S/PV.2587 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2583rd meeting, I invite the representative of Liberia to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sofa (Liberia) took a place at the Council table.

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2583rd meeting, I invite the Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and the other members of the delegation to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sinclair, Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, and the other members of the delegation took a place at the Council table.

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2583rd meeting, I invite Mr. Nujoma to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Nujoma took a place at the Council table.

In accordance with decisions taken at the previous meetings on this item [2583rd to 2586th meetings], I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Guyana, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Zarif(Afghanistan), Mr. Bessaieh (Algeria), Mr. Van-Dunem (Angola), Mr. Choudhury (Bangladesh), Mr. Tshering (Bhutan), Mr. Legwaila (Botswana), Mr. Maciel (Brazil), Mr, Tsvetkov (Bulgaria), Mr. Mboumoua (Cameroon), Mr. Lewis (Canada), Mr. Malmierca (Cuba), Mr. Moushoutas (Cyprus), Mr. Al- Ashtal (Democratic Yemen), Mr. Dinka (Ethiopia), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Lautenschlager (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Asamoah (Ghana), Mr. Karran (Guyana), Mr. Kusumaatmadja (Indonesia), Mr. Barnett (Jamaica), Mr. Kiilu (Kenya), Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait), Mr. Vongsay (Lao People’s Democratic Republic), Mr. Azzarouk (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Zain (Malaysia), Mr. Muiioz Ledo (Mexico), Mr. Nyamdoo (Mongolia), Mr. Alaoui (Morocco), Mr. Davane (Mozambique), Mr. D’Escoto Brockmann (Nicaragua), Mr. Gambari Nigeria), Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Cabrera Jovane (Panama), Mr., Nowak (Poland), Mrs. Gonthier (Seychelles), Mr. von SchirndinF 10. The resolutions of the United Nations and other international organizations calling for a boycott of the Government of South Africa are totally defied by some parties. This defiance has reached the extent of aiding and supporting the South African Government economically and militarily. This has been demonstrated in continuous rejections of any measures that the Council attempted to take against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to force it to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and to withdraw its forces from Namibia. This position, which is contrary to the international will as expressed by the Members of the United Nations, has been further demonstrated by the abuse by some, Western States of the veto power with regard to the draft resolutions on Namibia brought before the Council in past years.

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Czechoslovakia, Haiti, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and Zimbabwe, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr, Ce’sar(Czechoslovakia), Mr. Charles (Haiti), Mr. Kuroda (Japan), Mr. Al- Mosfir (United Arab Emirates) and Mr. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) took the places reservedfor them at the side of the Council chamber. 11. The defiance of the resolutions of international organizations reached its peak when the racist-Zionist entity in occupied Palestine and its racist counterpart in South Africa, with the assistance ofsome Western Governments, established a close collaboration that covered all economic, military and technical fields, including cooperation in the production of nuclear weapons. This has encouraged the South African Government to persist in its defiance of the international will, enabling it to continue to pursue an aggressive policy against the front-line States.

The first 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.

At the outset, Sir, I should like, on behalf of the delegation of the Libyan Socialist Arab Jamahiriya, to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. We are confident that your wisdom and experience will lead the Council to the best possible outcome. I should like also to express my delegation’s appreciation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the representative of Thailand for the excellent manner in which they conducted the work of the Council last month. 12. The majority of the peoples of the world have discovered long ago the expansionist and racist nature of the Pretoria rCgime, its inhuman alliances and its links with world imperialism and Zionism, as a bastion for the preservation of the colonialist strategic and economic interests in southern Africa. This alliance of colonialism and racism has enabled the Pretoria rtgime to continue its defiance and scorn of the international will. It is the main reason why the Namibian people have so far been prevented from achieving their freedom and independence. This alliance has opposed the forces of liberation and progress in Africa and the Third World in their attempt to abolish all forms of colonialist domination and racial discrimination. The alliance has sought, in defiance of the international will, to impose sham settlements with a view to bringing about a fait accompli. An example of this is the recent attempt by the racist rtgime to establish a so-called interim government in Namibia. There have also been other manoeuvres that preceded this attempt to establish false constitutional structures in Namibia, such as the so-called state council and national conference. It was a desperate attempt by that rtgime to circumvent the legitimate national demands of the Namibian people and to bypass SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. 8. The Council is meeting to resume its deliberations on the question of Namibia at a time when the gravity of the situation in southern Africa is increasing and jeopardizing international peace and security. The schemes and conspiracies of the racist Pretoria rCgime against the Namibian people are continuing with the aim of frustrating the legitimate and heroic struggle of that people under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), its sole and legitimate representative. 9. The racist rigime is making a desperate attempt to prolong its illegal occupation of the Territory. This is the persistent attitude of the racist rCgime, which defied the will of the international community and flouts the resolutions of international organizations calling for an end to that occupation, particularly General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966 and the resolutions of the Security Council, including resolution 264 (1969), which calls for the immediate withdrawal of Pretoria’s forces from Namibia, resolution 435 (1978), which endorses the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, and resolutions 385 (1976), 532 (1983) and 539 (1983). At the same time, the racist rCgime is escalating its threats and acts 13. The attempt by that rtgime to link the withdrawal of its forces from Namibia to the withdrawal of the Cuban forces from Angola is only another in the series of conspiracies in a continuing effort to obstruct the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. It has been con- 14. Nineteen years after the adoption by the General Assembly, in 1966, of resolution 2145 (XXI), which called for the ending of South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia, 16 years after the adoption by the Security Council of resolution 264 (1969), which called for the immediate withdrawal of South African forces from Namibia and the ending of South African administration of the Territory, and at a time when numerous plots, oppression, suppression, persecution and assassinations are being perpetrated by the Government of South Africa against the Namibian people, the situation in Namibia now leads us to reaffirm the need to redouble international efforts at all levels for the achievement of the legitimate demands of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, and to support the liberation struggle being waged by SWAP0 against the South African Government, so that South Africa will withdraw its forces unconditionally from Namibia. This would ensure the total independence of the Namibian people and its sovereignty over all its territory, including Walvis Bay and all the Namibian offshore islands. 15. The prestige of the United Nations and the credibility of the resolutions adopted by its organs, particularly the General. Assembly and the Security Cquncil, are in jeopardy because of the deadlock on the question of Namibia ever since the adoption by the General Assembly on 14 December 1960 of resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 16. We believe that the Council bears responsibility for restoring the credibility of the United Nations by establishing that it is an effective instrument for the achievement of international peace and security through the immediate and complete implementation of General Assembly resdlutions, and particularly resolution 39/15, entitled “Adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of political, military, economic and other forms of assistance given to the racist and colonialist rtgime of South Africa”, adopted on 23 November 1984, and 39/72, entitled “Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa”, adopted on 13 December 1984. 17. We also believe that, at the very least, all parties should apply strictly a comprehensive system of sanctions against the racist Pretoria regime under Chapter VII of the Charter and that that rCgime should be expelled completely and finally from the United Nations and all other international bodies and forums so as to force it to comply with 18. In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm the Jamahiriya’s support for the Namibian people in its liberation struggle under the leadership of its sole, legitimate representative, SWAPO, for the achievement of its independence and the exercise of permanent sovereignty over its territory. I should like also to reaffirm our solidarity with the front-line States against the repeated threats and acts of aggression by the racist Pretoria rCgime. 19. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya regards itself as one of the front-line States against the racist: rtgime of Pretoria. It therefore contributes, and will continue to contribute, in every way to supporting the struggle of the peoples of southern Africa, believing that the cause of freedom is an integral whole and that the racist rtgime of South Africa is a natural ally of its twin, the Zionist racist rCgime in occupied Palestine, and that eliminating the one will accelerate the elimination of the other. 20. In compliance ‘with all the relevant resolutions and decisions adopted by international bodies and forums, my country has supported all international efforts to implement the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. We shall continue to support the efforts of the Secretary-General and the United Nations Council for Namibia, since we appreciate the important role they play in the endeavour to speed up the attainment of independence by the Namibian people and to end the colonialist, racist domination over them.

The next speaker is the representative of Mongolia, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Allow me at the outset, Sir, to offer you the sincere congratulations of my delegation on your assumption of the presidency for the month of June, I thank you and the members of the Council for giving me this opportunity to participate in the debate. I wish you every success in discharging your responsible duties as President. 23. I should also like to thank your predecessors, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the representative ofThailand, for the able manner in which they guided the Council’s work last month. 24. In the light of recent developments in Namibia, including the decision taken by Pretoria to impose a socalled internal settlement in Namibia, Mongolia was in favour of the convening of these meetings of the Council, as called for by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries and the Council ofMinisters of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). 25. I wish to recall my letter of 10 June 1985 to the Secretary-General [S/17253], in which, upon instructions from my Government, I had the honour to state the position of Mongolia, expressing its indignation and grave concern over the decision taken by the South African 26. South Africa’s occupation of Namibia has repeatedly been declared illegal by the United Nations. In defiance of the will of the international community, Pretoria, encouraged by the support of its Western allies and collaborators, especially the United States, persists in that occupation, The people of Namibia are being subjected by the regime to brutal repression, cold-blooded murder, arbitrary arrests and detention. Western transnational corporations and South Africa continue ruthlessly to plunder and exploit the natural resources of the Territory, in flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions and decisions. In order to reinforce its illegal occupation and colonial domination of the Territory, Pretoria is engaged intensively in a massive militarization of Namibia. 27, Moreover, Namibian territory is being continuously used by the racist regime for the commission of acts of aggression and subversion against neighbouring sovereign and independent African States, That’ poses a serious threat to international peace and security, In this context, mention should be made of the most recent aggressive military actions carried out against Angola by the special forces of the South African army from Namibian territory, actions which were resolutely condemned by my country, 28. Mongolia categorically rejects any delaying tactics and the.policy pursued by the Pretoria regime and the United States of linking Namibian independence to extraneous and irrelevant issues, including the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. In fact, the linkage concept has been unequivocally condemned and totally rejected by the majority of States. Here I should like to refer to the Final Document adopted by the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Namibia, held at New Delhi from 19 to 21 April, in which the Bureau stated that it “considers such linkage as repugnant to the United Nations plan and a blatant interference in the internal affairs of the People’s Republic of Angola and designed to subvert its sovereign rights as an independent State” [S/l 7184 and Cow. 1, annex, para. 25J. 29. The policy of the present United States Administration of so-called constructive engagement with Pretoria is rightly viewed by the majority of Member States as an attempt to block the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) on the granting of genuine independence to Namibia, and as such has been condemned by them. 30. In view of the South African racist regime’s continued sabotage of United Nations efforts to bring independence to Namibia and its arrogant defiance of the will of 31. Mongolia is of the view that the United Nations has primary responsibility for Namibia, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), and that it is therefore incumbent upon the Organization to ensure the speedy attainment by the people of Namibia of genuine independence. It is most appropriate for the United Nations, in this the,very year of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption by the General Assembly of the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, to take concrete action for the granting of independence to Namibia. We should also bear in mind the fact that this year marks the fortieth year ofthe United Nations efforts to bring independence to the Territory. 32. We commend the valuable efforts of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until its independence, aimed at protecting and promoting the interests of the Namibian people, and first and foremost their right to selfdetermination and independence. Mongolia wholeheartedly welcomes the Declaration contained in the Final Document adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia a few days ago, at its extraordinary plenary meetings held at Vienna [see S/17262, annex]. 33. Mongolia also expresses its full support for the decisions on Namibia taken at the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi last April. 34. Mongolia reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in their own territory, including Walvis Bay and the offshore islands. It considers that the Namibian people have a legitimate right to struggle for their freedom by all means, including armed struggle. 35. Mongolia reiterates its full solidarity with and support for the just struggle of the Namibian people led by SWAPO, their sole authentic representative, against colonial domination and for national independence. 36. In connection with the twenty-fifth anniversary ofthe establishment of SWAPO, we wish to extend to the people of Namibia and to the members of SWAP0 and its leader, Comrade Sam Nujoma, our sincere congratulations and best wishes in their heroic struggle. 37. In conclusion, my delegation would like to urge the Council to respond to the need to achieve independence for Namibia. 39. Mr. Mm02 LED0 (Mexico) (interpretution.fiom Spanish): Mr. President, it is a particular pleasure for my delegation to see you guiding the work of the Council. Mexico greatly appreciates Trinidad and Tobago’s contribution to the quest of peace and the independence of peoples, both in the hemisphere and worldwide. We are confident that under your leadership this body will adopt concrete measures commensurate with the magnitude of the challenge that South Africa has placed before it. 40. May I also commend the skilful and expeditious work done by your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, during whose term of office decisions of particular significance for the developing countries were reached. 41. The Council is obliged to meet once again because of the critical situation in southern Africa. This series of meetings none the less has special characteristics since they involve the convergence of two growing but opposing processes: on the one hand, an increasing number of political decisions by Pretoria that demonstrate its rejection of the decisions of the United Nations; on the other, the mounting indignation of world public opinion and its clear effect on Governments, including those that have thus far protected or abetted South Africa. 42. The Council must reach a decision. This is not the time for a mere verbal exercise, nor for compensatory gestures that barely conceal the real impotence of this body. Nor is this the time to relate a lamentable past with which we are all familiar. The time has come to reflect, through the implementation of Chapter VII of the Charter ‘of the United Nations, the resolve of the States Members to exert real pressure on the South African regime and to compel it to comply with international law. 43. The fact are irrefutable. In recent years, South Africa has been receiving contradictory signals from the international community. On the one hand, the United Nations adopts decisive resolutions concerning the independence of Namibia and the ending of apartheid, bodies are established and publicity campaigns mounted, and there is an interminable series of condemnations and warnings. On the other hand, there has been strategic, economic and military collusion, a search for so-called negotiated solutions that have only led to new excuses and further delays and to the strengthening of South Africa’s real power and its regional links, as well as of its influence in the West. 44. We are often subjected to campaigns designed to discredit the United Nations, campaigns in which we are accused of political ineffectiveness, but we are incapable of replying that that paralysis within the Organization derives from a system of alliances between the very countries or regions that judge us with the greatest severity. 45. Clearly, our own internal contradictions have served to encourage Pretoria’s intransigence, not to curb it. It is 46. ‘On 27 April 1981, some States members of the Council proposed a group of draft resolutions on the question of Namibia [S/Z4459 to S/14463] that included economic and political sanctions, as well as an arms and oil embargo, against South Africa. In introducing those draft resolutions, my delegation pointed out that the Geneva meeting had clearly established the limit beyond which any new offer or concession to the occupying Power would be-as it indeed turned out-ineffective and a mockery of the international community. We affirmed that it was necessary to show, by means of strong decisions, that the patience of the front-line States was not indicative of weakness and that the tasks entrusted to the Western Powers implied no sort of complicity. Three days later, at a meeting that left a profound mark on the world’s conscience, those draft resolutions were vetoed. At the end of that meeting, the Secretary for Foreign Relations of SWAP0 stated: “Again, the arrogance of power of a minority has undermined the actions of the majority” [2277th meeting, para. 1301. And he added: “When Namibia achieves liberation, then we shall differentiate between those who stood with us during the days of the bitter struggle and those who actively participated in the depletion of our mineral resources, armed and supported our enemy and belittled our sacred cause.” [Ibid, paru. 134.1 47. Had the course of action we proposed at that time been followed, had pressure upon South Africa been continued and had proposals been made periodically to the Council to adopt sanctions, it would have been possible to eliminate ambiguities and resolve contradictions. There would have been a gradual breakdown ofresistance to the application of sanctions, and such measures would have finally been adopted. 48. The firmness of the international majority and its unswerving commitment to principles would have unequivocally defined the political dimensions of the question and would perhaps have made it possible to change the course of events in southern Africa. Moreover, the effectiveness of this body would have been upheld, in the case of Namibia as well as with regard to others of extreme gravity in which the impotence of the Council has had tragic consequences. 49. There is still time to act and to safeguard the primary role of this body, The most recent events in Namibia and the reactions to South Africa’s intransigence in all democratic and progressive sectors throughout the world facilitate international unanimity and would, if we wished, make it possible to negotiate and adopt a draft resolulion calling for sanctions. 5 1, The meetings held by the United Nations Council for Namibia, as well as the relevant information we receive daily, reveal a discernible trend in international public opinion in favour of immediate sanctions against South Africa. To ignore that universal call, .to fail to respond to it promptly, would be to act irresponsibly, to say the least, and to relegate the Security Council to the sidelines of history. 57. The measures we adopt to isolate the South African regime must be effective and must be accompanied by appropriate means of verification. It is essential that all States, in particular those with the closest economic and political links to South Africa, implement them. There must be no escape clauses. If sanctions are not observed in practice, that would undermine the Security Council’s authority and encourage those who have most resisted the application of the provisions under Chapter VII. 52. We believe it highly unlikely that at this juncture any State member can have any valid reason for objecting to the application of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We cannot imagine that any Government would cast doubt upon its own responsibility by isolating itself and by refusing to act in accordance with the law in the case of conduct that so flagrantly violates human freedoms and the basic principles of international morality. 58. I should like to,recall that the arms embargo imposed against South Africa in resolution 418 (1977) is still being violated, with the implicit tolerance of the Council, which has done little to strengthen the embargo and ensure its implementation. 53. For that reason, the General Assembly, in resolution ES-812 of 14 September 1981, strongly urged the Security Council to respond positively to the overwhelming demand of the international community by immediately imposing comprehensive mandatory sanctions agarnst South Africa. 59. In June 1980 [resolution 473 (1980)], the Council reiterated its appeal to all States to apply those sanctions strictly and rigorously and requested the Security Council Committee established by resolution 421(1977) concerning the question of South Africa to redouble its efforts to ensure the complete application of the embargo. 54, At the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Namibia, held at New Delhi from 19 to 21 April of this year, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries affirmed that if South Africa persisted in its intransigence there could be “no other option but the imposition against it of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter” [S/l7184 and Corr.1, annex, para. 281. That intransigence, to which the Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement referred, has been clearly demonstrated since then, as the Council itself has acknowledged. 60. In response to that mandate, the Committee prepared a detailed and enlightening report which it submitted to the Council in September 1980 [S/14179]. Since then, the Council has avoided a debate and postponed taking action on that report which was prepared at its request and approved by the very members of the Council at the Committee level. In that document, various ways in which the embargo was violated were specified and precise measures were recommended to strengthen the embargo. 61. Before relinquishing the chairmanship of the Committee in September 1982, my delegation appeared before the Council once again to request that the report be taken up. Unfortunately, almost nothing has been done in all this time. 55. During its extraordinary plenary meetings, held at Vienna last week under the chairmanship of the representative of Guyana, Mr. Noel Sinclair, the United Nations Council for Namibia considered in depth the present situation and explored the most appropriate ways and means of speeding the achievement of a solution to the conflict. In this connection, it recalled the Security Council’s duty to ensure the implementation of its own resolutions, in particular resolution 435 (1978). It also considered-and this is a very important point-that the imposition of mandatory sanctions was the most effective means of ensuring compliance with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations on this question. 62. Now that Trinidad and Tobago has assumed the chairmanship of the Security Council Committee established by resolution 421 (1977) concerning the question of South Africa, I appeal respectfully to your delegation, Mr. President, and to the other members of the Council to proceed without delay to reconsider strengthening the arms embargo against South Africa and take the necessary measures in this respect. Only in this way will our acts match our words. 56. In the Programme of Action, contained in the Final Document which it adopted on 7 June [S/172152 annex], 63. We are aware of the practical difficulties involved in applying sanctions against States. We know that in the 64. The observance of principles has a price which all States have agreed to pay, when necessary, in order to safeguard international peace and security. The independence and dignity of nations also on occasion are won at a high cost that all free countries are prepared to bear. 65. The Council will have before it a draft resolution which, I am confident, will be adopted unanimously. Regardless of the final result of this debate, South Africa’s isolation should not be subject to further delays that might lead to undue concessions. The most honourable way of commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations is to place all the power of Member States at the service of the prompt independence of Namibia and in favour of the abolition of racism and colonial exploitation, which are fundamentally in opposition to the very essence of the United Nations.

It is indeed a pleasure for my country and for me personally to welcome you, Sir, the representative of an exemplary democracy, to the Council. Trinidad and Tobago is a shining example of how strong democratic institutions and principles serve simultaneously to foster respect for human rights and economic development. It is fitting that Trinidad and Tobago should honour the office of the presidency by sending one of its most capable and eminent public servants to guide the Council as it undertakes such important discussions. We note also that you bring to our proceedings a wealth of international experience iri economic and political affairs which has distinguished your illustrious career. 67. We wish once again to pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Thailand and to the representative of Thailand for the excellent manner in which the Council was led during the month of May. 68. We welcome this opportunity for the Council to meet once again to review developments in Namibia. We can all agree that the Council bears a unique responsibility for this troubled Territory and for moving it rapidly to internationally accepted independence. This is a responsibility we in the United States take seriously, and it is, moreover, a hope we have laboured diligently over many years to bring to fruition. 69. Namibia is a subject on which there is a wide area of international consensus. Foremost among these points of agreement is the need to bring the Territory to independence in accordance with Council resolution 435 (1978). The United States remains dedicated to this goal. We remain actively involved in negotiations to create conditions to allow implementation of the United Nations plan to proceed. We are heartened also by the reaffirmations of support for resolution 435 (1978) that we have heard from 70. As we meet this week on Namibia, we find ourselves at a very serious juncture. This is the first time the Council has met in formal session to discuss the question of Namibia in 19 months. These are months in which we have seen substantial progress towards a Namibia settlement. We have seen developments which seem to bring into question the commitment of some to proceed with implementation of resolution 435 (1978). 71. It is one of these developments which prompted the call for the current meeting of the Council-specifically, the announced intention by South Africa to establish an “interim government” in Namibia. The United States has made its view on this “interim government” absolutely clear. Our statement on that subject, issued by the Department of State on 19 April 1985, declares that: “it has long been our position, and that of our contact group partners, that any purported transfer of power that might take place now or in future to bodies established in Namibia by South Africa is null and void. Such institutions will have, as Secretary Shultz stated on 16 April, no standing. We have not recognized them in the past and will not do so now. Our negotiating effort continues with the Governments concerned. Thus, we view the announcement regarding internal administrative arrangements inside Namibia as without effect on these negotiations or the agreements already achieved thereunder.” [See S/17119, annex.] 72. We were also pleased to join in the statement by the Council on,3 May [S/17151] that was consistent with this position. It is clear that no internal settlement can succeed as long as the international community and the Council stand together and oppose it. In this regard, it is important that we speak with one voice, We must reaffirm that no settlement outside the framework of resolution 435 (1978) is acceptable. We must be prepared to reject any attempt by any party to impose such a settlement. 73. While the “interim government” has not been presented as an independent authority representing an internal settlement outside resolution 435 (1978), this is not sufficient. The international community is entirely justified in rejecting the creation of institutions which have no standing and can serve no conceivable purpose if the early implementation of resolution 435 (1978) is intended. 74. In our view, all Namibians should have the right to be heard, to express their views freely, to form political parties. They also have the right, as provided in resolution 435 (1978), to stand for election to represent their people. By the same token, however, none can be permitted tu Lake power into their own hands or to proclaim themselves the 75. In the absence of Namibian independence, the scourge of war has continued to afflict the region. A major goal of my Government in southern Africa has been to reduce the level of violence, and especially cross-border violence. 76. It was our goal of reducing violence and tension and ending cross-border operations that led us over a year ago to the negotiations that resulted in the Lusaka accord. That agreement was intended to give new impetus to the negotiations to stop the violence between Angolan and South African forces and to end the presence of outside forces in southern Angola. Those objectives were essentially achieved, and the violence that preceded the agreement was followed by 12 months of peace and practical cooperation between Angola and South Africa. Cooperation continues between the military forces of South Africa and Angola along the Namibian border itself, and we are heartened also by South Africa’s announced withdrawal of its troops from the dams at Ruacana and Calueque. 77. Nevertheless, the achievement has been marred by the recent incident at Cabinda, which my Government has condemned. Respect for the national sovereignty of all States and the inviolability of international borders isa key principIe in international relations. The United States cannot condone violations of this principle in whatever direction they may be launched or in the name of whatever goal they be justified. In this regard, we deplore South African violations of Angolan territorial integrity. Violent actions across borders, be they military attacks, sabotage or terrorism against innocent civilians, can only serve to undermine the confidence necessary for the settlement of disputes. In this instance, they can only detract from the prospects of the early ,independence of Namibia. 78. Constructive progress towards the resolution of disputes is the only way to bring about progress towards peace in the region. There can be no military solutions. In our view, the events of decent weeks-including the incident at Cabinda-underscore the importance of an early and comprehensive settlement which would address the root causes of violence in the region. 79. A settlement, however, could be within our grasp, given sufficient will by the parties most concerned. Prior to the Council’s last meetings on Namibia, the Secretary- General reported [S/15943, pam. 25’J that only one barrier remained to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), namely, South Africa’s insistence on an agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Since that report was issued, we have seen substantial movement towards the resolution of this final key issue. By late last summer, it became Clear that we had moved beyond the stage of rhetorical debate on the issues of “linkage’‘-that is, whether Cuban troop withdrawal and Namibian independence should be related. Cuban lrobp withdrawal is- 80. My Government has been involved for the past several months in intensive discussions with the two parties aimed at narrowing the remaining gap between their positions. We remain convinced that the gap can be bridged, Even in the wake of the events of the past days, it is our view that the door clearly remains open to a settlement and the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). The United States, for one, remains committed to pursuing the search for peace for as long as there is prospect for success. The only alternative would be to acquiesce in continued war and suffering for the people of the region. 81. My Government notes that the Secretary-General’s latest report [S/17242] confirms that the position of South Africa regarding the issue of the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola remains unchanged, The Secretary- General has urged all parties to make a new and determined effort to expedite implementation. My Government will take this call by the Secretary-General seriously, as we have in the past, and continue our efforts to bring the parties together. 82. I should like to pay special tribute to the Secretary- General for his role in pursuing the task given to him in resolution 435 (1978). We have admired his unstinting efforts to bridge the gap separating the contending parties, in order to bring about independence for Namibia under that resolution. My Council has co-operated closely with the Secretary-General in this effort and, in turn, has kept him fully informed of our own efforts towards the same end, SO that our actions are mutually reinforcing. 83. Enormous problems of confidence and trust must be overcome to achieve a settlement. Each party must make difficult decisions regarding its security, its relations with its neighbours and its very future. These issues involve important questions of political will. These are the real decisions before the parties today as we debate the issue of Namibia. The answers they give will determine the future course of events not only in Namibia but throughout the region. It is up to us, as members of the Security Council, to give them every encouragement to make the right decisions, to abandon violence and to choose instead the path of peace.

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

My delegation wishes at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month. We are confident that your wellknown ability as Minister .for Foreign Affairs of your 87. We cannot but praise the Secretary-General for his efforts in the preparation of his valuable report concerning the implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) on the question of Namibia. 88. Kuwait attaches the greatest importance to the Council’s current discussion of the situation in Namibia. Unfortunately, pressing engagements prevent the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country, Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber AI-Sabah, from participating in these deliberations. He has conferred upon me the important responsibility of supporting the joint effort undertaken by his colleagues in the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries on the basis of a specific mandate from the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Namibia, held at New Delhi from 19 to 21 April of this year. In its call for the convening of these meetings, the Non-Aligned Movement stresses its grave concern about the question of Namibia, its persistent quest for peace and justice, and its pioneering role in defence of peoples under occupation. 89. The Council’s deliberations are taking place not only because of that concern; they also reflect and reaffirm the responsibility of the international community for the Namibian people. The question of Namibia is a primary responsibility of the United Nations. It is therefore the duty of the international community to take a frank and clear position on that question and its evolution. 90. The situation in southern Africa is fraught with threats to international peace and security. On the political level, we are faced with a rtgime which has made prevarication and intransigence the cornerstone of its policy. It has shown shrewdness in the delaying tactics it has employed to evade a peaceful settlement of the issue. The policies of the racist rigime are exemplified by its intention to install on 17 June a so-called interim government in Namibia, having invited parliamentarians from Western countries to participate in the celebration of that sham. On the economic level, we are faced with a rigime which, strengthened by foreign economic interests, has persisted in exploiting and depleting the natural resources of Namibia. On the military level, we are faced with a rCgime which has turned to policies of intimidation and repression in Namibia and aggression against neighbouring countries. Among the aspects of those policies are the imposition by the’aovernment of South Africa of compulsory conscription for all Namibian males, that Government’s military manoeuvres inside Namibia, its infiltration into Angolan territory notwithstanding its claim to have withdrawn its forces from that area, and its attempts to carry out sabotage and destabilization in that country. 92. That policy has strengthened and bolstered the aparfheid regime, rather than bringing pressure to bear on it, as demanded by the situation. We are apprehensive about the United States position and its linkage of the independence of Namibia to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. That linkage runs counter to the provisions of resolution 435 (1978), as reiterated by the Council in its resolution 539 (1983). That position will undoubtedly assist South Africa to carry out its plan to impede talks on the achievement of a settlement. 93. South Africa is exploiting that situation and that position in order to continue its hegemony over Namibia and extend it throughout the region. It is determined to impose its own interpretation of the settlement plan together with the form of government it believes should be at the helm in Namibia. Moreover, it persists in interfering in neighbouring countries in an attempt to define their choice of allies and political systems. We vigorously condemn that policy. We believe that the States, that, through their well-known policies, strengthen the racist rigime in South Africa should have responded favourably to the demands for pressure on that rtgime and, even more, should have supported the efforts made to that end. 94. Kuwait supports the Council resolution on the prohibition of the export and import of arms to and from South Africa. It caIls for increasing the scope of that resolution SO that it will include other sectors, particularly oil and investments. Furthermore, Kuwait calls for finding ways and means to guarantee implementation of that resolution, and it expresses its readiness to participate in all efforts in lhat regard. I should like to recall that Kuwait, when it was a member of the Council, attempted to produce a solution in the matter of the arms embargo, and two years ago it participated in defining the different aspects of the oil embargo. 95. Because of the policies of South Africa, the Namibian people have indeed made great sacrifices. Yet, despite its grave difficulties, the Namibian people, through its sole, legitimate representative, SWAPO, has proved its commitment to peaceful settlement, Kuwait, for its part, has consistently supported the noble stand taken by that organisation and has endeavoured to strengthen its ties and relations with it. These endeavours have been marked by the recent visit of President Sam Nujoma to Kuwait, following the New Delhi meeting last April.

The next speaker is the Vice- Minister for Foreign Relations of Panama, Mr. Cabrera Jovane. I welcome him and invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Sir, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of June. In the few days in which you have presided over this important United Natidns organ you have enhanced the well-deserved prestige you enjoy in the international community. We are all the more pleased since you are a representative of Trinidad and Tobago, an outstanding country of our own region, with which Panama has indissoluble geographic, ethnic, historical and cultural ties. 99. I should like to congratulate the representative of Thailand on the able and dis‘tinguished manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the Council last month. 100. The question of Namibia has a special place among the main concerns in Panama’s foreign policy. This is so because the question of Namibia embodies fundamental principles which the international community has been establishing in its unceasing efforts to ensure a world of peace, freedom and social justice. 101. For that reason, we have unreservedly supported the decision by the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries to call for these urgent meetings of the Council; we feel particularly honoured that the Bureau authorized Panama, together with 17 other members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to participate in this debate. We do so deeply convinced of the seriousness of the situation that has brought us here and profoundly alarmed at the intensification of unlawful acts by the racist Government of South Africa, which, in repeated demonstrations of its open defiance of the overwhelming will of the international community, persists in placing new obstacles in the path of Namibia’s attainment of independence. 102. Panama, a full-fledged member of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, has affirmed its recognition of the principles and norms of international law and therefore bases its international policy on those principles and, in particular, on the legal equality of States, regardless of size or might, the right of peoples to self-determination, the 103. These meetings of the Council to consider the question of Namibia happen to coincide with the commemoration of important dates on the United Nations calendar of decolonization, giving us an opportunity to give serious thought to the role played by the United Nations in this field, as well as to the prospects for the immediate future. 104. A period of 19 years has gone by since the General Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority, resolution 2145 (XXI), which put an end to South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory of Namibia, and since the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for administration of the Territory and for the preparation of a programme which would enable its people to exercise its right to self- ?letermination. 105. Today is the seventeenth anniversary of the adoption by the,General Assembly of resolution 2372 (XXII), which gave the Security Council the responsibility of adopting urgent measures under the Charter to ensure “the immediate removal of the South African presence from Namibia and to secure for Namibia its independence in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI)-‘. 106. My country has no doubt that sufficient time has elapsed and that we have considered all the possible means for an orderly and peaceful transition of Namibia to independent life within a united and integrated territory. The international community has exceeded all the acceptable bounds of patience on this issue, while the Namibian people continue to pay a j’ery high price in bloodshed and sacrifice, for the sole reason that they aspire to live in peace and freedom in an independent and democratic Namibia. 107. In spite of the present serious situation, the South African Gove-nment has sought to take further dangerous steps, which not only obstruct the implementation of the categorical decisions of the Council with regard to Namibia but also openly contravene resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) and relevant decisions of the General Assembly, thus seriously endangering international peace and security. 108. The South African rkgime’s decision to establish a so-called interim government in Namibia, in flagrant disregard of provisions of the Council on this matter, constitutes a further defiance of the express will of the community of nations, defiance to which the Council should respond with exemplary determination. 109. Panama associates itself with the unanimous rejection by the international community of this new manoeuvre of the racist regime and expresses its support for the 110. Today, as in the past, it is right to stress the special responsibility of the United Nations with respect to the people and Territory of Namibia, as has been recognized by the Council in various resolutions. Given this indisputable fact, South Africa’s intransigence makes it more urgent than ever for the United Nations effectively to shoulder its responsibility and act with determination in accordance with the Charter so that the people of Namibia may attain genuine, internationally recognized independence in a united Namibia, with complete territorial integrity, a Namibia that includes the Caprivi Strip, Walvis Bay and the Penguin Islands and other offshore islands. 111. That is why Panama is appearing before the Council to add its voice to the demands of the community ,of nations for an immediate end to the Pretoria rtgime’s illegal occupation of Namibia and for the adoption, once and for all, of urgent measures to implement, without further delay or pre-conditions, the United Nations plan for Namibia, as endorsed in Council resolution 435 (1978). 112. In that respect, my country categorically rejects any attempt by the South African rCgime to impose internal, unilateral settlements of the Namibian question, and we firmly support the statement made by the President of the Council on 3 May 1985, on behalf of al1 its members [S/17151], that any unilateral action by South Africa leading towards an internal settlement outside of resolution 435 (1978) is unacceptable and that the establishment of the so-called interim government in Namibia is null and void. 1 f3. My delegation reaffirms its unceasing solidarity with SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia, and we are happy to greet its President, Sam Nujoma, whose cause we regard as our own. 114. We also reiterate our solidarity with thC front-line States, suffering systematic aggression by the Pretoria rbgime, and express to them our appreciation of the valuable contribution they are making to the struggle for the final elimination of colonialism in southern Africa and for the eradication of apartheid. 115. My country reaffirms its complete support for the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until its independence, and we express our appreciation of, and support for, the self-sacrificing w&-k done by the Council to promote the prompt independence of Namibia. 116. The Secretary-General deserv’es our warmest tribute for his indefatigable perseverance and exemplary tenacity in the cause of Namibia’s independence. We beliive that 117. The time has come to move from words to deeds. There is an urgent need for all States Members to act in accordance with the resolutions and decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly with regard to Namibia and take the necessary measures to isolate the racist rkgime of South Africa and bring about Namibia’s independence without delay. However, we wish to point out that, for the accomplishment of this task, it is up to the Council to shoulder with determination its prime responsibility to deal with situations that, as is the case with the one we are considering, seriously threaten both regional and international peace and security. 118. This year, as we commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the twentyfifth anniversary of the adoption of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Magna Carta of decolonization, the members of the Council, and in particular its permanent members, bear the heavy responsibility of proving worthy of the great trust that mankind, represented by the States Members, has placed in them.

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

I should like to congratulate you, Sir, the repreintative of Trinidad and Tobago, on your assumption-of the presidency of the Council for the month of June and to express our appreciation to your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, for the efficient manner in which he conducted the Council’s business last month. 121. Poland, as one of the co-founders of the United Nations and a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until its independence, is deeply concerned about Namibia, as well as about the situation throughout the region. That is why Poland welcomed the convening of these urgent meeting of the Security Council. 122. The high-level representation of some States members of the Council and of the States that have asked to be allowed to express their views emphasizes the gravity of the situation. That gravity stems from tensions and insecurity created by South Africa’s policies, its armed aggression against neighbouring States, its illegal occupation of Namibia and its defiance of the United Nations and, indeed, of the international community as a whole. 123. The statements made by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, as well as those by Mr. Noel Sinclair, Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, and Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of 125. Guided by those decisions and by the principles of its own foreign policy, Poland rejects “linkage”, “parallelism” or a so-called internal settlement, as yet another of South Africa’s and its collaborators’ games aimed at prolonging the colonial occupation of Namibia. 126. My Government fully shares the indignation of th, United Nations Council for Namibia and supports its communique, adopted at Vienna on 5 June, regarding Pretoria’s plan to install a puppet administration in Namibia [see S/l 7262, annex]. 127. In that connection, it is our opinion that the Security Council should fully assume its responsibility, condemn such delaying manoeuvres and enforce implementation o[ its own resolutions without modification or qualification. If South Africa continues to show no willingness to cooperate and continues its cynical disregard for those decisions and opinions of the United Nations, the non-aligned countries and the Organization of African Unity, the Council should urgently and with determination undertake more concrete measures envisaged under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. 128. The intransigence of the Pretoria regime, and its political manipulations together with some of its supporters, should be curbed; Council resolution 418 (1977), which call< for an c;ms embargo against South Africa, should be strengthened; Decree No. 1’ of the United Nations Council for Namibia should be strictly enforced. The statement by South Africa’s representative on 10 June before this Council [2583rd meeting], a statement characterized by arrogance and cynicism, convinced us only of the urgency of those steps and their utmost importance. 129. We do not believe that a durable peace can be achieved until all the remnants of colonialism and the inhuman system of apartheid are removed and the illegal occupation of Namibia ends. 130. It is our sincere hope and our earnest expectationas it is the hope of the Namibian people and their authentic representative, SWAPO-that these meetings of the Council will contribute to that cause. 13 1. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of Cyprus. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

At the outset I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of June, We its important responsibilities in once again considering the situation in Namibia and doing justice to its people. 133. I should also like to pay a special tribute to your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, for the exemplary manner in which he conducted the business of the Council last month. 134. Twenty-five years have passed since the General Assembly adopted the epoch-making resolution 15 14 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 135. Forty years have passed since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations, which created an international organization whose primary purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to safeguard fundamental freedoms. 136. For 100 years the people of Namibia have been struggling for the realization of their inalienable right to self-determination and national independence and for the abolishment of the abhorrent yoke of colonialism and the degrading system of apartheid imposed upon them by the Pretoria regime. 137. Meeting here on the anniversaries of such important historical developments, and considering that mankind is on the threshold of the twenty-first century, the obligation and responsibility placed on our shoulders to assist the people of Namibia in their efforts to attain their precious goal of freedom and national independence are both immense and pressing. 138. The case of Namibia is a clear case of colonialism, racism and foreign occupation and oppression, which are allowed to persist in flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of the Namibian people and in defiance of the very authority of the United Nations. The Organization faces serious responsibilities, for Namibia is the only Territory placed under its direct administering authority. Yet the resultant stalemate in the situation in Namibia obviously raises the question of the credibility of the United Nations because of the inability of the Organization to give effect to the resolutions of its principal organs and because of the compelling need to take the measures expressly provided for in the Charter, thus giving substance and validity to the Organization. 139. If South Africa, or any other aggressor or occupying Power which, through its acts, threatens international peace and security, is allowed arrogantly and with disdain to flout the repeated calls of the international community, and if the United Nations cannot ensure the implementation of its own decisions, the Organization cannot function effectively, and its very concept, or even its very existence, is in jeopardy, 141. That is why my delegation strongly holds the view that Council resolution 435 (197Q which reflects the international consensus on this issue and provides the solid basis for a peaceful solution to the problem, should be implemented immediately. To this end, we join our voice with the voices of previous speakers in appealing to the Secretary-General to convene a meeting of the parties concerned-SWAP0 and South Africa--to finalize details in connection with the active implementation of that resolution. 142. On the occasion of SWAPO’s twenty-fifth anniversary, Cyprus would like to reiterate its brotherly solidarity with and support for SWAP0 and its leadership and for the heroic people of Namibia struggling valiantly for their liberation from the oppression of the colonial Power, the racist South African rCgime. 143. The Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Namibia, held at New Delhi last April, evaluated the situation in and relating to Namibia and considered ways by which the non-aligned countries could further intensify their solidarity with and assistance to SWAP0 and the Namibian people. We endorse the Programme of Action it adopted [see S/17184 and Corr.1, annex]. 144. That important meeting, and the Extraordinary Plenary Meetings of the United Nations Council for Namibia, held at Vienna last week, meetings which are taking place in the context of the intensification of our endeavours to achieve speedy implementation of resolution 435 (1978) aimed at the achievement of independence for Ihe Territory, coincide with the decision of the South African apartheid rtgime to establish a so-called Multi-Party Conference and an interim government, against the will of the Namibian people. 145. We once again reject as null and void any such attempts by the South African rigime to circumvent the United Nations plan for the immediate independence of Namibia. In a rare show of unity, the international community adopted that plan of action as providing the only acceptable solution to the problem of Namibia. Responsibility for its non-implementation rests with the South African rigime. 146. At the same time, we reject the imposition by the occupation rtgime of South Africa of military conscription 14’1. The Government of Cyprus, which is an active member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, has consistently and fervently supported the liberationstruggle of the Namibian people, led by their sole authentic representative, SWAPO, for independence in a united Namibia. We have extended all possible support in the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and in the United Nations. We remain steadfastly committed to the goal of an independent, united Namibia, including Walvis Bay, the Penguin Islands, and other offshore islands. We hold firmly to the view that this goal should be achieved in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant resolutions of the Organization. It is rhe duty of all of us to redouble our efforts to help the Namibian people in realizing their goals. It is the duty of the five members of the Western contact group to see that their initiative in favour of a genuine political solution in Namibia is carried out to its logical conclusion. 148. Cyprus, for its part, will continue to join the intensified efforts of the international community until Namibia becomes truly independent on the basis of resolution 435 (1978), which provides the only acceptable solution of the Namibian problem.

The next speaker is the representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

The Laotian delegation would like to extend to you, Sir, its warm congratulations on your assumption of the presidency for the month of June. We are sure that, under the guidance of such a distinguished representative of a peace-loving and justiceloving country whose sympathy for the cause of decolonization is so well known, the work of the Council will yield the results for which we all hope. My delegation would also like to express its gratitude to the Council for having granted its request to participate in the debate on this important question, entitled “The situation in Namibia”. 151. We should also like to pay a tribute to your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, for the remarkable manner in which he guided the proceedings of the Council last month. 152. Peoples and Governments throughout the world that cherish peace, freedom and justice have been following with concern and relief the debate now being held in the Council on the tragic situation in Namibia and in the whole of southern Africa because of the resurgence of acts of intimidation, repression, destabilization and aggression being perpetrated by the illegal and racist Pretoria rtgime. These peoples and Governments, together with the oppressed peoples of South Africa and occupied Namibia, have finally realized, with indignation and bitterness, that 158. In the past few months the international community has witnessed an escalation of tension and violence in South Africa and Namibia, and throughout southern Africa, because of a whole series of acts of intimidation, repression, destabilization and aggression committed by the racist and colonial regime of Pretoria against the oppressed masses in those countries as well as independent States of the area. 153. One morefait accompli-or, rather, a further criminal act-has just been committed by Pretoria against the oppressed people of Namibia and SWAPO, their sole authentic representative, whose President, Mr. Sam Nujoma, made a particularly moving statement before the Council last Monday [2583rd meeting]. 159. It is clear, as was stated here by the President of SWAPO, that the policy of State terrorism at present being pursued so frenetically by the illegal racist Pretoria rtgime is aimed ultimately not only at perpetuating its illegal occupation of Namibia and plundering with impunity the vast human and natural resources of that Territory, but also at bantustanizing it. 154. Several speakers, including the acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until its independence, have already told the Council that the formal establishment of a puppet administration is scheduled for 17 June in the Namibian capital. We know that everyone, including the United States and other friends and allies of the criminal Pretoria rtgime, have been condemning and denouncing that illegal act and those responsible for it. However, we must not allow ourselves to be lulled by soft words and insincere professions of faith. We must be in a position and have the courage to denounce and condemn both the author of that criminal act and its most notorious accomplices and paymasters. 160. It is tragic and immoral that the United States, certain Western military-industrial Powers and the Zionist rtgime should continue to support that diabolical rCgime openly, covertly or through transnational corporations. That explains the intransigence and persistence with which the apartheid rCgime has made the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia’s independence dependent on withdrawal from Angola of the internationalist Cuban contingent. 155. Like the President of SWAP0 and other speakers here, the Laotian Government unreservedly condemns the policy of “constructive engagement” with aparrheidsouth Africa that has been pursued for almost five years by the United States Government. It is precisely that policy of “destructive engagement”-to use the words of President Nujoma-that has consolidated the system of apartheid and encouraged Pretoria to adopt an attitude of arrogance, defiance and intransigence towards the entire international community. It is that policy of destructive engagement and appeasement that has incited and encouraged the racist Pretoria rtgime to trample underfoot with impunity a considerable number of resolutions and decisions on the subject adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council, including resolution 435 (1978), which, as we know, endorses the United Nations plan for the true independence of Namibia. 161. We know that the Government of Angola, the international community and the Council have on more than one occasion categorically repudiated this pre-condition known as “linkage”, which is entirely extraneous to the subject with which we are concerned. 162. The international community is duty-bound to demand :&hat Pretoria withdraw immediately and unconditionally its forces of occupation and aggression from southern Africa. It was with profound indignation that the international community learned that the representative of the illegal racist Pretoria rkgime-as is made clear in the further report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) concerning the question of Namibia [S/172&l--- made so bold as to tell the Secretary-General, on 26 April 1985, a pack of lies when informing him that the process of disengagement of the South African forces of aggression from southern Angola had been completed. 156. Pretoria’s reprehensible actions thus seriously weaken the authority and the moral and political credibility of the United Nations, and particularly of its supreme organ, the Security Council, because the question of Namibia falls especially within the competence and direct responsibility of the Organization. 163. Those lies were conclusively exposed by the message from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola [S/17246, annex], describing the act of aggression and sabotage committed on 21 May by South African “commandos” in the Malongo region, province of Cabinda. Those “commandos” were, in fact, taken prisoner by the people’s liberation forces of Angola. 157, Everyone was pleased when, on 3 May of this year, the Council issued a statement [S/171.51] condemning and rejecting as null and void the decision taken by Pretoria on 18 April to set up a puppet administration in Namibia, a 165. That news should not surprise us because it is public knowledge that these imperialists, expansionists, racists, Zionists and international reactionary forces still continue to pursue a belligerent policy of provocation, intervention, all forms of sabotage, oppression, repression and direct aggression against independent, sovereign countries and peoples and, indeed, the oppressed peoples and their national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 166. These diabolical forces still continue to make use of traitors and counter-revolutionaries in the countries concerned, with the support and criminal complicity of the, extreme right and expansionist circles in certain neighbouring countries. The case of my own country is a good example of that. We ourselves were victims of the same manoeuvres used against Namibia and the front-line States in southern Africa. 167. To come back to the problem of Namibia, the international community, and in particular the Security Council, which has primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations to preserve and promote international peace and security, should take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of its own decisions and, in the case of recalcitrance, obstruction or continued defiance by the illegal racist Pretoria rCgime, to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against it, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. 168. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that, wishing to accelerate the process of the accession to genuine independence by the oppressed people of Namibia, in keeping with the spirit and the letter of Council resolution 435 (1978), the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Namibia, which was held from 19 to 21 April 1985 at New Delhi and in which my country participated, adopted a Declaration and a Programme of Action of great importance [S/I 7184 and Corr. I, annex]. 169. My delegation hopes that the Council, which has been convened at the express request of that meeting, will fully take account of the judicious recommendations contained in those documents. By way of conclusion I shall, with the Council’s permission, quote the following passage from the statement made at the New Delhi meeting by the head of our delegation: “The Lao people, having suffered a long and painful colonial past and knowing full well the cost ofa national “We should also like to reaffirm our unswerving support and sympathy for the Governments and the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and the other front-line States, whose contribution to the Namibian cause has been so valuable.”

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

I should like at the outset to thank you, Sir, and the members of the Council for giving me this opportunity to take part in the debate. I would also like to take this opportunity warmly to congratulate you on your assumption of the high office of the President of the Council for the month of June. 172. I wish also to pay tribute to your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, for guiding the Council’s defiberations with skill and efficiency last month. 173. It was the intention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka, Mr. Hameed, to attend this meeting of the Council. Regrettably, pressing engagements at home have prevented his being here. He has requested me to make the following statement on his behalf: “The decision to convene these meetings of the Council to consider the situation in Namibia is most timely and necessary. Although Council resolution 435 (1978) endorses a comprehensive plan to enable the people of Namibia to exercise their inalienable right to selfdetermination and independence, seven frustrating years have passed since that resolution offered so much hope. “Sri Lanka believes in the continued validity of resolution 435 (1978) as the only blueprint for Namibian independence, and also believes that it should be implemented unaltered and without further delay. Extraneous conditions put forward, including the so-called linkage between Namibian independence and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, must be rejected, since they help to delay the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). “Sri Lanka recognizes SWAP0 as the sole luthenlic representative of the Namibian people. “The decision of South Africa to establish an interim government in Namibia can only obstruct and complicate the process towards independence. “Sri Lanka fully supports the efforts of the United Nations, particularly those of the Secretary-General, “I wish the deliberations of the Council all success.” 174. Much has been said in the Security Council, the General Assembly and various other forums by those who are concerned with the fate of Namibia and the struggle of the valiant people of that country. The time is now opportune for the Council to assume its internationally recognizeu responsibility over that coumry and act swiftly in a decisive manner. It will be supported in this endeavour by the non-aligned group, the OAU and the overwhelming majority of the international community. 175. The best means of achieving independence for Namibia lies in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), which endorses a detailed plan for this process. We recognize the role played by the contact group in negotiating this resolution and securing the agreement of all parties for its implementation when it was adopted in 1978. The people of Namibia have waited with the international community for the past seven years for the implementation of this resolution, but as of now there has in fact been no progress towards the goal of Namibian independence. It is an unfortunate fact that, apart from resolution 435 (1978), the international community has not donemuch to press home its political will to achieve the goal of Namibian independence. It is imperative at this stage for the Council to take decisive action for the following reasons. 176. During the last 40 years the United Nations has been preoccupied with Namibia without achieving any tangible result. The international community had every reason to be proud of resolution 435 (!978). Even South Africa, which stubbornly maintains its stranglehold on Namibia, went on record that resolution 435 (1978) was acceptable to it. What remained to be done after the adoption of that resolution was its implementation, which would have granted independence to ‘the Territory under the plan endorsed in the resolution. 177. Adding .to the sense of urgency is South Africa’s plan, through the involvement of the Multi-Party Conference, to install a so-called interim government in Namibia on 17 June. The time is indeed opportune for the Council to take firm and positive steps to implement resolution 435 (1978). As far as the international community is concerned, the years of waiting are running out, andit now looks to the Security Council to assume its responsibility. This is all the more important in view of the position taken by South Africa in its Aid-m&nloire of 18 April 1985, which states that: “The South African Government is well aware of its responsibilities in South West Africa. They derive from its position that its presence and administration in the Territory are legal. There is no legally binding decision of the International Court of Justice, nor any decision of 179. The South African representative devoted a major portion of his statement made on 10 June to Angola rather than Namibia. He said that: “It is significant that participants in this debate this afternoon should have referred to developments in Angola in conjunction with the question of South West Africa” [2583rd meeting, para. 2051. 180. What he failed to mention, however, was the fact that the overwhelming majority who had spoken on the question of Namibia in the past and during the current meetings of the Council have done so only to reject categorically the concept of linkage between the independence of Namibia, which is an issue of decolonization, and a decision taken by a sovereign country, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, I should like to reiterate the position of my Government that Sri Lanka totally rejects the linkage of extraneous issues to the independence of Namibia. If Angola was dragged into the discussion on the question of Namibia, it was done by those elements that saw an advantage to such a linkage. South Africa did not refer to the presence of foreigq troops when accepting, resolution 435 (1978). 181. In his statement, the South African representative declared that South Africa “will continue to search for a reasonable formula for genuine Cuban withdrawal from Angola. If a firm agreement can be reached in this regard, it will carry out its undertaking to implement the international settlement plan.” [Ibid., para. 215.1 182. It is time for the Council to remind South Africa of resolution 264 (1969), which stated that the presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and called upon South Africa to withdraw immediately from Namibia. That was many years before Angola became independent and Cuba troops set foot in Angola. 183. It is a well-known fact that Namibia is endowed with vast mineral resources and that over the years these resources h&e been systematically exploited for the benefit of the few, depriving the indigenous people of Namibia of their inheritance. This exploitation runs on classic colonial lines, and not content with exploitation of natural resources, there is now a definitive attempt to exploit the human resources of that unfortunate country. 185. The representative of South Africa indicated in his statement: the desire of his country to resolve problems concerning the region through peaceful means rather than resort to violence. Peace that South Africa claims to seek The meeting rose at 6p.m.