S/PV.2593 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. Kofa (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. Ouyahia, Acting President, and the other members of the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia 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 previous meetings on this item [2583rd to 2587th, 2589th, 2590th and 259&d meetings], I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, the Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Zarr(Afghanistan). Mr. Bessaieh (Algeria), Mr. Van-Dunem (Angola), Mr. Muiiiz (Argentina), Mr. Choudhury (Bangladesh), Mr. Moseley (Barbados), Mr. Tshering (Bhutan), Mrs. Carrasco (Bolivia), Mr. Legwaila (Botswana), Mr. MacieI(Brazil), Mr. Tsvetkov(Bulgaria), Mr. Engo (Cameroon), Mr. Lewis (Canada), Mr. Gayama (Congo), Mr. Malmierca (Cuba), Mr, Moushoutas (CypruQ Mr. &ar (Czechoslovakia), Mr. AI-Ashtal(Democratic Yemen), Mr. Dinka (Ethiopia), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Lautenschlager (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Asamoah (Ghana), Mr. Sinclair (Guyana), Mr. Charles (Haiti), Mr. Foideak (Hungary), Mr. Kusumaatmadja (Indonesia), Mr. Shearer (Jamaica), Mr. Kuroda (Japan), Mr. Kiilu (Kenya), Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait), Mr.

I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to document S/17272, which contains the text of a letter dated 13 June 1985 from the representative of Venezuela to the Secretary-General. 6. The first speaker is the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Mr. Abdul G. Koroma. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Since its inception, and in the discharge of the mandate entrusted to it, namely, to ensure that peoples of dependent Territories exercise their legitimate right to self-determination and independence, the Special Committee has considered the question of Namibia’s independence to be of supreme importance. This year, as it commemorates the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adop tion of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Special Committee’s commitment to and determination to work towards Namibia’s freedom and independence have become even more resolute. It is for this reason that we have requested the Council’s permission to speak to make known the Special Committee’s latest position on this all-important matter. 8. Before proceeding further, however, I wish, on behalf of the Special Committee and on my own personal behalf, to congratulate you, Sir, on assuming the presidency for this month. It is with considerable interest and hope that the Special Committee views the assumption of the presidency by Trinidad and Tobago, the country which you so ably represent in this body, on this important occasion, for your country is a firm believer in the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and a courageous defender ofthe principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, Furthermore, the commitment of the people and the Government ofTrinidad and Tobago to the cause of colonial peoples and their outstanding contribution to the work of the United Nations in the field of decolonization, in particular as an exemplary member of the Special Committee, give us hope that, under your stewardship, the just cause of the freedom and indeg. I should like also to congratulate the repreSentatiVe of Thailand on the excellent manner in which he presided over the affairs ofthe Council last month. We acknowledge with gratitude and appreciation the steadfast support of his Government and his people for the cause of the right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence. 10. The importance and urgency attached to the situation in Namibia are clearly demonstrated by the active participation in these Council meetings of a number of ministers and other high officials from all regions of the world. Indeed, the current series of meetings of the Council constitute an unequivocal demonstration of the serious concern shared by members of the Group of African States, the Non- Aligned Movement and, indeed, the international community as a whole about the current turn of events with regard to the Territory, and underscore our determination to see that all effective measures open to the United Nations are taken to eliminate a situation which constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. 11. South Africa’s open defiance of the will of the international community in respect ofNamibia and South Africa is a damaging affront to the Organization, and must not be permitted to continue any further, as it seriously undermines the very principles on the basis of which it was founded. 12. As members of the Council are aware, South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its denial of the right to self-determination of the Namibian people constitute serious breaches of its international obligations, which renders it criminally reprehensible. Accordingly, the international community, as institutionalized by the Council, is under the obligation to continue to deny recognition to the illegal situation created by South Africa, to deny aid or assistance to South Africa in maintaining that situation, and to terminate its illegal presence in Namibia forthwith. 13. As members of the Council are also aware, thespecial Committee held at Tunis from 13 to 17 May 1985 an extraordinary session in observance of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Following extensive deliberations on the theme of the twentyfifth anniversary of the Declaration, the main focus of which was on Namibia, the Special Committee, guided by its mandate to ensure that the peoples of colonial Territories and countries are enabled to exercise their right to selfdetermination and independence, adopted unanimously- I repeat: unanimously-a decision on the question of Namibia.’ 14. In that consensus decision, the Special Committee, among other things, holds the apartheid regime of South Africa accountable for creating a situation which seriously threatens international peace and security, as a result of its persistent non-compliance with and violations of United Nations resolutions and decisions, its ruthless resort to 15. The Special Committee categorically rejects and denounces all manoeuvres by South Africa to bring about a sham independence in Namibia through fraudulent constitutional and political schemes designed to perpetuate its colonial domination, including the latest attempts by the Pretoria regime to impose an internal settlement through the so-called Multi-Party Conference, and to establish an interim government. 16. The Special Committee is convinced that any political solution to the Namibian situation must be based on the immediate and unconditional termination of South Africa’s illegal occupation of the Territory, the withdrawal of its armed forces and the free and unfettered exercise by the Namibian people of their right to self-determination and independence, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. Thus, the Special Committee calls for the immediate implementation of Council resolution 435 (1978), the only acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question, without modification, qualification or pre-conditions. 17. In condemning the continued military, nuclear and intelligence collaboration between South Africa and certain countries as constituting a violation of the arms embargo imposed by the Council against South Africa in its resolution 418 (1977), the Special Committee urges that the Security Council adopt further measures to widen the scope of the embargo in order to make it more effective and comprehensive. 18. Furthermore, the Special Committee recommends that the Council act, and act decisively, against any dilatory manoeuvres and fraudulent schemes of the illegal occupation regime aimed at frustrating the legitimate struggle of the Namibian people. Aware that the Council has been prevented from discharging effectively its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security in the region owing to the opposition of certain of its permanent members, the Special Committee recommends that the Council respond, and respond positively, to the overwhelming demand of the international community by imposing forthwith comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter. 19. These and other equally important recommendations are embodied in the decision adopted unanimously by the Special Committee at its extraordinary session. On behalf of the Special Committee, I commend them to the serious attention of members of the Council. The repeated attempts to bring about an independent, stable, self-governing and democratic Namibia, by the exercise of reason and through negotiations at an international level, have been ignored and, worse yet, ridiculed by the racist regime, as has been amply demonstrated by its recent act of aggression against Botswana. compatible or can coexist. Moreover, South Africa’s acts of aggression and destabilization against independent African States constitute a serious threat to the peace and security of that region. 21. The Government of Sierra Leone therefore calls upon the Council to ensure that South Africa desist from its illegal and aggressive behaviour. In this connection, Sierra Leone welcomes the condemnation of the raid by the international community, and in particular by the United States and the United Kingdom Governments. South Africa should be left in no doubt that it can find sympathy in no quarter for its illegal use of force. South Africa’s latest action against an independent and peaceful Botswana is further demonstration that it cannot be trusted and that it cannot be regarded as a respectable member of the international community. Furthermore, it demonstrates that South Africa is not interested in a peaceful solution to the problems of apartheid that it has itself created. 22. The time is therefore overdue for the Council to act positively by imposing on South Africa a comprehensive programme of economic sanctions. At the same time, measures must be adopted without delay to extend all possible assistance to the struggling people of Namibia under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO). That is the very least we should expect if we are not to see the present armed struggle degenerate into a full-scale war with all its dire consequences. 23. Before concluding, may I be permitted to express my deep appreciation to States members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries for having taken this important initiative to call for this series of Council meetings on the situation in Namibia, With the full co-operation of the members of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), I have no doubt whatsoever that thedecisions adopted by the Council during these meetings will prove to be a decisive factor in restoring to the people of Namibia their longdenied human dignity and freedom. Delay is the worst form of denial. 24. In conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation for this opportunity to address the Council in connection with its consideration of the critical situation which prevails in the Territory of Namibia at this moment in time. 25. I should also like to pay a particular tribute to our Secretary-General for his tireless endeavours in the search

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

Let me begin, Sir, by congratulating you most sincerely on your assumption of the presidency for the month of June. My delegation is confident that your wisdom, experience and vast diplomatic skills will enable you successfully to guide the deliberations of the Council. 34. The presence of Pretoria in Namibia is therefore devoid of both legal and moral validity. It is based on the power of a bandit holding hostages. Hence it is in the light of these facts that we should judge the installation of a so-called interim administration in Namibia. This administration is a creature of illegitimate parentage and by definition is itself illegitimate. From illegality only the illegal can result. The Council in its resolution 439 (1978), inter da, reiterated the view that any transfer of power, in contravention of the United Nations resolutions, including resolution 439 (1978) is null and void. It was therefore only appropriate that the Council, in a note by the President of 3 May 1985 [S/17151], rejected the so-called interim administration as null and void. In the same spirit, the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, at its Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting on the question of Namibia, held at New Delhi from 19 to 21 April 1985, condemned and rejected Pretoria’s recent manoeuvre as being fraudulent and without validity in law whatsoever [see S/17184 and Corr.1, annex]. We hope therefore that on this point there will be no equivocation by any member of the Council. 28. I also wish to join the many others who have spoken before me in extending appreciation to your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, for the competent and outstanding manner in which he presided over the affairs of the Council during the month of May. 29. And, finally, I am grateful to you and your colleagues in the Council for allowing my delegation to participate in the debate on the question of Namibia. 30. Before I make my statement on Namibia, I wish to draw the attention of the members of the Council to a statement issued by my Government on the bloody events in Gaborone last week [S/17278, annex]. 31. The Council meets at a sombre moment for the Namibian people. For years now they have seen their hopes raised, only to be dashed to the ground time and again. They have heard of near breakthroughs, effusively described, but which came to naught; they have heard of hushed airborne diplomatic forays in the African night skies, but which led to nowhere. They have seen their leaders and allies pressured to make concessions and compromises in the so-called proximity talks, pre-implementation talks, shuttle consultations, talks about talks, but these have turned out to be talks about nothing; they have also heard about detente, constructive engagement, linkages and parallelisms, but all this plethora of diplomatic mumbojumbo and geometry has yielded nothing. They are still an oppressed and brutalized nation, Namibia is still an occupied territory. 35. The events taking place in Windhoek today are a desperate and futile attempt to hijack the Namibian independence plan. The Council must unreservedly condemn this strategem by the racist Pretoria regime. 36. South Africa’s conduct in the Namibia independence negotiations has lacked candour and integrity. It is a story of duplicity, deviousness, insincerity, arrogance, obstinacy and obstructionism. Its behaviour in the negotiations leading to Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and since then is a vivid demonstration of this. During the so-called proximity talks or “shuttle consultations”, held in New York in 1978, South Africa stormed out of the negotiations claiming that the gap was too wide to justify further talks. It then went on to enact the notorious Proclamation A.G, 26 of 1978, under which it incarcerated hundreds of leaders of SWAPO. From there it proceeded to send its troops into Angola, where they massacred hundreds of unarmed Namibian refugees in the camp at Cuamato. It resorted to all those machinations in a desperate attempt to sabotage the negotiations, 32. It is now nearly 70 years since Namibia was taken over in 1915 from Germany by South Africa, on behalf of the British Empire; and it is 25 years since the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was adopted. All the former German colonies are now free and independent. Yet the people of Namibia have remained under the yoke of colonialism and racist oppression. 37. But SWAP0 remained resolute and steadfast in the face of all that calculated provocation. Methodically it dismantled all. South Africa’s objections until Pretoria could find no more ground on which to deny Namibia its independence. Consequently, South Africa was forced to accept the United Nations plan for Namibia’s independence embodied in resolution 435 (1978). But no sooner had it accepted that resolution. than it proceeded to undermine it by conducting 33. I recall these events in order to underline the moral and legal obligation of the world community, and in particular that of some of the Powers allied during the First World War, to the Namibian people. There are members in this Council who by their actions and inactions, both present and past, bear a heavy moral responsibility for the 38. Alas, it soon became clear that South Africa’s intransigence had found encouragement from some quarters in Washington during the 1980 American presidential elections. The result was that the Geneva meeting became a charade, a mere farce, with South Africa giving the alleged partiality of the United Nations as its nebulous reason for walking out. 39. Sadly, it also became clear that Pretoria’s reading of the signals from Washington were well founded. For, when the new Administration articulated its policy on southern Africa, it introduced its apologia for apartheid, known today as the policy of “constructive engagement”. This strategy, we were given to understand, was meant to bring about peace and understanding among the nations of southern Africa, as well as Namibian independence. In the name of ‘?zonstructive engagement”, the new Administration radically changed what we had come to believe to be the position of every United States Government, that is, to tell publicly to South Africa that its apartheid system and aggressive disposition towards its neighbours were the root causes of violence in the region. 40. Instead, by what can only be described as a perverse twist of moral philosophy, “constructive engagement”, for the first time, equated the brutal violence of an oppressive system that the international community had declared to be a crime against humanity, with the force used by its victims to resist it. How can we, in the name of humanity, equate the violence of the Gestapo and SS murder squads with the resistance of the victims of the holocaust? It is a horrible perversion of logic to describe South Africa’s aggression against its neighbours as justified “protective action”. Since when can the protection of an institutionalized crime against humanity be regarded as justified? It is immoral to lecture and pressure the front-line States and SWAP0 into acquiescing in the existence of the evil system of apartheid in Namibia and South Africa. Short of its verbal trappings and mental gymnastics, that is what “constructive engagement” amounts to. It has no moral basis, and it has yielded no positive results. 41. We speak strongly against this policy, because we believe that it was its inception that introduced the tragic concept of “linkage” to the Namibian independence issue. TO South Africa, the linkage ofNamibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola was an unexpected opportunity to transform its colonial racist occupation of Namibia into a global ideological crusade-the defence of the so-called Western Christian civilization against imaginary Russians in southern Africa. Here, a simple matter of decolonization and racial oppression was 42. In this propaganda battle, logic has been turned on its head. The creation of three parliaments where there used to be one is presented as a “new dispensation” meant to unite the people of South Africa. The fact that this is consistent with apartheid-the doctrine of separation-is conveniently forgotten. Its divisive strategy of trying to incorporate the Indian and Coloured communities to reinforce the upartheid edifice dominated by an Afrikaner minority is brushed aside. Since when is the reinforcement of the instrumentalities of oppression to be regarded as a positive reform? 43. The other day we were told in this chamber that great strides were being made because South Africans were now free to marry whom they wished. But where will these multiracial couples live? The Group Areas Act forbids the husband ‘to live in the same area as his wife-and, of course, the children cannot live with either of the parents. This is an absurdity. How can anybody be hoodwinked by such gimmicks? Apartheid is about sharing power between the 80 per cent black majority and the white minority. It is not, I submit, about who goes to bed with whom. It is really an insult to our intelligence to present the removal of the so-called petty apartheid as if it were the fundamental question in South Africa. It is definitely not. 44. The present American Administration is wrong if it believes that the apartheid edifice is crumbling and that President Botha is somehow the South African equivalent of a twentiethcentury Abraham Lincoln who needs our support and understanding, He is not; and trying to give him an aura of international respectability by wining and dining him in the capitals of Western Europe is a tragic error of judgement. 45. The aforementioned interpretation of the policy of “constructive engagement” is the most generous that one can give it. The alternative to this pathetic imagery of an immobilized giant reduced to sycophancy by a crafty racist regime is that of collusion between South Africa and the United States Administration. Recent events in southern Angola, where we saw a Mr. Lehrman and his motley band of rebels plotting subversion and treason against Angola and other States in southern Africa, make usstop and think again about United States policy towards our region. We understand that this Mr. Lehrman carried a message of encouragement from none other than President Reagan to Jonas Savimbi, the leader of the South African-sponsored bandits in Angola and his confederates. 46. The role of the United States as a would-be honest broker on the Namibian question is now most problematic. 52. Mr. CI%AR (Czechoslovakia): Mr. President, I should like to thank you and all the members of the Council for having given me this opportunity to address the Council during its deliberations on the very serious issue on the current agenda. I also wish to congratulate you sincerely, on your assumption of the presidency for this month and to express my conviction that your distinguished personal qualities, diplomatic skills and experience are a guarantee of the successful fulfilment of the Council’s mandate. Your country, Trinidad and Tobago, has for many years been an active member of the Special Committee against Apartheid and the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, organs which are obliged to include among their priorities consideration of the pernicious consequences of the racist and colonial policies of the Government of South Africa. “However, as I told Parliament on 27 April 1984, the people of South West Africa/Namibia, including SWAPO, cannot wait indefinitely for a breakthrough on the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola. Should it eventually become evident, after all avenues have been thoroughly explored, that there is no realistic prospect of attaining this goal, all the parties most intimately affected by the present negotiations will obviously have to reconsider how internationally acceptable independence may best be attained in the light of prevailing circumstances.” [See 17/52, appendix 2.1 47. Put most simply, the issue of the Cuban presence in Angola is an American concern, which South Africa is using for convenience for the. time being. If it can create an amenable regime in Namibia it intends to leave the linkage baby with its American parents. That that is so is evidenced by the fact that when Angola made some important concessions on the subject last year, South Africa spurned them for it was not sure of the emergence of a puppet regime in Namibia. 53. I should also like to express our appreciation of the performance of the representative of Thailand in the office of President of the Council in May. 54. The question of Namibia has for long years been raising ever-growing concerns. The Council is compelled to deal with this problem, the essence of which is connected with attempts to perpetuate persisting colonialism, the enforcement of neo-colonial diktat, flagrant violations of the norms of international law, disregard of the conclusions of the United Nations and of the will of world public opinion, escalation of tension and the endangering of peace in southern Africa. The Pretoria regime prolongs the illegal occupation of Namibia, trampling underfoot the inalienable right of the Namibians to self-determination and independence, militarizing Namibia and escalating military, police and judicial repression and terror, carrying out consistent exploitation of the natural, mineral and human resources of Namibia, transferring to Namibia the inhuman practices of apartheid and launching from Namibian territory acts of aggression, subversion and destabilization against independent African States. 48. For all those reasons it has now become imperative that we officially and symbolically bring the Namibian independence negotiation process back to where it belongs-the United Nations. It is only the Secretary- General who now has both the legal and moral authority to mediate. Others have undermined their credibility as mediators by attempting to bring extraneous issues into the negotiation process. They have become part of the obstacles to be removed. 49. Finally, my delegation wishes to place on record its admiration for, and appreciation of, the tremendous efforts the Secretary-General has made to try to resolve the Namibia problem and appeals to all members ofthe Council to rally behind him as he reasserts the authority of the United Nations on the Namibia issue. He needs the full support of the Council. 50. Let the Council send a clear, unambiguous message to the Pretoria racists that the game is up. If they do not comply now, the Council should show that it has the determination and political will to act, and act decisively. Let the Council give a lead to the world by warning South Africa that it is prepared to impose and implement mandatory sanctions if no progress is made on this issue. For outside this chamber there are ordinary men and women from all walks of life, as well as legislators and Governments, already grappling with these issues. They are desperately trying to send urgent and strong messages to the South African regime by their campaigns of disinvestment and other sanctions. The Council should not fail those men and women of good will, and should not betray the people of Namibia. It should not be a Council of cynicism and despair; it should be a Council of hope. The time to act is now. Tomorrow may be too late. 55. It is imperialism, with its attempts to prevent the consistent elimination of all remnants of colonialism and racism in the region, that has caused the present situation in Namibia and in the whole of southern Africa. It is in accordance with the strategic interests and intentions of imperialism that Pretoria has been blocking the efforts of the international community to solve the Namibian question and obstructing the implementation of the series of resolutions on that question adopted by the Council. In the interests of United States strategy in the south of Africa, it has raised the totally unjustified demand to link Namibia’s independence to the departure of internationalist Cuban troops from Angola, where those troops assist, upon the request of the legitimate Government of the People’s Republic of Angola, in combating the acts of aggression and subversion perpetrated by the South African regime. 57. The seriousness of the situation in Namibia and the necessity of a resolute and speedy solution were convincingly explained at the beginning of the current discussion by Mr. Nujoma, President of SWAPO, the sole authentic representative of the Namibian people. He also pointed out the obstacles preventing the immediate implementation of selfdetermination for the Namibian people and fulfilment of the United Nations plan. They include primarily the manysided support granted to the Pretoria regime by certain Western States and Israel. This support is motivated by the ideological, global, strategic as well as economic interests of imperialism and provided mainly in the spirit of the discredited policy of so-called constructive engagement. 58. The ways towards termination of the suffering of the Namibian people are set forth very clearly in the series of conclusions of our Organization embodied primarily in Council resolution 385 (1976), 435 (1978) and 539 (1983). At the time of our Organization’s fortieth jubilee, when we are reviewing the contributions of the United Nations to the solution of the world’s problems and the role of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted 25 years ago, the imperative to put those conclusions into practice acquires ever stronger topicality and urgency. The legacy of the victory over fascism and nazism in the Second World War undoubtedly commits all of us to seeking speedy ways of preventing further crimes against the Namibians and immediately ensuring Namibia’s independence. 59. The Government and people of Czechoslovakia resolutely condemn the continuing illegal occupation of Namibia by the racist regime of South Africa and demand that the Namibian people immediately be granted independence and that the territorial integrity ofNamibia, including Walvis Bay and the offshore islands, be maintained. We stand for immediate implementation of the decisions of the United Nations on this question. We reject any attempts to link the question of Namibia’s decolonization with any issues irrelevant to it or with any other demands. We oppose all of Pretoria’s attempts at a so-called internal settlement of the Namibian problem on neocolonialist terms outside the framework of the United Nations and without the participation of SWAPO. 60. As was noted during the visit to Prague last March of a SWAP0 delegation headed by the Secretary-General of that Organization, Mr. Tdivo Ya Tdivo, the Czechoslovak Government and people are in full solidarity with the struggle for freedom and independence being waged by the Namibian people under the leadership of their sole authentic representative, SWAPO. Czechoslovakia is ready to continue granting that struggle its determined and all-round support. We unequivocally advocate the adoption without

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

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country, Mr. Rashleigh Jackson, sends his deepest regrets to his colleagues, within the Non-Aligned Movement and outside it, for his inability to be present in New York for this series of meetings. 63. My second duty is to thank you, Mr. President, and all the members of the Council for having acceded to our request to participate in the debate. 64. At no other time in the history of the question of Namibia has the Organization’s resolve to defend the rights and interests of the Namibian people been so sorely tested as it is being tested now. For, as the Secretary-General has pointed out in his report of 6 June [S/17242], the prevailing difficulties with regard to this question have been compounded and given a new dimension by the recent decision of South Africa to install a puppet administration in Namibia. 65. Our delegation is participating at a very late stage of what has been a lengthy debate. This debate has served, among other things, to underscore and to strengthen the almost universal consensus that already exists about Namibia’s freedom. It is a consensus that is well founded. 66. In 1966 the General Assembly terminated South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory and made the United Nations responsible for the future of the Territory. In 1971 the International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion,’ stated that the Assembly had acted correctly, that South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia was illegal, that States were under an obligation to recognize that illegality and to refrain from any acts which might appear to imply a recognition of that illegal presence. In that same year the Council adopted resolution 301 (1971), in which it endorsed the Court’s advisory opinion. 67. My delegation does not recall an issue on the international agenda in respect of which three organs of theunited Nations, each acting independently of the others, have spoken in such unison and clarity and forcefulness. This is surely one aspect of the uniqueness of Namibia. But it is not in this fact, which is ofprofound importance in its own way, that the consensus on Namibia is rooted. That consensus is rooted in the fact that, under contemporary international law, colonialism constitutes a denial of basic human rights and essential political freedoms, colonial occupation is illegal, and people subjected to alien domination and exploita- 73. This attitude on the part of the Council has contrib uted in no small measure to bolstering and giving a sense of protection to the Pretoria regime. The body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security is, by its inaction, indirectly giving comfort to the regime that poses such a grave threat to peace and security in southern Africa. 69. The debate in the Council has also served further to isolate the rulers in Pretoria as the party responsible for Namibia’s continued domination. There is universal rejection of the policies of apartheidand aggression practised by the Pretoria regime, and that regime is identified as the one whose actions pose the gravest threat to peace and security in southern Africa. 74. In the course of the debate, the Council has been the object of much forthright comment by several delegations, including my own. The Council, after all, is a very exposed and prominent body. What is more, it has clear obligations in respect of the maintenance of international peace and security, and Member States look to it to respond credibly to situations where peace and security are imperiled, and more so where its own authority is being flouted. But as we review the Council’s performance in respect of Namibia, it is important and only fair that we maintain proper perspective and not see the Security Council as an undifferentiated whole. I venture to say that in any one year there is an overwhelming majority of the membership of the Council fully supportive of firm concrete action against South Africa. But we realize that the pace of the Council is always determined by the slowest and most conservative mover. That is the way in which this Council’s procedures are fashioned. In the case of Namibia, the pace of the Council will be determined by that permanent member which least wishes to see a change in the Status quo. 70. As if this needed further confirmation, the Pretoria regime last week launched a brutal attack on Botswana, in violation of that territory’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. This attack took place even while the Council was considering the question of Namibia. 71. The President of Guyana, Mr. Linden Forbes Samp son Burnham, in a message to the President of Botswana, Mr. Quett K. J. Masire, stated: “The Government and people of Guyana are shocked at the brutal invasion by the armed forces of South Africa of the independent and peace-loving nation of Botswana and by the cold-blooded’murder of innocent people in its capital, Gaborone. “Guyana condemns in the strongest possible terms this latest in the long list of callous acts of aggression by South Africa against neighbouring African States . . . 75. Let me say this in another way. Geisa Rocha, who used to be in the secretariat of the United Nations Council for Namibia, has written in her book, In Search of Namibian Independence, the following: “The Government and people ofGuyana call upon all peace-loving and progressive forces to join together in renewed efforts to isolate South Africa in all fields and to bring about the dismantling of the odious system of apartheid. “It is not particularly fruitful to urge certain courses of action on an international organization or to condemn such a body for inaction or ineffectiveness if the bases of support necessary for its involvement and success do not exist. An intelligent approach to international conflict management , . . must be predicated on an understanding of the constraints imposed on international organizations by the interests and policies of those groupings of States in whose hands the destinies of these bodies rest.” “Similarly we urge upon those who continue to give succour to the apartheid regime to review and alter their relations with Pretoria.” 72. The Guyana delegation has seen the draft resolution [S/17284] which is being considered for adoption by the Mrs. Rocha then quotes from Inis Claude, who wrote: She then offers her own conclusion: “It is my view that the predominant problem facing the international community is not how to bring about change in the attitude of the South African Government, but how to secure such changes in the policies of South Africa’s major Western allies who have the handle in their grasp . . .” I go even further than Steve Biko. Those winds are now blowing already inside South Africa. Their fury will not diminish; it will grow in intensity. We are already witnessing the phenomenon and we are also seeing the results it is yielding. 76. That seems to be the real problem. It is inconceivable that an Organization of one hundred and fifty-nine independent States has to be impassive and helpless in the face of the contempt and arrogance of one. That is not the letter, nor is it the spirit of the Charter. South Africa’s attitude is not the fundamental problem. If the racial configuration in South Africa as between oppressors and oppressed were the reverse of what it is now, we might already have seen that the attitude of the rulers is not the problem. The problem is that South Africa’s contempt and arrogance are being tolerated by some of those who have the handles in their grasp. It is not that they do not have options. They do have options; but they have chosen to soft-pedal on South Africa. ,80. The cost of freedom in South Africa and in Namibia will therefore be high indeed in terms of human life and human suffering. But there is still room for an intervention by the Council to reduce that cost by bringing about a peaceful solution in Namibia. The outcome is not in doubt nor can it be prevented. My delegation hopes that some of us do not lose the privilege of sharing in bringing it about. 77. Now, having established that, what does one do? Do we sit supinely back and wait for those who hold the handles to undergo change? We should not, nor can we. The Government of Guyana, for its part, will continue espousing the cause of the freedom fighters in southern Africa. We shall continue to be insistent in international forums on their behalf. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country, Mr. Rashleigh Jackson, declared in Georgetown on 25 May last, on the occasion of the celebration of African Liberation Day: “For us in Guyana, the blood of the freedom fighters of Africa and Asia flows in our veins. Commencing last year and continuing for four years, we are celebrating a more than century-long existence of this connection. Their struggles have been ours and ours theirs; and in the councils of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and elsewhere, we seek common cause against colonialism, imperialism, racism and alien domination. The commitment to the struggle of those who are not yet free in Africa is thus a shared one. The People’s National Congress and the Government and people of Guyana therefore have an attachment to the liberation movements which is umbilical, one which is reinforced by history and culture . . ,“. 78. The denial of self-determination and freedom in southern Africa is causing extensive suffering and loss of life in that region. It threatens peace and security, not only in the southern Africa region but beyond it. Those who now shield South Africa should certainly see a need to compel the Pretoria regime to dismantle its racial policies and to co-operate in Namibia’s liberation so as to avoid a situation which in the long run could damage their own interests over a much wider area. “The winds of liberation which have been sweeping the face of Africa have reached our very borders. There is no more doubt about the inevitability of change-the only questions now remaining are ‘how’ and ‘when’.” 81. After the conclusion of this debate our Secretary- General must resume his mission of contact with South Africa. That mission, difficult enough, has been made even more so by South Africa’s recent actions, which reveal the absolute contempt in which the Pretoria regime holds the Organization. Guyana applauds his patience and his fortitude. He has our fullest confidence, and we pledge to him our continuing support.

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

It is reassuring to see you, Sir, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago, a member of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, presiding over this series of important Council meetings. Your commitment to the cause ofpeace, independence and sovereignty of peoples and countries will no doubt contribute to the successful consideration of the question of Namibia. During the preparations for these meetings Mr, Alleyne, representative of Trinidad and Tobago, has amply demonstrated his dedication to the lofty ideals of the Charter of the United Nations and to the principles of the policy of non-alignment. 84. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the representative of Thailand have shown competence and wisdom in guiding the deliberations of the Council in the month of May. 85. Gravely concerned over the impediments that South Africa, abetted by its allies, had defiantly strewn in the path towards genuine independence for Namibia, the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries on the question of Namibia, held in April at New Delhi, requested the convocation of this series of meetings of the Council [S/17184 and Corr.1, annex, 92. The United Nations plan for Namibia is one of the remarkable achievements of the world Organization in the last decade. It ought to be defended vigorously and effectively, and it must be implemented without delay, without changes and without preconditions, The United Nations plan is a result not only of debate, but of negotiation; it is not meant to control the crisis, but to do away with it. It rests on the principles of self-determination, independence and sovereignty of peoples and countries. It is the only basis for a peaceful solution. However, its implementation is being prevented by South Africa through ever-more numerous stratagems and ploys. Irrelevant and extraneous issues, such as linkage, are being raised and rejected and condemned by the international community. So-called internal settlements are being devised based on puppet political institutions, the latest being artificially brought to life these days. It will, no doubt, meet with rejection by the international community, and rightly so. 86. The Co-ordinating Bureau invited the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of a number of non-aligned countries to participate personally in this series of meetings. However, the Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Mr. Raif Dizdarevid, could not personally participate owing to previous and urgent engagements. He authorized me to speak on his behalf and upon his instructions. 87. South Africa shies from nothing to deny the people of Namibia their inalienable rights to freedom, independence and self-determination. It continues colonial occupation, terror and exploitation, causing great human suffering. It pursues the policy of apartheid and racial discrimination, flagrantly violating the human rights of the people of Namibia. Under pressures and threats, Namibians are forced to seek refuge in the neighbouring countries. Pretoria is conscripting Namibians in the occupying army, thus setting the stage for fratricidal war. It is recruiting mercenaries and piling up military effectives. It is using the Tkrritory of Namibia as the springboard for aggression and, subversion against independent African countries, Angola in particular. 93. All this amounts to nothing but a series of attempts by South Africa to buy time, to ride on the backs of the people of Namibia, to occupy a part of Angola and to continue to try to intimidate the front-line States. 94. A lot has been said, but not nearly enough by far has been done to implement the United Nations plan, For seven years, South Africa has been trying to shunt it aside, to push it into oblivion, and to bury it under the growing pile of prevarication, manipulation and hypocrisy. It is for the Council to cut short this seemingly endless exercise of evasion, defiance of the will of the United Nations and disregard for the decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. 88. The apartheid rCgime is a permanent threat to the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the frontline States. The latest criminal foray into independent Botswana should be met with immediate condemnation and adequate measures. 89. The human and natural resources of Namibia are being plundered by South Africa and others in defiance of the decisions of the United Nations and of Decree No. 1’ of the United Nations Council for Namibia. 95. We feel that it is for the Security Council to act promptly and with the necessary vigour to bring about the implementation of the United Nations plan. It stiould not confine itself to condemnations and appeals. It should rather adopt an action-oriented decision that would amount to renewed and strengthened pressure on South Africa. The Security Council should set a time-frame for the implementation of the plan, and should then monitor the implementation of its decisions and intervene promptly to that end. 90. No attempts to quell the liberation struggle of the people of Namibia are nor will be successful. People ready to fight for self-determination and independence are invincible, and their resolve attracts an ever-growing international support. This explains the international recognition earned by the struggle of Namibia and SWAPO. It is a source of pride for us to see the President of SWAPO, Mr. Sam Nujoma, and his high-level delegation participating in the deliberations of the Council. Their struggle is central to the present and to the future of Namibia. Perseverance in and intensification of that struggle is, for the people of Namibia and for SWAPS, the only way to respond to the duplicity of South Africa and to its refusal to participate in a political settlement. Our support of that struggle is an obligation. Yugoslavia will continue to spare no effort in its support for and assistance to the people of Namibia and their sole, authentic representative, SWAPO. 96, If South Africa continues in its intransigence, there is no option but the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Furthermore, the Governments of all Member States should take appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures, pending the imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa, in other to isolate that country in the political, economic, military and cultural fields and in the field of sports. The Secretary-General should be given support in continuing to play an important role in the implementation of the United Nations plan. 91. Foreign domination in Namibia, and anywhere else in the world, poses a direct threat to international peace and security. The longer the occupation lasts, the greater the danger of drawing the issue of Namibia into bloc rivalry. 97. In the present circumstances, the activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia have gained in impor-

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

Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency at a time when the United Nations is required to take crucial decisions. I am confident that your personal qualities and diplomatic skill will contribute to the successful outcome of the debate on the important issue before the Council. 101. I should like also to express our appreciation to your predecessor, the representative of Thailand, for the successful manner in which he conducted the affairs of the Council during the month of May. 102. Let me express the gratitude of my delegation to the members of the Council for having given me the opportunity to participate in this debate. 103. My delegation has been following carefully the events in South Africa during the past months. Since the introduction of the so-called constitutional reforms last September, the tension in that country has been increasing constantly. The oppressive apparatus of the racist State is becoming more and more aggressive and violent against the majority of the population of the country. The result is more killings, mote victims and more tension, It is no exaggeration to say that the racist State is at war with its own population, That situation was discussed in the Council not long ago. 104. This time the Council is dealing with another aspect of the behaviour of the racist regime of South Africa: the obstruction of Council resolutions, which are binding on Member States. The latest manoeuvres by Pretoria to introduce an interim administration in Namibia, however, go beyond simple obstruction: they constitute a serious violation of Council resolutions435 (1978)and 439 (1978). South Africa has no right to take any unilateral measures in Namibia outside the scope of the relevant United Nations resolutions. My delegation absolutely condemns the establishment of an interim government in Namibia with the involvement of the socalled Multi-Party Conference, which is a puppet of Pretoria and represents no one. 105. My delegation has studied carefully the report of the Secretary-General concerning the implementation of Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) on the question of 106. In paragraph 8 of its resolution 539 (1983), the Council called upon South Africa “to communicate to [the Secretary-General] its choice of the electoral system in order to facilitate the immediate and unconditional implementation of the United Nations plan embodied in Security Council resolution 435 (1978)“. South Africa has ignored this call as well. 107. During the past two decades, the rulers of Pretoria have furnished ample evidence that they cannot be considered reliable partners in any negotiating process. Their obsession with aparrheid prevents them from accepting the logic of fairness, decency and justice. They will not change as long as they feel the presence of the protective shield of veto in this Council. 108. My delegation believes the time has come when Pretoria must be faced with decisive, united action by the Council. It is time to use the power of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations if South Africa does not comply with resolutions and continues to obstruct the implementation of the United Nations plan. 109. Namibia must be free without further delay. The independence of the last major colonial Territory involves the most fundamental principles on which the United Nations is based and which must be respected by all of its Member States. 110. It is the firm conviction of my delegation, and of the vast majority of delegations that have spoken before the Council, that the Pretoria regime could not defy the resolutions of the United Nations and the will of the international community without the support of its allies, first and foremost the United States. The policy of so-called constructive engagement has led to disastrous consequences in terms of a general worsening of the situation in the southern Africa region, in terms of the loss of more human lives and in terms of more reckless disregard of United Nations resolutions by the racist regime of South Africa. 111. The.latest example of the aggressive policy of South Africa is the armed incursion into Botswana, a peaceful neighbouring country. This armed aggression cannot be justified. It is a serious violation of the sovereignty of an independent State. My delegation strongly condemns this brutal act of aggression. 112. We firmly believe that Pretoria must not be given any more support from any quarter. This time South Africa 113. With the exception of South Africa, all parties concerned have demonstrated flexibility and readiness to implement resolution 435 (1978), the only acceptable basis for the settlement of the question ofNamibia. The Government of Angola and the leadership of SWAP0 have participated in the negotiating process with good faith and a genuine desire to solve the problem. My delegation expresses appreciation for their constructive approach. 114. I also take this opportunity to assure the people of Namibia and its sole, legitimate representative, SWAPO, of the support and solidarity of the people and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic. My country will, as in the past, continue to render all kinds of support for its just struggle for independence.

The next speaker is the representative of the Congo. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. ,116. Mr. GAYAMA (Congo) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, since I am speaking at this late stage in the work of the Security Council, the Congolese delegation is happy to express to you, quite advisedly, congratulations and sincere admiration for the way in which you have been conducting the deliberations of this important United Nations body. I am pleased that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a fraternal country friendly to the African continent, Trinidad and Tobago, has assumed the role of President of the Council at a time when the Council is dealing with the question of Namibia. This is a question that is as dear to you as it is to us, and we know that you will take the opportunity to bring to bear your well-known experience and talent to ensure the successful outcome of these deliberations. 117. I wish also to pay a tribute to your predecessors, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the representative ofThailand, who guided the work of the Council with great talent last month, thereby contributing to the universal respect this body commands. 123. After 100 years of colonization, we are still haggling over the accession of a people to self-determination and independence. The fact that the question of Namibia has been on the General Assembly’s agenda since the founding of the United Nations has apparently had no decisive effect on finding a solution to the problem. The fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations should remind all Member States of the need to return to the Organization its original spirit, so that it can once again serve “We the peoples of the United Nations”, as mentioned in the preamble of the Charter, instead of following the present course characterized by the selfish interests of a few. 118. The efforts made by the Secretary-General since the beginning of his mandate to try to resolve the Namibian crisis are familiar to us all. We should like to thank him and to encourage him to continue his work to make it possible one day-as soon as possible-to celebrate Namibia’s accession to international sovereignty. The current meetings should be a decisive landmark in that regard. 119. On the subject of decisive landmarks in the history of Namibia, there is a very compelling one whose significance for the history of Namibia speaks for itself-is the commemoration this year of the one-hundredth anniversary of the Act adopted in 1885 at the Berlin Conference, whereby Africa was carved up and subjugated, thus institutionalizing within the context of “might is right-‘?, a process that 124. Indeed, in legal terms the United Nations could do no less than what it did when it terminated South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and designated the United Nations 120. A few months ago the People’s Republic of the Congo hosted an International Seminar on the Berlin Conference, thus stressing how the lessons learned from this commemoration could shed light on the present situation. 121. My delegation is laying stress on this one-hundredth anniversary because of its direct bearing on what was then called South West Africa. It was in the capial of imperial Germany that the fate of the Territory was sealed, and the colonial method chosen for Namibia was one of the most barbaric conceivable. It involved quite simply the genocide of indigenous peoples-the Hereros and the Ovambos, in particular. Tens of thousands of people were massacred in a very short period of time before the First World War, simply to create space for the occupiers and to exploit the grazing, mining and other resources of the country. Whereas elsewhere the end of the war brought with it a taste of freedom for the stricken peoples, the same could not be said for the people of Namibia, which went from Scylla to Charybdis-from the bloody hands of an imperial European Power into the hands of a gang of bigots then installed in South Africa and determined to assert their principal virtues, scorn and cruelty. The rest is history. Despite the celebration this year of the fortieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, which marked for the world the advent of a new international order, and despite the 25 years that have elapsed since the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Namibian people is still languishing in the dark ages of the old order. Like the neighbouring South African people living under the regime of apartheid, it suffered the application of Nazi principles and the Nazi order that had prevailed during the Second Word War and, as is well known, were condemned at the Nuremberg trials. 122. The anachronism, the violation of the norms and principles of international law, and the non-implementation of the relevant General Assembly and Security Council decisions are today the features and the symbols of a situation purposely maintained by South Africa. 125. The only thing missing here is action, In this regard, the obstacles have been fully identified. South Africa is undoubtedly the main obstacle; but Pretoria is not alone. Its support for the implementation of the settlement plan was shelved the day when the Western Powers-from which it gains most of its support-had imposed on them by one member a strange linkage between the implementation of the settlement plan and the domestic situation in Angola, a sovereign country of the United Nations. 126. However, at the present stage of the question’s consideration, the United Nations can do nothing but ensure the implementation of its plan. It would be a shameful affront to the memory of so many Namibian martyrs, including women and children of Kassinga, to impose more on that people which has made all possible concessions through SWAPO, its sole, authentic representative, on the strength of the contact group’s commitment to promote a peaceful solution of the problem. 127. The legitimacy of the aspirations and the magnitude of the sacrifice endured by the Namibian people should be reflected, we feel, in a genuine return to the spirit and the letter of resolution 435 (1978). We therefore appeal to those States which have acknowledged that they have some influence on the Pretoria Government not to give it too easy alibis to behave as it wishes outside the international consensus. We also express our gratitude to the members of the Western contact group-to the extent that that group still exists-which, to be honest, have dissociated themselves from the manoeuvres that could have taken them too far in an unworthy compromise with the South African regime. 128. The acts of piracy of which South Africa was recently guilty in the north of Angola, in Cabinda, reveal the arrogant scorn shown by the apartheid regime for international opinion while it relies on the benevolent understanding of some who consider those acts to be nothing more than pursuit of its enemies. For the needs of the cause, South Africa and the strategists of East-West confrontation are ready to invent enemies outside instead of determining the true source within the apartheid rigime itself, which is the permanent threat to international peace and security. 129. All those factors can only further the perpetration of acts of bravado like the decision to impose upon Namibia a so-called internal administration, without any democratic basis or juridical recognition than that of the occupying Power from which it emanates. 130. This situation cannot go on without further endangering an already endangered future, given the accumulation of hard feelings. But, as recognized by the final act of the Seminar of Brazzaville to which I referred before, while the Berlin Conference sowed division and the seeds of desolation, the duty of present generations is to rebuild in unity and understanding something to prevent the mainte- 131. The unprovoked attack launched last Friday against Botswana resulting in 11 deaths, many wounded and material damage that has not yet been estimated-this at the very time that the Council was meeting to consider the situation-for which South Africa’s responsibility is quite clear, is additional proof of Pretoria’s so-called good faith. This act, as everyone knows, is not the first and it will not be the last, particularly if Pretoria thinks it is above any kind of sanctions. Whether it uses clandestine procedures as in the Angolan province -of Cabinda or throws off its mask and openly attacks others as it did in Gaborone, South Africa is consistent-that is, it does nothing that promotes peace. 132. The conditions for imposing mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter are there. It only remains now for the Council to draw the necessary conclusions. Not to impose those sanctions in the present circumstances would be to give the uppartheid regime a kind of hallmark of respectability that would render meaningless the main organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security and thus give free rein to disorder and insecurity everywhere in the world. 133. Everyone will therefore understand that we are exhorting the international community to increase manifold assistance to SWAP0 so that the Namibian people can wage its struggle until the inevitable victory over colonialism and oppression is won. 134. The Congo has always supported the need to strengthen the Namibian people’s ability to wage the struggle through its sole, authentic representative, SWAPO. That was in fact one of the basic recommendations and conclusions of another seminar on the subject, the Seminar on the Intensification of International Action for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, which was also held at Brazzaville last March. “Namibia represents an extreme case of colonialism characterized by brutal oppression, exploitation and denial of basic rights of the Namibian people by the illegal occupation regime of South Africa”,’ was the unequivocal message of the participants in that Seminar. 135. It is clear from these deliberations that there is an overwhelming and constant commitment on the part of the Member States to the ideal of an independent Namibia-an ideal shared by all peoples of the United Nations. It is for us on this fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Charter to ensure the final universalization of this idea. In so doing we would be fulfilling the expectations of the non-aligned countries, which initiated the convening of this series of meetings following the Extra-

The Chinese delegation has already made a statement with regard to the question of Namibia [2584th meeting-j. We should now like to state our position on South Africa’s invasion of Botswana. 137. Just as the Council is debating the issue of Namibia and condemning South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its incessant subversion of the security of neighbouring countries, the South African authorities have once again launched an invasion into Botswana. That act not only seriously violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Botswana, but also constitutes an open challenge to the international community as a whole. The Chinese Government and people express the utmost indignation over, and the strongest condemnation of, South Africa’s act of aggression. We also express our deep sympathy for, and solidarity with, the Government and people of Botswana. 138. On 15 June a spokesman of the Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs made the following statement about the incident: “In the small hours of 14 June South African troops outrageously invaded Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, killing 12 people, wounding many more and ‘destroying some houses and motor vehicles. That was a brazen encroachment upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent State by the South African authorities and a flagrant provocation against the African countries and oeonles. The Chinese Government 1 1 merit No. 23 (A/40/23), chap. IX, para. 12). itho in United Nations, New York 00300 90.61439-April 1994--2,OSO “The struggle of Botswana, Angola, Mozambique and the other African front-line States to combat racism, safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity and support the Namibian people’s fight for independence has won sympathy and support from all the justiceupholding countries and peoples in the world, The Chinese Government and people will, as always, stand firmly by the African countries and peoples and resolutely support their just struggle.” The meeting rose ai 1.05 p.m. NoIts ’ A/AC. 10!9/830. z Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council resoiuiion 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, L C.J. Reporls, 1971, p. 16. ’ Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia. enacted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 Sep tember 1974 (OfJ?cia/ Records of the General Assembly, Z’hirfy-fifth session, Supplement No. 24 (A/35/24), vol. I, annex II).