S/PV.2756 Security Council

In accordance with a decision taken at the 2755th . meeting, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, the German Democratic Republic, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Turkey and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Djoudi (Algeria), Mr. Engo (Cameroon), Mr. Badawi (Egypt), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Gharekhan (India), Mr. Kiilu (Kenya), Mr. Rabetafika (Madagascar) I Mrs. Astorga Gadea (Nicaragua), Mr. Ritter (Panama), Mr. Alzamora (Peru), Mr. Sarre (Senegal), Mr. Manley (South Africa), Mr. Turkmen (Turkey) and Mr. Pejic (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

In accordance with a decision taken at the 2755th meeting, I invite the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Carnevali-Villegas (Venezuela), United Nations Council for Namibia, and the other members of the delegation took a place at the Council table.

In accordance with a decision taken at the 2755th meeting, I invite Mr. Gurirab to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Gurirab took a place at the CoUnCil table.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from'the representative of Angola, Bangladesh, Canada, Cuba, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Tunisia, the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic and Zimbabwe, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. De Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Siddiky (Bangladesh), Mr. Lewis (Canada), Mr. Oramas-Oliva (Cuba), Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait), Mr. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Karoui (Tunisia), Mr. Oudovenko (Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic) and Mr. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

I should like to inform members,of the Security.C!ouncil that I have received a letter dated 28 October 1987 from the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence.to Colonial,Countries and Peoples, , which reads as follows: 'On behalf of the Special Committee , I have the honour to request under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to be invited to participate in . the Council's consideration,of the situation in Namibia." ,_ ..‘ . On previous occasions, the Security Council has extended invitations to . representatives of other United Nations bodies in connection with the consideration of matters on its agenda. In accordance with past practice in this matter, T propose that the Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional I rules of procedure to the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Situation with * regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. There being no objection, it is so decided. I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 28 October 1987 from the representatives'of the Congo, Ghana and Zambia, which reads as follows: . .I "We, the undersigned members of the Security Council, have the honour to,. request that during its meetings devoted to consideration of the item entitled 'The situation in Namibia', the Security Council, under rule 39 of its j, .'., provisional rules of procedure , extend an invitation to Mr. Solly Simelane, ~ ,... ". the Deputy Permanent Observer of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) . n The letter has been published as a document of the Security Council under the i- symbol S/19238. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council decides to extend an invitation to Mr. Simelane in accordance with rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. The Security council will now resume‘its consideration of item 2 of the agenda. The first,speaker is the representative of Senegal. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. . Mr. SARRR (Senegal) (interpretation from~'French)r 'First, allow me to c .1 extend my congratulations to youI Mr. President, and to the other members of the Council, and to thank them for allowing me to take‘.partin the discussion on the _. . situation in Namibia. We are not merely bowing to tradition when we say that you are conducting 'the work of this Council with wisdom, experience and much skill and that you represent a country for which we have great respect. I also wish to Pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr. James Victor Gbeho, Permanent Representative of a sister country, Ghana, for the exemplary and ' . *.. . manner in which he conducted the work of the Council in the month of responsible September. Barely two days ago the international community in great unison commemorated the Week of Solidarity with the people of Namibia and their sole legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO). I That meeting followed the special session of the United Nations Council for / Namibia held in Luanda in May of this year and its meeting at the Ministerial level in New' York at the beginning of this month, and was a prelude to the debate that the General Assembly will have on the question in a few days. And now, once again, the Security Council.is meeting to consider the fate of Namibia, which South Africa continues to occupy illegally. This continued concern (The President) shows the interest of the international community, which in 1976, in Dakar, held one of the first international conferences devoted to this question, followed by those in Paris in 1980 and 1983, and in Vienna, Brussels and New York in 1986. It has never ceased to give attention to the question of Namibia, as can readily be seen. The lack of true political will to make the South African r&gime recognize common sense and law is more than obvious. It is all the more frustrating that the United Nations has not yet been able to meet the challenge posed by the colonialist , racist regime despite Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) and despite the Council's adoption of a Plan, which has been universally accepted, for the settlement of the Namibian question, regarding which the Secretary-General informs us that all pending matters concerning its implementation have been settled. Having decided to turn its back on history, South Africa continues to link the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), and thus Namibian independence, to the withdrawal of Cuban troops, whose assistance was legitimately requested by the Angolan Government in the context of an agreement of solidarity, in keeping with recognized and applied international law. (Mr. Sarr&, Senegal) It is no secret,to anyone that these delaying tactics, at which South Africa is a Past master, are motivated purely by economic greed and short-term strategic considerations which will not long resist the irreversible march to freedom of the Namibian people. The United Nations General Assembly, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity and the Security Council have all.categorically rejected the inclusion of any external element in the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. The principal organ charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council, has, in particular, declared unambiguously in its resolutions ' 539 (1983) and 566 (1985) that "the independence of Namibia cannot be held hostage to the resolution of issues that are alien to resolution 435 (1978)'. The Namibian question, therefore , is in its essence and fundamentally a simple question of decolonization , which must be settled peacefully in keeping with resolution 435 (1978) and in the spirit of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in General Assembly resolution 1514 .(XV). The Secretary-General of our Organization, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, to whom I wish to pay a tribute, has shown his continuing readiness to assist and PerSOnal commitment to the Namibian cause and the implementation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). - The leaders of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole, legitimate representatives of the Namibian people, have given proof of initiative, realism, open-mindedness, a desire for dialogue and a sense of responsibility that we should all emphasize here. However, what has been the response to all those efforts if not arrogance and intransigence , with the establishment of a so-called (Mr. Sarr&, Senegal) 5. interim government, which your Council has declared use of the Territory as a base for the launching of destabilization against the front-line States, thus territorial integrity - two concepts respect for which is enshrined as a fundamental principle of international la& On Namibian territory South Africa continues to make efforts to-perpetuate its shameful racist domination, increase its repressive military presence and transpose !. to it the heinous system of apartheid'and flagrant violations of human rights, thus creating in the region an increasingly explosive situation which, objectively, constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. , At the ministerial meeting of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Admininstering Authority for the Territory until independence, and in ehe Declaration of 21August 1987 of the member States of the Council deep concern was expressed at the rapid deterioration of the situation in Namibia, 'following the stepping up of.the brutal repression by South African troops against the people of. Namibia throughout the Territory . . . (. , in particular in the so-called operational zone in the north of Namibia. The permanent members of the Security'Council, which are invested by the United Nations Charter with major responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, must therefore recognize their fundamental role ' in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and the‘high priority that the world Organization attaches to the peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. It is .inadmissible, and in any case not very honourable, for the United NationsI whose "' credibility is thus involved and whose authority is.greatly undermined, that, ' ,. * " 21 years after it put an end to South Africa's Mandate over Namibia, 20 years (Mr, SarrC, Senegal) to be null and void, and the : repeated acts of aggression and violating their sovereignty and after it created the United Nations Council for Namibia to administer the Territory until independence and nine years after the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of a plan for the settlement of the Namibian question, the Pretoria r&gime should continue stubbornly to oppose the liberation struggle of the peoples and to * occupy Namibia $llegally, repressing its people with blood-letting and death. The Security Council cannot go back on its word, therefore the principles " applicable to the case of Namibia are clearly defined. Although the framework for ;l,i their application was unanimously established by the Council itself and despite the . efforts of many countries, including the front-line States, to make a contribution to the implementation of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) and the responsible A. availability and readiness of SWAPO, the racist r&gime in Pretoria entrenches itself in blind intransigence and holds hostage any final solution of the problem. ' Your Council therefore has no choice but to move to action. In this connection we request the implementation of paragraphs 16 and 17 of the final communiqu& of the ministerial meeting of the United Nations Council for *_ Namibia held in New York on 2 October 1987, and in such a way as to initiate the .- *.j implementation of resolution 435 (1978), thus at long last putting an end to.the untold sufferings of the Namibian brother people and the looting of their resources, so that international law and the.fundamental principles of freedom and human dignity may prevail. Apartheid, that crime against humanity, is the source of all the evils besetting the southern part of our continent, and it is the absolute duty of the Security Council to ensure that this inhuman and heinous system is immediately and . totally dismantled so that the people of South Africa may live under a r&gimeof : equality, democracy and fraternity for all, the people of Namibia may join the Concert Of free and independent nations and the front-line States may live in peace and devote their efforts to development. In this connection the sole logical response, that the Security Council, the United Nations body'with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, can make to South Africa is the imposition of comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the San Francisco Charter. Senegal, in co-operation with all countries and peoples that believe in freedom, dignity, human values, and human rights, is determined to embark on that course. The day is not'far off when the martyred people of Namibia will at last see dawning of freedom-and true independence. To achieve this, our united efforts must be more resolute and sustained in the vanguard of the struggle of the international community in favour of the fundamental values which are the very basis of our human society. That is my contribution to today's debate , and once again I thank you8 Mr. President, and through you all the other members of the Council for affording me an opportunity to address the Council.

I thank the representative of Senegal for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker on my ,list is the representative of Egypt. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. RADAWI“(Egypt) {interpretation from Arabic): It gives me great Pleasure, Sir, to extend to you our warm and sincere congratulations on your assumption of the presidency for this month of the Security Council, the highest international organ responsible for the maintenance of world peace and security. We are certain that your considerable abilities are more than adequate for your formidable task and great responsibility, thanks to your long diplomatic experience, political wisdom and personal qualities. Your presidency of the Council is indeed significant for my country, in view of the bonds of friendship and co-operation that exist between our two countries and which date back to their common endeavour in the building of civilisation. Your presidency of the Security Council is also personally significant to me in the light of the bonds of friendship between US. I wish also at this time to extend to your predecessor, Ambassador Gbeho, the Permanent Representative of Ghana , our sincere appreciation of the ability and ,. wisdom he displayed in steering the work of the Council last month in very difficult international circumstances. Once again the Security Council is meeting to consider the question of Namibia, of which the Council has been seized for many years. It remains a burning question. The suffering of the Namibian people under occupation continues to increase and instability in southern Africa is aggravated from one day to the next regardless of the fact that the path to a peaceful settlement of this question is there for all to see, since it has been well defined some 10 years, when Security Council resolution 435 (1978), was adopted unanimously. That resolution is collectively considered to be the only internationally acceptable plan for ending the racist occup?tion of Namibia and restoring the inalienable right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence. i Moreover, the reports of the Secretary-General-reaffirm each year that all'the obstacles that stood in the way of the United Nations plan'have been resolved and j that the plebiscite that should be held in the region under United Nations ': ' supervision.is impeded only.by South Africa's insistence on linking the " independence of Namibia to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, a concept that is totally alien to resolution 435 (1978) and has been rejected by the " international community as intervention in the,sovereign affair-s of two:independent States. ,‘ :: ., We believe.that the,current situation is basically the outcome of the.arrogant' intransigence of the Pretoria Government , which has continued to-Create obstacles-' ' and fabricate pretexts to justify its refusal to respond to the will of the international communjty,.and its adamant disregard of the.fact that the world community has deprived South Africa of the right to claim.any legitimacy for its . . presence in.the Terr,itory, which was made illegal in 1966.when the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for administering the Territory. ., 1' There is no doubt that this aberrant r&gime receives a degree of support and Co-operation that encourages it to persist'in its abhorrent policy. That policy is the reason for the deteriorating situation in the region:and ,the destabilization and threats to peace and security not only in the region but throughout the .whole- ,. continent. We believe, therefore, that to end that support to Pretoria would be,tc take the first step towards forcing that,ri$gime to desist from its intransigence and defiance of the international will,, moving it towards compliance with,thc ,I principles of right and justice and making it listen to"the voice of reason and heed the call for peace. : 1 There is no doubt that the members of the international community are unanimous,as to the illegimitacy of the South African presence in.Namibia and the (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) need for its immediate and unconditional withdrawal from the region. however, the Pretoria Government continues to refuse , as it has for more than 20 years, to heed the dictates of legitimacy. It continues to occupy Namibia without any basis in law. It continues to apply its abominable apartheid policies,.which run counter to the most basic human rights and the principles of justice and the equality of all men. That regime is deeply embroiled in acts of assassination and terrorism. It I I continues to intimidate Africans and detain patr'iots and African politicians as well as the white champions of justice and freedom, muzzle the press and stifle the economiep of neighbouring countries. While it salutes the front-line States and pays a tribute to them for their courage and resolute stand against their bullying neighbour and supports the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole, legitimate representative of the Namibian people, Egypt believes that over and above such support something positive and effective should be done immediately so that the.stand of those countries which are opposed to occupation and racist practices may be translated into Concrete action and have concrete and realistic returns. Egypt has contributed.to the Fund for the support of the front-line States established at the Summit meeting of non-aligned countries in Harare and calls for intensified ' international efforts in helping the front-line States to find alternative communication routes for their foreign trade so as to reduce their dependence on South Africa. .We consider this to be a most urgent requirement. We call on the Security Council once again today to rise to the level of its responsibilities under the Charter and play its role in defending the rights of COUntrieS and maintaining peace and security in the world. We call once again on the. Council today to seek ways and means of enforcing resolution 435 (1978) on the independence of Namibia. resolution 435 (1978) on the independence of Namibia. It is the Council's It is the Council's (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) responsibility to end the injustice to and the acute suffering of the'Namibian people, restore their rights, show the aggressors that there .are limits which ,they-' cannot exceed and force them to respect the pr$'nciples of-the Charter. 1' ..; We therefore call on the Council to expand the mandate of the !,: , Y‘: Secretary-General to allow him to begin the implementation of'the. United Nations. .'. Plan for Namibian' independence by arranging a cease-fire and dispatching-the United:> Nations Transition Assistance Group to make the necessary'preparations for a - plebiscite in Namibia, in keeping with the experience and practices of this +' )'. international Organization. . The representative of BWAFG stated once again before the Council yesterday 1: : that it is quite prepared to sign an immediate cease-fire agreement and to co-operate in peace,initiatives. While paying a tribute to the Namibian leadership for their wisdom and political flexibility, we hope that the other side will'.:' respond and that in.the coming weeks we may witness significant progress towards peace. .,->-. . . We in 4ypt are fully aware that Africa's independence will.not'be.complete and Africa's peoples will not be truly free unless Namibia becomes independent and its people become masters of their destiny and decide..their awnsfuture; We,have ', fully supported all African iiberation movements in .the struggle for,:freedom and 1; independence. SWAP0 is one of the movements that found assistance and refuge.,in. " : Cairo. We take pride in the fact that BWAPO's first office was established in Egypt and that from the capital of Egypt its political work began in pursuit of the same legendary struggle towards new horizons of peoples in occupied lands as has always won the appreciation and respect of the whole world. ') .: " We in Africa are aware- that our struggle against South Africa does not stop at the borders of our continent; it is a struggle being waged on an international level. On our side stand all the people of good faith and all those who cherish . peace and call for justice. When all this is combined with the determined struggle waged by the peoples of southern Africa, there can be only one, inevitable outcome: victory - and in the near future.

.I thank the,representative of Egypt for the kind words he addressed to me. Mr. DELPBCH (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish):' Allow mer Mr. President, to begin by expressing the Argentine delegation's satisfaction at seeing you presiding over the Security Council during the month of.October. We have already had a chance to appreciate your diplomatic skills and your great fL dedication. We are quite sure that you will leave the imprint ofi+deep responsibility on the work of the Council. You can certainly count on my delegation's full co-operation. I take this opportunity also to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Ghana, Ambassador Victor Gbeho. He deserves our gratitude for his hard-work as President-of the Council in September. Bis tireless vitality and the valuable' initiatives he took were of constant benefit to the Council. Be once again demonstrated his abilities and his delegation's active commitment to the Council's ,4 1 work. The Security Council has been convened to consider the question of Namibia for the second time this year. Unfortunately, since we discussed this subject last . April no progress has been made towards the implementation of resolution 435 (19781, which contains the United Nations.plan for the independence of Namibia. That plan continues to be the only internationally agreed basis for the peaceful.settlement of this question. -, " . South Africa claims that it is prepared to cooperate in the implementation oft . . ..‘ the plan. However, 'facts such as the inauguration in Windhoek of an interim v .:: \. administration which the Security Council in resolution 566 (1985) declared to be .c.. illegal and null and void prove the contrary. i,, II. In fact, the South African Government is illegally continuing its poli& of colonialist occupation of the '- _ v,i.- Territory of Namibia, having extended to that Territory its'odious policy of ' ' . apartheid and persecution of the leaders of the South West Africa Peoplels I 1 ,,. ,$.: Organization (SWAPO), recognized by the General Assembly as the sole.and'authentic representative of the Namibian people. The Argentine &public has repeatedly'condemned that policy of the South '. African Government,'by means of which it perpetuates an anachronistic and untenable 1 colonial situation that lacks any justification. In the face of the position of I the South African Government, it is only'logical'that we, together with the other : ., . %‘ non-aligned countries, should have declared our frustration. It is also .logical that we-should have called for concrete action by the Security Council, including that provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter, .,: ..,.- to make the Pretoria regime comply ; :., with the United Nations decisions on this question and on that r&ime's policy of apartheid. It is now high time that South Africa put an end to its defiance of the will : .: of the international community - ,, '_ '. defiance that has served only to increase tension " in southern Africa and‘disturb international peace and security. It should adopt, in that regard, a really constructive approach and undertake an explicit and formal commitment to comply with the United Nations plan for the independence'of Namibia. (Mr. Delpech, Argentina) All the conditions required for the implementation of the plan were met in November 1985, when the parties involved reached an agreement on the system of proportional representation for the elections in Namibia - as is stated in the . ,. . Secretary-General's reports (S/18767 and S/19234) on the implementation of resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978). The Secretary-General reminds us also in _'; . his reports of his proposal to the South African Government for the.establishment I . by that Government of an early date.for a cease-fire and the implementation of the : ‘ . United Nations plan for the.independence'of Namib$a. The racist Pretoria r&gime's - . response to that proposal contained prior conditions extraneous to the United Nations plan. The Security Council rightly declared those conditions unacceptable in its resolutions 539 (1983) and 566 (1985). Accordingly, as we,see it, there is no valid legal reason why the United , Nations plan for the independence of Namibia should not be implemented. We agree with the Secretary-General that 'if the question of Namibia is re-examined with realism and sincere concern j. for the well-being of the inhabitants of 'the Territory, it should be possible to open the way for implementation of the United Nations plan". (S/19234, . para. 25) * I -- That is why my delegation will co-sponsor a draft resolution to be submitted by the non-aligned members of the Security Council. In this regard, we believe that the Council should authorize the Secretary-General to make arrangements for a cease-fire between the parties to the conflict and to take the necessary' administrative and practical steps for the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group. We hope that the other members of the Security / Council will be in a position to go along with this initiative. (Mr. Delpech, Argentina) The end of the Namibian tragedy and the total, definitive eradication of hateful system of apartheid are inescapable priorities for the international community. It is my delegation's firm hope that the Security Council will find a way Of moving towards a solution to the Namibian question, heeding the opinion of the majority of the international community. Such a solution should include due recognition of the Namibian people's right to self-determination, recognition of its national identity and respect for the territorial integrity of the country and the exercise of its right to exploit and use its natural resources. By virtue of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council must insist on the implementation of its resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). If South Africa persists in its intransigence, the Council should adopt all the necessary measures, including those provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter, to achieve its aim. That will demonstrate the existence,of the political will to ensure that Namibia's independenc.e becomes a reality. The Council should not flinch from such efforts until a just, democratic and egalitarian society has been established in an independent Namibia.

I thank the representative of Argentina for the kind words he addressed to me. (Mr. Delpech, Argentina) the Mr. TSVKTKOV (Bulgaria) (interpretation from French): Allow me at the outset, Sir, to say how pleased my delegation is at your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for October , and to wish you all success'in the discharge of your lofty responsibilities. We are all the more pleased since you represent a 'country where I was Ambassador and of which I have the fondest memories. I wish also to convey my delegation's gratitude to the Permanent Representative of Ghana, Ambassador Gbeho, for the confident and highly professional manner in which he guided the work of the Council in September. At the request of the Group of African States, the Security Council last April held an extensive discussion on the situation in Namibia. A draft resolution was submitted on the adoption of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against racist South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter, in order to compel South Africa to carry out the United Nations plan on the granting .of independence to the Territory, contained in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Members of the Council are well aware of the reason why the Security Council has been unable to carry out its task. :‘ On 2 October the United Nations Council for Namibia held a ministerial meeting and conducted a thorough analysis of the situation in and around Namibia, confirming the wisdom and urgency of the measures proposed at earlier forums with regard to the independence of the Territory. Its final communique contains a number of highly important initiatives, the implementation of which would guarantee the exercise of the Namibian people's inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Among them, we wish to single out the call for the imposition by the Security Council of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter and for the holding , without further delay, of consultations on the composition and establishment of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG). South Africa's'deffant contempt for the many decisions'and resolutions of the United Nations on the granting of independence to 'the Naxiibian people and its stubborn refusal to carry them out have compelled the.Security Council once again " t0 consider the situation in and around Namibia in order to highlight. the true " causes behind the failure of the Territory to accede to independence and to take the necessary measure to achieve the ultimate goal. In flagrant contradiction with the clearly expressed will of the'international community and with the decisions thus far adopted by the Security Council,' racist _. South Africa persists in its illegal occupation of Namibia, which constitutes an. act of 'aggression against the people of Namibia. It is imposing the infamous' .' "- system of apartheid on the Territory , a system which has been repeatedly condemned by the international community. The policy of mass repressionand genocide '_ I practised by the lbu,OOO-strong armi of occupation and'the police units has'assumed increasingly monstrbus dimensions. This year we have witnessed a rapid deterioration of th~e'situation in Namibia, owing to the mounting brutal repression inflicted by racist South Africa 'on the people of Namibia, including the massacre c :. of children and adults,'the bombing of houses , schools and .hospitals, the destruction of property, attacks on workers' settlements and churches; the arrest and torture of leaders, members and supporters of the South West Africa People's Organiiation (SWAPO) -'all of which has given rise to vigorous condemnation of the r&gime by the entire international community. Moreover, the'Territory of 'Namibia is being used as a springboard for ? countless acts of :. aggression ,~sabotage.and destabilization against neighbouring independent African States, first.and foremost the People's Republic of Angola. As pointed out inthe final communiqu4 of the ministerial meeting of the United Nations Council for Namibia: (I . . . . those criminal policies of racist South Africa constitute a threat to inter&ional peace and security." (S/19187, para. 11) We express our full solidarity with the front-line States, and we consider that all-round support for those countries would be of immense importance, as much for the solution of the question of Namibia as for their peaceful development in the . manner of their own choosing. :, The spurious argument advanced to justify Pretoria's refusal to implement -. United Nations resolutions and decisions on the question of Namibia is the linking _ .' Of the immediate granting of independence to the Territory with the presence of ., Cuban troops in the People's Republic of Angola. This'linkage pre-condition has .@A been dismissed by both the General Assembly-and the Security Council; in resolution 539'(1983) the Council rejected South Africa's insistence on linkyg the independence of Namibia to irrelevant and extraneous issues as incompatible with 1 6 resolution 435 (1978). The People's Republic of Bulgaria' Categor,ically rejects this a,rt.ificial pretext. Also, we insist that the policy of 'constructive ,. engagement" with the Pretoria r&gime be brought to an end. It is well known that ~ this policy of collaboration with racist South Africa i,n the military, economic, political and nuclear spheres provides support to that r&gime and enables it to ‘ -,: j. 8 r-s maintain its arrogant attitude vis-&vis the aspirations of the Namibian people for ; national independence and, indeed, United Nations decisions and resolutions on the question. We Vigorously reject any attempt to alter the nature of the Namibian question by presenting it as part of an East-West global confrontation. The question of Namibia is one of decolonization and of the struggle against apartheid; hence there are two parties to the conflict: the people of Namibia, fighting for their independence, and the occupation regime of South Africa. -With the situation in the Territory continually deteriorating, the people of Namibia have been waging a heroic struggle for decades to achieve their national" independence, under the leadership of their sole, legitimate representative, ' : SWAP.0 . They have a legitimate and inalienable right to'fight by every means, including military means , against the aggressor and occupier, applying the. principle Of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter. All peoples and States that cherish the ideals of the United Nations are on the-side of the ;. >, "* Namibian people. The Bulgarian people are in full solidarity with the heroic struggle of the Namibian people , under the leadership of SWAPG. We shall continue ' to give them multifaceted support in the.ir struggle for national-independence:. ". b? ~_I ._ v The conflict in and around Namibia has-entered a critical phase.' It is not " only in Southern-Africa that international peace and security are threatened.' .- Therefore, the United Nations is duty-bound to take appropriate steps to guarantee , an immediate, comprehensive solution of the Naiibian'question. Settling this dangerous situation by peaceful means would also make a concrete contribution to implementing the general system of international security proposed at the forty-first session of the General Assembly by the socialist countries, including the People's Republic of Bulgaria. . : ',, -. .1 , The documents adopted at 'numerous international intergovernmental and non-governmental forums this year and in 1986 make it quite clear ,that Chapter VII " of the Charter makes provision for the use of such effective peaceful means - comprehensive mandatory sanctions - against the racist r&ime of South Africa. ‘%i&‘--’ Security Council's historic responsibility for finding a 'solution to the question of Namibia should be highlighted.. The Council must therefore make its contribution in order that appreciable progress may be made , thus also giving great impetus to .. I,. (Mr. Tsvetkov, Bulgaria) -’ 1. .._ the new political thinking and appropriate approaches to confronting and coping a lasting manner with the-vast world problems affecting the interests of all. mankind, which are more and more making themselves felt in international relations.

I thank the representative of Bulgaria for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Cameroon. I invite him to take a, place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. ENGO (Cameroon): Mr. President, we would crave your indulgence and,, through you, that of the other members of the Security Council, to refrain from : traditional courtesies, because the hour and the seriousness of the topic before : the Council fill us with emotions of frustration intermingled with outrage. You, Sir, must know of the high esteem in which we hold.you and your dear country. The traditions of our noble fathers do not permit of public manifestations of our sense Of pride at the dignity and quality of leadership provided to the Council by our ._ brother, Ambassador Victor Gbeho, last month. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Council's deliberations, and Gincerely hope that the Council's decisions will introduce into public perceptions of the multilateral process a bridge of greater credibility. We-. must not be above owning that the results of our past efforts may have failed to infuse a s-ense of legitimacy into the periodic meetings held to examine the critical issues of our times. we appear to display expertise in working out compromises of language and substance that convey, at best, a sense of false .. optimism to those victims Whose peril and predicament we claim to address. : .Cameroon iS a committed member of the United Nations Council for Namibia. We 1 ./ have not come here to join in the chorus of acrimony and condemnation, which seems. to characterize a body of this nature , convened to deal with the erupting volcano of revolt and desperation in southern Africa, to Which Namibia belongs. (Mr. Tsvetkov, Bulgaria) in We have not sought this opportunity to restate old arguments, not even in new words; we have not come to reiterate familiar themes syncopated to ritualistic denunciation of the archdeacons of the apartheid system in Pretoria, who seem to. .'. all,of us here to be facing a self-destructive crisis of cultural and moral decline. We have not come to pass judgement, either, on those among us who do not share" the common political assessment of the wrongs and dangers of racism and deprivations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the region, 8 -. '. ~.. For usI selective name-calling , as the current jargon goes, concepts of ' ' .' linkage, collaboration and'vacillating racial motivations and the like are all' well-known elements. They constitute arguments that have led to counter-productive'" vetoes, unproductive division and resolutions without resolve. The records are saturated with resolutions that by-pass action. p I We also seem to draw absurd comfort from.the ever-rising numbers of voiccb against the regime in Pretoria:. some satisfied that the day's labour has been fruitful, because of a large vote in favour of the contents of sheets of paper at the General Assembly; others confident and reassured by the intractable power offered by the veto to block any wording considered distasteful in similar documentation before the Security Council. So at the end of each year each side in the political drama entertains aristocratic feelings of victory and convenient complacency. The central issues involved in all of this hardly find solutions. The decisions we make bear no substantive relationship to the real solutions called for by the serious crisis in. southern Africa. Where they do, prima facie, the absence of a foDow-up would suggest that we merely pay lip-service and consciously permit the storm of irrelevance to overcome our efforts. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) The regime in Pretoria. h,as grown adcustomed to our dallying and no longer Sees Ii any threat from the aCtiOnS ana inactions of this body - an institution aat was established to be the watch-dog for internat’ional peace rm’d security. And SO blood flows in southern Africa. The cries of ,men, women and children . vibrate across the globe, calling in desperation for help - help for survival, help to end conditions of senseless belligerency and of war. The brutality, death and destruction of material resources are promoted by freakish redefinitions of morality and cruelty. 2 Blood is flowing. In Namibia the legitimate representatives of the people are hunted in genocidal absurdities which transcend the confines of rational thinking. . . . Blood is flowing, tarnishing also beyond redemption the image of those who wield Power, driving the black populace everywhere in southern Africa,‘and especially in Namibia, to inevitable measures of resistance never contemplated in the original quest for fundamental freedom. As the Pretoria r&gime mocks the totality of our universal attitude and indolence with consummate contempt and arrogance, that region of Africa can find no leadership to avert the obvious tragedy of the future. More lives will be lost, leaving indelible scars which time will find difficult to heal. Generations of leaders are being born into the region and schooled in the most despicable forms of racism in an atmosphere in which morality and decency as we know them are unknown. The people of that geographical region , some of whom are so-called whites concerned about the future, have looked to the world for some light in the darkness that haunts their homeland. The international community has provided only words and resolutions, which have now become irrelevant through ineffectiveness. How much we have vindicated Shakespeare's prophetic lament by our comparative complacency. As the character Mark Antony in the tragedy "Julius Caesar" put it, "Blood and destruction shall be so in use, And dreadful objects so familiar, That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infants quartered with the hands of war.' (Julius Caesar, 3:1) Look at the televised reports of happenings in southern Africa. Watch how, indeed, blood and destruction have become so commonplace. See how our mothers - yes, even the dedicated mothers of families - wear smiles tinged with cynicism as their unarmed defZgnt children choose death instead of slavery. See what has happened to the quality of the smiles that have always typified our African faces. See through all of that and contemplate what lies ahead. Bow long can the rest of the world afford to incur the condemnation of the dying and the living dead as they shed Costly blood? How much longer can the world tolerate the gathering cloud6 that bar visions of harmonious multiracial nation-building by the people of an independent Namibia or Azania? We firmly believe that this occasion is an appropriate moment to call seriously for a truce, the Olympian truce of the ancient Greeks. Let U6 jointly examine what ha6 happened to the universal conscience to seek 6ome light in the apparent darkness that.blurs our view of the danger6 around us. It iS time for this historic body, the Security Council, to turn 6ome of mankind's attention away from the exaggerated danger of a global nuclear hOloCaU6t, an event made unlikely by a mature consciousness of the disaster it would bring on I . all human existence on this planet. It is imperative that the members of the Council, my dear friends, commence a new process of addressing the task of finding effective and practical solutions to critical contemporary iSSUeS, for some of them could trigger a real malaise with regard to global peace and security, because we neglected to act at moments when the seeds of pestilence were being 60Wn* The item before the Council today is one such issue. Southern Africa is no longer a location remote from the major seat6 of economic and military power. It was a region of vital strategic interest for the .victorious Powers during the two major wars of the century. It may still be of GUCh, or more, interest. Nuclear weapons have found their way into the area? a region of uncertainty and induced instability. The situation continues to lend itself to an arms race which, if controlled now/could release energies a6 well as -. re6ources for recycling into development endeavours. Neglected or permitted to degenerate further, it will increasingly constitute a global disaster waiting impatiently to happen. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) Namibia's freedom, the reinstatement of the dignity and worth of the African ' personality in'southern Africa and the attainment of peace and security by the ,, front-line States, especially Angola and Mozambique, would usher in a new era of economic Progress@ not Only for the subregion but for Africa'as a whole. A free Namibia, a peaceful Mozambique , an unmolested Angola and a South Africa cleansed of the fantasies and illusions of a retrograde ruling class would take their rightful places with other members of,the Organization of African Unity (OAU) I in enhancing Africa's struggle against economic odds in.a cruel world* WhenAfrica-, is given a fair chance to address its internal economic woesit will cease to be a burden on the industrialized sector of the international community, Hovement away,., from the evils of armament and civil strife would, through-co-operation, strengthen our capacity to develop our continent with the same resources that have nourished phenomenal development in many of the great Powers of today. SO it can be seen that there are many incentives for peace and justice in southern Africa. The alternatives are too wasteful and ghastly for an informed generation such as ours. This is .a great moment. The Security Council must act decisively to bring about a cessation of the hostilities that continue to deprive Namibia of self-determination and self-sufficiency-and perpetuate instability in the entire subregion. This must be done by the Council because of its responsibility under the Charter and perhaps even more because those that have the capability and the political and military influence are members of this body. Namibia's freedom has, fundamentally, never really been at issue even in the minds of the leadefrs of Pretoria.. The world acclaimed the CouncilYs achievement as represented by resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). An anxious world,asks no more than that the Council take effective steps to implement what was fully supported by all the permanent members, as well as, significantly, by Pretoria. The Secretary-General's report underlines Pretoria's continuing commitment to resolution 435 (1978)‘ even if Mr. Botha must stubbornly associate this with extraneous issues. The Secretary-General, whose quiet diplomacy must be commended, has thus informed the Council for Namibia and this Council that all the conditions Outlined in resolution 435 (1978) have been met. We have heard the leadership of SWAPG, the sole representative of the Namibian people, declare its willingness to Sign and observe a cease-fire agreement, once again demonstrating its characteristic instincts and aspiration to peace. The Security Council must contribute to a much-needed sense of the credibility of international institutions and the multilateral process. The hands of the Secretary-General must be strengthened by hands of the Secretary-General must be strengthened by the Council's full backing to negotiate the follow-up necessary. to negotiate the follow-up necessary. I. (Mr. Engo; Cameroon) The Council is'but a legal personality, like the pa.rent body, the united i ; .: Nations. It is, in the f inal.analysis , the will and action of States that I .; i') . constitute its achievement. The fundamental responsibility rests with the ' " .: ,. permanent members of the Coun&,l. The Secretary-General may’be ,expected to . . . . ; I dedicate his energies for the good of existing Charter principles, but he can do _, I. nothing substantive unless the permanent members demonstrate not only a politichi ,,..., a will but also a visible commitment to exclude ideological confrontation from their ._ . . relations on the issue of Namibia's freedom. Once again, we seize this opportunity to appeal to the United States of America to bring to bear .in our quest for lasting solutions the great dream of ~;'-' I. human freedom of their founding fathers. Theirs is a nation born of spectacular : I revolution, which declared certain fundamental truths to be se.lf-evidento -. # "that all men are created euual, that they are endowed by their Creator with .I certain unalienable rights,, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Resistance to ineuuities and love of freedom constituted the haemoglobin of the American political blood type. .s As John Adams, the second American President, put it: : ,' .'.' -: "The Revolution was effected before the war [of Independence) commenced. The ._ . Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people." Namibians of today share a similar chemistry of thought and experience with Americans of over two centuries ago. With forlorn hopes, the peoples of southern ._ I , I , Africa watched the celebrations of the two-hundredth anniversary of such a justifiably proud; successful economic, ttihnological and social giant as the united States. This great nation cannot afford to let them down. Its own freedom as a people, based on such notile ideals, is called into question while fellow mortals elsewhere languish in conditions tbat Americans morally and Spiritually reject as a way of life. The peoples of this nation and their accredited parliamentary representatives . are reacting with refreshing awareness to the tragedy. Is it too much to ask, in common fellowship and in a spirit of friendship, that this nation join in active championship of lasting peace for Namibia's future and that of the region? AkrfCa must mobilize so that Namibia's freedom may not be delayed any longer. .- We call upon the Soviet Union, another nation born in a number of historic revolutions in this century. The ups and downs of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from which Russia's-history took-its rhythm, moulded a crucial era of revolutions between 1900 and the 1930s. The Russian peoples witnessed transformations that launched one of the major systems of our times. The emancipation of the serfs, the'defeat by a Far Eastern country, the experience: of two world wars - all these consolidated a nation with a blend of European and Asian ~blood,'euuipping the Soviet Union to understand the nature of the struggle to survive. In the prophetic words of Nicholas II, the depressive conditions made "social revolution in its mosti’exkrenie 'form . . . inevitable". They, too, should understand'the pangs of the hunger 'for freedom that Namibians and the black South Africans feel. The leadership of the Soviet Union has declared a commitment to this Organikation and to international peace through the Charter principles. Recent follow-ups to that declaration demonstrate the political will to contribute to'the .' international peace process. This is welcome. The soviet policy of encouraging the struggle of peoples 'for self-determination should stir the leadership to new quests for the realisation of the stated objectives of that pOlicYm (Mr..Engo, Cameroon) We are passing'through an oasis of hope in a desert of international chaos in many areas. The summit meetings, followed by consultations at lower levels, between the United States and the Soviet Union,.;present an opportunity for non-confrontational dialogue between the two supreme military Powers. With every ~, i : .'. step they take they tread history. They can do.more than that inspired by the ',i ,' lofty universal ideals of the age. They can make history,' sharing a common ,' : aspiration to steer the cause of peace in southern Africa. They can give ; :,,"' *..,;' guarantees to all involved in the conflict in southern Africa. ~ i '" ; ~, : '.' ,, I: Pretoria must know by now that it has chosen a wrong and dangerous path *.-* II,',: " towards the future it wants for generations of southern Africans to come. The .A. r .,fS system by which the racists have attempted to suspend time may well be proving cumbersome. In the prevailing circumstances, years of rhetoric make retreat from apartheid difficult; the meanness of the spirit endures. Botha and his clique must .I be seeking and hoping, deep down and in silence, for redemption. Let us provide an F ‘. excuse for change. Let us show them that this universal body is truly ready for .' i- change. Let us call for a cease-fire and a truce, for the time is ripe to make it clear that not even the accuired nuclear capability can suppress the will and determination of peoples indefinitely. Further bloodshed and repression must be L.‘. :'~ prevented, :,.: I ' We call on France and the United Ringdom, both nations that had critical. .,' ,, -:,,, formative years in revolutions and have lent their languages and culture to help ,, ,_ :' blend new forms of relationships among peoples and among nations. We strongly 1 , y : ., ' : appeal to those nations to -join-forces to end the reign of terror and the waste Of human and material resources in southern Africa. What is happening there goes against the ethics of their culture and the legal norms they hold so dear. . The two'nations that, respectively, gave 'the world the Magna Carta and the ' 1 Napoleonic codes must actively champion the cause of freedom, for those historic documents.were born in the rejection of cruelty and injustice: the same conditions which our brothers and sisters reject and for protesting against they are mtirdered . . by the brutality of better armed occupation forces. We call'on those iour nations - the United States, the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom - to seek new measures and to provide new leadership to ensure that nothing impedes the achievement envisaged and inspired by resolution-435 (1978). It is perhaps the last frontier of peace- stfll open." Let not'qxtraneous issuesdivert their noble efforts. We also call on the Federal Republic of Germany, a technological giant of our time, linked in history to a colonial past,'which must shed tears at the knowledge )_ of what has happened in the South West Afr-&a that they were forced to abandon seven decades ago. The realistic policies they proclaim towards African -_ development is appreciated, but there is attached the extra obligation towards a * friend in desperation, Namibia needs them to'help influence change and to plan the true course.towards a free and prosperous future. We,muSt of neCe&it~ call on our Chinese friends, also permanent members of the Council, whose oriental wisdom could provide leadership to a confused world. Since they share common aspirations with the deprived of the times, we count on the Chinese Government and people to bring pressure to bear on those who are incapacitated by proclaimed divergencies of means or methods in a common cause. ' (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) The term “revolution” should frighten none of these great nations. Their own individual experience demonstrates that for struggling peoples seeking self-determination it means the inevitable change that liberates the human spirit and inspires new human relations for a better life. Whether’ a revolution is .later betrayed or not is immaterial. Namibians seek a revolutionary change in a quest for an opportunity to embark on shaping their own destiny, not to destabilize any neighbours or peoples. It is their fundamental right to govern or@. if you prefer to pass external judgement, to misgovern themselves as they wish. &et us ambassadors and representatives meeting here today not join the escapists. In the final analysis, nations are composed of peoples. We here are the human agents of Governments far removed from the political and diplomatic climate in this Chamber. It is to us that Governments entrust the responsibility of promoting as well as assessing the response to national foreign policies. The Namibian issue has many facets. We cannot escape the moral as well as the professional responsibilities to fight for our beliefs and the purposes of the Charter which provide a common basis for the universal aspirations here. It is our duty to our Governments, to our nations , to our peoples and to decency to apply 0u.r individual, influences at every opportunity. We appeal for a contribution to the strengthening of the universal conscience; Namibia provides a challenge to all of us. Many artists, including song writers, have joined in the chorus, 0-f entreaty for the times; we hear the song on the radio: “People everywhere want to be free. If there’s adman who needs a helping hand, AlI You need is help pull him through, Mighty situation for man to be free.” Afro-American poet wrote a plea in utmost sorrow over her son: "Don't wipe An away my tears?' Ber African mother counterpart must be rendering the same exhortation to all of us today: *Don't wipe away my tears - Blood and destruction are no longer my fears, I grieve for my children And'my children's children. They knew no peace to understand my love. People out there make nations with no love. I wept and cried for them all. In secret I called for help To save my husband, my sons , my daughters, my friends, my country, their future My cries no one seemed to hear. No one seemed to care. Where is the United Nations? Where is God? 0 God, where are thou? DonNt wipe away my tears! My people have learned that Freedom can only come from our own effort, Even from our meagre means; Give them freedom! Don't wipe away my tears! My tears don't bother me now! ' Wipe first the fears of a Pretoria gone mad. They took me away from my little home; (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) From my farm and hoe and corn they took me. Wipe first the conditions that make me a widow, childless, friendless; Get me away from here, back to my home and farm, and hoe and corn. Give my people freedom. Go tell those who kill my people, , Go tell those who try to'kill my spirit, ' '- .- Go tell them, tell them to stop. .:. Go tell them, tell them I weep for them too. Do all these for me, for us, will you? . Wipe away Cruelty and deprivations and death and injustices. . You wipe out my tears."

I thank the representative of Cameroon for his kind words addressed to me. a The next speaker is the representative of the German Democratic Republic. I )X invite him to take..; place at the Council table and‘&make-his statement. '.. Mr. OTT iGerman Democratic Republic): At the very outset* the delegation of the German Democratic Republic wishes to congratulate you, Sir, On'iOUr * ~ <_. __i .' month of dctober. i .. Your rich diplomatic experience will.certainly help to bring these exttemeiy assumption of the presidency of the Security C&ncil for the important meetings to the successful conclusion we all desire. We wish you every .- success in-the interest of the just cause of the Namibian people, " Our high appreciation goes also to the representatLve.of'Ghana, Ambdssadcr James Victor Gbeho, who, with his well-know diplomatic skill and great COmmitment, guided the work of the Security Council in September. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) '. My %elegation thanks youI Mr. President, and the members of the Council for giving me the opportunity to outline the position of the German Democratic Republic A' on the situation in Namibia. Anniversaries an% commemorative days play an important part in the social and political lives of people and of nations. They often serve as occasions on which to reflect on one's own strength and to look with pride and joy at what has been accomplished. At the same time they provide encouragement to strive for new achievements, to launch new efforts. And it is precisely this latter aspect which is relevant to the events relating to the unresolved question of Namibia. I have in mind the current Week of Solidarity with the People of Namibia and their Liberation Movement, the South West Africa People's Organisation (SWAPO), as well _ as the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations Council for Namibia this year. Both events show that the Namibian people is still being denied ', its right to freedom and independence. And for that very reason both events must : .'. prompt us to redouble efforts on behalf of the just cause of Namibia. To this task the German Democratic- Republic is deeply committed. The more so8 since we are confronted with the fact that the problem does not seem to be nearing a solution. ‘. ': 'II '8 The reasons for that have been made clear %uring this debate, which my delegation has followed with close attention* In his SUitement yesterday, the representative of SWAPO, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, described the manoeuvres undertaken by -, Pretoria and its accomplices in order to prevent a just solution and bring about a neo-colonial settlement. We have also hear% about the disastrous consequences of this criminal.poliCy for the Namibian people day by day, consequences which extend far beyond the borders of the country. (Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic) , The unresolved question of Namibia is rightly characterized as a main cause of the continuing dangerous situation in the region. . The decades-long illegal occupation by South Africa and the denial of the Namibian people’s right to ,., self-determination and independence constitute a flagrant violation of the norms of international law. They pose a threat to peace and security in the region and in.C,. L the world at large. Moreover, the o&pied Territory is still being used by ,, .:I Pretoria as a springboard for aggressions and for acts of destabilization and State terrorism against neighbouring countries. As recently as this month Angola again ::-, fell victim to that policy of the apartheid rigime. (Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic) -What else is needed to support the inescapable conclusion that the Security Council must at last live up to its responsibility? The Council's main concern must be to'take resolute.action towards implementing its own decisions, no less and no-m&e, and"thatshoul& be realized by those Western members of the Gouncil.that , . veto or vote a-gainst sanctions.'and thus prevent the,implementation of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978):‘ , .. In fact, what is more important: to assure the profits transnational corporation-s are extracting from plundering Namibia or to attain the noble goal of self-determination and independence for the people of that country? We in the German Democratic Republic are proud of being at the side of those who can answer that question in the spirit of progress, humanity and peace. I referred earlier to Pretoria's manoeuvres which are aimed at achieving a neo-colonial settlement of the question of Namibia. Recent developments have indeed shown that'the South African Government is devising ever new schemes towards that end. In disregard of relevant United Nations resolutions it seeks, with the help of puppets, to grant phoney independence to Namibia. With this farce Pretoria is pursuing a twofold objective: on the one hand it wants to get rid of the colony in a face-saving way and present a forthcoming attitude'to the outside world while on the 6ther hand it wants to preserve its claim to rule the resource-rich Territory. These activities of the racists, which are contrary to international law, are backed up by attempts in Western quarters aimed at consolidating by means of well-directed, se-called development aid, the puppet Government in Windhoek, the installation of which was declared null and void by Security Council resolution 566 (1985). We believe that the Namibian people, with the participation of all groups of the population, must determine its future in free self-determination, as (Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic) evisaged in resolution 435 (1978). Any attempt by the occupiers and Western circles to reach internal settlements through the drafting of a constitution, holding of referendums or other political manoeuvres constitutes an.open challenge 6~ t0 this world Organization and must be resolutely countered by it. Pretoria's peace-threatening policy and its disregard of United Nations decisions on apartheid and Namibia prove that the regime in South Africa shows no. willingness whatsoever,to solve the problems of southern Africa by pOlitiCa i - .% means. Together with its closest ally it continues to set pre-conditions for ,the granting of independence to Namibia. ? " Typically enough, those conditions were once raised precisely at a time when:a. settlement of the problem based on resolution 435 (1978) seemed to be within- reach. South Africa's demands have thus become the main obstacle standing in the way of implementation of the Security Council's resolutions 'on Namibia, By contrast, the People's Republic of Angola , the other front-line States and 3‘ ,_ , ,. Ij. .) SWAP0 have time and again demonstrated their good will to contribute in a constructive manner to a rapid settlement of the question of Namibia and the other : problems in the region. The German Democratic Republic welcomes the recent initiative of the Government of Angola to ease the situation in the region. 1 ,' : ,_ Angola's proposals demonstrate the political will for a just settlement of the . problems in southern Africa. An entirely different thing is the policy of so-called constructive I. engagement, the destructive character of which has been revealed repeatedly,:, That policy has come to be a synonym of undisguised support for Pretoria. I The r&gime of South Africa must be isolated internationally in order to force it into surrender and thus enable all peoples in the region to determine their future freely and without outside interference. 8 (Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic) The German Democratic Republic therefore supports the call for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations &! Charter and expects the Security 'Council to take appropriate action if Pretoria continues not to co-operate in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). ' As long as South'Africa'tind its allies b&k the road to an independent Namibia, the Namibian people , under the leadership of SWAPO, will have to go on with its liberation struggle.' It has international law on its side, and it can 'be sure of the solidarity of all peace-loving nations, including the people of my country. '* .

I thank the representative of the German Democratic Republic, for his kind words addressed to me. , ,./ The"next speaker is the'representative of Tunisia. I invite him to take a ' place at the Council table and to make his statement. 'Mr* ~AROUI"(Tunisia) .(interpretation from French)r Ailow.me first of ,.. / all, Sir, to fulfil the pleasant duty of congratulating you most warmly upon your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month-of October. Tunisia is happy to see in the presidency of the Council the representative of a . country with which it maintains the best good-neighbourly relations of friendship and co-operation. I should like also to express the same heartfelt congratulations to your predecessor, Ambassador Gbeho of Ghana , on the exemplary manner in which he conducted the work of the Council in the ‘month of September. Given the gravity of the matter that it is called upcn to deal with and by reason of the reaction it has elicited and the hopes it arouses, the Security Council is meeting once again to pronounce itself ' , inspired by the ideals and principles that the United Nations helped to define and which the Council itself iS responsible for defending and seeing applied. . . . In this last quarter of the twentieth century, more than 25 years after the adoption by our Organization of the Declaration contained in General Assembly. resolution 1514 (XV), we are still dealing with the implementation of the principles called self-determination and independence, freedom and justice. There is still today on African soil, in Namibia, a people fighting for recognition of its right to dignity and independence. There is still today on that same African soil an enclave in which oppression , repression and exploitation have become a system, where the regime installed there dismisses the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination and flaunts with as much assurance as arrogance, in the name of its selfish interests, its utter contempt for the will of:the international community and the decisions of the United Nations. In our view, it is inadmissible that the Namibian people has not yet gained its freedom and independence. It is all the more inadmissible in that the Namibian cause enjoys the support of the international community as a whole, that the United Nations has made that cause its own and assumed responsibility for it. By Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which remains, in our view, the corner-stone of any solution aimed at the establishment of peace and stability in the region, the international community, as far back as nine years ago, outlined the framework and modalities by means of which a just and lasting solution to the Namibian question could be found. We should not be surprised at South Africa's reluctance to subscribe to Namibia's independence. we long ago analysed and identified that reticence as a deliberate rejection of any solution in keeping with justice and law, concepts that are hardly compatible with the philosophy of apartheid. Our surprise stems rather from the inability shown so far by the international community to bring the Pretoria rhgime to bow to the law. Our surprise stems also and above all from the thought that there are those who in recent years have succeeded in altering the nature of the debate on the'Namibian question. (Mr. Kafoui, Tunisia) The undertaking, in fact, consisted in minimising the substantive issue, which is purely a'question of decolonisation and the right of a people to self-determination, and directing the discussion towards ancillary questions, artificially grafted on and in any event alien to the United'Nations plan and in no way connected with the struggle of the people of Namibia for dignity and :, independence. It is necessary to revert to the substantive issue. The question that seems to us to be fundamental today is whether the application of the principle of self-determination to the Namibian people and the proclamation of the independence * of Namibia should wait upon the goodwill of the South African authorities, or whether South Africa should be placed in the position of being no longer able to _ oppose them. Will power be transferred to the Namibian people in accordance with .' the various relevant resolutions of our Organisation?, Is there still any chance of success-for the plan so laboriously worked out by the United Nations in accordance with resolution 435 (1978)? These are the questions that we asked ourselves, questions that were . . accompanied..bjjy'angietyi-scepticism and hope. We say hope because, imbued as we are with the principles of freedom and justice, havlng faith in the virtues of ,- negotiation and dialogue and always advocating the peaceful settlement of disputes, we ventured to hope that reason would finally prevail, even among those who have distinguished themselves by their contempt for the human person and the fundamental principles of international law. We say hope also and above all because we were reassured by the fact that the United Nations plan had the support and endorsement of the entire international community, and because we were convinced that, deprived of support and seriously threatened with isolation , South Africa would not continue in its attitude of arrogance and defiance. Our scepticism, on the other hand, was founded on the very nature of the I Pretoria.r&gime, which is based essentially on repression, oppression and 1 ,. aggression and would not of its own accord accept the language of negotiation or the concept of democracy or elections. . _ What can one expect from a r&gime that'abroad carries out a policy of continued, characteristic aggression against neighbouring African States and .. internally is notorious for the inhuman practices of apartheid, its acts of r I exaction and violence against innocent populations and death sentences passed in a . . ' _.. . . mockery of justice on young people *whose only crime is to believe in the existence of freedom and the.possibility of finding dignity. Toivo Hermann Ja Toivo, one of'the leaders of 'the Namibian liberation movement, addressed in the following terms the South African judge who in 1968 . . condemned him to 20 years’ imprisonment: 'We are Namibians and not South Africans. We do not acknowledge today and will not recognize ever that you have the right to govern usO.to impose on us _ laws drawn up without our participation , to treat our country as if it belonged to you and ourselves as if you'were our masters." The means of moral pressure which some say they exercise on the Pretoria r&gime have had the results of which we all know: the same arrogance and the,same defiant attitude on the flimsiest pretexts. The time has come for action, for realism, for international solidarity and for recourse to the means provided for in the Charter, in the particular, comprehensive mandatory sanctions which alone will deprive South Africa of the , means on which it relies to continue in its arrogance and defiance. We must respond to the long-held expectations of the people of Namibia, the whole of Africa and all peoples throughout the world that cherish peace and justice. We are (Mr. Karoui, Tunisia) convinced that the sacrifices of the Namibian people will not have been in vain. Thanks to the determination and foresight of SWAPC, the legitimate representative of the Namibian people and its sole valid spokeman, Namibia will soon achieve freedom and independence. We propose that we respond to the violation of the law, to domination and to racist violence by the legitimate application of the mandatory measures provided ,for in the Charter. Cur ultimate objective is to turn the page,of decolonisation once and for all. _- _ . . _ . ..- ‘. . .-

I thank the representative of Tunisia for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is Mr. Solly Simelane, to whom the Council has extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure.. I invite him to take a,place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. SIMELANE: First, Mr. President, I take this apportunity to congratulate you on the excellent way in which you have been guiding the Council's work and the great patience you have shown throughout these deliberations. May I also express my appreciation to your predecessor, the Ambassador of Ghana, for the talents and diplomatic skills he showed as President of the Council during the month of September. Since yesterday we have been listening to a number of statements here that must move any heart not made of stone. It is sad that some members of the Council - perhaps for reasons of racist principle or avaricious self-interest -. continue to fraternize with the Pretoria racist regime in spite of the deafening screams emanating from the torture dungeons in Namibia and South Africa, torture perpetrated by a subclass of torturers who are psychologically deranged. In 1948, as we all know, the Afrikaaner Nationalist Party came to power following an all-white election. In the same year, apartheid became an official State ideology. Its proponents openly declared that it was a variation of nazism. These were the same people - leaders and members of the Afrikaaner Nationalist Party - who had spent the years of the Second World War in prison because of their openly pro-Hitler pronouncements and activities. Barely three years after the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, acting in exemplary concert, had vanquished Ritlerite fascism and militarism, the world would incredulously witness the unbridled expansaon of Western collaboration with apartheid South Africa - the blatant reincarnation of nazism in South Africa. The *. resulting economic boom for whites would translate itself into a rapid erosion of whatever vestigial rights still belonged to the black majority. It would also take I, , the form-of a rapid deterioration in the very physical circumstances of our I people. The prosperity of whites and their Western collaborators, including the Federal Republic of Germany, derived directly from the oppression and,exploitation, .'. .,. the uprooting, dispossession and dehumanization of our people, on the scale of /.' *, ,. Hitler's programmes. ‘. .‘I ,-., Apartheid was the heir to a 300-year-old legacy of repressive white minority 1. i i; -.. .. racist settler colonialist rule. In the last 40 years it has sought to provide the ', ,__ :I I final solution to the problems that beset the survival of white racist minority : I rule in our country. In the pursuit of this most inhuman objective, Lt has 'I transformed our country into a police State. In the last two years alone, through iI a succession of three ever-more-total states of emergency, it has imposed virtual < ,,I military'rule'on the black townships, in the process savaging even infants and children in their thousands with its draconian measures. Consistent with the paranoia and expansionist impulse that are the trademarks . . . . ; of fascism, the Pretoria racist rigime has always sought to buffer itself and to be _ . the dominant Power. In this regard, violating the norms of international law, it '. has, since the termination of its Mandate in 1966, illegally and forcibly occupied j Namibia, even bs for over a decade it has sought, through military aggression, . . . 1. ;. economic blackmail and sabotage and outright political subversion, to destabilize ., and subjugate the front-line and other independent African States of southern ~ I. ." Africa. In the majority of cases it has carried out these ,atrocities using ~ illegally oocupied Namibia as its launching ground. .' ', :. In the interest of its violently repressive and illegal rule, the Pretoria ., racist r&gime has.turned Namibia into a vast military barracks, where the ratio of., / soldiers to civilians is an astounding 13 to 1. In an attempt to stifle the. armed (Mr. Simelane) res-istance of the Namibian people, led by the South West Africa People's Organisation (S~PO), it has resorted increasingly to the massacre of civilians and the bombing of churches as well as the persecution of Christians. Lately frightened by the growing importance of the labour movement in the overall struggle, it has taken to terrorizing Namibian trade-unionists. Using its own I explicit military might or through surrogate bands of bandit; like the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) and the Mozambique National Resistance OR-JR), it continues to sow woe and misery, death and destruction in ( catastrophic proportions in the front-line and other independent African States in the region, forcing the Governments of these young States to divert their scanty resources‘from the'pursuit of economic and social progress to military defence. .' . Pretoria has set the region on fire and is stoking that fire into a conflagration. Net too long ago we were gratified to learn , through the Secretary-General's report, that all the formal and legitimate requirements for the implementation of b L Security Council resolution 435 (1978), including agreement on the choice of an ;. : electoral system, had been met. However, our gratification was to be short-lived. '_' The Reagan Administration continues to insist on linkage, in effect holding the prospect.of Namibfan independence falsely hostage to the right of the legitimate 'Government of the sovereign People's Republic of Angola to invite and keep within its territory whomever it wishes, in accordance with what it deems to be its legitimate security needs. Cuban interhationalist troops were invited to Angola to help defend the territorial integrity of that country and the sovereignty Of its people against South African agression. South Africa-continues to occupy parts of southern Angola; it also continues to attack that country. 1t seems to-us that-the racist South African threat ought to be renroved before we even begin to contemplate the withdrawal of Cuban internationalist troops from the People's Republic of ; e - c _ - . Angola. The when and how of the withdrawal should , ‘. . . . - of the People's Republic of Angola, exercising its . . _ I The Pretoria racist r&ime also persists in the attempt to create ill-fated. . concoctions like the "interim government" designed to stall and play for time and to negate key provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). < The Reagan Administration and the Pretoria racist regime, either because their consent to resolution 435 (1978) was tied to a secret agenda which had nothing to do with the decolonization of Namibia or because they do not have the good faith to match their deeds to their initial words, have made it clear that they are not .’ about to countenance a free Namibia. However, the Namibian people cannot go on suffering indefinitely. Namibian independence cannot wait. Apartheid itself cannot go on indefinitely. The struggles of the people of Namibia and South Africa and the resistance of the people of the entire region will ultimately bring it to an end. The question today is: should apartheid, which has already set southern Africa on fire, be allowed to go on until it has turned that fire into a conflagration threatening world peace and security? The world should obviously say: No. (Mr. Simelane) be determined by the Government sovereignty. We must reject linkage as well as the the racist r&ime's unilateral initiatives in Namibia. We believe that the international community, acting through the Security Council , should adopt all necessary measures, including the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter, against racist South Africa in order to ensure the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without further delay. Let us not forget: the last time some Powers tried to appease nazism, it resulted in the death of millions of people. Let us remember, as George Santayana once observed, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Finally, we wish to reiterate our principled solidarity with our fraternal and heroic Namibian people and our sister national liberation movement, the Sauth West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). We similarly reaffirm our solidarity with the people of Western Sahara and their vanguard, POLISARIO, with the people of Palestine and their sole, authentic representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and with all people everywhere struggling against oppression, exploitation and for democracy, peace and progress.

I thank Mr. Simelane for his kind words addressed to me. In view of the lateness of the hour, I intend to adjourn the meeting now. With the concurrence of the members of the Council, the next meeting of the Security Council to continue consideration of the item on the agenda will take place at 3 p.m. today. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. (Mr. Simelane)