S/PV.2744 Security Council

In accordance with decisions taken by the Council at its previous meetings on this item, I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, Gabon, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambicue, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Seneqal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic .' Qiet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Dost (Afghanistan), Mr. Djoudi (Algeria) , Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Mohiuddin (Bangladesh), Dame Nita Barrow (Barbados), Mr. Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso), Mr. Laberge (Canada), Mr. Oramas Oliva (Cuba), Mr. Badawi (Egypt), Mr. Biffot (Gabon), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Insanally (Guyana), Mr. Gharekhan (India), Mr. Barnett (Jamaica), Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait), Mr. Moya Palencia (Mexico), Mr. Bennouna Louridi (Morocco), Mr. Dos Santos (Mozambiaue), Miss Astorga Gadea (Nicaragua), Mr. Ononaiye (Nigeria), Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Alzamora (Peru), Mr. Al-Kawari (Qatar), Mr. Sarre (Senegal), Mr. Manley (South Africa), Mr. Wijewardane (Sri Lanka), Mr. Abdoun (Sudan), Mr. Kouassi (Togo), Mr. Mestiri (Tunisia), Mr. Turkmen (Turkey), Mr. Oudovenko (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), Mr. Dui Xuan Nhat (Viet Nam), Mr. Pejic (Yugoslavia) and Mr. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

In accordance with a decision taken by the Council at its 2740th meeting I invite the President and delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia to take a place at the COUnCil table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Xuze (Zambia), 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 a decision taken at the 2740th meeting, I invite Mr. Gurirab to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Gurirab took a place at the Council table.

I should like to inform members of the Council-that I have received letters from the representatives of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Ethiopia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia and the Syrian Arab Republic, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance 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 conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Maksimov (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), Mr. Tadesse (Ethiopia), Mr. Azzarouk (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Doljintseren (Mongolia) and Mr. Al-Atassi (Syrian Arab Republic) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

The Security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of Algeria. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. DJODDI (Algeria) (interpretation from French): It is indeed a pleasure for me to.convey to you, Sir, my warm congratulations on your accession to the presidency of the Security Council, Your professional skills and your acknowledged wisdom are a sure guarantee of success in your important functions. I should like also to express our appreciation to Ambassador Delpech of Argentina for the skill with which he discharged his duties last month. This is the second time since the beginning of this year that Africa has turned to the Security Council with regard to the grave situation that persists in the southern part of the continent. Only recently we had to address the oppression of the South African people by the apartheid r6gime. Today we are focusing on the continued illegal occupation of Namibia and Pretoria's policy of systematically obstructing implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Faced with South Africa's power and the dangers it represents to peace and security, the international community must, through this Council, assume its collective responsibility. All of the facts of the auestion of Namibia have long since been identified; therefore in its consideration the Security Council should concentrate simply upon recognizing the impasse, pronouncing a verdict and adopting and implementing the appropriate measures. (Mr. Djoudi, Algeria) More than 20 years ago the General-Assembly revoked South Africa's Mandate' over Namibia and placed that Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. For its part, the Security Council nearly 10 years ago solemnly adopted the plan for the settlement of the Namibian question. The conditions for the implementation of that plan were met , thanks to the constant and persevering efforts of our Secretary-General, to whom a special tribute is due. The non-implementation of that plan is South Africa's responsibility. Need I recall.that at the very time of its adoption the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia was the victim of an attempt to replace it with a neo-colonialist arrangement designed to perpetuate the illegal situation? From the very beginning, that manoeuvre was condemned and rejected by the Security Council. However, the punishment called for by that intransigence of Pretoria was deferred out of a need to pursue the dialogue. From that point on South Africa felt itself invested with impunity to bring about the defeat of the Geneva Conference on Namibia of 1981. The abuse of the right of veto has only strengthened the apartheid regime in its intransigence and on each occasion has encouraged it to bring forward further demands. In insisting on its claim of linkage, South Africa's aim is merely to delay the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The linkage argument has been rejected in this very Council. It represents an unacceptable distortion of the question of Namibia. It is an instance of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign and independent State, a State that indeed is under attack by Pretoria. It is, finally, symptomatic of an attitude of open defiance of the authority of the Council. ~ (Mr. Djoudi , Alget ia) In fact, the pretext of “linkage” is mere camouflage for a vain attempt to CO-opt the future of Namibia. Since 1978 that policy has developed through frantic activity to bring forth out of the void a so-called third force and gain outside recognition for it. It is perpetuated through time-worn manoeuvres to create a climate of civil war in Namibia. It is seen in attempts to par ti tian the Territory: the manoeuvre to annex Walvis Bay and the offshore islands is naw being renewed in the Caprivi Strip, which has been transformd into a South African base and earmarked as a.future enclave from which to carry out regional threats and aggress ion. A constant we cannot ignore is the fact that since 1919 South Africa has seen Namibia as an integral part of its hegemmic racist plans. If Namibia has been the object of annexationist designs and remains a case of thwarted decolonisation, this is because the crime of apartheid has not met with the correct reaction demanded by respect for the fundamental principles of the United Nations. Similarly, because this defiant illegal occupation remains unpunished, Namibia has become a base for open aggression and subversion against neighbouring States; outlaw practices have become a permanent feature throughout the region. In the face of South African oppression and repression, the Namibian people has amply demonstrated its unanimous loyalty to the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAH)), its sole, authentic representative, and has affirmed its unswerving determination to recwer its freedom. Its struggle is cne of the noblest pages in the history of the peoples that have risen up against foreign domination. That glorious struggle demonstrates through Sacrifice the determination of the Namibian people to bring about the restoration of its national rights. (Mr. Djoudi, Algeria) F The Namibian people shares its suffering with the South African people, which is engaged in courageous resistance to apartheid. Those two peoples are comrades in arms with other southern African peoples facing aggression, destabilization and pressure from the warlike Pretoria rhgime. The,international.comnunity has always proclaimed its solidarity with the ~ struggle of the Namibian people. It affirms that Namibia's independence must be ' brought about in,conformity with resolution 435 (1978) and that the Territory's' '. future-must reflect-solely the authentic will of its people. It affirms too that '. .' independence muSt,come about with respect for Namibia's territorial integrity, ..' including.Walvis Bay and the offshore Namibian islands. It affirms finally that any swalled .internal solution will be condemned and rejected out of ,hand. .' In Namibia, duty - solidarity - requires active support for the right of '. peoples to self-determination and independence with a view W'fulfilment of the international will. -This lends urgency to the implementation of Security COUnCildecisicns, and by definition excludes any coming to terms with the apartheid " rbgime. Suitable dialogue and repeated warnings have reached their limit, for this is a regime that has given every proof of its blindness. ,The illegal occupation of Namibia must cease. South Africa has a&ply '. demonstrated its rejection of its responsibility under Article 25 of the Charter. Its position has exposed it to the sanctions envisaged in the Charter.,' In that regard the international community has charted the course, and has clearly '. indicated the acticn that must be taken.. First of all, we must act upon previous warnings of recourse to comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the racist rdgime of Pretoria to canpel it immediatelir completely and unconditionally to implement resolution 435 (1978). Secondly, we must support in every way the Namibian people's legitimate national liberation (Mr. Djoudi, Algeria) struggle. Finally, we must strengthen international action in solidarity with the ,! .,_ ', 1 . ..~-c_.~ independent States.of southern Africa, which are subject-to South African ,.:- aggression, destabilization and pressure,. ', . I I ,' I 8 ' j yesterday, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of;%JAti, His,~~cellency . ^' '_ 8 .. Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, reiterated with passion and sincerity his movement's . . . . _; , 3.. readiness.to co-operate in the search for a peaceful end;to the illegal;,occupation , ., .of Namibia. ,The unanimous determination,.of the Security Council,,finally toensure ",-: :, . the triUlllph .of the.cause of the liberation.pf,Namibia~would be.a,just trib,u,p, to .. ;. ,.'_ ? /.. * . : : SwAPO's patience and sense of responsibility. ..: _. To do;this, <. the Council must gather 1 i... all means available to it and exercise all its powers in the .face.of one,of:the.. ,: * gravest.challenges:,to its authority.and cne of the last surviving,instances of an 1,. r-. : ..:' ,. . : ;,. j s:' anachrcnistic,order of racial and colcqial domination. _ I . . ., ', .: .,, . That,is the hope of a people whose struggle teaches an,~essential lesson.,of our '. . ..c. , times. Also, it is the hope of an international community which desires the > ,I restoration of anorder characterized by respect for international,la~. . .._ ', " '. ,. ', ', .._ The PRESIDENT (interpretation .from,Prench): -, . . 1,thank the representatiqe of Algeria.for the kind words he addressed to me. I ', ," . *-‘,i -. .' . The next speaker is the-representative of ,Turkey. : I invite, him to t,ake a .' , : placeat..the Council table and to make his.statement. . . : ': .',"' , , i 1 -Mr. 'JNRKMW (Turkey): I&y I first thank you, Mr. ,President, and.the ,, other members of the.Security Council for giving me the'.,opportunity to,make a / . ., statement on the issue of Namibia. .' ; ,. ., '.. i, I'wish to extend to you, Sir , the congratulations of my delegation on your i : assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of April. I wish also to pay a tribute to the Permanent Representative of Argentina, Ambassador Delpech, for his diligent leadership of the Council during the month of March. (Mr. Tutkmen, Turkey) The quest&n'& the independence ofNamibia represents a unique responsibility for the United.Nations and part&&iarly for the Security Co&&l. The United‘-' Nations, through the Council for Namibia, has assumed responsibility for .the legal administration 'of'Na&bia, for‘assisting the people of &amib&,'and for preserving '\ the Territory(6 natic&i 'reso&ce&. " As for' the Security Council,' there..is.no'other iSS& iX'whi~"it'is~Iso“ai;ectly and s&stantially involved. in resolution ., :., " 435 (1978), aQ)$ed'in Septerrber '1978, the“Counci1 end&sed'a &tailed plan,for the independence of'Narhibia','a $lanwh'i&'has been'accepted by South"Africa'and is ',, , fully suppbrted'by'the in&at&al commtiity. All questions relating'to the' ' impl'ementation of the Security Councii'resolution have'been.r&sdived;'includi;ng'the problem-of the &&&i'system. There.&e therefore no impediments to.the .-".. 1 immediate implementation of resolution 43S.(‘i$78), except the poiitical'will df'the ;&ern;e;i’ of, &h Afri&. To‘intluende',that politic&l will% the crux of .the matter,; .;, ', ( I. _' , ': The position'of my (;overnment hasbeen repeatedly made tiie& during tlie‘.“. debates ti this question in the'&neral' Assembly~arid in the &curity Council. As a member Of the Council for Namibia, Turkey his always been closely associated with S',. develo@ments c&&ning 'NGnibia. ' ~e'firmly believe that southern Afrida‘will have no stability or peace so lang as'&th Africa ‘persists in maintaining by'force.its presen&' in Namibia, in subject& the people of Namibia to the'.iystem'of apartheid;'and in threatening peace an'd.security by carrying out..mili&ry" .' activities and acts of aggression beyond the borders o$Namib&'and cn the' ".' terriuxy of neighbouring independent States. . ‘. >, ‘, (Mr. Turkmen, Turkey) It 'is clear t6 us that s&long as'.South Africa's &-&ransigence continues,,and, the peadeful evolution of Namibia into'an'independent State-*&-blocked.by South, Aftida; the t&iibiah people has' no choice,but to continue~its.determin~~strluggle: ; to dislodge the illegal r&me-from Namibia. Turkey:.has .always expressed -its ._I: solidarity'with the%mibidn people in their struggle for .national.indegendenCe undei'the ie&d'ersh&oi South West 'AflCiCa People's crganization (SWAPO),‘,which.the Gen&&'Assembly hati recognitied as the sUle:authentic‘representative of the L C'r ‘N;amib&’ ‘ti&pi&. ‘:’ I !- , : :.I, ‘.: c ’ .:,;: .-;.‘,, i ,l .,:~;r, .‘; ;I,- :, tcL,; :.‘:,. ..I,, /I In view of the tragic defrelopments taking place in South Africa and the +. .,I prospects of disastrous consequences if a'dialogue for: the elimination' of~apartheiq cannot'be iiiitiated'.in the very near future; the probl&.of .Namibia should,be evaluated .in-f'ts 'proper contgxt. Namibia is without, d0ubt.a matter'.of '>a ;' . . .., j decoionisation and in that sense it is unconnected with the question of,apartheid. . ,.. Howevii; &he two"questions tir:e inevitably' interrelated in the sense-that..they :.:' r&ii% &nil&r a&&s by the international~community.~ The emergence at. this .: siage'of %n indepindent Namibia on the basis of Security Council r,esolution : , /-. _, 435 i1978) Will cle&ly show:that peaceful,means in southern Africa can,..be,.. .,.: producti&. "Such 2t development will.have a very positive~impact,‘and.mighC be a..,' factor encouraging a dialhue for the peaceful evolution of .the.South African;- ,., r&itie towards radial equalit* and true,democracy. " :% 'a .,*I. . l'he Secretary-General's"report of 31'March 1987 contained .iq,.document,S/18767 throw& ii&on the‘iortuous,developments .in the',effo&s'undertaken to implement :: reSOlutioti“'435 (1'978); It is. clearly ,brought out that,all the front-line.States, -, the Government of ,&gola and-SWAP0 have displayed remarkable flexibility and a ' consttuctive spirit. The Government of Angola, while insisting,on the principle tha‘t there can be-no linkage and pre-conditfons for .the implementation of the. : I Stiurity Council resolution, has r.eferred to'the package.of concrete. propg~als,~ :.: (Mr. Turk&n, Turkey) contained in the platform forwarded to the Secretary-General in November 1984. regarding the:issue.of .the withdrawal of.Cuban forces. The President of S'WAPGhas-, reiterated SWAPOgs readiness to proceed toa cease-fire withSouth Africa for the ;, implementation of the United Nations plan for,Namibia. .., ~I. In contrast, the South.African .Government has insisted that,a firm,and . k i' : ,t Lsatisfactory agreement-should.,be reached on the withdrawal of,Cuban forces.from , Angola before theabeginning-of,the implementation of the settlement plan,basedon ',. resolution 435 (1978). In the meantime, South Africa has continued. to endangerithe peace process by,continuing cross-border.attacks against Ango1.a.. ,‘.. : As the Secretary-General states in his report, j .‘,,,, 1( j ~..'~,-, ,.. Vhe'presence'of Cuban troops in Angola is a separate matter, to:b,e,dealt wi,th by those directly concerned acting,within their sovereign:competence". . (S/18767, para. 32) ' .'.. _ "~/ : . . The linkage pre-condition is rejected by the international community, and the.. ,, Security Council-has endorsed the view that the independence,of> .+mibi?:cannot~.be ,, connected,with irrelevant and extraneous issues. we believe,that this decision of the Security Council should be henceforth reflected in-the policies .of ,a11 its _., members SO that the South'African Government can no,longer misinterpret ,tfte.- ;, .' position of the Council. ? ,' . -. , ._, :. ., , ,. , .: '.: :.: " The time has certainly come to~request.the South African Government,to accept ,. unequivocally the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) without any Jinkage or pre-condition, and we hope that the,Security Council,.will be able to ,take a st,rong and resolute stand on this issue. It is also obvious.that the South African. Government will not change its policies until it is persuaded that its .failure to comply with the requests of the Security Council will.trigger the adoption of firm and effective measures; including measures ,envisaged in.Chapter VII of the Charter. It is our'eartiest-'wish that the Security Council will be able.this time to adopt a (Mr. Turkm en, Turkeyj stand which will induce the South African Government to co-operate with the United Nations in.putting into effect without delay the plan-endorsed for the independence of Namibia, on the basis of resolution 435 (1978). In conclusion, I wish to.express the appreciation of my Government for the tireless and skilful efforts that the Secretary-General has deployed in order to. ensure the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). His report underlines that what is necessary now,is for the Security Council to prove its determination and credibility. .' '. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French)*. I thank the representative of Turkey for the congratulations he addressed to me. Th next speaker is the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist *J.'- Republic. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and-to make-his statement. -. Mr- OUDCVENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian): Comrade President, I should first like to say how very happy I am to welcome you to the lofty post of President of the Security Council. You represent a fraternal socialist country with which ours enjoys close and very warm I relations. The friendship between our peoples has deep historical roots. We are very familiar with your great diplomatic and political skills and your experience, which doubtless will facilitate the work of the Council. I wish you every success in your endeavour. I also express our delegation's gratitude to the Permanent Representative of Argentina to the United Nations, Ambassador Delpech, for his skilful guidance of the work of the Council last month. The delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet.Sociali.st Republic is grateful to members of the Security Council for giving us the opportunity to speak at this meeting. (Mr. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) Quite recently, in February, the Security Council considered one of the most acute problems facing the international community: the problem'of apartheid, described by the United Nations as a crime against humanity. Today we are discussing the question of Namibia. The system of apartheid and the illegal occupation of Namibia emanate from the very same scourge: the racist r6gime of / South Africa. :. 1 The convening of this series of Security,Council meetings'sbows that the immediate liberation of Namibia is the central, urgent task in the universal struggle for the elimination of the shameful vestiges of colonialism in our world. The statements made by the overwhelming majority of speakers arei further convincing ! Proof of-the ever-growing international support for the just striuggle of the .c j valiant patriots of Namibia, led by their military vanguard, ,the South West Africa People's Organization, against the illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia by the racist r6gime of South Africa and for the attainment by the Namibian people of genuine independence. (Mr. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) 'ItJenty'years ago the mited Nations General Assembly.termina,ted South Africa's Mandate over South West Africa. Since then, many resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly calling upon the racist colonialist regime Pretoria to terminate immediately its illegal occupation of Namibia. Among the resolutions adopted by the Security Council, I would refer in particular to reSOlUtiOn 385 (1975) and 435 (1978), which contain the only basis for a just and peaceful-settlement of the Namibia!? problem-that has achieved international recognition. - Throughout those years, however , racist South Africa has obstinately continued to sabotage implementation of those resolutions and persisted in its illegal occupation of Namibia, attempting by for.ce of arms to break the will of the, ,' :. Namibian people for freedom, independence and national self-determination. The racist rdgime and transnational corporations have ruthlessly exploited Namibia's natural and human resources. There can be no doubt that cne of the main reasons the racist rdgime of south Africa continues to refuse to grant complete independence to Namibia is the wealth to be found there. It is a Territory rich in diamonds, copper, uranium and other strategic minerals. The scale of the exploitation of Namibia's resources by foreign economic interests can be gauged by the data set forth in a document prepared by the United Nations Council for Namibia, which states that more than 60 per cent of Namibia's gross domestic product is appropriated as pre-tax income by corporations. A significant portion of the remaining 40 per cent is used by foreign interests in Namibia, for operational expenses. From time to time Pretiria revives its Namibia propaganda campaign. It issues hollow statements about its intentian to "grant " independence to the Namibian people. Under close scrutinyc however, those statements are but patently deceitful attempts to maintain South Africa's neocolonialist interests in Namibia by the (Mr’. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSP) illegal establishment of a.puppet "interim government" there. The granting of .: independence is hedged about with artificial and extraneous demands and conditions. This is clearly evidenced by Pretoria's such-touted inten&n to grant independence to Namibia by 1 August 1986. As the Secretary+eneralquite rightly states in his report, South Africa's pre-condition is "the only obstacle to the ,. implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia" (S/18767, para. 32). The entire international community, apart from the immediate henchmen and piotectcrs of the racist rdgime in Pretoria , is in agreement with the Secretary-General's opinion that South Africa's precondition related to so-called.linkage is invalid and cannot jllStifu the postponement or delaying.of Namibian independence. The General Assembly 'in its resolutions - inter alia resolution 40/97 - has Stated that the continuing illegal and colonial occupation of Namibia by South Africa constitutes an act of aggression against the Namibian people and a serious threat to international peace and security. The African countries, the countries members of the Non-Aligned IWvement, the mited Nations General Assembly and various other international forums, as well as the broad majority of world public opinion , support the ncble struggle‘of the Namibian people and have on many occasions called upas the Security Council to impose comprehensive and mandatory sanctions ,against racist South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is quite clear that the longer the delay in imposing such sanctions, the less likely will be any peaceful and non-violent soluticn to the problem of Namibia. However, the obstructionist position adopted in this matter by, some Western countries remains unchanged. As preceding speakers have stated here, the most recent evidence of this was prwided 01.20 February of this year, when a draft resolution subl&ittM to ule Security Couircil callIng,,for,_tna,.im~.ition..sf. partial. .: (Mt. Cudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) Republic of Germany. The error of such justifications and the invalid nature of talk Of the harmfulness of sanctions has been amply exposed, most recently in the course of the Council~s present deliberations. However, the explanation for such an attitude lies elsewhere. According to information furnished by the Ihited Nations Special Committee against Apartheid in its report to the forty-first session of the General Asser&ly, direct foreign capital investment in South Africa totals some $25 billion, more than 40 per Cent Of which is furnished by United Kingdom corporations and banks. The second-major r investors in South Africa are corporations of the Federal Republic of Germany, which account for 20 per cent of all capital investments. The United States of America accounts for 17 per cent of capital investments. According to the same .,XI : data, out of the 1,068 transnational corporations operating in South Africa, 206 are American, 364 are British and 142 are West German. Can we be surprised, therefore, that the limited sanctions introduced in the Mited States and the tplited Kingdom in response to pressure from the international comunity and world public opinion, affect only secondary areas of trade in South Africa and have no real effect? It is also clear that the widely touted "withdrawal" from South Africa by a nunbet of'American companies, primarily for commercial reasons, will have no effect at all on the South African ecaxmy. In ,. fact, Such purely selfish actions by international monopolies, under -the ongoing policies of *constructive" and other types of "engagement" with South Africa being practised by a number of Westerh countries, primarily the United States, encourage the racist rBgime of Pretoria to disregard the internaticnal community, undermine efforts to eliminate the system of apartheid and allow it to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia. I stress that mere moral condemnation of the racists (Mr. Cudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) thtough.futile diplorrratid balls for an end to apartheid is riot enough: it is high time that'contirete, effective measures were adopted. Indeed, the situation in southern Africa is so critical that such measures are now an urgent necessity- The Ukrainian SSR believes it necessary immediately to ensure the decOl&isatiOn of Namibia and the attainment by the Namibian people Of its inalienable right to self-determination, independence, and territorial integrity in a mified State, including Walvis Bay -and the offshore islands, as well as the :‘.” .” .- .,I, transfer Of all power. to the people of Namibia .as represend by their Sole, legitinrate representative, SWAPG. The Ukrainian SSR firmly supports the appeal to the Security Counoil launched by A&an and other no&aligned covltries to‘introduoe canprehensive and mandatory Sanctions against racist South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter in order to ccmpel Pretoria to implement the‘provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), without any extraneous considerations. Guided by its position of principle, the Ukrainian SSR wiil continue to suer.t the struggle of the valiant people of Namibia, led by SWAPS, for',their liberation. 'ThePRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative the Ukrainian SSR for‘the kind words he addressed to me and my COLllltfY~ (The President) The next speaker'& the 'representative of Nigeria. I invite himit take a " Plac~e at .the'Council table and to make his statement. '. Mr.'ONONAIti (Nigeria): I extend to you with pleasure, Sir, our warmest congratulations on your well-deserved assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month df April. I should'like tc take this opportunity alSO'to express our appreciation for'the able manner'fn which.your immediate predecessor, Ambassadcr,L@&rcelo belpech of Argentina , conducted the affairs df the Security cou&il' lagt .moith; : '. : “' . ...' .:r,. Mr. President, 'we.'take due'cognizance of the difficult task that you have to' perform. We are none the less certain that the vast experience and immense diplomatic skill and wisdom that you bring to the presidency will guarant&&geheral ,.' support for your leadership role. We'pledge our unflinching,supp&t'fOr Your. guidance of the Council in dealing with the important issue before us. I wish to place-on record'my Government's deepest appreciation of the tireless efforts-of the 'Secretary-General in the matter before the Council 'Indeed, we : recall the p&fuse expressions of support fcr the Secretary-General at the time Of ., his recent election." .We were -unable to identify dne delegation'that did not express support. If it is necessary, we'should like tc remind all'concerned to recall their support fcr the Secretary-deneral and to complement his efforts in the Namibian question. His most recent report 'is self-explanatory and we commend it t0 those who have not seen'it. We are here today with a rather heavy‘heart and a sense cf disappointment. We hope that that disappointment'and despair will turn to optimism and satisfaction by the time the Securiiy Council.winds up its deliberations on the agenda item. The Council's apparent inability to live up to the intentions'of the founding fathers of the &t&d Nations'tind to the expectations .of the international'community in the . . South African crisis because of the selfish arrogance of.po&er of scme‘of the " (Mr. Ononaiye, Nigeria) ,. .., permanentmembers remains a blighton 'the rauthorjty of the Organixation. It is our "- : hope that this meeting will not be turned into yet anoth,er occasion for dashing the I legitimate aspirations of the.,struggling people of Namibia in preference for economic,gain and parochial interests. The history and nature of the Namibian cuestion have been qufficiently ; I , -,:.~_ , ". i _~,. documented, and I shall not repeat the details at this time. It is, indeed, +,.- _: shame that, 20 years after the termination of apartheid South Africa's Mandate over ., i i the Trust Territory, the racist rCgime has blatantly defied the.United Nations a$ :. 'x the will of the,world,community by refusing to surrender its pernicious control . ., .'. over the Territory.., Nearly lo years ago the.Security Council, which our Charter * vestedwi$h~.the authority.to deal with breaches of peace, adopted a United Nations ? ,. ,I , i :., I, ) ,, _ plan for,the peaceful'settlement of the Namibian crisis in the,form of r,esolution .That action was hailed by the international community and endorsed,by 435 (1978). all,parties involved in the Namibian crisis, including the apartheid r6gime. The United,Nations plan, hqwever) remains unimplemented to this dqbecause of the . prevarications of racist South Africa , encouraged by its friends and allies. ,_ _. . Issues extraneous.and irrelevant to the plan contained in resolution 435 (1978), A issues.which predate the adoption of the resolution and which were not ta’ised at . . the time of negotiations on the United Nations,plan for Namibia, are now being, , //. I _., c. -., flaunted as red herrings to,block, implementation of the plan. .I,n any event0 ,the legitimate guest of the Namibian people forself-determination, freedom and independence has been.frustrated., It is a betrayal. It is our view that the pariah South African entity could not have had.the .- _ effrontery to challenge and defy world opinion, as expressed in numerous ,' resolutions of the United Nations, including those of the security Council,.were it not for the support and deliberate encouragement it receives from some powerful ,‘.“.. . . ,, '*'., * , .' :' ,_ ,. :,j : ': Members,of the United Nations and the Security Council. It is the greatest, irony (Mr. Ononaiye, Nigeria) of history, and perhaps a reflection of the contempt in which some Members hold our ‘. : / Organisation that countries which voluntarily and actively participated in t.: .) fashioning the United Nations plan for Namibian independence are now engaged in subverting implementation of the same plan. We are forced to search for the motive for this unusual situation. We ., recognise that all Member States support the principle of self-determination and independence. We note that all Member States renewed support for the united ._ Nations at the recent fortieth anniversary celebrations. We have been unable to identify any support for the system of apartheid. The foregoing analysis leads us to conclude that there is a racial dimension to the policies that certain powerful countries are pursuing with regard to the Namibian and, indeed, the entire South i . ( I , :, . ..I x African issue. It is clear and indisputable that racism is the main consideration in the official policies of apartheid South Africa. It is beginning to appear that racism also informs the official policies of certain friends and supporters of racist South Africa. My delegation is nevertheless hopeful that the predominant feeling of sympathy for and understanding of the Namibian cause expressed by the good people of those countries will soon be reflected in the .policies of their Governments. We Pay tribute to the citizens of all countries who, through mass action, have distanced L _.,-r" themselves from the myopic policies that their Governments have been pursuing in Namibia and South Africa. . . (Mr. On&aiye, Nigeria} (Mr. On&aiye, Nigeria} . . . . _. _. We salute their co&age and determinaticm to live up to the true trriditions We salute their co&age and determinaticm to live up to the true trriditions , , their own history and their enlightened beliefs in the principles of their own history and their enlightened beliefs in the principles of of 7.. self-determination. freedom and .justice. The struggle of the Namibian people is in the true tradition of the quest for freedom and self-determination by oppressed ‘. : ., people through'out the'annals‘of history. The co-operation and collaboration with racist South Africa in its continued stranglehold over Namibia by certain Western collntries have recently taken a new I ,, L turn in the.'fofm of the increased militarisation of the Trust Territory and, indeed, the entire southern African region. It has been widely reported in certain *Stern European newspapers that secret arms shipments to racist South Africa have resumed again. The international Territory of Namibia is being used in this IWfatiOUS 'plan to arm the apartheid South African dgime, in mnwavention of Security Council resolution 418 (1977) imposing a mandatory arms enbargo against South Africa. It is being claimed that the arms are destined fat the UNITA armed bandits of Angola. we know, however, that UNITA is but a proxy of the pariah j Pretoria rbgime. The independent African states in the southern African region are being threatened with possible military reprisals because of their support for the legitimate struggle for freedom in Namibia and South Africa. The Territory of .: Namibia is being used by the South African-sponsored UNITA armed bandits t0 launch militaryincursions into the independent and sovereign nation of Angola, portions of whose territory have been under South Africa's occupation for some years now. It is a matter for regret that in spite of the world-wide rejection and condemnation of the South African-established "interim government" in the international Trust Territxxy of Namibia, in spite of the unequivocal rejection of that non-government by the United Nations, certain governments have started to deal With the puppets of that entity who masquerade as ministers. The motive for this (Mr. Gnonaiye, Nigeria) sinister collaboration is.now coming to light - a mwe to deplete the enormous natural resources of Namibia, in contravention of relevant United Nations resolutions and Decree No. I, promulgated by the Ulited Nations Council for Namibia in 1974 to protect Namibia's natural resources. Once again, the lure of eoonomic gains is.being given priority and precedence wet human suffering and misery in Namibia. As the report of the Secretary-General , contained in document S/18767 of 31 March‘1987 vividly shows,' the implementation'of,. the Council*s. plan .for a I peaceful settlement of the Namibian question has consistently been delayed because of racist South Africa's insistence en pre-ccr&tions extraneous to the plan contained in resolution 435 (1978). The Angolan Government, in order to get the resolution 435 (1978) going, has since 1984 committed itself to a implem&ntation of phased withdrawal of the Cuban international forces under the Mindelo Act it entered into with the Gwernment of the mited States. This, undertaking *as reached despite the sovereign right of the Angolan Government, under international law, to choose whom to invite'in; its borders. The demonstration of good faith On the part of the Angolan authorities is, however, not sufficient for the racist . Pretoria r8gime, which continues to insist a3 canplete withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola before the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). The international cammrnity has repeatedly rejected this "linkage" theory. The Final ConvnuniqU? of the Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, which took place in Harare in September'1986, and the Action Programme adopted by the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, which took place in Vienna in 1986, rejected and condenned the. Doctrine of *linkage*. The people of Namibia have suffered enough. Ebr how long must Namibians be denied their just rights ‘~1 the altar of apparent f-ilial kinship with the apartheid rulers of South Africa? The international axsnunity must urgently (Mr. Ononaiye, Nigeria) address the genocide'that is being perpetrated by the minority rbgime of Afrikaners in southern Africa.. During the Second World War black and African people in the colonies were conscripted to fight against Hitler's fascism and genocide. Africa iS now asking the Western Powers to live up to their oft-repeated respect for democracy,and freedom by persuading apartheid south Africa to uuft the international Territory of Namibia - and to do so now. We believe that the Charter has enough provisions for dealing with aggressor nations which breach in~ternational peace and security. Having tried negotiations and mediation, regrettably without success, we are now calling on the international Community to invoke the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter against South Africa. This is.the only alternative peaceful course of action left to the international community. It is for this reason that we support and recommend the draft resolution before the'Counci1. It is an indictment of the authority of the Council that a minority Afrikaner rt%gime, representing less than S million white South Africans, should defy its decisions regarding Namibia. This becomes ridiculous when it is realized that some members of the Council are regrettably encouraging the racist r6gime's acts Of defiance.. Racist South Africa's colonialism in the Trust Territory of Namibia must be brought to an end. The Pretoria ,rhgime must be forced to discharge its obligations under international law in the context of Security Council resolution 5 435 (1978). The Council must facilitate that process by enforcing its authority in Namibia: by calling on all State Members of our Organization, as well as non-members, immediately to impose domprehensive mandatory sanctions against the .Pretoria r&gime until it relinquishes its illegal and nefarious hold over Namibia. Let us unite to act now. _. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from',French').: I thank the representative of Nigeria for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of.Cuba. I invitehim to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. CRAMAS OLIVA(Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): I wish'to express my congratulations to you, Sir, the worthy representative of Bulgaria, cn your assumption of the prisidency of this important organ for this month of April,. and we are confident that the work of the Security Council will benefit from your wise and experienced leadership. At the same time, we wish to express our appreciation to Ambassador Marcel0 Delpech, Permanent Representative of Argentina, who so ably and xeaiously guided the business of the Council during the past month of March.. In 1985 the Security Council considered the situation in Namibia, as well as the arrogant and treacherous behaviour bf the Pretoria racists, who continued to thwart the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) of 29 September 1978. 01 that Occasion the Security Council adopted resolution.566 (1985),.in which it was \ established that there cnly remained to determine the electoral system to be used - for the election, under United Nations supervisions, for the Constituent Assenbly, so that resolution 435'(1978) could beimplemented and Namibia accede to its' longed-for independence. Throughout'all these years the international ootiunity in a variety of international forums, such as the-Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned mvement and the United Nations itself, has affirmed that Namibia has the right to G be independent and that Security‘council resolution 435 (1978) is the appropriate framework for the attainment of that.cherished and inalienable aspiration of the Namibian people. The only obstacle impeding the independence of Namibia has proved .-to be'the arrogant and intransigent position of racist South Africa in perpetuating (Mr. Oratis Oliva, Cuba) its colonial domination in Namibia and, in this, it is clear that it has enjoyed '* :, . . , .) . the encouragement and support of those in Washington who c&c&ted the so-called .j, ., constructive engagement and linkage, subterfuges and theories totally alien to the ,_' spirit and letter of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). '_ '. ,It was necessary to create genuine conditions for human di@.ty, proclaimed in .' ., I : . . . _ resolution 435 (1978,' to be guaranteed, in order that it could become a concrete . L. ,' and objective fact. In reading -day the excellent report of Secretary-Geneial '. . . .; ' Perez de Cuellar - for which we express our appreciation - we see the following: -; ‘\I .' .; .." 1. . i I .- " "As metiers of the Security Council are aware, in November 1985 agreement , ..' was reached with the parties concerned on the system of proportional representaticn for the .elections envisaged in Security Council resolution -.: -8. .‘ . . . I : ‘ i _ : .' 435 (1978). With this agreement, the last outstanding issue relevant to the United rJations plan was resolved." (s/18767, para. 31) It is clear to everyone that with the agreement referred to by the .. ', : Secretary-General in his report the only pending issue to implement resolution ., ' . ‘1 / .: 435 (1978) was resolved. In insisting, with the support of its Washington allies, ,.I "' , upon pre-conditions under so-called linkage - which has already been rejected on i . . more than.one occasion by the international community - South Africa continues to 4 .i stall the process aimed at Namibia's independence. ,. :. I. ..'._ In view Of the foregoing, all that remains to be done without further delay ie % -, to implement the above-mentioned, and now historic, resolution 435 (1978) and to ,( / .react urgently to the earnest appeal made by the Secretar~-General to all the ': ., '. parties concerned , as well as to the international community as a whole, to make a 1 _. : : determined effort to emplace the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) in Namibia in 1987. - ;h I-..* -: ., ,.,, "- (Mr. Oramas Oliva, Cuba) /. i , . _ The day,before,yesterday the Permanent Representative of.f$uth Africa in,,thiS .- . ., ~ ., :. ,' '_ , , i '.~ ) . '.,, i ; / CouWl madea cynical statement reflecting everythin,g the,South African 1, ! " ', i * .,~ authori,ties are doing to guarantee what he termed the well-being of the Namibian I .,: people - in the fields of nealth and education. ,. ., '. Nhat we heard was the same as what we,ha-d,already heard on many other occasions from other colonial Powers. For the ,, _;-, T'. , .: ,: ,. : representative Of South Africa the most valuable thing is qeir spurious . . . . _i i .; ../ . . .‘,.’ ., ._b . I- ,, well-be.ing, whereas for. the peoples themselves what is most valuable is freedom and i. : ,b . '~. ..' i-,. :" ,.: .: ..: . *. /( _ independence. And,,ps.always, in a demonstration of his. frustrated belligerence, I ,- . . . . ^ the repres.en,tative of.Pretoria in concluding his statement threatened,,,to apply ._, I, ./ ,_ ., II 1 . fanciful reforms in Namibia - in other words, unilateral arrangements. How can ,. i ,,.._ South Africa, which has so often challenged the international community, now come before the Security Council to proffer new threats? "Linkage" was quite simply concocted to hold hostage the independence of Namibia, and we wonder how many new %inicagesa will be created by the Pretoria racists in continuing to flout the appeal of the world's conscience and to Violate the decision of the International Court of Justice, which declared South Africa's presence in Namibia illegal. How many new-"linkages" will be created to COn+IUe thwarting Namibia's independence? Are we perhaps forgetting the other delaying manoeuvres and obstacles? The following are examples of such tactics: the holding Of elections in Namibia in December 1978, despite the united Nations plan; the problems of the demilitaiized zone; the question of the numerical size of the United Nations forces; and the impartiality of this very organization. We should not be surprised to see new "linkages" in future, until the final suggestion would be to attempt to eliminate the South Nest Africa People's Organisation from the process towards Namibian independence. I (Mt. Oramas 01 iva, Cuba) :‘Clearly , * that South Afr&axi‘ arrogant& .is being ‘manifested owing to the f&t that to date two permanent ‘menbets of’the Security Council - the United .States and the United Kingdom - -have tied the veto ti prevent the application Of SanCtiOM- SOWh Africa’s habitual intransigence in refusing to comply with the Council’s decisions only lead us to think; ‘after ‘so many’ years, ‘that there remains no’other > alternative but to apply the comprehensive mandatory sanctions provided for ‘in’ Chapter VII of the Charter: to compel the’ racists to bow to the appeals for reason and to history, it is an anomaly that Pretoria’s obduracy.‘should be allowed to for give rise .to a focus of tension threatening international peace. and security in tnat part of southern Africa; _. ” . . . (Mr. Oramas Oliva, Cuba) “This'is'%io time'to'handle'the Pretoria,racists,with kid-gloves., : In addition to occupying Namibia, they have.violated the sovereignty of Angola by maintaining in its southern part's number of military units Ghcse.sole purpose is to assist in the detabilizing activities of the mercenary'bands of'UNITA;- ~&'are'o&e again'seeing-.the already,threa&are manoeuvres of South Africa '_ desigued‘todistract attention and to delay the entire process. in this case South Africa dares to tell us that the frameworkeof resolution ,435 (1978) has already been left behin'd bf events, It would be wise: for us to pause hare;:medidate'upon this point and draw the appropriate lessons, because South Africa iS ‘thus Subtly ‘., attempting to 'draw us into a neWlabyrinth thatwill 'lead us away from the clear, definite, well Iit‘and'well paved road provided by~resolution '435. (1978). :I .L'....: believe we'have seentoo mu& 'trickery from the South African racists to be deceived once' again by the same siren scngs. " h!I-Statement could be qu%te lengthy if I were.to attempt to list each and ev'ery &e of the'&es Of South African aggression against the front-line ' &&tries. It is well-known'that Namibia'is being,used for the continuous acts of aggress ion 'against Angola ;a'sovereign country and a Metier of this Organisation- And in thik?egard.let ‘us‘not'forgetthe genocidal policy applied by the apartheid regime against &e black people of South Africa themselves. It suffices. simply to read the 'New-Por k 'ddily press'to lear-n the.number .of.victims whose blood is daily paving .the road to freedom in South Africa to realise once and for all that, like a cancer or a case of.political AIDs, that rigime is gnawing away peace and stability in southern Africa. .'i ". We are firmly convincedthat it is not rhetoric that will resolve this bitter and"sad realiti. Therefore we appeal to the Council, which our Organization's Charter end&'wi& the respdusibility of protecting international'peace and (Mt. Oramas Oliva, Cuba) secutify;~to.apply without delay the measures prescribed for cases such as that before us today, so that:the people of Namibia, under the guidance of its sole 2 legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organizaticn (SWAK)), maY Speedily accede to independence and , confident in its future, come and sit among us here aS an independent and sovereign country working,for peace and development. The PRESIDIRJT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of Cuba for the kind words he addressed to me. : The next speaker is'therepresentative of Kuwait. I invite him $0 take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.. Mr. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): I wish at the very outset to convey to you,.,Sir, our warm congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. We are confident that your expertise and diplomatic experience will help us achieve the results we hope for. Your representation of'the friendly country of Bulgaria is truly of benefit to the righteous and the just in the galling Namibian question, which is high cn the ljst of thorny international problems. We have come here,to discuss that problem and to take the actions necessary to secure a realistic response to it in our civilized world - namely the granting to the Namibians of their inalienable right to, self-determinati‘on. On this occasion I cannot fail ti pay tribute to my friend and colleague the Permanent Representative of Argentina, -assador Delpech, for his,Success in presiding over the Council last month. My delegation is participating in these deliberations in order to join the majority of the intern-aticmal community in demanding the immediate and unconditional termination of South Africa's occupation of the Namibian,people's territories, which continues 20 years after the General Assembly's adoption of its ., i: resolution ending South AfricaVs Mandate over the Territory. (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) Our participation is inspired by Kuwait's principled and firmly established commitment to the cause of preserving the rights and legitimate interests of peoples and supporting the sanctity of mankind and its liberties and basic needs, regardless of colour, religion or race. It proceeds from our firm commitment to the endeavour to protect the rights of peoples and all they hcXLd sacred, and to prevent injustice. I should also like to remind those present in this Council of the call made two mcnths ago by leaders of the Islamic countries during their Fifth Islamic Sununit Conference, in Kuwait, at which those leaders appealed to all E&tier States to extend the utmost possible assistance to the people of Namibia in their struggle, under the leadershipof the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAFO), to liberate themelves from the yoke of racist occupation and colonisation and to put an end to the plundering of their wealth now being carried out in broad daylight. MY country, Kuwait, has consistently urged the international oommunity firmly to support the justness and legitimacy of this liberation struggle for national independence and self-determination. Kuwait believes that the solution is implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia, to which there is no obstacle except the intransigence and procrastination of the Pretoria racist rdgime. There must also be firm rejection of any and &llattempts to link Namibia’s independence to irrelevant issues that do not relate to or stem from international law and to defy the will of the majority of the mexbership of our world Organization as reflected in many resolutions, notably Security 'Council resolution 435 (1978), whi& represents the only valid basis for the achievement of a peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia's indep,+dence. .We' have repeatedly debated the irrationality implicit in efforts to make 6U ch a linkage, and all have concurred cn the illegality of that demand, which has been forcibly introdced into the Namibian question for purposes totally extraneous to it and for the sake of procrastination and prevarication. , . ., : -’ :- (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) : (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) Kuwait condemns all attempts by the ra~cist Pretoria,r&gime to establish puppet bodies and administrations in Namibia and to lend them a false legitimacy running counter to the clear will of the people, which will accept no alternative to the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO) as the leader of jts liberation struggle. We continue to demand that the racist Pretoria regime and its invading forces that occupy Namibia immediately release the heroic political prisoners now held in Namibia and desist from terrorism against the legitimate national liberation movement of Namibia, SWAPO. Kuwait considers the so-called interim ,/ administration in Windhoek to be illegal, null and void; all countries must refrain from providing it with assistance of any kind, for it is but another tool for perpetuating:the colonial domination of Namibia. The present debate reminds us that this year marks the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We should pay a deserved tribute to the role of our world Organisation, its Secretary-General, its Council for Namibia and other relevant bodies,.and to their sincere, diligent efforts to bring about peacefully the independence of Namibia in spite of th.e difficulties and frusfrations,cteated by the racist r6qime of South Africa, .' especially through its policy of escalating aggression whenever messengers of peace take actionand whenever the front-line States embark on initiatives towards a ., ), settlement. ./ We consider that the Secretary-General was speaking on behalf of us all when some weeks ago he stated before the Special Committee on decolonisation that the decolonisation process will remain incomplete so long as millions in Namibia and elsewhere continue to be deprived of independence and stripped of the right of self-determination. The Secretary-General sparked optimism when he said that whatever the racist Pretoria rhgime may do to ignore the rights of the Namibian , .I (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) f people and to'.defy the' international'community, we shall.not be :diverted5ifrom.the search for a just settlement'to the'uuestion of .Namibia. _ ':. ". _ -L'., .I ,I' The fifth Islamic Summit Conference, held.at Kuwait last January,'.hdopted'a .~. resolution on support fcr the liberation struggle of,the peoples of Namibia*andb, : South Africa, which;' inter‘ ali'a;a called Ofor __ (I:- 7' : p,*,x; : , -f-' ~r,';.I;;~zY1~7 'requesting the S&urfty 'Council 'td explbre .'all'-avenues '&rid ',emplby :a'11 L- '-.:r-: available 'means' to 'ex$edite the attainment of Namibia's independence": ':. "' The donferende' also s&&ted 'the struggle waged"by SWI&G, -including'irmed :;,: ',-;. ' struggle, for independence in a united Namibian nation. "‘.'f. ' 'i '.'-. .: I" I wish to stress once more thatrhistory will have'no mercy upon those who -.'. condone what is being done to the colonized people of Namibia; 'especially those"who are'motivated by.narrow'selfi$hness'& the expense of the millions of o$$reshed and dispossessed people. Thus, all influential economio,Powers'land-all'other,-States * Members of the 'tiorld Organization musti impose a co&rehensivi~'eddnomic' and:military embargo against'south Africa until the minority regime in Pretoriademonstrates+" reSPeCi for mankind by.guaranteeing'fundamental human rights,'.and until it abides' by the resolutions‘of the international majority, particularIy those-calling-for,.' .the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of'Namibia.i'--z.: 'My countryVs unswerving commitment to supporting efforts to imposeb- comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa was'highlighted with 'I Kuwait's election to the viceichairmanship of the Intergovernmental Grouti. to Monitor the Supply and Shipping 'of.Oil and Petroleum'producti 'to South'Africa,-". ~ established in conformity with'Genera1 Assembly resolution 41]3f‘F, which called. for the imposition of an oil embargo'against So&Africa. My country'will do-its utmost to help attain that lofty purpose and will participate in all,endeavours:.to thgt end. (Mr. Abulhasan, Kuwait) 2 ,-L' : -_ < : I Morality over&& &&&interests when, last 'year, the united States Congress ,; ,:,. .:: .:-.. adopted economic sanctions against South Africa, even though the sanctions Lerk largely without palpable effect owing to their narrowness and'their total lack Of ~. . congruence with the position taken by 'the United Sta&s'Administration in the .- i Security Council. ,, . ., i . -'I ‘, ‘. ; i . : 9.: 'In that , . ‘ , . connection, I consider that we‘owe‘the Swedish Government our , ( . . .1 :. for its pledge to impose a trade embargo against South Africa " i ," 7.:. ; .',' 1 July next. The world has come to the conclusion'that international appreciation beginning on .(. ., j . ; _' ; .. " pressure provides the last chance for a non-violent 's6ttle&nt in K&&a. “.‘~. .I: ‘- : f ...I ,’ .I * ("2 A draft resolution sponsored by a number'of Council members *is~ before"the - :_ . . : Security Council. 'My delegation believes that a number of operative.paragraphs of ‘. . : , : . , , r , ; I . . the draft resolution, partic&rly ( : II. : those cbn&&& '&plication of”<& provisions ,.. .r'. . . . . . ,."._ - of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, 'truly Ge&& the df~it&al and popular demands of the'international com&nity on.this vital issue;' 68 stated both 'within the United Nations and outside it. It goes without saying that the Security Council must be the instrument of the hopes of peoples aspiring to a life of freedom and dignity in keeping with the principles of the Charter. That Charter entrusts the members of the Security Council with a special responsibility to defend its principles and ensure its application. Thus, the international community expects the Council to support and adopt the draft resolution before it.

I thank the representative of.Kuwait for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Bangladesh. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. ,' ..,?. a,. ," - Mr- MOHIUDDIN &angladefh): p. , .I I. - _ . ;. 2. .L : !: , ; ': ,‘; . '. I speak, to add my voice to a growing demand . ,, . ; . ( j. ,_, / ,;'.-/,' ,' ,,. b' II, _I ‘ for action on a matter that has been pending far too long. Ours is a call whose / . > : ,'" ! i ,I' : :, G :* j"-, : ," .;sz S-A ,_ .:- : ':" I i, -, : . ,,;_ . . . : ._- . . I. j 1: I :> :, echoes resound around the globe. Perhaps many here recall how the observant saw ,. "& j I . . " : 'I.. ' > ‘. . '. ' . / _ -a ,_: ': a-.+ ,r the winds of change blow across Africa in the 1960s; today'those winds have been I. :..:, ': <- ,- :' . ', ', I. .; .> ' :,c _ : ', x.5 transformed into a gathering gale of gigantic proportions. Our world must take ” I _. L y:;: _j )” ; *, .: I: :c*‘-* :;a2 heed or run the risk that the foundations of our civilisation will be obliterated Ij --.?; : ',“n~',.,+J T(.' . ?,“l c.. *~ ,, ,;', ) i , .~_,. I . ~. * ,I - ,.,',."q " ", :-5 > . ;; n I.. Namibia is that.important. I i* ,, _,. 2.. ,. _ , . . ." c, / . .-. * . ", /i I .' .,>I.,;:!.:.;~.~<,. ,;.f‘,' ,I : ,*‘~,',:“ ._,_; , : .‘,a: .'.,;'I * , *I ,, *.:. . . . . *",," But before proce,eding, Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you upon your >- ; > ..,:,, ,, “,,:r3;, 1, .:. _", ._4 . 4 .;,- * I ;/ . . ; :,*.* .-.'i' ::..',L", assumption of your high office. 5. &';I L I_have not the slightest doubt that you will bring . . ; * i , I .' ; _, .~ . ,.'I , \' I i*.. . >;: I .~ to bear the prodigious qualities of your head, your heart, and your intellect upon : '.i.“,r, \ '! ',,' 4 3 I l'?,‘, ,.c,,:: 1 '. I -. 9, -; z . i, ,,,. _ , I '* i ,'.. ' ' I , : '. 1 . . :, -, the deliberationq,of the Council ,, ._ . y.; (. I ",,. -s .,.~ *I ,, ._ ,. ,'. _. L, . and ably guide them to a fruitful conclusion. r:. . . ., . " ,, ~ ,~. '1) i .'/ ,. .\ i , -. . . .., : __ I May I also.place on record our deep appreciation for ,the skilful manner in : i 1, I ., :, '. ,: , _ . ~, 'I I ._., ),. I- * /' : .; : '$ '. ..~, ,.._ ! +ch..your predecessor, Ambassador Marcel0 Delpech, conducted the affairs of this ::_ t .I. ..'. 1: ,, : .‘, , I, _.. y,., ; , ! Council last month. (Mr. Mohiuddin, Bangladesh) ..* ‘. /, . ‘The'sorrows of Namibia cktinue to'distress,us alI deeply. "Cur r.elentleSS .', ,' efforts, 'spanning four "decades ', appedr-to be verqinqon futility. ' .' " A.sinqle odious regime; ~ . . abhorred by an overwhelming majority of i'ts'people and " *' condemned by‘most of 'the world, 'has succeeded in SpUr~n&q with impunity bothqlobal ‘,‘,.I ;“. .,,< : ; ._ public opinion and specific resolutions'of the‘ 'nited Nations. I te'fer to the" _.- .. - ; ' .f' . . . ; - racist re'qime of Pretoria, whose despicable policies constitute '&r&s the‘ *. , ;' _' *I ,d ,. , ,. greatest blot on our present times. ,.‘ . . ..-.. __ a_, The artdqance of. &th Africa' makes a mockery , .. of'our'demands; ,' : ,"‘, . * .-. ., . . Its Covernment'does not'simply per&&ate ,.hatefui system 'at' .:- . . . homet even beyond the frontiers of the stateit continues i'ts ev'il'&;=hinatiOns to , keep the en&e n&on'suppressed and subjuia'ted; .: . With the ja&boot.of &pression, ,’ . L .’ it tramples beneath its heavy heels the ‘plaintive appeals of .the'&mib&s I. for .. . :. ‘ ” ‘\‘. . . . I i Pretoria represents an evil that can never be rationally'enqaqed. For "&as& : :. ,I ,. .'" ,'. r I' : ., 1.. '.. " '. and rationality are not the values, justice and humanity are not the.virtueS, to ‘, -,.:j:, ‘; I . which itcan lay claim, . . :, The &vernment‘of '&uth Africa is an international pariah I : - ., ), j \. . . as a res'ult of'its own misdeeds. It h'aS chosen' to treat &bai public opinion with &&e and &&; : .’ It must-be denied all &tern&. sources bf’.&&&qth’; it mls t be deprived of all ext’&nal &;irces of ‘.y&. s : 8’ /. .;, The res&isibility'of Na'mibia weighs heavily on'the'shoulders and on the . I .*. But to date' the Council and the'united tiations'h'ave conslieuce of this Council. V “- ‘.. * ‘I . ,. not been able to fulfil the commitments to the 'kmibians. ~. Today the Namibians have . t takenupon themselves the task of determininq'their own destiny. Theirs is a vaiiant struggle. We"&.Ute them, as we'safute 'the leadership of 'their sole 'and authentic representative, the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAti). I I. have'no doubt it will'lead its people to success and glory. (Mr. Mohiuddin, Bangladesh) There ,are many'around the worId',who have accorded their support and symp*Y . . to this glorious cause. 'To them I give my thanks. The front-line African States have displayed unmatched resilience, fortitude and determination. I offer them my ' congratulations. The Secretary-General and-his colleagues have approached this issue with edifying dedication. I extend them my sincere appreciation. ( ., " For the people of my country, Namibia is a cause dear to.their hearts, just as ; . ~ ', I, it is for all those who have experienced foreign domination. That is why '.' '_ ., '_ '. , . Bangladesh attaches the greatest, the highest, significance to the metiership of ',. ,.. .:, " : _ . . ', " . . the united Nations Council for Namibia. It is our firm COnViCtiOn that the racist rdgime of South Africa will not .' ,, .' > ' . ,... relent unless its hand is forced. That will require concerted international . . . / : ./, ,.. -. action. South Africa's attempts at hoodwinking the world by the so-called reforms ._ at home and by the installation of a puppet regime in Windhoek have rightly earned I it global derision. These actions have fooled no one. South Africa, to the utter ." anguish and dismay of most of the world, continues its shameful depredations of . : .I precious Namibian resources , in total defiance of Decree No. 1. Pretiria has not , .( cnly stolenthe lands of the Namibian people: it has also stolen their limbs - for forced labour is a corollary of South Africa's illegal occupation. , _ .' Must we not make all efforts to capel.Pretoria to withdraw frm,terri tories I r t0 which it has no'right? Must we not force South Africa to conform to the norms ,. of accepted civilized state behaviour? Must we allow reason and logic to disappear . SO easily Without protest? We all know the answers to‘those queries. Why can we not, then, muster enough courage and determination to let ourselves be guided by the dictates of our conscience? South Africa must be responded to in a language.and idiom that it understands. We must isolate 'it politically , economically and militarily. (Mr. Mohiuddin, Bangladesh) The only peaceful method left open now is the impcsition of canprehensive mandatory sanctions. My delegation therefore supports the adoption of the draft resolution before the Council. We may not achieve our aim by this action alone. But illlpOSing itwill have a symbolism that will be striking, and by doing so we shall have vindicated ourselves before the judgement of posterity. The only path to Namibian independence lies through the application of the mitea Ndtions plan. That is the cnly manner through which our aim can be achieved Peacefully. The plan contains the principles enbodied inthe r,elevant Fited Nations resolutions, particularly Security Council resolution 385 ,(,1976) and 435 (1978). The plan is the verdict of the global oonnnunity. .It must be implemented‘withcut any uodification. All attempts by the, racist Pretoria rdgime : ti iink the'indopendence of Namibia with extraneous and irrelevant issues must be thwarted. South Africa today stands exposed. That is evidenced ins the sentiments and opinions expressed in every relevant forum of the world. The litanyof 8outh Africa's misdeeds is inordinately long, and it will continue to grow unless we act. A simple, hard-hitting resolution, endorsed by all, will help. If there is a voice in Namibia that does not cry out in anguish, it,is only because it has been forcefully auted. If there is a voice in Namibia that does not protest, it is only because it has been silenced and not converte,d. 'bet it'not be said in the years to come that we denied an entire people justice by needlessly delaying it or by showing our unconcern.

I thank the representative of Bangladesh for the kind words he addressed to me. '. The next speaker is the representative of Jamaica. I invite him 'to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. BARNETT (Jamaica): The Jamaican delegation is grateful for this important opportunity to participate in the Security Council's debate on the SitUatiOn in Namibia, which is taking place at the urgent request of the member States of the African Group. At the outset, 'I should like to extend our sincere congratulations to you, Sir, on your election as President of the Security Council for the month of April, TO your predecessor, Ambassador Delpech, the Permanent Representative of Argentina, we express our deep appreciation for the manner in which he presided over the Security COUnCil’S affairs in'the month of March. It has not escaped our attention that the Security Council's consideration Of the situation in Namibia is taking place at the same time as the ongoing struggle of the peoples of South Africa agiinst the inhumane and evil system of apartheid. IS there no sense of shame? Can the permanent members of the Security Council in all good conscience continue to play out this charade? Is it possible to avoid the weary cynicism that the debates on Namibia in the Security Council seem inevitably to bring out? The answer to all three - not-so-rhetorical - questions is “No”. There is no shame. There is no good conscience. And weary cynicism will not be avoided. . (Mr. Barnett, Jamaica) The powerful have taken a stand. The weak must Wait and Splutter in anger, in frustration and in resignation. It is not as if the issues about which we debate' in circles are not well known; it is not as if the justice of the came of the &mibian people is not almost universally acknowledged; it is not as if the item is new; it is not as if Namibia were not a Ulited Nations responsibility by decision of the United Nations itself. Some nine years have elapsed since the Security Council, by resolution 435 (1978), adopted the tPlited Nations settlement plan for Namibia. It remains unimplemented and has been undermined and'frustrated by South Africa's duplicity . and intransigence. Jamaica is especially mindful of the uniqueness of the Namibian problem arising out of the fact that the Territory is legally under the direct control and supervision of the United Nations. It is also the only decolonization issue in which the United Nations, by Security Council resolution 43s (1978), has established a precise framework , unanimously agreed by the parties ancerned, outlining the modalities for the implementation of the independence plans for the Tarribory. The recent repor.t by the Seoretary-General (S/18767) concerning the implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) clearly Sets Out the painstaking efforts and initiatives he has undertaken with a view to securing the immediate implementation of the mited Nations settlement plan for Namibia's independence. Not surprisingly, it candidly reveals that the sole responsibility for the delay in Namibia's independence lies with the Government Of South Africa, especially as a result of its insistence on linking Namibia's independence with the extraneous issue of the removal of Cuban forces frcan Angola. South Africa is not alone in that view. (Mt. Barnett, Jamaica) Thus, with all the outstanding procedural issues having been settled, the stalemate in the immediate implementation of the United Nations settlement plan remains unbroken. Accordingly, the Secretary-General has been forced to conclude: “Regrettably, South Africa’s proposal that 1 August 1986 be set as the date for the implementai ton of the ulited Nations plan ran counter to relevant Recur ity Council decisions , since it reaffirmed that prior agreement must be reached an the total withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola before imp1 emen ta tion. The .proposal as a whole could therefore not be sustained as a valid basis for proceeding with the implementation of the T.&i ted Wa tiOnS plan. This linkage pre-condi tion, which dates back to 1982, now constitutes ,’ the cnly obstacle to the implementation of the Mited Nations plan for Namibia. I do not recognize the validity of the linkage pre-condition, nor can I accept it as a pretixt to delay any further the independence of Namibia. The presence of Cuban troops in Angola is a separate matter, to be dealt with by those directly ccncerning acting within their sovereign competence.” (S/10767, para. 32) Jamaica fully endorses and concurs with the very pertinent concluding remarks and observations of the Secretary-General. We totally reject the notion of 1 ink age . For far too long the international community has acquiesced and equivocated in its response to Pretoria’s stonewalling tactics and its unscrupulous manoeuvres in attempting to transform the Namibian problem into an issue of East-West conflict. Such despicable manoeuvres, which form part of Pretoria’s grand regional design to perpetuate the discredited apartheid system and to annex formally and place under its exclusive ccntrol the Territory of Namibia, should be firmly confronted and resisted. Whatever the rationalizations proffered and excuses made, the delay is a betrayal of trust and confidence; it is the undermining of the prestige and (Mr. Barnett, Jamaica) credibility of the United Nations and a questioning of the authority of the Security Council. Meanwhile people die, miseries continue, freedom is smothered; but profits are made and exploitation continues. AS was emphasized by the Deputy Prime Minister and @.nister.for Foreign Affairs of Jamaica, the Right Honourable Hugh Shearer, in his statement at the fOUr&enth Special sessicn of the United Nations General AssenS,ly on Namibia, Jamaica fully supports the Secretary-General% position that a more concerted effort needs ta be made to secure the co-operation of South Afrida in the immediate implementation of the mited Nations plan. He also underscored Jamaica's view that delay can only increase instability and violence in the region and unnecessarily prolong the suffering of Namibia's inhabitants. It iS alSO the view of the Government of Jamaica that the efforts by the internaticnal community to secure Namibia's independence should be canplemented by more concerned efforts to assist the United Nations Council for Namibia in protecting and preserving the natural resources and eccnomic wealth of Namibia so that resources will be available for the development of Namibia for the benefit of the Namibian people cn the attainment of their independence. We strongly deplore the continued wanton exploitation of Namibia's resources, particularly its marine I,' and mineral resources, by South African and other foreign economic interests. Those illegal actions are inimical to Namibia's future; they have served to keep the Territory in a state of neo-colarial dependence and have facilitated the apartheid t9gime's.illegal occupation of the Territory. Ideally, the Security Council's resumed consideration of the situation in Namibia should at least lead to some worthy conclusion. But we, the underprivileged., will hope in vain. The battered policy of constructive engagement limps along, with nowhere to go and no suitable haven to find refuge, fn such circumstances, there can be no justifiable excuse for the Security Council to delay 54-55 (Mr. Bar'nett, Jamaica)' been in taking bold and decisive action to redress the grave injus‘tice which has wrought on the Namibian people. The permanent metiers of the Security Council have special obligations under the Charter for the preservation and maintenance of international 'peace and security. Jamaica maintains the view that the application of mandatory comprehensive sanctions is the only peaceful optian the Security'Council has within i&means to mount a credible response to South Africa's aggressive designs. This particular course of action has been viewed as unpalatable to a few influential metiers of the Council who wield considerable influence over the Pretoria re'gime. It is our considered view, however, that such opposition as exists to mandatory sanctions is held more out of misguided and short-sighted consideration than because of genuine concern for the suffering people of Namibia and South Africa. Such narrow economic and strategic self-interest should not stand in the way of this quest for international justice and morality and for the defence of the fundamental human rights, dignity, equality and self-worth of the oppressed people of Namibia. Finally, I wish to reaffirm Jamaica's unstinting support and solidarity with the legitimate struggl& of the people-of Namibia, under the leadership of the South West Africa PeOple’S Organization (SWAPS), their sole, legitimate representative.

I thank the representative of Jamaica for the kind words he addressed to me. I propose to adjourn the meeting now. With the concurrence of the menbers of the Council, the next meeting of the Security Council to continue consideration of the item on the agenda will take place this afternoon at 3.30. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. I