour-that is, to apply fully and strictly the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. 28. In particular, we would remind the permanent members of the Security Council, especially those which initiated resolution 435 (1978), that the reversal and hardening of the South African position with regard to Namibia neither changes nor in any way dilutes the responsibilities they bear under that resolution. 29. Any withdrawal, any abandonment, any evasion whatsoever on their part in regard to the commitments of resolution 435 (1978) would deeply erode their credibility not only in the Council and in the United Nations as a whole, but also in the eyes of public opinion in their respective countries. We dare to hope that they will face up to the new challenge of South Africa with the firmness required by the seriousness of the present situation. 30. Our appeal is not in any way prompted by feelings either of unreality or of frustration, as certain members of the Council would have people believe; rather, it has been prompted by our objective analysisof the bitter experience of unkept promises by partners in whom we had placed our trust. 31. For almost two decades now, the consideration of the question of Namibia in the Council has metamorphised into a rock of Sisyphus. We believe that any further hesitation by the Council would not be in the interest of the Council nor in that of the Namibians 47. Does anyone seriously believe today that the reason for the blocking of resolution 435 (1978) by the South African racists is any doubt about United Nations impartiality in supervising an electoral process which, let me remind representatives, is to be organized by the authorities of South Africa themselves? 48. In fact what is this racist South African Government-a Government that bases its action on the institutionalized denial of democracy and whose philosophy is white power at any price-which dares to question the’ impartiality of the United Nations, its General Assembly, its Security Council and its Secretary-General, who so strictly carry out their work? 49. In our opinion there are two parallel plans with a few points of contact: the first is that of the United Nations, whose goal is to achieve the independence of Namibia; the other is that of South Africa, which, unable to maintain the status ~1110, tries to create a puppet Government in order to keep Namibia under South Africa’s political and economic power. 50. One of the peculiarities of the South African plan is that it uses the United Nations plan, forums, our honesty, our good will, our candour, our word and our principles whenever that suits it. That is total hypocrisy. 51. In this context, the requests for participation by DTA, presented in the name of democracy, are not likely to bring about the success of this process but, rather, will lead to sabotaging it. As experience has proved, each concession that we make moves us farther away from our goal. 52. I should like the countries that have submitted these requests to realize that it is their own plan that they are jeopardizing. 53. We have heard Mr. Pik Botha getting upset because his official was not accepted at this series of meetings, Why, then, has he not invited him to speak in his Parliament, which is 100 per cent white, or to be a member of his Government, which is 100 per cent white, or to visit him in his home, which is 100 per cent white, or his neighbourhood, which is 100 per cent white? Why does he not at the very least shake his hand? 55. The African countries and the countries members of the non-aligned movement fee1 abused in this exercise because of the refusal of the Government of South Africa to keep its word. Is this behaviour of South Africa normal? What is this South Africa, that it has such effrontery? 56. South Africa is a minority rCgime, colonialist, aggressive and sanguinary. It is a country in which the overwhelming majority of the population is foreign in its own homeland, where whites are kept apart from blacks, where bantustanization separates blacks from other blacks in a machiavellian plan. 57. South Africa is Sharpeville; it is Sharpeville every day in Johannesburg, in Durban, in the mines and in the schools. It is the country in which 600 children were killed in cold blood in the streets of Soweto, without any indictments, without any guilty parties, without any sentences being passed, for the simple reason that no crime had been committed! 58. South Africa is the country in which simple friendship between persons of different races constitutes a crime. It is the country in which the colour of one’s skin determines where one sits, where one eats, where one lives and with whom one may speak. It is the country in which many among us here would have to live apart from our wives and children because we are of different races. 59. When the Government of the United States of America declares that the liberation movements are terrorist they are thus reinforcing the racist and colonialist aggressors. Statements to the effect that the national liberation movements are not fighting for their own people but are agents of a third party not only offend the dignity of a people but serve to justify massacres, Statements to the effect that the struggle against “terrorism” has priority give free rein to the most sanguinary instincts, which leads to inevitable aggression against the front-line States. 60. Those who make public statements in support of the armed groups in South Africa in order to destabilize the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola are flagrantly interfering in the internal affairs of a State member of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the non-aligned movement and the United Nations. Every country’s stability is threatened, AI1 these statements and actions constitute unparalleled support for the homeland of apartheid. 61. We must also say that the present situation and the failure of so much effort and sacrifice are linked with 62. What further concessions are we called upon to make? We categorically refuse to be accomplices in this stupid game. We refuse to allow ourselves to be used in this South African game. 63. We are told to put forward constructive proposals instead of resolutions or sanctions. But, in reality, for the last four years serious and constructive people have been engaged in taking serious and constructive actions. The result is there, and, what is more, it has the stamp of approval of the international community: resolution 435 (1978). 64. When some speak of building they should first remember not to neglect or destroy what has been built by others. 65. We are told not to abandon the search for a peaceful settlement, but we are the ones who have not abandoned it. It is the United States Administration that has sabotaged resolution 435 (1978) and is attempting to replace it by other proposals. 66. The proposals for action before the Council constitute precisely the last-ditch effort-before force is used-to make South Africa put an end to armed oppression and war and acts of aggression against the Namibian people and other African peoples. Is there a better way to find peace? 67. We were told to wait until the new United States Administration had taken over, and we are now told to wait until the West undertakes a new initiative. The purpose is to oblige us to make yet further concessions and to give further guarantees to colonialism in Namibia. 68. Resolution 435 (1978) is resolution 435 (1978). It is indivisible. We cannot accept it and not accept it at the same time, nor can we play on words to go back on agreements that have been accepted formally by our Governments. 69. We should recall that a few months ago it was in fact the five Western Powers that told us that their original plan had become a Security Council resolution and could therefore not be amended, and that the South African Government had agreed. 70. We will never accept the argument that Namibia will become independent more quickly if we give colonialism further guarantees. After all, the colonialist settlers have had guarantees for the last 50 years, and that certainly has not brought about the independence of the Namibian people. 72. We say, enough! There has been enough procrastination. People are dying. Let us apply the United Nations plan quickly, without any change, qualification or prevarication. 73. The economic and financial relations between the Western Powers and South Africa make it possible for the apartheid regime to maintain its illegal occupation of Namibia, to wage acts of aggression against neighbouring countries and constantly to refuse to implement the decisions of the international community, It is therefore incumbent upon the Western countries to put an end to their collusion with South Africa. In order to be consistent with the plan, they must apply effective comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. 74. The choice is not between the raw materials of South Africa and the raw materials of the rest of Africa, It is not a matter of choosing between East and West. The choice is between apurtheid and human dignity; between aiding oppression or upholding freedom. , 75. Instability and subversion reign in southern Africa, perpetrated by the apartheid regime. The raciit minority regime seems to feel it has the right to intervene militarily everywhere in Africa south of the equator. It uses the pretext that it is defending its own borders against communism and the liberation movements, SWAP0 and the African National Congress (ANC). But when South Africa invaded Angolain 1975, there were no SWAP0 or ANC bases. South African troops joined the Portuguese colonial army to fight against FRELIMO (Frente de Liberta@o de Mo~ambique) in 1965, when the war zone was 2,000 kilometres to the north of the South African border. Now they Ml1 refugees and proclaim that they have destroyed ANC military bases. They emplace bombs in Swaziland and Botswana, and organize armed subversion in Zambia. They attack Lesotho in a so-called crusade against communism. They invade and bombard the territory of Angola. South Africa’s true objective is to try by all means to frustrate the intentions of its neighbours to liberate themselves economically. 76. South Africa has already proved, by its behaviout towards Africa and the rest of the world, that it repre sents a threat to international peace and security. The United Nations has the historic and urgent task 0j neutralizing that threat by taking specific steps to pul 85. The adoption of those resolutions, with the concurrence of the permanent members of the Security Council, led the world to hope that the colonial chapter in the history of Namibia would soon be closed. The third world countries, in particular, which share a common historical experience with the Namibian people, welcomed that development. The Security Council decision in resolution 435 (1978) was endorsed by all the important international forums, including the OAU, the non-aligned movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. 78. We call upon the Security Council to act swiftly. With every passing day people are dying-many people, according to the war commercials from South Africa itself. We would sound the call to action, so that illegality does not become a habit, so that justice, racial equality, may finally be called by its only right name: freedom. 79. The struggle continues! 86. Nearly three years have elapsed since the adoption of this Council resolution but no progress has been made towards the realization of its promise. The preimplementation talks at Geneva last January, which were designed to set a date for the commencement of the implementation of the United Nations plan, collapsed in consequence of South Africa’s unwarranted accusation against the United Nations of partiality, its questioning of the competence of the United Nations to supervise free and fair elections in Namibia.

The next speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Mr. Agha Shahi. I welcome him here and I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

I am grateful for this opportunity to address this important series of meetings of the Security Council on the question of Namibia. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express to you, Mr. President, the congratulations of my delegation on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. Pakistan and Ireland enjoy cordial relations and co-operate closely in international forums. 87. The failure of the Geneva talks has exposed the real motives of the racist colonial regime in Pretoria, which continues to deny the people of Namibia its inalienable right to self-determination and to control and exploit the natural resources of its land. The Government of South Africa could not have spurned the United Nations initiative were it not sustained by the support of external forces which stand to profit by the continued subjugation of the Namibian people. Another factor contributing to South Africa’s growing aggressiveness is its massive arms buildup through the importation of sophisticated armaments and the development of its nuclear-weapons capability, the purpose of which is to intimidate the front-line States and to strengthen its colonial hold over Namibia. 82. May I also voice our appreciation of the able conduct of the work of the Council last month by Ambassador Florin of the German Democratic Republic. 83. These meetings of the Council are an expression of the universal concern over the attempt to frustrate an important initiative of the United Nations to bring to an end the colonial era in Namibia. The Council is once again confronted with the defiance of the will of the world community by a racist colonial Power, whose massive and persistent violations of human rights in pursuit of its inhuman policies of apartheid led to its exclusion from participation in the proceedings of the General Assembly. The situation created by South Africa’s rejection of the Security Council’s plan for Namibia jeopardizes the peace and security of the African continent. The Council cannot therefore shirk its responsibility to meet this situation, It must act in total solidarity with the liberation struggle of the Namibian people until the process of decolonization is carried to its logical end in South West Africa. 88. Viewed in the historical perspective, South Africa’s behaviour at Geneva is hardly a matter for surprise. Rationality and respect for international law and morality have no place in colonial and racist thinking. But the international community cannot view with indifference South Africa’s repudiation of the Security Council’s decision. It cannot permit South Africa to continue its exploitation of Namibia and to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the Namibian people to self-determination and national independence. The universally acclaimed United Nations plan, which envisaged the signing of a cease-fire, 84. In 1978, the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978), which provided a framework for the inde- 89. The indignation of the third world countries over the failure of the Geneva talks has been voiced loud and clear. At the New Delhi Conference in February last, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Non- Aligned Countries strongly condemned the South African racist regime for its persistent refusal to withdraw from Namibia and its deliberate sabotage of the Geneva meeting. They declared that those acts constituted a threat to peace. The Ministers called upon the Security Council to impose urgently comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, so as to compel the Pretoria regime to terminate its illegal occupation of Namibian3 The same call was repeated when the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries met at the ministerial level at Algiers last week. The OAU Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa, held at Arusha last January, and the thirty-sixth ordinary session ofthe Council of Ministers of OAU, held recently at Addis Ababa, have also called for effective measures against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. 90. The call for comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against the racist colonialist regime is fully justified. Unless the United Nations imposes coercive measures, South Africa will not cease and desist in its evil design to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia and its plunder of the country’s natural resources, The Security Council must not fail to give heed to the concern of the world community and must not resile from its own commitment to the liberation of Namibia. It must act firmly to compel South Africa to withdraw from all Namibian territories. 91. As a non-aligned Islamic country, Pakistan has always extended full support to the just struggle of all peoples against colonialism, imperialism and racism in all their manifestations, and to the efforts of the United Nations towards decolonization. Our stand is based on the ideological foundations of our State which rest on respect for human dignity, universal brotherhood and equality, and on our immutable commitment to the right of all peoples to self-determination. Consistent with that position, we have extended unqualified support to the courageous people of Namibia, who are waging a determined struggle, under the leadership of SWAPO, against one of the vilest forms of racism and colonial domination. 92. I should like once again to reiterate Pakistan’s steadfast support for the people of Namibia. We look forward to an early triumph of their heroic struggle

This series of meet& ,# of the Security Council is a dramatic demonstrgtioh ,& of the importance which the international comm&k ‘,d i >*,,j I ,,^<.$ .,‘I a$* attaches to the question of Namibia. My delegatror& ~4 .b ,‘);(7$. i ‘@ particularly impressed by the presence of the Mmrsfer&?:# $ ’ 2~. <% ~&j for Foreign Affairs of numerous Member Statt%#$%&@ regard their active participation in the deliberations&q the Council as a reflection of their countries’ co&t& ‘8 ment to finding a solution to the question of Namibia.:\:‘$ I assure the Council that Japan fully shares their j, $ commitment, and is determined to facilitate, in any’wsy ,’ $ it can, peaceful and constructive efforts towards -the, :< achievement of Namibia’s independence. ‘~d$ ,:, ;:? ,I :, I’/,> “;,’ ‘x,’ ,x; I ;:> 94. Almost three months ago, on 30 Januaryj&e?~ Security Council met to consider the outcome of&e X;,$ pre-implementation meeting on Namibia whichl#a#$ been convened at Geneva with the aim of creatiQg;an :) $d atmosphere of trust and understanding and of exp@ “‘3 diting an agreement on the date for a cease-fire~@nd@ .2 the implementation of the settlement plan. The@he ?g General Assembly resumed its thirty-fifth session for .:$i a week in early March to discuss further the question ;<$ of Namibia. It is important that the South A@iicay :$ Government understand the grave interna,tion+l$$ concern which was expressed at those meetings, # and which continues to be expressed at these pre=sem’# meetings of the Council. ,I ::& ’ 8’ 95. On 3 March, during the deliberations at, ithe ‘4 resumed thirty-fifth session of the General Assemb[y$ ;t my delegation strongly expressed its regret over;the’y$ intransigent attitude taken by the South Africa@~v~,~:~ emment at the Geneva meeting. We also expressed’:,;2 the hope that the South African Government wduld:‘?$ correctly understand the present situation and ,the::‘flj growing indignation of the world community, and ‘tha$$ it would not stymie efforts for a peaceful solution tothi&. 3 problem. The Government of South Africa should be;; aware of the fact that there is a mounting intemationril, :; demand, as -evidenced by the convening of the Securrty z Council, for consideration of further measures to ; secure South Africa’s compliance with the impie-a ‘I:$ mentation of resolution 435 (1978). My delegation, ; hopes that the South African Government will review, 1:; the implications of the failure of the pre-implementation ; meeting, and urgently reconsider its position with >Sr mi view to resolving at an early date the question of 1 Namibia on the basis of resolution 435 (1978). The I precious opportunity to achieve a long-awaited and internationally acceptable solution must not be lost, i 96. Japan has consistently supported, and highly ci evaluated, the efforts of the five Western countries in seeking an early and peaceful solution to this prob ‘ii lem. Such efforts include their settlement proposal i 98. My Government has repeatedly expressed its intention to co-operate to the best of its ability with the efforts of the international community aimed at achieving an early solution, through peaceful means, of the question of Namibia. 99. Japan recognizes the significant role being played by SWAP0 in the movement for Namibian independence, and pays a high tribute to the position it took at the Geneva meeting in expressing its readiness to sign a cease-fire agreement. At this juncture, my delegation would like to confirm Japan’s position that, ultimately, representation of the Namibian people should be determined by the :Namibian people themselves, through free and fair elections. 106. For the past few days, we have been deliberating the situation in Namibia that has resulted from the refusal of the racist regime of Pretoria to comply with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations -in particular Security Council resolutions 385 (1976), 435 (1978) and 439 (1978). 100. I have on previous occasions-most recently in my speech before the General Assembly on 3 Marchexplained the measures which the Government of Japan has taken in conjunction with the international community’s efforts to bring independence to Namibia. I shall not reiterate those measures here. Rather, I wish to inform the Council of two examples of my Government’s latest efforts to help the people of Namibia and their African neighbours, 107. My delegation, like the other members of the international community, had every fervent hope that, with the adoption of these Council resolutions, the South African regime would decide to abandon its attitude towards Namibia and respond constructively to the universal call for the speedy implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. 101. On the occasion of the observance of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Japan pledged on 19 March a substantial voluntary contribution to the trust funds and programme for southern Africa, including the United Nations Institute for Namibia. Moreover, at the International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa, which was recently held at Geneva, Japan pledged a $20 million voluntary contribution to the African refugee programmes. This is in addition to its regular contribution of $16 million to international organizations which deal with refugee and humanitarian problems. 108. However, the continued intransigence, prevarication and hollow excuses of the colonialist and racist regime of South Africa once again surfaced at the multi-party pre-implementation meeting on Namibia, which was held at Geneva from 7 to 14 January 1981. The Geneva talks were intended to reach agreement on a date for the cease-fire and the start of the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The Secretary-General’s report [S/14333], which is factual and comprehensive, vividly depicts the stance adopted by South Africa and clearly shows where the blame for the failure of the Geneva talks should lie. 103. I should like to close my remarks today by expressing my delegation’s sincere wish that the people of Namibia will in the very near future be able to enjoy, as citizens of a free and independent State, the fundamental rights, privileges and responsibilities for which they have been struggling so courageously.

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating you on your assumption of the high office of President of the Security Council for the month of April and to offer to you my delegation’s whole-hearted co-operation and support in the performance of your duties, In the short time that you have represented Ireland on the Security Council, you have fully demonstrated the skills and qualities of an accomplished diplomatist and of a tactful and seasoned negotiator. Let me add that you epitomize the commendable traits of determination, patience and fairness. We have no doubt that under your leadership the Security Council will be able to discharge its responsibilities effectively. 105. My delegation takes this occasion also to express its deep appreciation to the repr&entative of the German Democratic Republic, Ambassador Florin, for the splendid manner in which he steered the business of the Council last month. 110. The position of my delegation is clear. The Philippines has constantly adhered to the view that the process of decolonization should be achieved by negotiations and peaceful change. Based on that yardstick, we have welcomed and supported the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, initiated by the contact group of Western States. As a consequence, the Philippines has supported all positive moves towards the early implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978). It is precisely because of our commitment to the process of decolonization and our unflinching support for the efforts of the United Nations to bring Namibia to genuine independence that we feel that urgent measures as a last resort should now be taken against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, after all these years of patient but fruitless negotiations. 111. To allow South Africa to persist in its arrogance and in its defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations would only serve to erode the credibility of the Security Council in the eyes of the international community. It thus becomes necessary to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. 112. Once comprehensive mandatory sanctions are imposed against South Africa, it is to be hoped that it will abandon its baseless ambitions towards Namibia and, consequently, agree to a process leading to the attainment by the Namibian people of genuine independence. 113. However, any negotiated settlement of the question of Namibia outside the framework of the United Nations plan and without the participation of SWAP0 as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people would only further heighten tension in southern Africa, with dire consequences for international peace and security. 114. The hour is long past: the moment of truth has come. The choice is now left to us. The attention of the entire international community is riveted on the outcome of this debate. We must take resolute and bold action and, with firmness of conviction and political courage, send a clear message to South Africa that it

The next speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr. Salim A. Salim. I welcome him here and invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I want to thank you and the other members of the Council for affording me the opportunity to address this august body. I do so as one of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs given a specific mandate by the OAU through the decision of the session of its Council of Ministers held last February at Addis Ababa. In giving a mandate to several Ministers for Foreign Affairs to come to this session, the OAU was underscoring the importance we attach to the current deliberations of the Council on the issue of Namibia. Similarly, the decision of the extraordinary ministerial meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non- Aligned Countries, held at Algiers, to request several Ministers for Foreign Affairs to participate in this debate in the name of the non-aligned movement is testimony to the seriousness with which the nonaligned countries view this series of meetings. The fact that so many Ministers for Foreign Affairs and other Cabinet Ministers from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have been in New York for several days to participate in and follow very closely the Council’s deliberations attests not only to our collective commitment to the struggle of the people of Namibia but also to our belief and confidence in the responsibilities and capabilities of this institution. Clearly, therefore, we have not come to NewYork simply for the purpose of debate for debate’s sake. Neither have we come to New York only to go through familiar ground or engage in sterile and acrimonious exchanges. 117. We are here because we believe that the evolution of the situation with respect to Namibia has reached a crossroads. The challenges before the Council, therefore, are enormous. Through its actions the Council can make easier the path towards the freedom of Namibia and thus minimize the dangers of the growing confrontation in southern Africa. On the other hand, if the Council is to be immobilized and fails to respond to the needs of the hour, those who cause such immobilization will not escape the judgement of history as having contributed to further violence, misery and confrontation in that part of our continent, with serious and imponderable consequences for international peace and security. 118. My delegation is extremely gratified that this debate is being held under your stewardship, Mr, Presi- 122. Again, in the same exhortations for realism, Africa was urged to exercise restraint and to support efforts aimed at putting into operation resolution 385 (1976). 123. It was against that background that Africa was requested to report and did respond positively to the initiative of the five Western members of the Security Council-the representatives of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Prance, the United Kingdom and the United States. That initiative culminated in the Western proposal [S/12636]-and here T wish to emphasize that it was a Western proposal-which was ultimately adopted as a United Nations plan through Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 124. We all realize that there has been a new Admlnistration in the United States. But we do hope that the representatives of the other four Western countries will have fully apprised the representatives of the new Administration of the tremendous eff’drts which were made, culminating in the adoption of that resolution. We particularly hope that all our Western colleagues will recall the solid backing that they consistently received from the African States-first, in the process leading to the preparation of that plan and, secondly, in the negotiations which culminated in the adoption of that plan by the United Nations. Those negotiations were long, arduous and painstaking. Prom Africa’s perspective, they involved many of our beads of State, Ministers for Foreign Affairs and other representatives, and throughout we have supported the contact group of Western States. Throughout we have done so in the belief that they would exercise their enormous influence with South Africa by virtue of their extensive links in order to urge upon the Pretoria rigime the implementation of the United Nations decision on Namibia. It is to be regretted, therefore, that in the light of that background, and in particular in the light of one concession after another made by SWAP0 in the course of the negotiations, and supported by the African States, the negotiations have continued to be blocked by the Sourh African rbgime, as was recently manifested in its sabotaging of the pre-implementation meeting at Geneva. 125. It has now been three years since Security Council resolution 435 (1978) endorsing the Western plan 126. Before the pre-implementation meeting at Geneva, for example, when al! the tangible demands of South Africa had been met, the Pretoria regime then brought up an intangible one, namely, the so-called creation of a climate of trust and confidence. Before we went to Geneva, the representatives of the five Western Powers, with whom we had extensive contacts, expressed confidence that Geneva would produce the required results. Yet, as we all know, Geneva failed and it failed precisely because the South African regime did not, and apparently does not, want a negotiated solution. 127. In the light of this defiance, therefore, what are we expected to do? Are we seriously, in the name of realism and patience, expected to fold our hands and await Namibia’s salvation until such time that the South African regime has decided that sufficient conditions have been created to install a puppet regime in perpetuity? Are we seriously expected, in the name of realism, to acquiesce in the massive repressions that the ~parrheid regime has embarked upon against the freedom fighters and other patriots in Namibia7 Are we seriously expected, in the name of realism, patience and moderation, to stand idly by while South Africa uses Namibia as a springboard for constant aggression against Angola and Zambia’? Are we seriously expected, in the name of realism, to allow South Africa to embark on calculated and systematic international terrorism, not only within Namibia, but beyond its own borders as manifested in its recent criminal acts of aggression against the People’s Republic of Mozambique? Those are serious and legitimate questions. They are not academic questions. The people of southern Africa have to experience daily the arrogance and defiance of the South African Government. Namibians lose their lives daily. Ango- 128. We have not come to the Council merely because we are interested in yet another resolution on the issue of Namibia. The United Nations has adopted enough resolutions on this issue. We have come to the Council in order to urge it to shoulder its responsibilities seriously and ensure the implementation of its own decisions. We have come to the Council also to impress on the three Western permanent members of the Council their own responsibility in working for the scrupulous implementation of a plan of which they and their colleagues of Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany were the authors. Is it not ironical that it should be up to us to make appeals to our Western colleagues to work for the implementation of their own plan? 129. The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the contact group yesterday, inter alicr referred to the successful Lancaster House Conference on Zimbabwe and pointed out that “it was always clear that it was in the long-term interest of all the parties that Zimbabwe should proceed to independence by negotiated settlement rather than by ultii mate resolution through armed struggle” [ibid,, pm-a. 911. I should like to make one or two observations in respect of that statement. In the first place, there has never been any doubt on the part of Africa that negotiated solutions were always preferred to the necessity of armed resistance. The Lusaka Manifesto on Southern Africa,S adopted in 1969, made this point unequivocally clear. Yet, as the Manifesto itself pointed out, the alternative to a negotiated solution is not the status quo. When the path to a negotiated solution is blocked, the freedom fighters have no option but to fight for their freedom, and free Africa’s obligation and commitment in that context are unambiguously clear. 130. In this context it should be recalled that while we have all hailed the results of Lancaster and have all paid a deserved tribute to the United Kingdom Government for its decision to shoulder seriously its responsibility over Zimbabwe, we have never been in doubt that Lancaster was made possible only by at least two crucial factors: first, the armed resistance waged by the Patriotic Front of Zimbabwe and, consequently, the enormous sacrifice made by Zimbabweans in that struggle; and, secondly, the pressure of the international community, including, notwithstanding its limitation, the pressure of sanctions. 131. Consequently, one of the lessons of the Zimbabwe experience that becomes quite clear is that for 135. Let me say in all solemnity that ein Africa do not view this situation lightly. Let me st ess that it took cl a lot of reflection and considered ju gement before we came to the Council. It would have’tieen logical for us to have asked for a meeting of the Council immediately after the failure of the pre-implementation meeting at Geneva. That we did not do so is testimony to our patience and our preparedness to be as accommodating as humanly possible. 132. We in Africa believe that the Council can act decisively towards that path by invoking enforcement measures provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. At the same time, Africa is under no illusions about its own responsibilities. That is why at the meeting held at Lusaka, Zambia, in February of this year, the front-line States and Nigeria, as stated in the Lusaka communique: 136. Those who are familiar with the realities of southern Africa would not fail to appreciate the degree of patience and reasonableness demonstrated thus far by the African States. We have been reasonable and patient even when our people have faced death and devastation. Has the Council forgotten the Cassinga massacre carried out by the South African authorities on the eve of Security Council deliberations on the Namibian question in May 1978? Has the Council forgotten that, more often than not when there appeared to be a ray of hope in breaking one deadlock or another in the negotiations, the South Africans used the opportunity to commit callous acts of aggression against African States? Has the Council forgotten that the South African regime not only has defied every resolution on Namibia adopted by the Council but has proceeded to intensify its own repression in Namibia? Has it been forgotten that when the United Nations called for the holding of free and fair elections under United Nations supervision and control and when we were being informed that the South African Government had accepted the United Nations plan, the Pretoria regime embarked on a series of measures within Namibia calculated to create onefilfilit uccompli after another in contravention of United Nations decisions? Yet we are told that we have not been patient; yet we are being exhorted to be realistic. Have words lost their meaning? Are patience and reason tantamount to acquiescence in continued defiance of United Nations decisions? “ . . . concluded that with the failure of the Geneva conference, SWAP0 had no alternative but to intensify the liberation war in Namibia and in this connexion reaffirmed the unflinching support for SWAPO. They also appealed to all freedomand peace-loving countries of the world to support SWAP0 in all fields, including economic, diplomatic and military assistance.” At the same time, the Lusaka Summit reaffirmed, according to the communique: “ * . , their conviction that the South African racist regime can only be brought to the negotiating table for peaceful settlement of the Namibian question if economic and political pressure was brought to bear on her by the contact group of the five Western States and the international community as a whole.” 133. The spirit and letter of that position were further endorsed and reinforced by the Council of Ministers of the OAU when it met at Addis Ababa in February and March last and decided to intensify support for SWAPO. Clearly, therefore, Africa takes seriously its responsibility with respect to the Namibian question. Happily, also, the non-aligned movement as a whole has taken the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, as manifested by the i’ important decision of the extraordinary ministerial meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non- Aligned Countries held at Algiers. 137. Let me emphasize that we have not come to the Council seeking confrontation with anyone, but certainly not with the Western States. But we have come to this august body which is primarily responsible for international peace and security to seek measures which would in fact reduce the suffering of the people, of Namibia in particular and those of southern Africa in general and consequently arrest what is clearly a rapidly deteriorating situation threatening international peace and security. In short, the African States, which have come to the Council have come seeking the implementation of the United Nations plan as embodied in resolution 435 (1978). 134. But what of the Security Council? And, more specifically, what about the responsibilities of the five Western Powers? Do the Western countries, particularly those that are members of the contact , group, want to see the intensification of the armed , struggle in Namibia before they can recognize that the time has come for them to exert the necessary pressure 139. It is imperative to emphasize that the road to negotiation has been blocked not because of a lack of a framework for a solution, What has been missing has been South Africa’s commitment to implement the plan. Geneva failed not because there were some shortcomings as far as the United Nations plan was concerned, but rather owing to the fact that South Africa used Geneva simply to perpetuate its known opposition to a genuinely negotiated solution. If, therefore, we are interested in getting a negotiated solution to the problem of Namibia we should not be searching for red herrings; we should address ourselves to the problem squarely-and the problem remains South Africa’s intransigence, 140. We listened yesterday with the utmost attention to the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom on behalf of the five Western Powers [227fsr meering]. We noted with interest the communique issued by the senior officials of the five Western Powers meeting in London [ibid., para. 881. We are seriously concerned that instead of addressing itself to the nitty-gritty of the issue-namely, the failure of the South African regime to comply with resolution 435 (1978)-the London communique seems to provide grounds for further prevarication on the part of the South African regime. On the one hand, we are told that resolution 435 (1978) provides a solid basis for transition to independence in Namibia. Yet, on the other hand, we are told that the plan needs to be strengthened, One wonders whether the word “strengthened” is not a euphemism for revision of the plan. And if that is the case, then the fears and apprehension of SWAPO, of the African States and of the overwhelming majority of the international community are more than justified. For, as the front-line States clearly declared at the summit meeting which took place at Luanda on 15 April of this year, what is urgently needed at this point in time is the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without any further delay, prevarication, qualification or modification. To proceed on the path of amending the plan-which, as I stated earlier, is a product of arduous and prolonged negotiations-would seriously risk side-tracking the plan itself and would in the process frustrate the entire negotiating process. 141. We sincerely hope, therefore, that the Governments of the contact group will bear in mind these considerations and, rather than proceed with an exercise which can only lead to further delay and further frustration, use their influence to exert pressure where it is absolutely and urgently needed-namely, on the South 142. I cannot conclude without paying a well-deserved tribute to the Secretary-General and his collaborators in the Secretariat for their untiring efforts, patience and determination in pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations concerning Namibia. 143, The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, at the outset I should like to take this opportunity to thank you, and through you the other Security Council members, for allowing me to participate in these deliberations. 145. I take this opportunity also to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. I am pleased to see you, an able diplomat with high qualities, presiding over the Council at this crucial stage. We are sure that under your wise leadership the Council will be able to discharge its important duties. 146. I should like also to extend my delegation’s warmest congratulations to Ambassador Florin of the German Democratic Republic, who presided over the Council last month. 147. Close to 15 years have passed since the General Assembly adopted its resolution 2145 (XXI), which provided for the termination of South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and placed administration of Namibia under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. Since then South Africa’s administration of the region has been illegal. The International Court of Justice confirmed that in the advisory opinion it issued on 21 June 1971’ upon the request of the Council. In turn, in its resolution 301 (1971), the Council confirmed the Court’s opinion. Since then the United Nations has been calling upon South Africa to withdraw from the region to enable the Namibian people to exercise the right to self-determination and independence. Regrettably, however, South Africa’s regime paid no attention to all those calls or to resolutions of the United Nations. Thus we now find ourselves discussing this issue, which has been on the agenda of the General Assembly for the past 35 years. 148. This series of meetings of the Council is of special significance because it comes at a time when all the peaceful international efforts to find a solution to the problem of Namibia, including the recent preimplementation meeting at Geneva, have failed. It also comes at a time when the tense situation in southern .4 154. It is high time for the Council fully to shoulder its responsibilities by applying comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter and in compliance with the wish of the majority of members of the international community as expressed in the communiquC of the Conference of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non- Aligned Countries held at New Delhi,A and also in compliance with the resolution of the thirty-sixth ordinary session of the OAU Council of Ministers, held at Addis Ababa last February [S//4390, nnnex], as well as with the programme of action endorsed by the Co-ordinating Bureau of the .Non-Aligned Countries in its extraordinary ministerial meeting held at Algiers from 16 to 18 April [S/1445& nnnex]. 149. The whole international community acknowledges that South Africa’s occupation of Namibia is illegal. Yet all international efforts to force South Africa to withdraw from the region have failed because that regime still refuses to implement any United Nations resolutions on this issue. The recent Geneva meeting proved beyond any doubt the intransigence of that rkgime and its refusal to implement United Nations resolutions, and particularly Security Council resolution 435 (1978), despite SWAPO’s declaration that it was prepared to cease fire and immediately to commence implementing the United Nations plan for Namibia. 155. The application of such sanctions will strengthen the confidence of the world’s peoples in this international instrument and in its ability to carry out its responsibilities in maintaining international peace and security. It will also be a proper step towards forcing South Africa to withdraw its forces and administration from the region and to begin negotiations with SWAPO, as the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibian people, so that the region will gain independence before the end of this year. 150. South Africa’s racist rCgime persists in challenging the United Nations resolutions on Namibia. That is not peculiar, coming from a such a racist rCgime, which is established on the most repugnant and loathsome policy known to man and whose existence lacks any legitimacy. But what is truly peculiar is that the regime finds States-permanent members of the Council-which co-operate with it, while those States claim to be concerned with human rights and the defence of man’s freedom. 156. The failure of the Security Council to take deterrent measures against South Africa with regard to Namibia is the result of the positions taken by the Western States which are permanent members of the Security Council and their use of the veto in the Council. We hope that those States will review their positions and weigh their interests in South Africa against their interests in 50 African States. They must realize that the patience of the African peoples will not last forever, while they are witnessing their brethren in southern Africa suffering all kinds of oppression and being denied their right to freedom and a decent life. 151. Those States which have strategic economic interests and investments in South Africa and Namibia find it in their interest to have South Africa continue its control over the region and maintain the slaf~ls qrro in Namibia so that they may maintain their investments and accumulate enormous wealth at the expense of the Namibian people. 152. South Africa’s racist rbgime would not have persisted in challenging United Nations resolutions had it not been for the direct and indirect support a.nd approval it receives from the Western States, foremost among them the United States of America, It is regrettable that we find those States, which care for none but their own interests, even at the expense of human , values and morality, persisting in violating resolutions of the United Nations and of all other international organizations by providing both moral and material support to South Africa’s racist entity. They also provide South Africa with arms and technical expertise to develop its military capability, which it applies in the massacres and other atrocious acts it commits against the African peoples in Namibia and South Africa, and in its acts of aggression against the neighbouring States, particularly Angola, Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia. 157. I do not wish to conclude without thanking the Secretary-General for the efforts he is making to find a solution for this issue. 158. In conclusion, we hope that this series of meetings will arrive at solemn and stern resolutions against South Africa. We reaffirm our country’s solidarity with the Namibian people in its just struggle for self-determination and independence and we shall continue to provide all moral and material assistance to SWAPO, as it is the sole and legitimate representative of the Namibian people. The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m.