S/PV.2746 Security Council

fn accordance with decisions taken by the Council at its previous meetings on this-item, 1 invite *? ; representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Burkina-. ,.. Faso, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabcn, the German Democratic Republic, Qxyana, India, Jamaica, Kuwait, the Libya? Arab Jamahiriya, r&xico, Mongolia, MOrOCCO, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, -, ._' Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, the,Syrian Arab Republic, !Cogo, Tunisia, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Viet ,Nmr- Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for them at the side of the CouncilChar&er. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Dost (Afghanistan), Mr. Djoudi : (Algeria), Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Mohiuddin (Bangladesh.), Dame Nita Barrow (Bar bados ) , Mr. aedraogo (Burkina Faso), Mr. Maksimov (Byelorussian Soviet I Socialist Republic), Mr. Laberge (Canada), Mr. Oramas oliva (Cuba), Mr. Badawi ',. i_ (Egypt), Mr. Tadesse (Ethiopia), Mr. Biffot (Gabon), Mr. Ott (German Democratic, Republic), Mr.. znsanally (Guyana), Mr. Gharekhan (India),, Mr. Barnett (Jamaica), . . Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait), Mr. Aszarouk (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. soya Palencia (Mexico), Mr. Doljintseren (Mcngolia), Mr. Bennouna fiburidi (MOrOCCO), ;. Mr. pOs San.tos (Mozanbique), Miss Astorga Gadea (Nicaragua), Mr.. Garba (Nigeria), Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Alsamora (Peru), Mr. Al-Xawati (Qatar), Mr. Sarre (Senegal), Mr. Manley (South Africa), Mr..Wijewardane (Sri Ianka), Mr. Abdoun (Sudan), Mr. Al-Atassi (Syrian Arab.Republic), Mr. Kouassi (%qo),.Mr. ‘Mestiri (Tunisia), Mr. lUrkmen (mrkey), Mr. Cudovenko (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repubiic), -Mr.' BuiXuan" mat'(+iet Nam);' Mr. Pejic (Yugoslavia) and Mr.' Mudenge (Zimbabwe) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chatier. The PREGIDRRT (interpretation'frijm French): In'acccxdance with a decisicn taken .by'the Council at its 2740th &sting 1 invite the President and-. I delegation of the' United Nations Council for Namibia to take a place at the COUnGil .~ l table. ‘. 'At the invitation of the President, Mr. Zuze (Zambia), President of ,the united . Nations Council for Namibia, and the other metiers of the delegation took a place" i at the Council &ble.' . Tne PRESIDRNT'(interpretation from French): In accordance with a --decisicn taken at the 2740th meeting,' I invite Mr. Gurirab to take a.place at the" . Councii table. _. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Gxirab book a place at the Council table. , I . . The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I should like to inform : : : . metiers of the Council that.1 have received letters from the representatives‘of Czechoslovakia anduganda, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item cm the Council's agenda: In accordance with the usual practice, I propxe, withlthe consent of the Council, to invite those representatives ti participate in the discussion, without the right to vote I .in COnfOtmity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rhle 37 of thecouncil's pr&isional rules. of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. I . At the invitation of the President, Mr. Cesar (Czechoslovdkia).:and Mr. Kibedi (Uganda) tOoi< the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chatier. The PRESIDID (interpretation from French): The security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of Guyana,, .I invite him to take a ", place at the Council table and to make his statement. c,. ,I:‘. , / . / j : .’ Mr. INSANALLY (Guyana): It has been said that repetition is the mother , ,, . . of all learning. If thisbe ,true, then by now the illegal regime in South Africa ._).*_ ,. would certainly have-been taught an unforgettable lessen on the necessity for hastening the freedom and independence of Namibia. Such, however, is the obduracy Of Pretoria that the international oommunity and, more particularly, this Council, is obliged to reiterate its well-known arguments in the hope - perhaps a vain one - that these latter-day colonialists would listen to the voioe of reason and relinquish their savage rule of Namibia. My delegation has not entirely lost faith in the art of verbal persuasion, it. President, and is therefore gratiful to the metiers of the Council for allowing it to join in the general clamour for change in Namibia. It would be remiss of me, however, to do so before extending to you our warm congratulations and good wishes for your presidency during this month. I would also like to add a word of tribute to your immediate predecessor in office, Ambassador Delpech of Argentina. In approaching this issue before us I must confess to a sense of discomfiture because of the insinuation I have heard that our deliberations are perhaps seen by some as being no more than an out&f-seascn General AsseWly debate. It would be a pity if this were indeed so , since the fact of the matter is that these meetings have bean long overdue and cannot be said to be a waste of the Council's time. The freedom of the Namibian people is an imperative which we, as responsible metiers Of the international community, can neither ignore nor postpone. It is an aspiration which must, in fact, be satisfied quickly, since every passing day renders it more difficult to fulfil. The Council must therefore seize this occasion to advance the Namibian cause in whatever way it possibly can. For delaying the independence of Namibia can only serve the selfish interests of the racist regime in South Africa , since it permits not only the further . entrenchment of apartheid but also the continuing exploitation of the Territory's, significant natural resources. Socller or later, the Namibian nation will be ” (Mr. Insanally, Guyana) robbed of its rich legacy and left to inherit a virtually wasted land. Th,e world .' I ‘). : , : . : $,. C3rUlOt stand idly by and watch this pathetic degradation of an entire people by a . ,' despotic minority intent cn preserving its own pcsition of dominance and control. , It must act swiftly to end this inequity and to assist Namibia to exercise the a? :- sovereignty to which it is fully entitled. The Council for Namibia, as the legal custodian of'the Territory, has made a very significant attempt'to frustrate Pretoria's ra&&io'us policies." With the' fs ;: 8 ., j :. t enactment of Decree No. 1, it has asserted itself as the Author.i& responsibld'for the welfare of Namibia and ready to act on its behalf.“ ,:;.. 1. . . 1 : 2; .:_ i':( The validity of that F i , ,. : .:n <", z Decree, we are informed, will shortly be tested in the courts of some States members of the nited Nations. At least one Government that we know of - that.Of ;.,:a, ; ...Yy <.,. The Netherlands - has already a&cepted the competence of the Council to legislate . . ' .:' in matters of concern to the people of Namibia. We welcome that positive' .,, I ,y ';L : r .> ,.?..T .;. , ;,-' I 1: :';,'.$',z 3.;:: is‘ declaration, which inspires confidence that international law will assuredly come I '.. ,.. t _. ,. down on the side of justice for the exploited. At this stage it would be eminently useful, .' : I > ; : ! : we feel, if the Secutity'COuncil, '. .,,.. in its final pronouncement cm the question of Namibia,' could give"& blessing' bo." : *,* -, ,1'. this development and, indeed, to the provision by the United Nations body of . ',': ,,:; T ": :.j*; <.,.:.,&,A: -* financing for legal action of this kind. For, if successful',.such a'c&aign could .. deal an effective blow to the forces of apa rtheid who use unscrupulcus economic' . I power to maintain their suzerainty over the Namibian people. It could, moreover,+ ' be aimed at compensating the dispossessed for the'loss.of the resouroes which.-are"'. -: .;' rightfully theirs and at discouraging , at least to some degr.ee,' the reckless I :plunger practised by some transnation& oampanies operating in Namibia. ~ "'~ V .- Legal procedures alcne are not likely, to bring about the early' '.P ' .' .' however, ., ":r' independence of Namibia, and we must therefore be prepared to con'template all other L .: a ^ measures whichseem capable of ccmpelling the Botha rdgime to abandon the vicious stranglehold which it maintains-over the Territory. Certainly, among such instruments of persuasion comprehensive and mandatory sanctions are perhaps the most powerful at our disposal and should therefore be rapidly implemented. There can be no more talk, I venture to say, especially after the Council's consideration of the South African question last February, of a canpromise on selective sanctions, since it would appear that even that limited form of pressure does not find general acceptance. My delegation therefore has no option but to Support the demand for comprehensive and mandatory sanctions to be applied against the illegal South African rigi=. Admittedly, such a call say not be hee&d by all States, but let the chips fall where they will. In the face of mounting opposition, we find that Pretoria displays a most impudent defiance, employing unbelievable casuistry to justify 8 basically untenable position. It clings t6 the pretence , if one is to accept the asseveration of South Africa's spokesman in this forum, that Namibia would be granted independence once Cuban troops are removed from Angola. That facile decl8ratia fools no one, since the regime knows full well that the linkage it has artificially created in its own mind does not exist in the minds of others, It must also know that the removal of those troops Will simply provide carte blanche for launching further aggression against the front-line States from an occupied Namibia. We regret to say, therefore, that Pretoria's ccntention on this issue lacks credibility and cannot therefore be taken seriously. For even if the troops were to leave forthwith, it is highly possible that some other pretext would he conjured up to rationalize their presence in the Territory. However, perhaps the most specious argument advanced by Pretoria is that it is actively promoting constitutional reform that would satisfy the requirements of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and guarantee the independence and welfare of the Namibian people. The South West Africa People's OrganiZ8tiOn (SWAK)), as the recognized representative of the people of Namibia, however, is obviously not ^ impressed by these assurances and has made it clear that this political masquerade c; i is totally unacceptable to it. There can, in fact, be only cne path now to Namibia's independence , and this is already charted in resolution 435 (1978). Any manoeuvre to deviate from that route must therefore be rejected for what it is: another ploy by the South African regime to obstruct the purposes of the United Nations. This body must accordingly reinforce its,earlier determination and go further to ensure that no obstacles are put in the way of Namibia's independence. In this connection my delegation is highly appreciative of the efforts of the Secretary-General to break the current impasse and would like to commend him in his pursuit of those efforts. It is to be hoped that, on this occasion, the Secur&ty Council, to which has been entrusted the preservation of peace and security in the world, will take a . unified stand againstpretaria's continuing abuse of power and endorse the draft resolution before it. Rgrettably, in the past the veto of one or more metiers of the Council has effectively blocked concerted action against the re’gime. The people of Namibia cannot understand this division, for, traditicnally, in the face of Colonial domination, they have seen value only in unity. (Mr. Insanally, Guyana) In the words of the.battle scng of the Hereros , me of the ancient Namibian tribes which were also'in their time the victims of colonialism, we find this most stirring call for peace\: "Listen when the scng of the frogs Resounds from the marshes; Listen to what they have to say. ItJis good to come together; _ It is good to reach'agreement; It is good to make the voices of many .; : The single voice of all." It is a call ti which this Council cannot turn a deaf ear, for if it does the battle for Namibia's independence will then be fully joined, and we cannot then pretend to Speak of peace. u >, I - . The PRESIDIENT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of Guyana for the congratulations he addressed to me- Mr. BIRCH (United Kingdom)% Sir, I know your country and your diplomatic service well, so it gives me spe&al pleasure to see such an accanplished'diplomat aS YtXrSelf OCCUpying the high office of President of the Security Council. I know that you bring to your important task skill, wisdom and long experience. My delegation looks forward to co-operating with you in the work of the Council. At the same time, I should like to thank and congratulate your predecessor, Ambassador Delpe& of Argentina, for the skilful and professional manner in which he discharged his responsibilities as President of the Council last month. This has been a long and serious debate, a debate in which every speaker has ccndermed the continued South African occupation of Namibia. The chited Kingdom joins that unanimous condemnation. Namibia has been an acknowledged international responsibility for wet 60 years. Its future has been debated in one United Nations forum or another, virtually since the GrganiSation's inception, It is ndw over eight years since the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978) endorsing a settlement plan for the Parritory which includes the withdrawal of South Africa's illegal administration and the holding of free elections under the auspices Of the United Nations. The implementation of that resolution is long overdue. The people of Namibia must be allowed to exercise their right of self-determination and to proceed to internationally recqnized independence. . . Security Council resolution 435 (1978) has not been implemented because of the b delaying tactics of the South African Government. I very much hope that it will reconsider what its best interests are. AS the admirable report ptesented to us nY . the Secretary-General makes clear , agreement has now been reached on all the main elements of the settlement plan. South Africa must understand that the : ", /'_I introduction of new and extraneous issues, such as the so-called theory of linkage, is not acceptable to my Government, nor, I believe, to the great majority of the international conrnunity. The British Government's objective is clear: we want Namibia to achieve _ internationally recognized independence at the earliest time and by the most j peaceful means. We have repeatedly told the South Afcican Government that it must implement resolution 435 (1978). We have recently stressed this view to them again. Any attempt to repudiate the settlement plan would be extremely serious. I wish to emphasize this point in view of the remarks made by Anbassador Manley at the conclusian of his speech which suggested that South Africa might seek some other course for Namibia. The 1Cng delay in bringing about the independence of the Terrimry has distressed our frien-ds in Africa. It has caused no less distress to US and we sympathize with the frustration felt by many speakers, as so eloquently 'expressed s.- , -.. by the representative of Zanbia. :?:; : ". ,- The United Kingdom joined with Other PmbetS of the Ccntact Group - three of which are represented at this table.&%Y - in elaborating the United Nations settlement plan. I was, -.,r.i ., ' ,, therefore, particularly sad '. ':: ~, to hear the representative of the South west Africa People's Organizaticn (SWAPO) .. .i' suggest that this exercise was 'a carefully contrived strategem . . . to stop . . . [the] radicalization of the _, ,. ), -, I j' I. situation in southern Africa". (SDV.2748, P. 38), .1 '. " . .._ ,,',' : ,. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Contact Group &ducted,lcng and' li.‘ :. , :... : r . '. canplex negotiations aimed only a't bringing independence to Namibia..'. It does no l : > i: _ ~._ service to the people of Namibia, nor to their cause, to distort that recorb, Eirre the other authcrs of the settlement plan, the United Kingdom has repudiated any 4. .attempt to circumvent resolution 435 (1978) through an internal settlement, That resolution remains the only internationally accepted basis fc% o NamPbia ,L. : ! _ . settiement, and as such it is something that this Council should be careful to -2 L,C ,.. .,., preserve. South Africa must accept that there is no future in a policy of !Z&inging to the Territory or of delaying implementation of: tis‘g$tt&em@~t p&an, South , Africa must also accept that it is in its own'b&t~&t&rests; as well as those of 'the people of Namibia, to co-operate in bringinSj"iJeiifij~'ra~‘to 'indapenUence as fance; 1& :. ‘, Unfortunately, South African supportf&i-the so~caikled Trtih&it$onal Government ,. L . Of National Unity has continued. Fsr,our parh,.wr'oann,bt endorse any attempt to -. -, accord 'recognition or status.to thfs-l,?o%. we’+ noi a*$ shiiU $cat cecwppliee tk.- We m3A.n firmly ckmitted to security ‘Cbuncii k%mxuti~G 433 (1978). We have . . ._ .,..- ,- .,” ._. ..,... i * noted the request &de by the Multi-1PaEt;y'.d~fecence'.bt'W~i~ia"vrat iC;?!ncl;c‘Or tJI$ main-tain, thalthe Security Council should be impartial' in providing"oppcrtunities to address it to all those individuals who may contest the"ele&ions '&be held in ” _. “_ _.-- Namibia ,in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978), elections which we should all like to see take place as soon as possible. However,~rule 39 of tic' Council~s provisional rule6 of procedure~states that only "metiers of the Secretariat or Other persons whom it consider6 competent for the purpose" can be invited to address it. This means that orgaarizations ; SUCh'aS theMUlti-Patty ' Conference, should nominate individuals to speak for them. The mlti-Party Conference has not done 60, and it is not possible for us to support their request. A further most di6turbing developnent is that South African armed'attacks on neighbouring States , particularly Angola, have continued. These aC'tiVitie6 mUSt cease forthwith. It iS a matter Of very considerable regret t0 my delegation that the Councilgs repeated calls upon South Africa cc6Qletely to withdraw it6 forces from Angola and to respect that countrye sovereignty have gone unheeded,.'as 'have ', our warnings that acts of force cannot but undermine the prospect6 for peace and Stability in southern Africa. We recently expressed to the Sou‘fh African Government our concern at continued South African violation Of AngOlan territory' ' and urged it to respect Angola's territorial integrity; At the same'time we al& expressed Our dl6guiet at recent evidence which ha6 emerged from the 'Current' trill' of SWAFD metiers in Windhoek'of human rights abuses by the security force6 in NWd.biEl. During our debate on South Africa in February, the South African representative said that his Government was striving to pit anend to v~olerU2e. I hope that his Covernmentwill give practical effect 'to that declaration of peaceful intent not only iri So&-i Africa and Namibia but throughout the region. We utterly . , condemn violence from whatever quarter. / the debate we had about South Africa in February. The two situations are, of course, different: South Africa, however rmch one umy.condemn its Gooernment's policies,,is an independent State. Namibia is the responsibility of tne international community. In both cases; however, we are canpletely agreed on our objective. Where we do not see eye to eye is on the means to achieve it. On 19 February we emphasized the need for the Council to think carefully about how best it can oontribute to solving the difficult and complex problems that exist in !Sou th Africa. The Same arguments apply with.even greater force to the question Of Namibia. We,should avoid sterile political exchanges which will only give comfort to those who oppose a Namibia settlement. .put if,we are,to be effective we must act unanimously. The United Nations has .a special responsibility in respect of Namibia and , as we said in the Council an 15 November 1985, the British Government.would have been prepared to vote for a resolution which included a considerable list of non-mandatory economic measures designed to exert pressure on South Africa to withdraw immediately from the Territory. My Government cannot, however, vote for mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. Measures of this sort would be counter-productive, m givingSouth Africa the excuse to remain intransigent. The sponsors of the draft resolution have sadly missed an opportunity to arm the Secretary+eneral with the weight of the Council's unanimous ccncern in continuing.his mission of good offices. The PRESIDENT. (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of the United Kingdom for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is Mr. Francis Meli, a metier of the National Executive L Committee of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and edit;or-in-chief of Sechaba, the official organ of the ANC, to whom the Council ext-ened an. invitation under article 39 of its provisional rules. of procedure at ,.. m. its 2745th meeting. I ikite him to take a place at .$he Council table,,and to make . . .._ . . his statement. , . . : -..Mr. MELI: In the year of advance to people’s, power, the year of.,the . . seventy-fi,fth anniversary of the African titicnal Congress (ANC), our leadership, general membership, the entire oppressed and struggling people of South Africa, and ’ our delegdtion here,, salute all ule merbers of the Council and extend a special,,, ,I,: . .,’ ;: saluteto the heroic and fraternal people of Namibia and their sole, authentic representa tive , our sister national, 1 ibera,tion movement, the south West Afria __, ,, . . People% Organization. (SWAP)). . : “’ Mr. President, your country’s distinguished tradition of active dedication m the ideals of freedan, peace and progress speaks eloquently for itself. The fact I ._ that you tepresent such a tradition, coupled with your vast experience ‘and proved .’ diplomatic Skills, more than assures. our d.elegatian that the imptittant WOrk Of the .! Security Council, under your able and dedicated stewardship, cannot but move _ -. forward. ~ :. We are, of course, most indebted and would like to convey ouradmiration, : ,, appreciation and gratitude to Arbassa-dor Marcel0 pelpech for, the exemplary : effectiveness With which he led the work of the Council during the month of March, ( Literally every resolution of the United Nations has drawn attention to the, . I : fact that there was a mounting crisis in southern Africa and that the grave situation in that region was rapidly deteriorating as a result of the policy andz. ,_ ., Practices of apartheid and the Pretiria racist rbgime’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia. For the people of Namibia and South Africa. and the peoples of the front-line and oth,er ‘nesghbouring independent Afr4can States, that mounting ’ crisis, that deteticrating situation, is already smouldering, into flames, if not (Mr. Meli) already exploding. From the distance of outer space it is’ pass ible to continue referring to apartheid as a threat to international peace and security. For the people of southern Africa, for men and women of conscience everywhere, apartheid means death, destruction and war cn an ever-exknding scale. How else can we interpret apartheid’s domestic reign of violent state terror, its acts of wanton aggression, economic .blackmail , sabotage and political subversion and destabilisation of independent neighbouring.‘Str’tes, and its conversion of ‘Namibia into a’ Vast’militaty barracks cum concentration camp for the purpose of raping and plundering the nqtural wealth of the country’ and.keeping its people captive? How else can we interpret the fact that this inhuman and criminal’ enterprise counts amcng its victims and casualties not only hundreds of thousands of men and women r / but also a rapidly increas.ing number of infants and children? ,’ ’ The chrcnic unworkability of apartheid, and the ungovernability of South Africa, as a result of the’mass united action’s of our people in the relentless advance of our struggle led by the ANC and its allies, is paralleled by the all-round escalation of the struggle of the Namibian people led by &JAPO. Both have forced the Pretoria racist regime to shed even its pretence of democracy and t6 resort, like all repressive re’gimes beset with irreversible crisis, to the use of outright mflf tary might in order to perpetuate itself. Yet the mili tariza tion Of apartheid and its escalating war against the people of South Africa, Namibia and southern Africa has failed to reverse the advance of our struggle. It has inadvertently succeeded in further steeling our determination by free ourselves by all necessary means as soon as possibie. The problem is not whether or not we can rid ourselves of apartheid. The question is: when will it happen and at’what cost in .terms of human lives needlessly lost and property senselessly destroyed? (Mr,. Meli) We are most in&b&d to the majority of previous speakers who. contiibuted to both the necessary facts and relevant analysis. We are particular.$y gkateful for the Secretary-General’s report on h-is selfless and relentless efforts to seek the m-operation of all interested parties in the quest for implementation. of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) ‘md 439 (1978), with a view to achieving the decolmization of Namibia without further delay. It is also ok good fortune to have had the opportmity ‘of listening to the urgent, incisive and realistic interventions by Ambassador Gbeho, speaking on behalf of the African Group,. AmbassadOr bingi Zuze, President of the mi ted Wa tions Council for Namibia, and C%Urade Theo Ben Gufrarab, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of SWAFO*. They have all individually and collectively helped blase the trail in terms of where the problem lies and of necessary ‘actions which alone can break the impasse in which the struggle for Namibhn independence seems to be trapped. (Mr. Meli) The problem is clear enough, despite the Pretoria racist regime's endless attempts to confuse the issue. The people of Namibia, like all other people, have an inalienable right to freedom and self-determination. The issue of Namibian freedom must be treated as primary, and not as an adjunct to other issues such as linkage, which must rejected because they are by definition extraneous and irrelevant. It must also be reaffirmed that the presence of &ban internationalist , troops in the People's Republic of Angola at the invitation of the legitimate Government of that country falls perfectly and most comfortably with the sovereign competence of the People's Republic of Angola. It is apartheid which is the antithesis of the natural rights of the people. .It is apartheid which continuously violates the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of independent countries. It is apartheid which is violating international norms and continues illegally to occupy Namibia as well as parts of southern Angola. That is the culprit that needs to be dealt with. Apartheid is now 39 years old. During that time apartheid has proved - by violating international law and fundamental human values or by ignoring international opftion - that it is indeed synonymous with criminal inhumanity, unrepentance ant3 defiant intransigence , all of which are oblivious and impervious to reason and benign persuasion. As apartheid's murderously criminal career proceeds apace, spreading and intensifying its deadly embrace, it becomes more and more obviously urgent to eradicate this crime against humanity. The chief obstacle in this directiop proceeds from the unspoken and inhuman but nevertheless very real assumption that Namibia as well as south Africa ought to be kept as the economic cornucopia of the Western democracies, notwithstanding the fact that this translates into the prolongation of the oppression and exploitation of the people of those countries. It is this criminal assumption which is the (Mr. Meli) basis of the policy of 'constructive engagement" as well as the policies of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's and Chancellor Kohl's Governments towards Namibia,and South Africa. What we wish to point out is that the policies of these Western Governments ,,. towards Namibia and South Africa are extremely short-sighted, hinged as they are on the false hope that apartheid will go on for ever. They amount literally to,gn investment in bad faith because without failure they solicit the anger of the people Of Namibia and South Africa - people with a memory, people to whom the., future of those countries belongs. It is only natural to expect that we will remember those who treated us as nothing but fuel for the engines of their economic greed. It is ewally important that we say that we would rather the entire internatiOnal community acted in concert and honestly in the quest for a just and, lasting solution to.the problem of apartheid and its illegal occupation of Namibia. In this respect the path li&s in the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanotions against the Pretoria racist regime. We will be told again that sanctions will hurt the very people we are trying to help. The fact, however, is that nothing can hurt us more than apartheid and its prolongation. Nothing hurts us more than the non-implementation of resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978), Besides, no real freedom, not even American freedom, was won without sacrifice. We Will also be told that sanctions will destroy the South African economy. its economy and that The fact, however, is that the life blood of apartheid is therefore to take action against apartheid must inevitably mean taking action against its economy. The.Pretoria racist rdgime knows this, and that is why it has declared advocacy of sanctions a crime almost tantamount to treason. I (Mr. Meli) The people of Namibia and South AfciCa continue to ask for the iI@oSitiOn of comprehensive-mandatory sanctions; 'fully aware that this will entail some, perhaps' extra, hardships. We also know that sanctions will dissipate the strength of .’ apariheid even more and, f&r us, extra suffering will simply be the necessary price i. " .., of bringing our o&ression and expltii&ion to an early end. Those who honestly' want'io help us'will heed our call a'&l act accordingly. ' We wish to thank the Secretary-General for the time and energy and recources he continues unremittingly to dev&e't& the'ouest for' the'decolonisation of : -_. Namibia. We also wish to thank the United Nations Council for Namibia,. and ' 1 esp&iaily its dynamic President, Ais Exdellency Dingi Zuze; for their continuing efforts to mohilize ever increasing international suppbrt for the'libetation struggle of the Namibian people. We a&o thank all those countries which individually or multilaterally have adopted packages of sanctions against ‘the Pretoria racist rhgime. Our ardent hope, which is also our appeal,,is that-in the interest of enhanced effectiveness they' will lend their unequivocal support for comprehensive mandatory sanctions at these meetings of the Security Council.' ft is with deep feeling that we also wish to reaffirm our principled and ..’ unflinching solidarity with the struggle of the heroic people of Namibia and their great national liberation movement, the South West Africa People's Organization The struggle continues. Victory is certain.

I thank Mr. Meli for the kind words he addressed to me and to my country. Mr. WALTERS (United States of America): I wish to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Bulgaria, Ambassador Tsvetkov , on his assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of April. I am certain that under (Mr. Walters, United States) his fair and efficient guidance the Council will conduct its business with ecruitY and dispatch. " '..‘i' ‘ ;. I <. ,- . . -1 \_ : ., ,", ,. I also wish to pay tribute to the President of the Security Council f&f &ch, the Permanent Representative of Argentina, Ambassador Delpech, under whcse able leadership this Council performed its work. !. ,. : : , ,- ': The United States welcomes this debate on Namibia. Nearly~ i & .&‘,g 'hglfhave elapsed since the Council last met on this issue. Nearly 10 years'have passed Since the passage of Security Council resolution 435 (1978);on which we have all pinned so many hopes. In that time we have advanced to the point-'where the"" ; implementation of 435 (1978) would appear to'be within our grasp.' All that ii' needed is the will on both sides to make this happen. The problem we are debating in this Chamber stems from the fact that South Africa has no right to be in Namibia , no right to control the domestic and foreign policies of a land whose people aspire to independence, and no right to use it as a platform from which to violate the borders of neighbouring States. MY Government has repeatedly and clearly made known its views on this matter. The United States remains engaged in efforts to bring independence to Namibia under Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The South African announcement of 1 August 1986 as a date to commence implementation of resolution 435 (1978) - provided prior agreement could be reached on Cuban troop withdrawal - offered a critical opportunity to achieve Namibian independence. We regret that, as yet, Angola has not responded to this opportunity. For our part, we have consistently reiterated that we are prepared to resume substantive discussions with Luanda On how t0 achieve a settlement based on resolution 435 (1978). We take note of recent indications that the Angolans themselves see the wisdom of returning to the : (Mr. Walters, United States) negotiating table, which offers them their only serious hope for lasting peace; We are pleased that after a 15-month hiatus the Angolan Government has shown a readiness to resume talks on how to achieve a settlement. .AS a practical matter, both Angolan, and South African security concerns . .,. centring on Namibia must be dealt with to obtain an overall settlement. These concerns exist. : They must be confronted if we are to achieve the results we seek under resolution 435 (1978). In the plataforma proposal contained in their November lgW.lettcr.to the United Nations Secretary-General, the Angolans .+,: . themselves accepted.the .reality that Namibian independence could be achieved Only in the context of a Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola. (Mr. Walters, United States) The llPlited States ccntinues to believe that until Angola and South Africa can ..I, agree on a s&edJle for 'the' phased.withdrawal"of.Cub.an "'uoops'from Angola in connection with South Africa's withdrawal from Namibia, it is wishful thinking to expect South Africa to commence implementation of resolution 435 (1978). "Con&r'n over the role of Namibia in terms of Angola's and South Africa's SeoUrity'r'aS"'the .,. , United States has often stated in the past, is not an artificial concept .j.'S :': fm&sed fram outside, Namibia's security is inextricably linked to both Angola and South Africa. The mutual security of these States involves the presence of tens of thousands of foreign troops in that region. . ., .",:- t i i i '7.; I. This reality ineluctably ties events in Angola to the situation in Namibia. In this regard, the United States deeply regrets the fact that Mr. Castro, at the Harare nm-aligned sumnit last Necevber , attempted to tie events to a still droader CCtlfeXt.’ He manufactured a new form of linkage that -cannot have b&n welcomed by' : either AngOlanS or Namibians when he asserted that Cuban troops would rekain in ,., Angola until apartheid was extinguished in South Africa. We want apartneid ended now and will lead the international chorus of approval when that.happens. Hut stiltements such as k. &stro*s simply bolster the’ &uth Africa aSSertiOn that Cuban forces in Angola are a threat to South Africa's . . - "> security and, thereby, underscore the practical requirement that. they be removed in order to p&made Pretoria to grant Namibians the secure independence they seek. Morewer, cne wanders whether the Havana Gwernment is not s&ply seeking fresh -" justification for a distant overseas military adventure that is far from~I$qular in Africa or at nome. In short, the endless debate over the "inadmissibility" of relating events in Namibia and Angola is fruitless and should be recogniz'ed ai such. . .i .1' (Mr. Walters, United States) Many General Assembly and Security Council resolutions as well as Non-Aligned MOVWent declarations relating to ?Jamibia have proved unhelpful to achieving the peaceful implementation of resolution 435 (1978). They have condermsd linkage despite the AngOlan proposal referred to above. -They have declared SWAEQ the "sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people", an assertion diputed by many other Namibians and one that flies in the face of democratic principles. They have criticized the United States by name, despite the fact that singling Out particular Countries for adverse cri.ticism.in resolutions is contrary to the established custom in the United Nations and contrary to the expressed wishes of all for a negotiated resolution of the problems besetting the southern African region. I should include a practice that my Government finds especially inadmissible and heinous: making threats to those States that have seen fit to break away from the pack and that refuse to go alarg with the gratuitous name-calling. That these Stabs SUbSWJUStltly be sub jetted to pressures of one sort or another for following the dictates of their own principles is outrageous, and my Government assures all States that may find themselves in such a position of its full support. In the same spirit, we reject any efforts to legitimate the armed struggle by means Of United Wations resolutions or by any appeals or support to so-called armed struggle, as a perilous call t0 arms in a volatile region. 1 alSO Wish to note the request made by the M~la-Party Conference of Namibia to the President of the Security Council that they be permitted to participate in Out deliberations under rule 39 of this body's provisional rules of procehre. A request to address the Council by a person who mi'ght have informaticn to supply, regardless of his political affiliation, should be granted sympathetic consideration. It is important that this Council be, and be seen to be, capable of impartiality in order for all gonoerned to be able to rely upon it. This is (Mt. Walters, United States) central to resolution 435 (1978). The United State6 believe6 it 16 imp-ortant for the Securie Council m have direct acce66 to all the viewpoints from Namibia. The request presented to the President and several other members of the Council 16, however, defective becase it was sent by and on behalf of the Secretariat of the Multi-Party Conference, an entity that ccmprlse6 the so-called Tran6ltiOnal Government of National Unity. In this case, and with no prejudice to the Council hearing persons otherwise canpetent, the United State6 believe6 the COUnCil i6 not obliged to consider favourably the rqUe6t of the F&ltl-Party Conference a6 such to, Speak before us. Were It not for the procedural defect6 of the request of the Mlltl-Party Conference, the United States would be'lncllned to recoxanend It be accorded favourable consideration. The views of the United State6 towards mandatory sanctions against south Africa, whether In the context of apartheid or Namibia, are well known. We renraln flatly opposed for the same reasons we have outlined so often in detail, most recently on 20 February 1987 during the Security Council debate on mandatory limited S~IX%~O~S, The United States believes each Mexrber nation should remain free to enact or to alter the policies It deems most appropriate, Including 6mCtiOn6, a6 we all pursue our conmion goal of bringing Independence to Namibia 66 rapidly and peacefully as possible. In this connection, the wited State6 has applied the full range of sanctions enacted by the Congress last year not only to South Africa but to Namibia as well. NeVerthele6S, we remain convinced that mandatory 6anctlons imposed by this body would seriously limit the Initiative of nations, such as the United States, that seek to bring about South Africa's implementation of resolution 435 (1978). Mandatory~sanctlons would complicate and frustrate the achievement of this goal. The United Statesdoes not accept fhe right of Other6 in this Council to determine, for us how be6t we can contribute to- Namibia*s early Independence. (Mr. Walters, United States) No country has worked harder than my own to bring independence to Namibia. We shall oontinue to strive to this end, and we shall not accept that our hands be tied in the attempt. There are, in fact, elements in the international oxnmunity who have a vested interest in ensuring a perpetuation of the Namibia problem, as well as the continuation of the tragic conflict in Angola. There are those who, like the United States, seek a rapid and peaceful resolution to the problem an terms acceptable to the international conrnunity at large, to the involved parties and, most important, to the Namibian people themselves. Therefore, before closing, I should like to convey w country's gratitude and appreciation to the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts regarding Namibian independence. We support.those efforts fully. We also urge that all other involved States support them. The Secretary-General's good offices remain a key factor in the Search for bringing Namibia to independence in a rapid and peaceful manner.

I thank the representative of the United States for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. AZZAROUK (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)(interpremtion from Arabic): Allah me at the outset, Sir, to congratulate you sincerely a3 your assumption of the presidency Of the Security Council for the month of April. My delegation is convinced that thanks to your political ability and considerable experience YOU will be successfully guide the Council's deliberations. We are further convinced that your covltry, which supports liberation movements wcrld-wide, sets a fine example in its support for the oppressed people of Namibia led by its sole, legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAFO). (Mr. Assarouk, Libyan Arab aamahiriya) 01 this occasion I should like to express our appreciation to your predecessor, His Rxcellency Ambassador- Delpech , Permanent Representative of Argentina, for the skilful manner in whidh he presided wet the work of the Council last month. Given the Current situation in which our brothers in Namibia find themselves in tie grip of retold suffering, it is high time for the Council to take account of the Concerns of the overwhelming majority of the international Community and act to reach a final and lasting solution to the problem. Since everything leads one to believe that the situation in the Territory and in southern Africa as a whole ccntinues to deteriorate, and in view of the international comnunity’s positive attitude, one is entitled to wonder what the Council could do in order to avoid further bloodshed and to contribute to Namibia’s in~dependence . Nine years ago the menbers of the Security Council agreed on.a framework for the achievement of Nami.bia*s independence and adopted resolution 435 (1978), containing all the arrangements to enable the Namibian people to achieve independence through the holding of free and fair elections under the auspices and supervision of the United Nations. We Still wonder how certain parties oould have prevented the realization of that’ international unanimity. We express our thanks and appreciation to the Secretary-General for the honest and frank statement contained in his report (S/18767), dated 31 March 1987, especially the concluding remarks, which are quite Unequivocal and #hich have led to consideration of the item on the agenda. My delegation strongly condemns the pre-condition of linkage between Namibia.*s independence and the withdrawal of the Cuban internationalist forces from Angola, all the more so since this is a matter totally unrelated to Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which was adopted unanimously, and since that pre-condition has been rejected outright by the international community. Namibia's independence I /' ;; :.. : ', I..'j i -.- remains a political and moral responsibility for the Security Council, which must s,'.. .: adopt decisive measures to assure the Namibian people's independence without further delay and without pre-conditions. ; : .-. ,I , . . _'; : : The United Nations Council for Namibia has made quite clear the extent of the :'; :.:; ., plundering of Namibia's resources by transnational corporations, which have made a Significant contribution to the strengthening of Pretoria's racist position with . respect to the question of Namibia's independence. That ccntribution has made it .~ ,. _, ._/.' :.. ,. possible for Pretoria to play for time and to empty the Territory of its natural * : resources, leaving it a fleshless Skeleton. A large number of States Members of the United Nations - especially some permanent menbers of the Security Council with special responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter - have benefited considerably from this plundering and brutal exploitation of the Territory's resources, thanks to the operations of the transnational corporations under their , jurisdiction. The arrogance with which the Pretir ia representative addressed the Council shows that nothing has changed in Pretoria’s fraudulent policy of defying the international cx>UmIunity, owing to the support received from a certain nutier of its Western friends. He reminds us of his colleague and brother, the representative of the naZi, racist and Zionist entity in occupied Palestine, who also enjoys support . $' and assistance from his Western friends. Although the representative of that entity has repeatedly denied the existence of collaboration between his country and : Pretoria, the report submitted at the beginning of this month by the IBited States State Department to the United States Congress contradicts that assertion. The report indicates that the sale of armaments between the two Governments amounts to between 8400 million ti $800 million a year. . . . . _, ._ -.: .;*'. _ .: \ : ', i, There is only one way the Security Council can bring about independence for ",/ Namibia peacefully; it is through the imposition by the international community of mandatory c-prehensive sanctions against the apartheid tdgime, pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter, in order to compel it to grant independence to Namibia and to restore to its people its right to self-determination. Thus, Namibia will know who its true friends and enemies are; it will knw who are those undermining its freedom and canpromising its development, those who wish to make it a colony and to interfere in its internal affairs through a handful of agents turned into the leadership of the country by force of'imperialist arms. The PRESlDmT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the kind words he addressed to me. Mr. BELON003V (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): Comrade President, allow me at the outset to congratulate you 01 your assumption of the high post of President of the Security Council for the month of April. The Soviet delegation is sure that your multifaceted political and diplomatic experience will allow you effectively to carry out your duties as President. I wish also ti pay a tribute to your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of Argentina, Ambassador Belpech, who sucessfully carried out the functions of President of the Security Council during the mcnth of March. In 1986 - which was declared by the united Nations as the International Year of Peace '- two major international forums met. under the aegis of the mited Nation: the International Conference on the Immediate Independence of Namibia, in Vienna, and the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, in Paris. The question of independence for Namibia was the subject of careful consideration at -be fourteenth special and forty-first regular sessions of the United Nations General Assembly and also at the Eighth Ckference of Heads of State .: ,I _' or Government of Non-Aligned Countries and ai the session of the Organization Of AfriA& Unity (C&J). : ,,: : . . r 2’ I” ,. All those ,forums insistently called on the Security Council to make urgent use Of its powers under the,United Nations Charter and to take decisive action to ensure the implementation of Security.Council resolutions and other Unit;ed,t+tions '. decisions concerning the independence of Namibia. They demanded that-the Security Council, in view of the serious threat to international peace and security created (. ,.. by the racist .r&ime, .impose on that r&gime the comprehensive,mandatory sanczti~ns provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. Unfortunately, 1986 - despite those efforts by the international community - did not bring peace and independence to the long-suffering people of Namibia. .,,That I '.. ,' ,/ people continues.to remain in the grip of the colonialism,of racist South Africa, Now, yet again, the Security Council is considering the question of the situation in Namibia. The overwhelming majority of the members ,of the international community are Unanimous in considering that a decision to the Namibian problem brook6 no,further delay. The Security Council must finally make use of the responsibilities given it and must take effective measures to ensure fhe,implementation by South Africa Of all the United Nation6 dC?CiSiOnS, including. those of the.Council, relating to Namibia. The time has long been ripe for washing away that shameful Stain on mankind's conscience:. the long-standing, stubborn refusal by the South Africa?, racist6 to grant the Namibian people its .inalienable right to genuine self-determination and independence. The question of the .immediate liberation of Namibia from racist tyranny' is one of the central and most pressing problems facing the entire international , .I. community, and in particular the United Nations and the security Council. ,So far, however, because of the position of some of its permanent members - the'united _ St& tes and the United Kingdom - the Security Council has not been able to adopt and apply effective binding measures , under Chapter VII of the Charter, against the racist Pre tor i9 rdgime ; in order to ensure implementation of the Coumil’S decisions on Namibia; The Council’s inability to take the necessary decision, because of these kinds of obstructionist actions, helps the south African racists to mdintain Namibia under their colonial control. The strength of the racist South African rdgime does not lie within itself.. In South Africa, the earth is burning under the feet of the racists. The racists are able openly to challenge the United Nations and the world community only beca’use they feel that they have behind them the ‘concrete political and material support of the United States and the United King&n. ” loday, judging by everything, Pretoria continues to bank cn the support of its allies. Xt is precisely under the unbrella of such support that the Pretoria .racists sent an army of 100,000 men in an attempt to crush the resistance of the Namibian people to the oazupiers, Under that same uzrbrella of’good will, the South African .. rdgime , sidestepping the United Nations arms embargo , is receiving modern weapons and is continuing to make use of the credits from a number df Western countries and tneir banks, which help ti preserve the system of colonial domination in Namibia. Finally, under that same untxella of support, Pretoria continues to prop up in Namibia, which it occupies, the so-called territorial army and the puppet interim government. This ‘foreign policy of certain Western countries in regard to South Africa not only has pulled the Namibian knot still tighter but has also led to a further destabilization of the situation throughout southern Africa and,to a stepping up of aggression m the. part of the South African r6gime. That re’gime is Carrying out acts of direct aggression and subversion from the territory of Namibia against (Mr. Belonogov, USSR) Angola. ft iS Carrying Out acts of aggression against Mozambique and other independent AfrLcan States. ?I fact, those States are the victims of an undeclared war waged against them by the Pretoria racists and their mercenar-ies. All this creates a serious threat to international peace and security. While condemning in words individual actions by Pretoria, the united States and some of its alLies in fact take the racists under their protection, -blocking the implementation of decisive international measures against the South African regime. They in fact encourage that r&gime to expand its acts ofviolence w$thin the country, to maintain the colonial system in Namibia and to escalate the policy Of State terrorism carried out by South Africa. The statements made today in the Security Council by the representatives Of the United States and the United Kingdom are extremely disappointing. They reaffirm the lack of any real shifts in the positions of the Governments of those two States, which so'far have been obstructing any successful exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities and duties in regard to Namibia. Verbal condemnation of the South African r&ime is insufficient. Words do not mean very much if they are not backed by concrete actions ; and words mean nothing if deeds are ih direct contradiction with them. The auestion of mandatory sanctions has for a long time now been a litmus test of the genuine attitude of one or another Member . State of the Wited Nations towards the racist south African regime. The United States representative made an artificial attempt to introduce into the discussion of the Namibian problem the auestion of Angolan-Cuban relations. Obviously, the aim was to distract attention from the unsavory position of the United States itself regarding the racist South African r&g$me. The notorious linkage of the Cuestion of Namibia with the defensive measures taken by Angola,has rightly been rejected by the United Nations, including the Security Council, and by (Mr. Belonogov, USSR) the international community. As has been emphasized by many preceding speakers in the Council Chamber, this linkage can only be regarded as a cynical ruse by the Pretoria racists and their Western'protectors. It reflects their desire in fact to prevent the implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978) and to impose a different, neo-colonialist solution to the Namibian problem and other problems of southern Africa. I am sure that if this artificial linkage were not invoked, another excuse would be thought up to oppose the application of mandatory sanctions on South Africa. The twenty-seventh Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which defined the fundamental lines of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, put special stress ar the basic elements required for an improvement in the .internationa-L situation. Among them were unconditional international respect for the soveie’ign right of each people to choose its own form of development, the just politica%- settlement of international crises and regional conflicts, and the total '. eradication of genocide, apartheid and all forms of racial, national or t&t.%gfOuS intolerance. . AS has been emphasized.on numerous occasions in its statements,' the Soviet-?',, mien believes it to be its international duty to support the anti-col&ialiSt and anti-racist struggles of all peoples. Solidarity with struggling peoples is .an : integral part of efforts aimed at building a reliable system of CQnprehenSive security. ft is only on the basis of unconditional respect for each people's right to freedom and independence that conflict situations can be defused and the situation in the various trouble-areas of our planet - among them, southern " Africa - be stabilized. The Soviet Union favours an immediate political solutionto the. prcblemof Namibia through the speedy implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and other fundamental Council and General Assembly decisions in that connection. We are prepared to contribute towards achieving that goal. Moreover, the Soviet Unicn believes in the necessity for the Namibian people's speedy access t6 its inalienable right to self-determination and independence co the basis of the Preservation of the unity and territorial integrity of Namibia,, including Walvis Bay and the offshore islands. fn spite of the brutal acts of oppression and theneocolonialist manoeuverings of the South African racists, the selgless liberation struggle being waged by the peoples of South Africa and Namibia continues to grow. Speaking in the Security Council, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of .the South West Africa People’s Organization (%A#)) , Theo-Ben Gut ir ab, along with ._ . . ._ repri?sentatives.of African and many other States, have cunpellingly evoked the determination of the peop1.e of Namibia and other African peoples to.achieve genuine freedom and independence for Namib.ia. We have no doubt that that objective will be achieved, regardless of ,the ploys of the Pretoria racists and their supporters. 4.L,,.,We reiterate that thesympathies of the Soviet people are fully on the side of the people of Namibia, who are waging a heroic liberation struggle for freedom and independence under the leadership of ,their sole, legitimate ,reptesentative, the South West Aft ica People’s Organization (SWAP)) l The Soviet Union will continue .to give full support to the just and all-out struggle being waged by the Namibian people in accordance with relevant United Nations decisions.- The Soviet Cnion actively supports the African countries and the international comnuniw as.a whole, which are unanimously in favour of the adoption of ccmpr ehens ive , mandatory sanctions against the racist re’gime of Pretoria under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. At the present time, .that is the only path towards a settlement of the .pr.oblem of Namibia. The delegation of the Soviet Unicn will therefore vote in favour of the draft resolution nOw before the Council.

I thank the repr(esentative of the Soviet Uniql for the kind words he addressed to me : The next speaker is the representative of Czechoslovakia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. CESAR (Czechoslovakia) : Allow me first Of all t0 express my congratulations to you, Sir, on assuming the post of President of the Security Council for the month of April. , Your professional skills, ,your sense -of objectivity and your responsibility are a guarantee of the successful work of this extraordinarily important body. I am glad to be able to express my satisfaction '.. .' that cn this occasion the security Council is presided over by a representative of ; . ,.I.." the Peofile's Republic of Bulgaria , will which my country is linked by the fraternal 1 bonds of socialist cooperation. I j ,' ; I would also like to take this opportunity to express appreciation for the, / Work of Ambassador Marcel0 Delpech, Permanent Representative of Argentina, who ... carried out the responsibilities of President of the Security Council in the month of March. At the same time, I Should like to thank members of the Council for : (_ _ ,_ _' making it possible for our delegation to make a statement on the issue under ,,_ ., . discussion. The question of Namibia that is being discussed today in the Security Council represents cne of the central and pressing tasks the united Nations is called upon ~JJ perform in its struggle against the policies of aggression and violence, colonialism and neocolonialism, racimn and apartheid on our planet. We have been dealing with the situation in South West Africa for almost 40 years, Throughout that period the international commmity, and particularly the mited Nations, has exerted Considerable effort towards terminating. the colonial domination of Namibia by theracist rdgime of Pretoria and towards ensuring the legitimate interests of, the Namibian people, ,as well as their inalienable right to self-determination, . freedom and national independence. In spite of those efforts, Namibia continues to be a victim of colonial .' repression. During his recent visit to,the Czechoslavak Shalist Republic, Mr. Sam Nujoma, Chairman of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPS), stated; inter aU.a, that the political and military situation in and around Namibia was very critical. That was so because of the increasing acts of repression by the racist white minority of South Africa against the people of both Nainibia irna South Africa. The racists have more than 100,000 colonialist troops in Namibia, who are' ma&&ring. the people of Namibia every day , endangering their .lives and Occupying ' their country. The.racist regime is relying to an increasing extent on foreign mercenaries. fts own scrldiers are becoming unreliable and demoralized. The. racists are also conscripting the black population ti serve in their armed forces. There is ample evidence in support of that assessment. It is a demonstration . _-___ ,' Of how much the people of Namibia are suffering from the most brutal colonialist Pli'=Y. "At'the s&e time, hokver,~Namibia has become a Symbol of the heroism of a nation langing for free&m. The,participation of broad s'trata of the'population in demonstrations against the occupation ragime is increasing. Co&at operations of the Namibians, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Org&ization (SWAPS), are being activated. Nothing can stop them, despite the ._ growing aggressiveness of the rQgime and its acts of repression. The national liberation struggle being waged by the Namibian people/king all available means, including armed conflict, is just and legitimate; and it deserves support from the ulited Nations, which bears direct responsibility .fbr ensuring Namibia's speedy accessian to independence. The policies 'of hatred and the inhuman practices of-the apartheid r8gime and the increasing aggressiveness of the Pretoria . racists directed against neighbouring sovereign States are the main sdurces of mounting tensi0ns.h the region and constitute a serious threat to international peace and security that extends beyond regional boundaries. . Of an extremely dangerous nature is the abuse of the territory of Namibia by .' the r&ime of South Africa as a platform for perpetrating acts of aggression J ~ ~ I . s.,' -. ‘j-3 *A 1 '*.,.- ,'.;**<.y _ ", :,'c., ,_ against neighbouring independent African States. HOW is it possible for Pretoria : ..:, _( ".. .., . - , : ,; I, -., '; -, : ,. cynically to deride the authority of the United Nations? How can it dare ignore .* . ..‘_. .-.._ :. : , I .' the views of the overwhelming majority of mankind? . . ,- : ' ,, i I , y , -:' .: :: -6. The answer is very simple: it is still free to do so thanks to the greedy ,, ,_ i _ /. interests of transnational corporations in the riches of Namibia; I * :.:'I thanks to the sttateglc interests and global ambitions.of imperialism which coincide with the _ : . I ‘“.,\ ‘. . . . . ‘, ‘_ ~_ ,m. * It is enabled to act in such~a way because , I . - ^. -_., '_ .. . . .._ ; ,- -, , .: '( ' Of the deliberate oir&mvention by some United Nations Member States of the arms .I. . , embargo imposed by the Security Council against South Africa. This is why the .. .^ , I . , :_ interests of the 'South African rulers. tragedy of the Namibian people goes on. These are also the reasons why the : . Security Council is not able to complement the decolonisation efforts of the‘ ,' : Namibian people and of the international community with effective, sanctions. . ..,,.) according to the United Nations Charter. The lesson of these 20 years of rejection ' Of sanctions should invariably have resulted in a fundamental change in the _ positions of those who, in the case of Cuba and Nicaragua,would be ready without hesitation to declare sanctions against them within a few hours.but who, in the case of Pretoria, seek hypocritically any kind of pretext to render such sanctions impossible, or at least reduce them to a minimum, ..- The United Nations - and the Security Council in the first place - bears direct responsibility for ensuring implementation of.the decisions already taken on ; Namibia, as well as for the achievement of a just solution of the uuestfon Of' Namibia as soon as possible. We resolutely support the just demand of the ., international community that comprehensive , mandatory sanctions against the regime of South Africa be adopted by the Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII / * .r I. of the united Nations Charter. _ (Mr. Cesar, Czechoslovakia) Our delegation condemns in principle the policy of 'linkage" and Of "constructive co-operation" with the Pretoria r&gime, which, in reality, invites the racists to perpetrate violence and terror against the African populations of South Africa and Namibia, to escalate aggression against the front-line States, to be adamant in the ouestion of Namibia and to sabotage the resolutions and decisions on Namibia adopted by the United Nations. We advocate the complete and final eradication of colonialism and racism in all their forms and manifestations; we therefore take a resolute stance in favour of the undelayed and unconditional exercise by the people of Namibia of their inalienable right to self-determination and national independence in a unified, territorially integral Namibia, including Walvis Bay and the offshore islands, and of the immediate and complete withdrawal of all troops and administrative institutions,of South Africa from the territory of Namibia. We voice our full support for the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAP01 as the sole, legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. In conclusion I should like to emphasise once again that the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic will continue to take an active part in all effective steps of the United Nations leading to the independence of Namibia.

I thank the representative . of Czechoslovakia for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. MARSXMYJ (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian): First of all, I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the post of President of the Security Council for the month of April. The delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic is mOSt . (Mr. Maksimov, Byelorussian SSR) gratified that a representative of a fraternal socialist country is discharging that duty during the discussion of so important a question as,the situation in 7, , . ..C l.L., Namibia. Your country has always taken a principled and firm position in the Struggle for the self-determination of peoples against colonialism, racism and apartheid. We express our confidence that, under your leadership and thanks to your diplomatic experience and skill, the work of the Security Council will be successful and fruitful. fn the struggle for the speedy, complete and final. eradication of the vestiges /- of colonialism from our planet, the question of the immediate granting of independence to Namibia, which is occupied by the racist r&ime of South Africa, is ' '. doubtless one of the most pressing and one that reuuires immediate solution. The direct responsibility of the United Nations for the fate of Namibia and elementary ,justice for its indigenous population, which has for many decades now been under a foreign, colonial and racist yoke , requires that the international community'at last undertake appropriate measures to protect the interests of the Namibian people and to ensure its inalienable right to self-determination, freedom and national independence. The persistent need for an active and purposeful search for WaYS to achieve.a just political solutic?n to the Namibian problem is also dictated by the growing aspiration of all peace-loving forces on the planet to improve the general international situation. Real ways and means to ensure such a settlement of the Namibian problem have been fully and clearly defined for a long time and reaffirmed on many occasions in IWmetOuS United Nations decisions on ail aspects of this matter and have been universally recognized, These decisions, and first and foremost Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), laid down a political basis for a just solution to the problem and for ensuring Namibia's transition to independent and self-sufficient devel-ent. (Mr. Maksimov, Byelorussian SSR) Unfortunately, the aforementioned decisions have still not been implemented , because the racist rigime of ~&uthAft"&& cynically'continues W ignore the clearly expressed will of the international commrniQ. & is well known; the colonizers of South Africa, besides doggedly persisting in trying to preserve their illegal presence in Namibia, are also making various types of efforts designed to perpetuate the enslavement of its people. In order to 5 achieve their cbjectives the Pretoria racists are continuing to intensify mass L terror and violence against the indigenousAfrican pop6lation and are-ever more rapidly building up the military potential of the occupying rigi=' in Namibia through the tecruitment of foreign mercenaries and the forced military conscription of NadbianS. (Mr. Maksimov, Byelorussian SSR) They are carrying out deceitful manoeuvres with the creation of the so-called system of self-government of the occupied Territory. The South African r&ime's practice of using the Territory of Namibia as a beachhead for unceasing acts of armed aggression and subversive actions against neighbouring independent African States fs becoming extremely dangerous. The hateful policy and growSng aggression . of the Pretoria apartheid r&ime is the major source of tension in southern Africa and represents a serious threat to international peace and security on the contLnent and beyond. It has been welrknown for a long time now that the South African racists would be unable to behave-in so defiant a manner were it not for the direct and indirect economic, military, political and other forms of support given by certain Western Powers, first and foremost by the united States. &loreOver, in justification of this pernicious alliance, the parties to it continue to distort the nature of the Namibian problem by all possible means and to link its jUSt solution to irrelevant uuestions. Without any basis, and unsuccessfully, such an attempt was made today by the representative of the United States. At the same time, there has been a build-up of overt pressure on African countries in order to , exacerbate the situation in southern Africa, to move the question of Namibia Out Of the framework of the United Nations and to resolve it on a neo-colonial basis. The Byelorussian SSR believes that in the face of such manoeuvres and subterfuges of.the united forces of racism and international reaction, which are so dangerous for the fate of Namibia and independent African States, there must be a relentless, continuous, insistent and ewer-growing pressure both on South Africa and its protectors, in order to force them fully to implement the Security Councils decisions on Namibia and to take into account the will of the majority of the . States of the world. The Byelorussian SSR firmly and consistently advocates the immediate and ; _ . .: . 1 .:I ,( -I _e '\ f,; ? .: .:,“ ' "' *\-, ,..a :I. .I I.., . .I ,, . . unconditional implementation by the Namibian people of its inalienable right to .I,,.' -, ~ _ .~, i I self-determination and national independence in a unified and territorially : I_* ._. ,. integrated Namibia, including Walvis Bay and the offshore islands; :- ., : the immediate .: ; and Ifsull withdrawal from its Territory of all troops and.lqe South African , _; " administration; and support of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), . which is recognized by the mited Nations and the Organization of African mity,as the sole, genuine,.authen,tic representative of the Namibian people. ./I. I- :,' . Theitime.has long been ripe for the Security Council to use its full authority f ,....,. .j.-. ,". to ensure effective and constant control over Namibia's achievement of genuine ~ independence. The Byelorussian SSR supports the unswerving, growing demand of the international aonrnunity that the Security Council impose domprehensive and binding sanctions against the South African regime under Chapter VII of the Charter.

I thank ee representative of the Byelorussian SSR for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Uganda. I invite him to take a ., - place at the Council table and to make his statement. L Mr. KIBEDI (Uganda): Allow me, Sir, from,the outset, to congratulate you ,. most warmly co your assumption of the important dutiesof President of the Security Council for the month of April. -. Given your diplomatic skills and wealth of ,. experience, we are ccnfident that you will successfully discharge the cnerous ‘. duties entrusted to you. Your personal commitment and the well-known principled stand of your country regarding the liberation struggle in southern Africa make it fitting that the item be discussed under your presidency, (Mr. Kibedi, Uganda) I wish also to take this oppottvlity to pay a well-deserved tribute to your Predecessor, Ambassador Ualpech of Argentina, who,provided inspiring:leader-shipto the Council for the month of March. Through you, Sir, I wish to express my appreciation to*the metiers-of the Council for allowing me to participate in this debate. The Council is meeting onoe again to consider the question of Namibia, in the light of the ccntinued intransigent refusal by the racist South African re'gime to implement Various Security Council resolutions and its contemptuous disregard of the Council's injections and directives. The culpability of .$cuth Africa &n this respect is not in dispute. The task of the Council, therefore, is to consider what measures under tne Charter are appropriate in the face of racist South Africa's challen,ge to the Security Council's authority, and the continuing gross violations of the provisions of the Charter. A century has nw passed since the infamous Berlin Conference of.1884, when the imperial Powers of the time assembled m partiticn Africa among themselves. In that period, many of our countries , with the assistance of the United Nations, have been able to shake off the yoke of colonialism, regaining their human dignity, and taking their rightful place in the comity of nations. For the Namibians, QI the other hand, it has been a century in which they have been swjected to all manner of injustice and oppression, first under the heel of German colonialism and then under the pernicious South African racist re'gimes. At a time when colonialism is regarded as anachronistic even by its original proponents, the racist rigime is leaving no stone \mturned to frustrate the emergence of Namibia as a free and independent country. This fact is disturbing because Namibia has been and remains a unique responsibility and sacred trust of the United Nations. Unfortunately, the history (Mr. Kibedi, Uganda) of Namibia is one of a continued betrayal of trust and of failure of the powerful nations-of. theinternational community to act decisively to assist Namibians to end foreign domination and restore their legitimate rights. In our view, it should be with -a:sense'of shame .and embarrassment that those who in the past obstructed the Security Council's efforts to bring South Africa to book and instead reposed their trast:inthe so-called good faith'of the racist regime should in 1987 -countenance and calmly tolerate its continued intransigence, aggression against neighbouring countries, '&d breach of 'international law .and morality.' 'One would have expected them to be 'in the.forefront of proponents of enforcement measures that would make South Africa comply with its international obligations, but sadly this is not the case. Last year we marked the twentieth anniversary of the termination of South Africa's Mandate over Namibia. After years of appealing to South Africa, the General Assembly, in resolution 2145 (XXI) of 1966, declared that South Africa had failed to fuIfi1 its obligations under the League of Nations Mandate, terminated its Mandate and placed the Territory under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. -A year later, in resolution 2248 (S-V), the General Assembly established the Council for Namibia to administer the Territory until independence. Twenty years after the termination of the Mandate the independence of Namibia continues to elude us. The Council for Namibia, which is the legal Administering Authority of the Territory, is an Administration in exile as South Africa continues to entrench its 'illegal occupation and to defy United Nations resolutions. (Mr. Kibedi, Uganda) It is important to recall that this position'was.confirmed by the International C6urt of Justice some 16 years ago,."' In an'hd&ory &@nion‘r&fuested by the Security Council, 'the International Court‘of Justice held: I' *.' ' ' "(1) that, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being "I illegal, South Africa 1s under obligation to withdraw its admlnisttation from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory; "(2) that States Members of the united Nations are under obligation to recognise the.illegality of South Africa's ptesence.in Namibia'and the “'invalidity of its acts on behalf of or 'concerning Namibia,-and to refrainfrom any acts snd in particular any dealings with the Government of south Africa.. implying recognition of 'the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration; "(3) that it is incumbent upon Skates which are not Members of the United Nations to give assistance, within.the scope of subparagraph (2) abover in the action which has been taken by the United Nat$cgns.with regard to Namibia.." (International Court'of Justice, Advisory opinion of 21 June.1971, p. 58) ,- ,'. : The Security Council, in resolution 301 (1971) of, 20 October 1971, endorsed the ruling.of the International Court of Justice and declared that any further. refusal of South Africa to withdraw from Namibia would create conditions detrimental to international peace and security in the region. That resolution _ called on all Member States, inter alia, first, -to abstain from entering into treaty reiations with South Africa in all cases in which the South African Government purported to act on behalf of or concerning Namibia; Becond.ly, to abstain from invaking or applying those treaties or provisions Of. treaties concluded by South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which involved active intergovernmental Co-operation; thirdly, to review their bilateral treaties with (Mr. Kibedi, Uganda) South Africa in order to ensure that they were not inconsistent with the Court's advisoryVopinion; fburthly, to abstain from entering into economic and other forms of relationship or dealing with South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which might entrench its authority over the Territory. . . ..In view of this unabiguous determination of the International Court of Justice as regards the illegality of the occupation of Namibia by racist South Africa and ., the obligations of Member States in that regard, the international community rightly expected the Security Counci to move decisively against racist South Africa..,In the face of racist South Africa's intransigence and unwillingness to respond positively to the appeals of the United Nations, we 'in Africa, and indeed the overwhelming majority of members of the international community, had no illusion about South Africa's intentions and no doubts as to what were the appropriate measures to take in the circumstances. we believed from the outset that the imposition of mandatory sanctions was the only peaceful way of putting meaningful pressure on racist South Africa. Unfortunately our calls for actions to this effect were always resisted by those permanent members of the Security Council friendly to racist South Africa.. They have always urged us to be patient, as according to them there were other ways of making racist South Africa comply with its obligations. Indeed the hopes of the international community were raised when, at the initiative of the Western contact group - namely the United States, the United c Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Canada - the security Council passed resolution 435 (1978) and adopted the United Nations plan for settling the Namibian uuestion peacefully. In-spite of the misgivings about certain aspects of these proposals, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) accepted in (Mr. Ribedi, Uganda) good faith the plan and the' undertakings given by the Contact Five. The Western Contact Five undertook to exert pressure on South AfrLca to comply with the United Nations plan. At that time each and every one of the Foreign Ministers of the United States Of America, the United Ringdom;France and the Federal Republic of Germany appeared before this Council in person and gave dire warnings as to what the consequences for South Africa would be if the racist regime did not comply with the provisions of resolution 435 (1978) and the United.Nations plan for Namibia, These serious warnings were given by the Contact Group at the h$ghesZ level .iJ1 1978 when the Security Council debated and adopted‘resolution 435 (1978) and ‘the:,,. United Nations plan. We had every reason to expect that, given the legal position regarding obligations of all Member States as spelLed out by the f.nternational Court of Justice, their economic leverage on Goutb Afr-lea and the.moral $_mperative of their undertakings, members of the contact group would. preva$J upon South Africa to Comply with resolution 435 (1978) or alternat$ve_ly make good their threats ofisolating South Africa and imposing appropriate sanctionsc Alas, this was not to be. Xt is now almost a decade since the united NatPons p.lan was adopted. The racist Pretoria ragimes have groped from one pretext to another $n order to '. frustrate the setting $n mot$on of the implementation prwess for- Namibia's independence. We all recall very vividly the debacle $n Geneva in 1981, when the-- Pretoria r6gime scuttled the so-called pre-implementation talks on very flimsy excuses, The overwhelming majority of the Lnternational community was indignant and demanded the imposition of comprehensive sanctions to bring racist South Africa to book. The draft resolutions which would have put into effect the.near-un$versal demand for comprehensive mandatory sanctions were regrettably vetoed in April 1981 by three permanent members of this Council' who are also members of the Western (Mr. Kibedi, Uganda) contact group.' They urged*SWAPO and the front-line States to.be patient and t0 give them more t&me to engage South Africa in yet more rounds of negotiations. Since then we have gone through the motions of these negotiations. It should by now be abundantly clear to all that racist South Africa has no intention whatsover of co-pperating in good faith with the United Nations in implementing the letter and spirit of the United Nations plan. Whenever one obstacle is surmounted, racist South Africa builds another to,block any progress. In his report before this Council,,theSecretary-General has stated that all the conditions for the United Nations plan laid down by the Security Council have been met. Yet south Africa refuses to proceed with the implementation of the United Nations plan, and now comes up with the spurious excuse of Cuban troops in Angola. They now tafk of linkage between the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola . and the independence of Namibia. We regard linkage, reciprocity, or whatever euphemism is used to disguise it, as a deliberate design intended to prevent the genuine independence of Namibia. It is to us a matter of regret that the United States, which was at Che time presumed to be an honest broker in the negotiations, prompted the racist regime to introduce this notion with a view to achieving its own strategic objectives. It is unacceptable to barter a people's freedom for strategic objectives which are of unilateral benefit and interest. The presence of Cuban forces in Angola is an irrelevant and extraneous issue. Their presenoe in Angola is a bilateral matter between Cuba and the People's Republic of Angola. Cuban troops were in Angola well before the adoption of resolution 435 (1978), which incidentally made no mention of them. It is therefore unacceptable that anybody should use this as a pretext to obstruct the United Nations plan. We call upon the United States to prompt South Africa to relinquish linkage. The racist rigime has used the negotiation process as a de&e" to divert 7 .r attention from what is going on in kmibia and southern Africa in &neral. It has strengthened its oppressive machinery within Namibia and intensified its destabilisation of the front-line States. South Africa is aware that SHkYwou"ld‘ '" win any fair elections snd'is determined to forestall SWAP0.s victory. Thus, through delaying tactics, it is trying to free itself from the decisions of the United Nations and is intent on imposing an internai's&tion which the' international community has rejected. The assembling of yetanother grouh of " " ' puppets, the s&called interim government, is part'of this design. South Africa's Singular intransigence clearly shows its unwillingness to give genuine'indepe'ndence to Namibia. . ,.j : (Mr. Kibedi, Uganda) , ,‘,’ ;; .ib,,“* :, ,’ -. ,’ censure in this CounCil. ,South Africa: is further exboldeffed,.+en it sees ~ ,;. ; i ., indiv+al.States.or transnational corporations joining itin criminal enterprises .* : .. '^( ~ . .: : ., .'i' .L 6' . (, ,,. : , . . . ., .‘1 . contravening the Council for,Namibia's Decree No. 1 or $UeF,m#andatory,,arms e@atgo.~ : .: . . against South,Afrioa., The racist rdgime regards such.actions,as sea,l,s of approval. i Those acti& age ir),Ca;i~~entiQn.~f~~e;f~,~ng~~f,~~~,~~nferaationpl,Court of . .' -_,_ _.-1 .*:/. ."i 3 _. i:,L .‘.:.'a ‘,li .- :.:<: '_'. Justice, which s&&&that :, .. : f_ _,,: ,.- - I a ,‘.' ,' '. : .. : ..: :, ':,-~ I : ,c : I. "The qe"?r .Sta,tes ,of.the United Nationsqare,,for the,reasTs'given in * - ,) .,::,,pyyqph ,<1;1? .*we 0 : /. , under obligation to recoQlize.the,illegality and , ., . ,. IS,. .i ' .,. * invalidity Of South Africa's .uontinued presence in Namibia. They are also, under obligation to refrain from lending any support or any form of assistance w South Africa with reference to its occupation of Namibia . . . m (International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, para. 119) Uganda bel'ievesUle United Nations must, as a matter of right and necessity, be at the centre of the negotiations concerning Namibia. Attempts to bypass the . United Nations in theysearch for a solution have unfortunately been used to hold the independence.of Namibia hostage to extraneous and unacceptable demands. The' : .Uni*d Nations, and'.the Security Council in particular, should take up its -responsibilities' and put an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia, by racist South Africa. :: . . ,. AS we have stated before, South Africa,% oocupation of Namibia is not a case of ordinary illegality. It is a case of, a threat to international peace .and Security and an act of aggression fal$ing within the purview of Article 39 of the Charter. Uganda amintains that the logical consequence of such breaches is the imposition Of Comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. In an attempt to prevent the imposition of sanctions, the apolQg$sts have advanced a nunS,er of self-serving arguments. It is claimed .&hat SancfAons should. not be imposed because they would hurt the oppressed people. That patrcnizing argument persists even though the oppressed people themselves have $ndi;cated that they-wish sanctions to be imposed. Again, it is argued that sanctions are ineffective and therefore should not be imposed. It is noteworthy that, those arguments are advanced by countries which have in the past unilaterally immed : sanctions in other situations - and in cases where there was not the near international tnanimity that exists in respect of southern Africa tpday* It,has: also been suggested by some.- as echoed by the reprcsentativ.e,of racist South.,.. , Africa - that sanctions would make the situation in southern Africa worse- In that connection, the Security Council should tau,e into account.the findingsand conclusions of the Commonwealth mission of eminent persons ,to South Africa, ! .) whim stated, inter alia, that i' @The question in front of Heads of Government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures [sanctions) will cunpel change;. ft is already the. Case that their ab%IlCe and Pretoria's belief that they.need not be feared 1 defer change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle Of vio1enC.e to Spiral? Or will it take concerted action of an effective.kind? SU@J ,,: action may offer the last opportunity to avert what could be the worst bloodbath since the Second World War." It iS imperative-that South Africa's powerful friends reas..sgs..s their pos.i.tion ~ and act decisively in concert with the international.commvlity in order: to secure the fndependence of Namibia. It is necessary to take action that decis.ive.ly rises the stakes in the campaign to force South Africa to canply witi-- the Wited NatLon_S. plan. So far, we have exhorted, pleaded, condemned end threafened; but nQle of this has so far redeemed our pledge to the people of Namibia. The only peaceful’ avenue left for. the Council is ‘to act in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Wa tions Charter. Countries sympathetic to racist South Africa because of economic factors’ or considerations of kith and kin may feel that African countries are being Unre6liStiC and impatient in their calls for action against racist South Africa, and tha’t it is .a‘waSte’of ‘this Coun&l’S’ time to bring ‘the issue of Namibia before it year after year; To them I would say that the con&n of African countries, and indeed of all reasonable people the world over, about the situation in Namibia and in southern ,Africa in general Is deep and genuine. we act as we do because we are responding to an illegal, immoral and ‘inhuman si tua tian. We are striking out against an abominable and horrendous state of affairs which denies the people of Namibia not ‘only their fundamental human rights.but their very humanity as well. The challenge to those who offer 6uccour and comfort to the racist regime in South Africa is stark and simpler if they take away the illegali ty , immorality and inhumanity of the present political and economic situation in Namibia, they will hear no more from’us. short of that, they can be sure they will continue ‘to hear a lot ,&Fe debates in this Council about Namibia. In the same way they will continue to hear ‘of the valiant and heroic struggle of the people of Namibia, spearheaded by SWAPS, whose victory is certain because its cause is just. The PKSIDKNT (interpretaticn from French) : I thank the representative of Uganda for the kind ‘words he addressed to me. Mr. AUCUKI (Cango) (interpretaticn from French): It is a great pleasure for’ me, speaking on behalf of the delegation of the Congo, to seq you, Sir, presiding over the Security Council during the month of April. We are glad to be able to draw upon your great experience and diplomatic skill as the Council again considers, at the request of the African group, the question of Namibia, a Territory which has so wrongfully excluded from the vast’.his&ric pro&~$ of total ” ‘.1: ., “l._ .* : ‘. ‘- decolanization of Africa as a result of absurd opposition by the Pretoria rdgime. COngO has embraced the new dimensions of the world resulting from the ,. * ;-’ : -- broadening of its political and diplonmtic horizons and from the impera ti+e of peacer and we have relations of trust with Bulgaria. Ok &IO delegations to the mite8 Nations have always co-operated in protaoting the e&entiai principles Of relations between States. Council is in excellent hands, @?y delegation is grateful, Sir, to your prede&or, &‘&&l&&y &ass&or Marcel0 Delpech, Permanent Representative of Argentina, for the grea< &&tesy ana' ability he demonstrated as President of 'the Council for the inonth of March. ,,,. . . . I “j ,.‘:: Wassador Delpech helped our deliberations reach a more &itive ou&&e'~ and&. . .,. shank him sincerely.- I . , :- In the same vein, I extend a warm welcome to my colleague - and neighbour at the Council table - His Excellency Ambassador Pierre-Louis Bl&c, Permanent :. 1 Representative of France. ,._/! '. / _ *.’ ._ : i (Mr. Adouki, Congo) His country and mine have lcng been linked by an accident of history3 they now . enjoy excellentco-operation which has expanded from its original context to take on today the democratic dimensions of free and independent men and peoples. Hence I should like to renew to the representative of France assurances of friendship and co-operation from the delegation of the Congo within the Security COUnCil. As a major question in the political debate in the United Nations owing to its universal implications, the question of Namibia will continue to be of greatest concern to the international community as to the future of the Territory. There is general agreement that Namibia is not free, despite the COnVUlsiOnS which in Asia and Africa have affected the links between the metropolitan countries and their colcnies, leading to a profound mutation of the right,of peoples to self-determination. Namibia is not free, 20 years after the United Nations agreed to assume direct responsibility over the, Territory. Namibia is nc?e the freer, notwithstanding the United Nations plan for the independence of the Territory,' which eight years ago the security Council enshrined in its resolution 435 (3.978)* Even the involvement of all Me major protagonists of tne question of Namibia and of international life, as well as the significant involvement of the international community itself, have failed to overcome the murky forces of resistance that could in no way be legitimized and that continue to oppose any democratic development of the Territory. This woeful state of affairs has prompted the Secretary-General - whose significant efforst at achieving Namibia‘s independence my delegation commends - to go beyond his traditional prudence and state, in his recent report of 31 March 1987 (S/18767), that he rejects the linkage pre-condition invoked by South Africa and tnathe can no lcmger accept this pre-condition being used as a pretext further to delay Namibia's in-dependence. (Mr. AdOuki, Congo) How, then, can justice be done for the struggling Nam3bian. people, under the leadership Of the South West Africa'People's Organization (SWAFQ), and make it possible for them to exercise their inalienable rights? What - if notmandamry sanctions - can force racist South Africa to desist from its persistent refusal-to canply with the decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council2 And the view of the International Court of Justice ieaves no doubt that those decisions a& binding. "* -"" ). finally, how on we at one and the same time dontribute to restoring and enhancing the considerably diminished prestige of the mited Nations if not through finally re-stablishfng.harmony between the independence that is today sought by the NamiPian people and the international community and the legality, based cn the Charter, of the relevant decisions of our Grganization? This level of concern with respect to the question of Namibia takes fully into account the imperative need of the very idea of seeing to it that this Territory accedes to independence and internatiaral sovereignty, all the more so since for the international community this neoessity is no longer at issue and needs no justification. fn once again bringing the question before the Security Council, the Group of African States had no.other purpose but to contribute to an act of justice in : 1. keeping With the inalienable-tights Of the Namibian people., .Subject to colonial writ since the last century, Namibia continues to suffer all the facets and hOttOr6 of oppression: from'genocide, slaveiy and the plundering of its t.esources to the most subtle forms of con'tempt for human beings' flowing from Segregation and total denial of rights , nothing has been left out. As if to watsen the Lot of the Namibian people and ass-ist South Africa tc. ' carry out its murky designs, the SySteWitiC exploitation of Namibia's resources. continues apace and is be_Sng extended in an uncommm frenzy, inviolation of (Mr. Adouki, Congo) international law as'laid down in Decree No. 1 of the IMted Wations Council for I Namibia. In this "fling", which bears all the hallmarks of the cioilizing enterprises pursued by cne version of the West, it is illuminating to observe the leading role ._I played by the transnational corporations of certain members of the Council. Driven by their voracious appetite for cheap profit, they take a demonstrably short-term view of events, and give no consideration tothedecisive issue of the Territory's future. These ccmpanies, and the Governments which egg them on, are going to have to pay the price, and sooner than they expect. Hence it is outrage0I.B that even now the Namibian people should still be at the "negotiating" stage for its inalienable rights, to haggle for the freedom the racist Pretoria regime and its powerful probzctas may cne day condescend to grant SwA#), the organiz-ea conscience of the Namibian people, has shown a sense of political responsibility that has confounded many of those who wish to criticize it for intransigence or political immaturity. Thus, despite the danger to it of choosing negotiation instead of armed struggle , it has engaged in good faith in talks that led to the adoption of resolution 435 (1978). Given the obvious bad faith of South Africa, backed as it is by the active support of major and powerful allies, the international coaanunity today finds itself in a paradoxical situation in which the entry into force of an agreement freely arrived at by the parties involved is submitted to extra-contractual conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with the talks nor with their timing. In these conditions, we must fear for the fate of international peace and security in Africa. We must exclude any ystrategic" considerations having nothing to do with Africa, as well as any designs alien to the realities and the true aspirations of that part of the world. Thus, for almost six years now an odd approach to the Namibian question has ‘/ been imposed QI the international conm~unity, an approach marked by’the’theory and ,?. practice of linkage, under which considerations irrelevant to the prcblem become sine-qua nm, conditions for its settlement. Hence, the internal ejtuation in Angola has been artificially t$ed to. the autonomous process of Namibia's accession to independence. &U&I combinations can only result in the obfuscation of a totally clear situation in order m pronr,te al& kinds of anti-~amibian and anti-Airican manoeuvres. The de facto allies of South Africa are aware of that - those allies who engage in all kinds of nit-picking in an effort .to sidestep and hide the V%iOUS strikes @nd other acts of aggression of which the Pretoria regime has made itself the exclus$ve agent, ecwing terror and desolation as a means to strengthen and expand its obsolete values. 3 _) The most grievous element o,f tuti; situation is not the kpr’&Sct&le behaviour of the South African regime , about which it is natural to have misgivings in view of the intrinsic w&tire of that rigime; rather, it is tne slew but sure drift of the policy of the. major Western Powers towards an ‘ever-more-refined type of ~lbb~%tiOIl that is all the more beneficial to colcmialist and racist South Africa since that country Ls the subject of an arms embargo laid down: by Security Council resolution 418 (1977). The revelations in this respect ma& by the-united States Congress Me. a striking indictment of the countries concerned, and one can no lrnger be surprised that, a priori, they are hypocritically reticent about any idea of sanctions.:~ against South Africa. At pr.esentv as iS knajn, the clearest efforts mads by many of those countries that are menbers of the contact group consist not in exerting pcsitive pressure on . mat&tie1 supposed to be banned from export to South Africa. Gn .the other hand, as my delegation sees it, during the,Twentietb Surfnit :' v: , Conference of the Readsof State and Government of the Organiza$ion of African Unify (OW), Africa took several decisions aimed at strengthening the determination '. < ,-,;;. :s, +,+..- : *; .: II ,, ,,(. I, of the liberation mcrvements and the front-line countries to cope with the needs i' '. _ ii. flcrwing from the struggle against the racist colonialist enemy. The pursuit and I '- '. _' implications of that struggle are now the subject of a more sys'tematic assessment r I under the authority of an ad hoc committee of Heads of State.; apartheid and . colonialism are now experiencing the blows of a counter-campaign designed to show 1. :. them in their true light and also to justify increased international solidarity; there is a resurgence of interest in assistance to the liberation movements'and the '*s‘L-i ;*: a,,. : ,_: , *s... ._I -'__. ( frcnt-line States, particularly through the establishment by the ncn-aligned ,, ._ ._ ,. i countries - cn the initiative of His Excellency Mr. Denis Sassou-Nguesso, President of the People's F&public of the Congo and current Chairman of the : . Orgglixation of African ihity (OAU) - of the.Africa Fund for this purpose. The , creation of that Fund must be viewed within the framework of this general impetus, 1 ',. .i,~ , i., _,'. .,. a previous example of which was the organization of the Southern African _. Development C&ordination Ccnference (SADCXZ). . '. '. The Organisation of African Unity has adopted a per,fectly clear position :;:.:.: ...!x'.*,f '_ regarding.:qe measures that the international oomnunity must take vis-h-vis South Africa,; .whose policy of apartheid, illegal and prolonged occupation of Namibia and .Z..' acts of aggression against its neighbours poses a serious threat to international . I peace -and'security. The OAU therefore calls 01 the mited Nations Security Council to adopt comprehensive man&tory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. . This logical position also takes into account the many warnings; address-ed to Pretoria in the relevant General Assembly and, Security Council resolutions on this subject’. Finally, this OAU pc6i tian draws the appropriate conclusions from an absurd situation deliberately perpetrated and maintained by South. ,Africa as a .’ challenge. My delegation cannot see any approach other than this African position which could adequately respond to 8outh Africa’s.,arrogance and defiance and which could ,, spare the Namibian people further suffering. : ,. .I. My delegation also believes that the members of the ,8ecurity Council can only endorse that position, if the Council is to be consistent, particularly with. reqasd to its resolution 566 (1985). It is up to the Security Council to strengthen and enhance the -prestige. of the international Organization by ensuring that it settles a problem in which its credibility is most clearly at stake. .Indeed, what ncn-permanent me.nW?r - an-d, ‘,, ,r. _- even more, what permanent member - of our ,Council can fcrget that South Africa’s : Mandate over Namibia ended in 1966 and that this Mandate was entrusted to the Ulited Nations Council for Namibia,-mich alane has legal authority over the . Territory? Nevertheless; the United Nations continued to negotiate with 8ou.&h Africa for the adoption of resolution 435 (1978). what a lesson in humility for:: the United EJations: But it is to be hoped that the Securi,ty Council will be able, to control such a sign of peace and of the will to appeasement. Thus, the outoome of the present discussion normally should be a unanimous agreement designed to implement the settlement plan, since South Africa has already 6hownits agreement to the system of proportional representation for voting in the election of the constituent assembly of Namibia. As for the'manoeuvres '&nwcted by the' South African regime to give credit to the idea of an:ihternal solution.as an alternative to the United Nations settLement plan, such manoeuvres can and should be considered with the ccntempt they deserve. In fa&,‘no~one should be fooled by any attempt to transform Namibia into a branch of racist South Africa, with its plan for a rigorously c&npartmentalized society, its militaristic designs and its determination to annex Walvis Bay and some islands and'other'areas bela-&n~"& ‘N&&ia. Re&ect for .the provisions of the Declaration ‘On the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and other relevant United Nations resolutions admits of no ambiguity in this connection. So the time has come for the United Nations to take stock - to take stock on all.'issues. Ceitaii ~mentjers of the Security Council, including some of the most influential menkr$, have recently - in other spheres, to be sure - beams ardent champions of the &edibility of the Vlfted Nations My delegation would like to see all of us, together, during this reconsideration of the riamibian question, work fir the advancement.of that credibility through the strengthening of the ability of the Security Council and the Secretary-Generalto act - and here we would say that the recent report placed before us by the Secretary-General demonstrates once again by its clarity and‘objectivily where the obstacles to the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan really lie. .Our otganization will gain greatly when , c&k +nd for all and 6oac1, it is freed from the shackles of the ?Samib& quest&on., : : Having thereby rewvered their .. : freedan,~ the people of Namibia will then be able ‘to enjoy a mo6t well-deser.tted j 'peace, free from the continuous and accepte$,pl’under to which they are .. i‘. . - ‘, ,‘unf&tulately being subjected today; : The Present (interpretation frqq Prench)t I thank the repr&entative r .’ : -crf the Conga for the kind words he addresseq to me and to my country. ( Owing to the laten,ess of the hour , r propose, with the consent of the Council, . .t.o ad journ the meeting now. If I hear no objection, the next.meeting oi. the Council to continue consideration of the item on its agenda will take’ @,a* this ‘, $ft&noon at 4 p.m. The meeting rose at 1 p.m.