S/PV.2758 Security Council

In accor,d,ance,wit,h.the,decisions taken at prev$ous... I ,... . meetings, I invite'the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Botswanar Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gernian::Democratic Republic, .India, Jamaica, Kenya , Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar; Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria , Pakistan, Panama, Peru;.Senegal, 'South Africa, " Tunisia, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic;;the United Republic of Tanzania; Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for,them at the side' of the Council Chamber-. I . . . : I At the invitation of the President, Mr. Djoudi (Algeria), Mr:De Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Siddiky (Bangladesh), Mr. Leswaila (Botswana), Mr.%'Dah (Burkina Faso), Mr. Engo (Cameroon), Mr. Svoboda (Canada), Mr. Oramas Oliva (Cuba), Mr. Badawi (Egypt), Mr. Tadesse (Ethiopia), Mr. Ott (German Democratic Republic), :' Mr. Gharekhan (India), Mr. Barnett (Jamaica), Mr. Kiilu (Kenya); Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait), Mr. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Rabetafika :': (Madagascar), Mr. Dos Santos (Mozambique), Mrs. Astorga Gadea (Nicaragua), Mr. Ononaiye (Nigeria), Mr. Shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Ritter .(Panama), -: _' :, Mr. Alzamora (Peru), Mr. Sarr6 (Senegal), Mr. Manley (South Africa), Mr. Karoui "' "I' (Tunisia), Mr. Turkmen (Turkey), Mr. Oudovenko (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist ~ ;. Republic), Mr. Majengo (United Republic of.T&ani&).; “Mr . .pje 'ic 3 (2;; g o"s$avih; ,& Mr. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) took the places reserved for them at'the side.of.-the.Council : Chamber. ,: ,;. * . : .>*. '.;,.I / :

I invite the delegation of the United,Nations Councilfor... ..*. >. ., ..>:. , Namibia to take a place at the Council table. ,. I ::.,.. . iA., i . ,.‘, - . . i $_ I., . .* . , ,: _. : .“ .I'_\ ', , _. j. I. Y ._, At the9nvitation of'the'~President~~Miis'Jacob;~Unit&Nations Council'for Namibia, and the other members of the delegation took-a-place ,at the Council table. .,. ->: : . . :s- ! 1. I : .* -, .; ;' ,..i ,, . , . . . . . . ..‘ . I,. 1 The PRESIDENT% 'I invite tir.':Gurirab to take.'-a place.at-the &uio'il‘table. At the.invitation of the President; Mt.’ 'Gurirab &+&'a place'at 'the Council table. ,I : 1. ,_ ,' '. -' . ,.', s.." >..' _. !, ,The PRESIDENT: .I should like'.to'inform members'of the Council that i “ 3.. ' have received letters.from the ,representatives of Cyprus and Guyana in which they' . . request to be invited ,to participate in the.discussion 'of the :'item on the Council's . agenda. In conformity,with the usual'practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council., to invite those representatives topar.ticipate 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. Moushoutas (Cyprus) and Mr. Insanally (Guyana) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

The Security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them document S/19242, which contains the text of a draft reso-lution submitted by Argentina, the Congo, Ghana, the United Arab Emirates and Zambia. The first speaker is the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. WENGO (Urktea'Republic of Tanzania): Allow me first of all, Sir, ,_ ,. ,. _' . to express my delegationis warm congratulations to you on your assumption bf'the .- ~. / . ..‘ I ,_' + i. / . presidency of the Council for the month of October. I am sure that your great _. ,. ,.i:.;, experience and wisdom will prevail in guiding the deliberations of the Coun&l to a '.' : . . I - . ,,a, . . . .b 5 successful conclusion. : '. ". ;' Allow me also to extend my delegation's congratulations to your pre+&essor, 1 I . ,I Mr. James Victor Gbeho, the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United : ,. . :, Nations, on the able and efficient manner in which he conducted the work'of the . . ; ‘. ’ ., September. I Council during the month of their right of veto. In August the Council, through its President, issued an appeal to South'Africa to terminate its repression and detention of the Namibian ;, -,. $"i I people. The apartheid rigime has not heeded the appeal , comforted by the support i it had received from some');estern members of the Council who cast a negative vote. I I' ,/ This is an intolerable situation, and it cannot be allowed to go on. . It is now more than 20 years since the General Assembly in its resolution 2145 (XXI) unanimously terminated South Africa's Mandate over Namibia in October 1966 and in its place established the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority of the Territory until its accession to independence. As a result-of South Africa's continued refusal to comply with General Assembly resolutions, the International Court of Justice in June 1971 declared that South Africa's continued occupation of Namibia was illegal and urged its immediate and unconditional withddawal from the Territory with a view to allowing the Namibian people to exercise their right to independence. The action by the international community to terminate the South Africa's Mandate over Namibia was a reaffirmation of the inalienable right of the people Of Namibia to self-determination, in conformity with the United Nations Charter and in keeping with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 on the granting of independence to &olonial.countries and peoples. The rights of the people of Namibia were given a big boost by the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which laid down the internationally accepted United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. (Mr. Majengo, United Republic of Tanzania) - . I't .is regrettable, however r, : I t that since the adoption-,of resolution 4,35zJ19F?8) .." the South African racist:r&g,ime has.kmplpyed one delaying tactic after .a.pother,. all ,.. ' ,<. > ', ., I,., ‘ .'...= '... aimed,at the continued illegaS~,~cupatfon of Namibia and,the denial of,ggnuine "I ., .' L . independence to the Namibian people , 2 :,.. the latest pretext,being the infamou*s,&inkage .,./ , -'il.' pre-condition. We regard the 3inkage question as merely.:fntended to impede the, _ . *,I L, , , . . . . long-overdue independence for Namibia,,whose people are st:$$ being exploited,, :.: : .' ._, -., j/l , , 1. ., . _'. (. : 'r' oppressed and dehumanized.. Like their.br,ofhers and sisterstin South &fr.ica the ' I. ," Namibian people are not only victims of thez,obnox,&us policies of apartheid, which violate with impunity their basic human-rights, > : ._ ., .,,but are also.relegated to .._ I . . second-class citizenship in their own country. . ,_: .‘ The racist r6gime's atrocities are not restricted to Namibia and.Soutb Africa. alone; they are committed in the whole of the southern African region; ,.!l?h& ' : . destabilization polidies are not only a threat to peace and security in the regionr >. they also cause great loss of life and damage to property. The ,+dven+rous policies of the racist r&gime in southern Africa are designed to destabilize its : neighbours through such methods as the arming , supporting and financing of armed * L bandit$ in Angola and Mozambique. These policies are, of course,.tailored to ,, .: Perpetuate the hated,-evil policies of apartheid in So&h Africa and the occupation of Namibia. That the.destabilizationpolicies against the neighbouring States and the‘ _ 1 , illegaXoccupation of Namibia by the racist r6gime have persisted for such a long., L. -' time is because of the support offered to the racist regime by external forces 5: which have decided to turn the Namibian independence question into an East-West ,I -: conflict. Tanzania has on many previous occasions rejected the policy of s*called.,;... constructive engagement being pursued by the United States Administration in :‘< ’ i .,+ -. (Mr. Majengo, United Republic ., .. of Tanzania) collaboration'with the racist r6gime. We remain convinced that the Rc&y is unhelpfuS,andaggravates the,'already compiiicated situation in southern Africa. We . request th'e:'*concerned party to abandon this policy, which has been rejected bylits ' people." Many‘of us in this'chamber had hoped that the unanimous adoption of‘l :..: ., : resolution 435'(1978) would usher in an end to South African"coloniaiism in Namibia. That'optimism has'been dashed; owing to the racist rigime*s failure to ~ . ccmply'with.~resolution 435' (1978j;which 'contains the United Nations plan for _.. Namibian independence. We have been frustrated by false promises, hypocritical statements of suppbrt and opposition to concerted international action by the '- misuse of vetoes. - . . The continued linkage of Namibian independence to irrelevant and extraneous issues is a matter of grea't concerti to the whole international community. We are convinced that it is high time the Security Council, which is responsible for international peace and security, assumed its responsibility and compelled the racist regime-to leave Namibia iu conformity with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We have‘come to the Council, as I stated at the outset, because all 1 the relevant Security council resolutions - especially resolution 435 (1978), which lays down the modalities leading to the implementation process of Namibian . independence, such as the holding of free elections under United Nations supervision - have remained unimplemented. For that process to begin, it has been Stipulated that the Security Council should set in motion the necessary conditions enabling the United Nations to establish in Namibia the machinery that is required for the.people to organize free elections , through the assistance of the United Nations, through a cease-fire and the supervision of the elections. In this regard my delegation condems the imposition-of the so-called-interim t Nations decisions and the wish of the .<,? . 3 Namibian people. We reject as null'and void any plan born outside i 'I resolution 435 (1978). It is for this reason that we reaffirm our unqualified government in Namibia, contrary to United support for the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole; authentic representative of the people of Namibia, in their just struggle, including armed struggle, for the attainment of their right to freedom and independence. .We are confident that the Security Council has the necessary power under the Charter to lessen the sufferings of the Namibian people by compelling the racist regime to leave Namibia immediately and without pre-conditions. In conclusion, we reiterate our appeal to the Council to assume its responsibility and empower the Secretary-General to undertake, without delay, the implementation process of resolution 435 (1978) and the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group towards the realization of independence for Namibia. That is the least the Security Council can do. The PRESIDENTI I thank the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania for his kind words addressed to me. Count YORK von WARTRNBURG (Federal Republic of Germany): Permit mer first, Sir, to congratulate you on assuming the high office of President of the Security Council for the month.of October. As you are the representative of a country maintaining very friendly and cordial relations with my own, it gives me and my delegation great pleasure to see you presiding over the Council. There may be others more competent than I to speak about your experience and diplomatic skills. Let me just say that we feel the Council is in good hands under your presidency. At the same time, I wish to express my delegation's sincere appreciation to the Permanent Representative of Ghana, Ambassador Victor Gbeho, for the efficient and friendly manner in which he presided over the Council's activities in September and for his untiring efforts. *_ During the last decade hardly any question has occupied the Security Council as often and as deeply as the question of Namibia, notwithstanding the adoption Of resolution 435 (1978) as early as 1978. What sets this issue apart from all other regional problems is that in 1978 there was , as there is today, agreement on the settlement of the issue. All United Nations Memder States are agreed that Namibia must be given its independence on the basis of resolution 435 (1978) as soon as . possible. The Federal Government reminds the Council that South Africa itself agreed in 1978 to.the settlement plan and that - as stated by the Secretary-General in his most recent report, of 27mOctober 1987 - the Head of State, Mr. P. W. Botha, committed himself again to this settlement plan by having made it clear to members of the s6called interim government thatr *constitutional steps , which might impair the Republic of South Africa'8 ,international interests and obligations, were not acceptable to the Republic of South Africa*. (S/19234, para. 4) Federal.Government has declared‘time and again that it feels~committed to‘ ,.. resolution 435 (1978) in a particular way. 'Since-the' Federal'Republic of‘Germany - was vigorously in favour of Namibia's independence and the right to:.,. ./;' self-determination of the Namibian people, the Federal-Republic, as a membef of the ,' Security Council in 1978, made an active contribution,towards the elaboration and adoption of the resolution , and ever since then it-has advocated its implementation. : I MY delegation'regrets all the more that to‘this'day the Ramibian p&p&have been denied-their right to self-determination and.independence. .The implementation : Of resolution 435 (1978).is overdue and should be undertaken, as the I Secretary-General stresses in his report, without further delay, independently.Of any other problem. .As my delegation has already stdted in the Council, inApril this year, it is unacceptable that South Africa continues to occupy Namibia, in,,,. .: violation of.international law. .It is likewise unacceptable that the struggle for the liberation of Namibia continues to take such a toll in human life. , The Federal Government also condemns the illegal raids of South Africafsarmed forces, operating from Namibia, into the territories of neighbouring- States.- ,. . : I( i I particularly Angola. The Federal.Government urges South Africa once again to .: ? ._ refrain from such actions , which‘constitute an additional danger for.the stability .j ;. of the whole region. ..‘ ,' 'L AS on previous occasions, my delegation wishes to-<put on record today that the .j.', _.__ __‘ stance of the Federal Government on the question of Namibia has always been and .'e Will continue to be, clear and unequivocal. Resolution'435 (1978) is the . _I indispensable basis for a settlement of the question of Namibia;. Resolution 435 (1978) is, and remains the only foundation for Namibia's aohievement.of its, ,: internationally recognized independence. In accordance'with resolution 435 (1978), the conbtitutian of an independent Namibia is to be adopted by a constituent assembly elected in free and fair elections , under United Nations supervision, and by such an assembly only. ' AS the. so-called interim,government, instituted by South Africa, is fully incompatible with resolution 435.(1978), it has not been recognized by the Federal Government, which hence considers it null and void. . The Federal.Government regrets that South Africa has taken an intransigent position on.the question of Namibia. The Federal Government is convinced that South Africa, in itsown interest, should not block the way envisaged by the international community for leading Namibia to its independence. The international community, on its part, is under an obligation to fulfil the commitments it has made in'connectian with the question of Namibia. ^ Should South Africa continue to place.obstacles in the way of implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and neglect exhortations to desist from its obstructive attitude, the international community has no choice but to put strong pressure on it. The Federal Government relies on the influence-and pressure of the international community of States and the international public at large upon South Africa. ft is for this reason that the Federal Government actively contributed to the restrictive measures imposed by the member States of the European Community on South Africa, and the Federal Government will strictly apply those measures. 1 'The Federal Government welcomes the fact that the authors of the draft resolution before us have chosen an approach enabling members of the Security Council and the Council as a whole to send the necessary unambiguous signal to the South African Government. Only if the international community acts in a strong and positive manner will the desired reaction of the South African Government be forthcoming. >:’ ,.. ‘- ,,,< _ ,.P” :-;.,. AS I have already pointed out , the Federal Republic of Germany;:as a.&-author __ > .\ of resolution 435 (19781, finds itself particularly committed to .ffnding a'solution .A to the question of Namibia. We commend the Secretary-General fcr hisefforts and .I thank him for his report of 27 October. 'We appreciate the’work done'dy‘his Special Representative, the front-line States and all others aiming at early independence for Namibia. The Federal Republic of Germany will make every effort to help to achieve this goal bilaterally, as a member of the Contact Group, and within the framework of the European Community. .We will support the front-line .States and the " States members of the Southern African Co-ordination Development Conference (SADCC)' to the best of our ability and will continue to support the United Nations "r ,_ Institute for Namibia; and we wish to continue the dialogue with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAP01 on the basis of mutual confidence. ..,_ i i Finally, my delegation appeals once more to the Government of,South Africa - : :.. indeed, it earnestly exhorts it - to remove at long last the obstacles it has put in the way of Namibia's independence and to honour its own word. 1 ., c

I.thank the representative of the Federal Republic-of -"- J . .: .'.' Germany for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Bangladesh. I.invite him'& take a‘ place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. SIDDIKY,.(B;angladeshji: ;‘ The odious rhgime in South Africa is a cancer :. =,;. ~ - :. in the body politic of the world. Let us not treat it as though it were benign. i.,; t-s < The malignancy, unless totally removed,. will lead to inexorable fatality. . But before I proceed further, let-not the painful substance of my intervention preclude me from felicitating.you, Mr. President, on the manner in which you have :'., '.. been conducting your onerous responsibilities. Under your inspiring leadership we hope to make some advance in the achievement of our objectives. Credit is also due to your predecessor, Ambassador Victor Gbeho of Ghana, for his skilful guidance of the Council last month. The Council has done much to preserve order in what would otherwise have been a very chaotic world. The Member States owe it a debt of gratitude. Nowhere.has tyranny manifested itself so nakedly as in Namibia. Nowhere has the expression of colonialism been so ruthless as in that unfortunate land. The sufferings of the Namibians have been severe. Pretoria has not only bound their limbs, stolen their resobrces and silenced their voices, but has also numbed their minds by trying to foist on them a vile theory that.the basis of superiority is the colour of the skin. Such fallacious absurdities have led to disasters in the past. These lessons can easily be gleaned from history, but the bane of man is that soye will nev$r learn. 'The Namibians have a right,to self-determination and independence. The international community has a duty to ensure their speedy exercise. The racists of South Africa must not be allowed to thwart forever the resolutions of the Security I Council, the General Assembly and the advisory c&ions of the International Court Of Justice. They must not be permitted to ignore with impunity the voice of reason and of sanity. The opinion of a hundred million Bangladeqhis on this subject has been unequivocally expressed time and time again. (Mr. Siddiky, Bangladesh) The way to conclude the tragedy would be'to implement Sedurity'Coun& resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), which are the only internationaii~"accepted ,. bases for the peaceful settlement of the question; The United Nations plan for Namibia is the only way out of this impasse.= The fascists of,Pretoria-cannot be allowed to link this solution to extraneous and.irrelevant issues. Nor tian they be, permitted to continue.with their shameful depredations of precious Namibian resources in contemptuous defiance of Decree No. 1 of the Council for Namibia. The installation of.the puppet regime in Windhoek is an act of mockery, a comic element in that sordid drama. The Council for Namibia deserves praise for what 'it has done so far. We are happy that Bangladesh has been able to contribute, however modestly, to its ' efforts. Last month the Council met for the first time at the level of Foreign Ministers. They urged the General Assembly to discharge its unique~responslhiifty with regard to Namibia. Namibia may well become the .litmus test of United Nations' credibility to the nations of the world. ", . . .,: The silver lining in the dark cloud over Southern‘Africa is the hero&of2the people's struggle. Glory is justly due to the South West Africa People's ..y. " "' Organization (SWAPO), the sole and authentic representative of the Namibians,'for the leadership imparted. Time and time again, we have heard Mr. Theo Ben Gurirab'i pleas for peace. Time and time again we have listened.to his patient urgings ior, action. If we cannot respond, if his appeals go unheeded, the Council will h&Y& "' , little to be proud of. " ; t '> ,"? ".: . ,,,,' ,. ,... We welcome SWAPO's offer to sign the cease-fire at once. It is now time for the Secretary-General to proceed with arranging this and undertaking the necessary action for the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG). We therefore support the adoption of the draft resolution. " .' .. '. (Mr. Siddiky, Bangladesh) The poet John Keats eaid,that there is a budding morrow in midnight. Surely there is a dawn at the end of the darkness of suffering that engulfs southern Africa today. Those of us who have viewed the film "Cry Freedom".have some Perception of how excruciating the pains of that-darkness can be. It is for us all to do the best we can to reduce this.

I thank the representative of Bangladesh for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Burkina Faso. , I invite him tg take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr- DAB (Burkina Faso) (interpretation from French)t Permit me to convey to you, Sir, my heartfelt congratulations as well-as those of the Burkina Faso delegation, on your assumption to the presidency.of,the Security Council for the month of-October. We have no doubt that your talents as a skilled diplomat will ensure our success. I say this with full conviction since your country, Italy, and mine have excellent relations. I take this opportunity also to convey our Satisfaction to our friend and brother Ambassador.Victor Gbeho of Ghana,.who so competently conducted the work of the Security Council last month. I wish here formally and unequivocally to reiterate my country's commitment to the ideals and the Charter of the United Nations.. -Burkina Faso;led by the‘Popular Front, regrouping all' Burkinabe democratic and patriotic forces is faithfully \ committed to the liberation struggles of peoples and to the noble cause of movements fighting for the advent of freedom and justice. On this basis I was mandated to come here.to make Burkina Faso's contribution to the debates on Namibia. South Africa is occupying Namibia. Racist South Africa would'like to stop the wheels of history of the Namibian people which are turning inexorably towards freedom and regained dignity. In so doing it is resorting to all means. First, it (Mr. Dah, Burkina Faso) is resorting to wild and far-fetched theories to justify its presence on Namibian soil and, as a consequence , to deny the world Organisation any involvement in the political development of that formerly mandated Territory. The 1966 decision of the International Court of Justice fortunately closed every possibility of the racist rhime in Pretoria finding a legal solution to the problem, and the decision . taken by the General Assembly the same year put an end to the South African mandate on Namibia. That augured well. Indeed, many were those who believed in good faith that those relevant decisions would bring the masters of the apartheid regime to reason. Unfortunately, the racist South African State, far from bowing to the injunctions of the international community, led it down the perilous path with which we are familiar. Thus, the country of apartheid at each turn has refused to retreat; it distorts, it is obstinate; and all for the obvious purpose of gaining time to pursue its shameful exploitation of the immense and varied wealth of Namibia. In SO dOjng, it must at all costs maintain that Territory under its domination. Fortunately, the sham elections were boycotted by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole, authentic representative of the Namibian People, and were considered null and void by the United Nations. * What is more, the South African army is violating the borders of front-line States under the fallacious pretext of exercising its alleged right of hot pursuit. It has destroyed villages and killed indiscriminately men, women and children - all innocent victims and martyrs whose blood is being shed for having committed the %rime" of wishing to enjoy freedom and exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination and independence. - Such action by South Africa is a denial of the human being. It is man's dignity that is being trampled. In such circumstances, South Africa's behaviour is no different from that of the Nazis against which at the time all the forces Of the Peaceand freedom-loving nations were united , despite their ideological differences. South Africa's attitude is often described as one of defiance of the United Nations and of its organ entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security; but, as everyone agrees, that challenge is possible only because South Africa enjoys the support of strong aCCOmpliCeS. Disregard for Council resolutions , in particular resolution 435 (1978), should give further food for thought to those who by means of the triple veto of 1974 Prevented the ouster of South Africa from the world Organization. Hence those States still bear a major responsibility, especially when viewed in the light of the statement made by the Canadian Prime Minister in 1947: "No association of nations can prosper without the support of the world8s militarily and economically powerful." This still remains valid today. (Mr. Dah, Burkina Faso) I The international community as'a whole has been inviting its powerful members to abandon the idea of constructive engagement with racist South Africa'andi!nstead support the cause of the majority - which, by the way, .* is one of the cornerstones of their own institutions; . .,- The linkage p&-condition, which has been rejected by the members of this Council, is but a,short-lived subterfuge. Burkina Faso believes that States, whether members of the Council or not,'are in duty-bound to enforce the United Nations plan of action for Namibia, namely, Security Go&i1 resolutions 385 (1976) and 435'(1978)'which, inter alia, call for South Africa to put an end to its illegal administration and occupation of Namibia. To this end, the Security Council must adopt comprehensive mandatory San&ions against South Africa. That is the only effective means we have left to reach a genuine, Speedy solution to the Namibian question. Burkina Faso rejects outright any bogus government in the.pay of South ,-: I Africa. Burkina Faso rejects any elections that are'not organised with the participation of SWAP0 and held under United Nations supervision. I Lastly, my delegation urges the Security Gouncil to adopt aipropr&ate measures. ,_. to compel South Africa to respect the resolutions of the'world Organization, to which, from a legal standpoint,'it still belongs. ~ The suffering of the Namibian people has lasted far too long. : .Like all other peoples on our planet, that courageous people aspires to freedom , self-determination and independence. It is up to the Security Gouncil.to help that people realize its legitimate aspirations. '

I thank the representative of Burkina Faso for the kind words he addressed to me. " I. Mr- *ROCHA~ (France) (interpretation from French)8 Allow me first of all to extend to you, Sir, my delegation's congratulations on your assumfition Of the presidency of the Security.Gouncil. France is indeed gratified to 6ee you Allow me also to express to your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of Ghana, my delegation's deep gratitude for the personal qualities and outstanding talent he once again so ably demonstrated as President of our Council last month. Since our last meeting on the question of Namibia in April 1987, the situation in the Territory has continued to deteriorate without there being the slightest .: , . glimmer of a possibility for.settlement. The Security Council expressed its - concern over this,continuing deterioration of the situation in Namibia in a statement made by its President on 21 August last. . . fn fact, the impasse remains total, and the suffering of the Namibian people 0 is deepening and the danger of regional destabilization is growing. This impasse has been brought about because of the intransigence of the South African .' Government, which refuses to carry out the process of independence for Namibia, despite the repeated urgent appeals of the international community. . . . ;, This is basically a simple question. A settlement plan exists - and, as the \ Council is aware, France played an active role in its preparation. That plan, which is now nine years old, forms the basis for an internationally recognised Settlement. It has been accepted by all, including by the parties most directly involved - South Africa and the South'West Africa People's Organization (SWAPS). , ". ,A, .- : 1. Its implementation has been blocked by South Africa's demand for linkage of the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. That South African condition, which is extraneous to the problem of Namibia, was recalled here yesterday by the Permanent Representative of South Africa. , : (Mr. Brochand, France) I should like to state.once again that France totally rejects that,,linkage# and that is why the French Government in 1983 decided to end its participation in the so-called contact group, whose mandate does not,extend to this-question which is extraneous to the implementation of the United Nations plan. 1. I This impasse has not preverhted the United Nations Secretary-General from , pursuing his efforts and continuing his contacts with the parties. In his further report of 27 October he reported to us on his most recent initiatives, MY delegation wishes to renew its full support for the Secretary-c;eneral’s activities, last summerr including a new mission to southern Africa by his Special ., Representative for Namibia, Mr. Ahtisaari. .The African Group has now proposed to th,e Security Council that it should authorize the Secretary-General to undertake new initiatives to achieve a ,: cease-fire between South Africa and SWAP0 and the emplacement of the United Nat&??a Transition Assistance Group. . The French delegation cannot but support,this initiative, We hope that this..;, new mission entrusted to the Secretary-General will finally bring about the : conditions allowing for Namibia's accession to independence. . , L r : ,: -: - . . . . tie ~F~IDENT; I thank the representative of France for the kind words he addressed,'to me. The next speaker on my list is the representative of Angola. I invite him to take a place at the-Council table and to make his statement. 'Mr. DE FIGUEIREDG (Angola): Mr. President, on behalf of my delegation, I should like-to express our appreciation and pleasure at your presidency of the Security GOUnCil for the month of October; indeed your Government has often shown its enlightened position on various issues important to Africa. For this we thank You and request that, on the‘issue before us , one of the most important to face Africa in general and southern Africa in particular, you and your Government continue to display your support as in the past. When history judges the events leading to the independence of,Namibia - and we have no doubt that it will be independent -, and judges in particular those who played a major role , its most merciless indictment will be reserved for those who actively impeded the dawning of Wamibian independence, either by their intransigence, as in the case of raci.st South Africa,. or by their vetoes, as in the Case Of certain Western permanent members of the Council, or by their negative votes, as in the case of certain past and present members of the Council, or by their silence, which is in itself assent, if not consent, to the illegal occupation of Namibia by the apartheid South African r&gime and its refusal to allow Namibia to be free. As a number of speakers have pointed out, statements made recently during the Week of Solidarity with the People of Namibia and their Liberation Movement the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) all categorically and definitively called for Namibian independence and placed the blame for the present sorry state of affairs in apartheid South Africa, where it belongs , and unanimously asked for the immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). As the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of SWAP0 pointed out in hPs statement to this Council, SWAP0 agreed a long time ago to the one identified untesolved:fssue - that of electoral systems - and restated its readiness to sign a cease-fire immediately. He firmly rejected the validity of 'linkage' introduced as a,' spurious, extraneous and unacceptable element late in the proceedings, as have a number of.speakers in this Chamber,.ever since its introduction in 1981. .' Even the Council itself rejected the word *linkage" in resolutions adopted in 1983 and 1985. The Government of the People's Republic of Angola has also f‘i'rmly and consPstently rejected the attempt to tie a non-Namibian issue.to independence ',. for Namibia. Nevertheless, in an attempt to move forward to a comprehensive r' solution to various important problems facing southern Africa today* my GoVeriIWnt presented a platform in late 1984, which, if accepted, could bring about peace in southern Africa and conditions which could lead to Namibian independence. SLnce. our Proposa+ were made there has been no response either from racist Pretoria or from its ally and partner. Recently our President, Comrade JO& Eduardo Dos Santos, President of the MPIA'Workers~Party and of the.People's~ -, ~ Republic of Angola, made additional constructive proposals, in response to which %,, again there has been nothing but silence. . . . . ! This has been indeed the cat&and-mouse,game of the racist r&gime and itk 1 allies: either silence, or. the presentation of demands which would be laughable, if they were not so.contemptuous of African sovereignty and dangerous to African ,: 1 freedom. ,.I.:', :/-_ j_ 1 should 'like to ask certain permanent.and non-permanent members of the Council one questl"on: Do the views of the overwhelming majority of the world's sovereign States carry no.weight, no importance? Does the communiqu6 issued by the ministerial meeting of the United Rations Council for Nanilbia in ea~rXy Octo$er mean. 'L not a jot?>,'00 the :resolutfons:of-.this Council itself, which, according to the ,' . Charter, are,mandatory for the4States,Members of'the United Nations, carry no validity? Does'thfs 'unique case ,'that%, direct United Nations ‘responsibility for Namibia, nOtimpOse'on,these‘particular:Members.both the obiigation to'do < everything possible for,the independence of Namibia and to put an end to the " _. . illegal occupation of Namibi;a:by racist SoUth Africa? xDo they not realize that the' very reputation and effectiveness of the United Nations is at stake? Are‘they.not * aware Of the,fact that a,weakened-United Nations, 'one that is thus perceived, is .' harmfu1.W the,entire tiorld; indeed to its security?,.Do they not understand that it is a betrayal of the Charter? .Ahd, if'those Members of the Council-do,realize all these factors, then what makes them veto and cast negative'votes again and again on an issue that is, unequivocal. Namibia must be,free. _. " The,historical perspective and structural manifestations of racism are responsible for apartheid in South Africa and-Namibiat ~they are responsiblx! for Pretoria's illegal occupation of Namibia; they'are responsible.for the continued aggression by 'racist arme'd forces iigainst'the People's Republic'of Angola and their ', i illegal occupation I since 1981; of parts of southernAngola; they are responsible for sabotage attempts against all the sovereign southern African States; they are responsible fok the creation and control of bandit groups in many southern African . States, UNITA and RENAC4O;~-which terrorire and kill the peaceful populations of those countries and destroy,or,damage the attempts for socio-economic % infrastructure and reconstructionbeing undertaken by these independent African States. I. , - The statement yesterUay,by the representative of the racist South African r&gime, is astounding in 'i&audacity , laughdble in’ its pathetic attempts to obfuscate the truth and depressing in its outright lie. (Mr. De Figueiredo, Angola) The racist representative of the Pretoria r6gime is perhaps under the illusion that this Council is meeting on the question of South African aggression against the People's Republic of Angola, which, indeed, remains on the agenda of the Council, and on which the Council has met innumerable times.' Perhaps the Pretoria representative can be apprised of the fact that the Council is meeting on the issue of independence for Namibia. Secondly, if the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) -depended on the People's Republic of Angola, I assure the CbUnCil and the world that Namibia would have long since been free, since 1978 to be exact. Who .is impeding implementation of 'this resolution is a matter of public 'and official record. Thirdly, and most important, perhaps the Council can ask the representative of 'the racist Pretoria r&gime, how come no such "ob8tacle", as he now Specifies, existed during negotiations on resolution 435 (1978) and its subsequent adoption, although nothing has changed in southern Africa? FourthlY, the racist rCgime's appeals, if they can by any stretch of the imagination be called that, are for concurrence with apartheid, with racist imperialist hegemony and with a return to colonialism. * : d How can the representative of the hated minority r$gime speak of peaceful resolution when every act of the apartheid r&gime is one of violence? When the racist rdgime denies the inhabitants of South Africa their most fundamental rights, &when it has wrested those rights away from the inhabitants of Namibia, when it . wiolates the rights of the independent citiiens of neighbouring States, is that not violence at? its most extreme and its.most cynical? When it attacks and illegally occupjes territories belonging to Member States of the United Nations, isthat not violence at its most dangerous? When it kills children, is that not wiolence at its most inhuman? When it seeks to place ridiculous arguments before the international communityr is that not violence at its most ridiculous - what a - modern philosopher has called “the banality of evil”? And when Pretoria imposes a’ state df emergency on its own inhabitants in order to control them more completely, is it not a constitutionalisation of violence: is it not violence at its most unnecessary? * With such organized, legislated, constitutional,ized wiolence and racism and racial discrimination as the ramparts’and foundati&s of the minority regime and its rule of privilege and power, the racist representative has the gall to express concern.ower a situation‘for which his r6gime.i~ responsible - the largest-scale State terrorism which is official Pretoria polidy in southern Africa and the . . attempts at destabilization of sowereign legal Governments, as well as the sabotage . .; . of national reconstruction efforts. ,.. . . : Pretoria’s contribution to Namibia is we&l known,‘..except that instead of the ‘. picture painted by the racist representative alJ’of us here are fully aware of the : true situation: the brutal exploitation of Namibia by Pretoria, the enslavement of its human resources, the plundering of its natural resources, the denial.of the inalienable rights of the Namibian people , the, murder of its children and the turning of Namibia into a slave camp for the,benefit of parasitic-Pretoria,! %'I fact, if there is going to be any talk of contributions 'the Council should&cord what Namibia has contributed to the Pretoria rhgime's prosperity anddeWe,lopment., The false COmpariSOn that the racist representative.seeks to.make between the people of,Namibia and Angola would be better served if he had ,categorically. compared the condition of the handful of minoritywhite, rulers of Namibia to the conditions of the vast majority of the suffering,Namibians.and South Africans. when the racist representative speaks of the responsibility Pretoria has assumed towards Namibians it 'bears isnalogy with the wolf safeguarding sheep for'a ,) : leisurely meal. In Pretoria's lexicon, *responsibility* is equated with illegal : occupation and a just and internationally recognized fight for'freedom is interpreted as "terrorisma, . It was no accident, of history or aberration of judgement that got the Pretoria regime suspended from the United Nations General Assembly; it was indeed just - .'j:" though nbt sufficient - punishment for the shameful acts of a founding Membei of . the United Nations. Justice would demand the expulsion of racist South Africa' from membership of the Unitied Nations. ' My delegation calls for a strong condemnation of the'pretoria r&ime for its ' " acts of violence and terrorism inside and outside South Africa, for its ,refusd tQ allow Namibian independence, for its refusal to,end its illegal occupation of parts of southern Angola, for its contravention of the mandatory resolutions of the,. Security COUnCil and for its refusal to observe the principles of the Unite,d j '. Nations Charter.. It is only just and right that, since it is the Charter that is . . being violated, it should be the Charter that is‘used to punish the violator; and there is no more just and correct punishment than the application of measures envisaged under the Charter's Chapter VII - full; comprehensive and mandatory sanctions. ; My delegation fully supports the draft resolution before the Council, in particular.its recuest to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to proceed immediately to arrange a cease-fire between SWAP0 and Pretoria and the implementation.of resolution 435, (1978), 1. should like to take this opportunity to express once again our complete solidarity with the Namibian people and its liberation movement SWAP0 and our complete and total opposition to and'abhorrence of the apartheid r6gime. I4ay we Angolans, with a deep knowledge of racism and apartheid, offer a warning to the international community that unless apartheid is swiftly and completely stamped out and dismantled inside South Africa there will be no peace in southern Africa. As long as the Pretoria r6gime continues to be a threat to peace in southern Africa and a threat to the safety and well-being of the majority of South Africais inhabitants, internationalist comrades like our-Cuban friends will continue to be needed. And if after the dismantling of internal colonialism South Africa needs doctors, engineer,s, technicians and teachers, perhaps our internationalist friends could oblige. Until the genuine liberation of Namibia , until the complete destruction of apartheid, until the cessation of Pretoria's State terrorism, a luta continua; a vitoria e certa. : The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Angola for the kind words he addressed' to me.. Mr. BELOIUOGOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): First of all,'Sir, allow ine to welcome you in the post of President of the Security Council. Now that the month of October has almost drawn to its close, we have all the more reason to express our satisfaction at your skilled guidance of the work of the.Council, which is promoted by your great diplomatic experience and your sincere aspiration to see to it that the activities of this most important body of the United Nations are successful and fruitful. We are grateful also to Mr. Victor Gbeho of Ghana for his outstanding work in presiding over the Council in the month of September. The ouestion of the exercise by the people of Namibia of its inalienable right to self-determination, independence and the territorial integrity of its country have been discussed in .the United Nations, from practically the day of its founding. Can such a situation be considered as worthy of our Organization, of the entire international community? The blame for the fact that the people &Namibia has up till now been under the colonial yoke of South Africa should be on the consciences of those who deliberately, continually and stubbornly block the application against the racists, the occupiers of Namib!a, of .the re'levant provisions of the United Nations Charter and resort to the use of the veto in the. security Council on the ouestion of adopting against the .Pretoria r6gime comprehensive and mandatory sanctions under Chapter e'r of the United Nations Charter. , , (Mr. Belonogov, USSR) The whole world knows full well that Namibia’s accession to independence has been delayed for such a shamefully long time only because of the clear connivance of a few Western States. Those who have spoken before me , the representatives of,the front-line African countries, of other States of Africa and of countries of other. continents have drawn atte&ion to the extremely alarming situation in and around Namibia-. A theme of almost all the statements has been indignation and profound concern over the artificidily created helplessness of the United Nations to implement its own decisions providing for the exercise by the Namibian people of its right to independence. - The Security Councills attention has once again been drawn to the brutality of the,racist r&gime of Pretoria to the people of Namibia and the increase in its acts Of violence against the civilian population of that Territory. The South Aft&an occupying forces are destroying Namibian villages, burning harvests in the fields, acting inhumanly against the indigenous population, including children, old.people, womenr and church-and public officials, and arresting and gaoling black workers without trial or investigation. Taking advantage of the support and connivance of their Western protectors, the racists of Pretoria keep Namibia in their grip and use its.- territory to carry Out SCtS of aggress&on and destabilization against the neighbouring independent African States, including Angola, Mozambique and Zambia. According to existing data, in Angola alone , the undeclared war unleashed against the Republic by the Pretoria r&gime and its puppets, represented by UNITA, have already cost the lives Of tens of. thousandsof? Angolan citizens. Thousands of children have become orphans and the country has-suffered material damage assessed at billion8 Of dollars. Recently, the South African r&gime has &gain stepped up its military activity .,. : ( I .t 1 _ :_ in the south and south-east.of Angola and South African troops have been ',, ,._.~. 4, concentrated in the north of Namibia. Is this not evidence of South African ', i ' preparations to expand,the scale of its invasion in the south of Angola? .', “,": The Soviet'Union Shares-Angola's concern , as expressed in, the statement of the Ministry of External Relations of the People's Republic of Angola of 16 October, in connection with the stepping up of,South Africa's aggressive actions. By its aggressive policy and military actions , the apartheid regime is creating a threat ,' to international peace and secutity,. We cannot fail to point~out that an 1. .,. ,, ; escalation of tension.in the 6outh of the continent is fraught with serious consequences not only for the black but also for the white population of South '. Africa. This, too, should not be forgotten inter alia by those that are protecting ,' ., the raCfst r&gime of South Africa. -The SOV'iet Union vigorously rejects the policy of delaying the granting of ./ .' independence to Namibia and 14nking. it with'extraneous issues. Weoppose with _. . '. equal V%gOUr theattempts of South Africa to resolve the Namibian problem, side-stepping the UnitedsWations ,-through the so-called internal settlement and the creation of a puppet government. *, ,_.I The time has long been ripe to shift from a- '. L-,1. policy of linkage to a policy of solutions, to practical steps aimed at cutting the Namibian knot, to defusing the explosive situation in the south of the African continent. The Soviet, Union believes that a just settlement in southern Africa can and’mustbe ,achieved by-political means. ,. / I ,'I In the interest of ensuring the.speedy independence of Namibia; it is : extfemely iIIIpOrta& to expand without any delay the‘role of the United-Nations, in particular that of the Security Council and the Secretary-General and his Special Representative in the settlement of the Namibian problem, so that through (Mr. Belonogov, USSR) : its Western protectors South Africa will be -’ ‘: ’ I ‘, _’ intensified pressure on Pretoria and forced to take into account the will of the people of Namibia and of the overwhelming majority of States of the world, as expressed in the relevant decisions of the Security Council; the United Nat& and the Organization]of : African Unity. . fn tha‘t connection, the Security Council should consider a renewal of the work . ". of its sub-committee on Namibia, which could, on a regular basis, follow the development of the situation in the Territory , report on it to the Security Council and deal with the search for ways and means to ensure speedy implementation Of reSOlUtion 435 (1978). We believe that the United Nations and the Security Council - bear the major responsibility for the rapid decolonization of Namibia. We are ' firmly convinced that the United Nations ‘is'in a position to carry out this role, acting in accordance with the Charter. The defusing of the conflict situation in . the southern part of Africa would contribute to the establishment of the bases for a comprehensive system of'international peace and security. Peace and security are needed by all peoples, including the peoples of southern Africa. As Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev emphasized inhis article entitled "The reality and guarantees of a'secure World“, 'the world cannot be considered secure if human rights are violated in it . . . if a large part of this world has no elementary conditions for a life worthy of man." The Soviet Union once again states that it does not support the thesis according to which the worse it is, the better it is, inasmuch as that would mean new Suffering for people and new victims, and in the future the possibility of an explosion with consequences difficult to predict. . Our country is ready to talk with all who, not in words but in deeds, aspire :. I to a just and honest political settlement in Namibia and in southern Africa as.a whole. However, the problem lies in the fact that, judging by all the signs, South Africa and the forces that support it are apparently not ready for such talks. Pretoria continues to rely on force as far as its own people are concerned, on force in its relations with occupied Namibia and on force in its relations with neighbouring front-line States. . (Mr. Belonoqov, USSR) It i‘s perfectly'natural that, in such conditions , the national liberation movements represented by the African National Congress (ANC) and the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) have no choice other than to counter the military might and terror of the Pretoria racists with their own struggle - h struggle of the multi-million population of South Africa and Namibia for the elimination of apartheid, the establishment of a free, multi-racial, democratic State and the proclamation of Namibia's independence. It is clear to any unbiased person that it is precisely the terror practised in Namibia by the racists that is forcing the Namibians to take up arms, to leave their motherland and to seek shelter in neighbouring countries. The Soviet Union firmly supports the decisions of the United Nations and other international forums on the question of the speedy granting of independence to Namibia and the elimination of the system of apartheid. We support their decisions and appeals for comprehensive material and moral support and assistance to the anti-colonial, anti-racist struggle of oppressed peoples. In accordance with'the decisions Of the United Nations and other forums, 'the Soviet‘Union will continue to render full support to the just struggle of the Namibian people for its national self-determination and independence - a struggle it is waging under the leadership of SWAPO, recognized by the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity as the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia.. Based on that position of principle, the Soviet Union will vote in favour Of the draft resolution submitted to the security Council by the non-aligned countries. We hope that the adoption of the draft resolution will be a practical step towards strengthening the role of the United Nations, including-the Security Council, and the,Secretary-General of the Organization in the settlement of the Namibian problem, and that it will open the way to the application of concrete _: measures to implement the United Nations plan on Namibia, contained Sn resolution . 435 (1978). _ ." I'Should like to end by quoting the following passage from the article, to which I have already referred, written by,Mikhail Gorbachev in connection with the opening of the forty-second session,of the General Asse:mbly: "The United Nations Charter gives extensive powers to the,SeCuritY . . Council., But joint efforts are required to ensure that it can use them ,. . I ,.. . ,..;. 1 effectively". - ., That is precisely what the Soviet Union would wish to see done. : : .,

I thank the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for his kind words addressed to me. Mr. ADDUEI (Congo) (interpretation from French): The African Group, on, behalf of which the Permanent Representative of Madagascar, supported by the Chairman of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, submitted his request, is infinitely grateful to youI Mr. President; for having convened the present series of Security Council meetings. ~'_' For the delegation of the Congo, as an African country and as,a mem,ber of the Secur.ity Council, this is the outstanding public opportunity to pay a tribute t0 YOUl Mr. President. Therefore, it is my great pleasure, because of the links of , 4 friendship between your country, Italy, and mine, the Congo, to congratulate YOU and to assure you again of my delegation's co-operation. .- :* j i. To your predecessor, last month's President of the Security Council, my brother and friend Ambassador Victor Gbeho, I would say that the exercise of his mandate was very worthy of his great qualities and his experience as an - ,,. ., I ..Z.” I :p:.s (Mr. Adouki, Congo) accomplished &l&&t. Ambassador Gbeho well deserves the gratitude of the SeCUrii$ GoUncilt Ghana, his country; and Africa as a whole. I therefore congratulate him once again. WhiIi’-th‘e: bnth of Odtober this year marks the eleventh commemoration of the Week of Solidarity with the Namibian People and its Liberation Movement, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the Security Council, for its part, has resumed the never-ending debate on the question of Namibia. At the present stage , all the elements/ail the components of this political puzzle which for almost 21years now has been a cancer of international life, are well known and identified. The situation of the Territory of Namibia remains resolutely'colonial. That Territory, with the support of the international community, must exercise without any further delay its right to self-determination and independence. . . , .The Secretary-General's reports - whether the one dated 31 March 1987 or the further one'dated 27'&tober 1987 and issued as document S/19234 - make it clear thatherk is no major question that should delay the process of the decolonization of Namibia decided upon by the Security Council. In that respect, resolutions 435 (1978)‘ of 29 September 1978, and 439 (1978), of 13 November 1978, are decisive in terms of their effects on the objective - namely, the immediate independence of Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO. Unfortunately, the arrogance of South Africa, which is aware that it has large Western support, has imposed and continues to impose an unusual approach to Namibia - an approach which is of no use to Africa and the free peoples of the world. The theory and practice of linkage , under which.extraneous considerations - the Cuban troops in Angola - are regarded as'a factor in the settlement Of the Namibian question are totally unacceptable and stupid. The allies of South Africa '. must be aware of that - those allies which contribute to giving South Africa this I;-', means of evasion and in fact are opposing Namibia's independence, thereby seriously L undermining the Security Council's credibility. ./ The outstanding assessment of the situation in Namibia made by Mr. ken Gurirab, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of SBAPO, in his statement to the Security Council deserves our consideration and respect. It opens up serious PrOSpeCts for enabling the Council to extricate itself from the present impasse. This statement by SWAPO'serves to strengthen the efforts by the Secretary-General, which are reflected in his recent reports on the question of Namibia and w&h my country wishes to encourage. . ‘. ‘! (Mr. A%ouki, Congo) ',.,C . . . I I. . . That is &hy, although it is.in opposibion to the decisions, which it supported; of '&e Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and of the summit meeting of . non&aligned countries, which unanimously call for the application of comprehensive mandatory sanctionsagainst South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter, my country has put its.name to the draft resolution now before the Council for consideration. It must be understood by its action Congo is in no way endorsing Pretoria's apartheid policy or its policy of'aggression against the front-line States. MY country condemns those policies and resolutely supports liberation movements in South Africa and the struggle of the South African people. The international community and the Security Council cannot continue indefinitely to cope with South Africa's challenge. It is more than time, nine Yeats after the adoption of the United Nations peace plan for Namibia, at last to begin the real process that will lead the Territory to independence=

I thank the representative-of the Congo for the kin% words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Botswana. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement., Mr. DEGWMLA (Botswana)r I congratulate you most sincerely,:Sir, on your presidency of the Council for the month of October, The same sentiments go in like measure to your predecessor , my friend the Ambassador of Ghana, who guided the work, of the Council last month. That Namibia remains illegally occupied by South Africa almost 10 long years after the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is unquestionably a scandal of historic proportions. This is even more true when account is taken of the tens of hundreds of innocent lives that have been waste% in Namibia over these years; an% of the tens of hundreds, if dot thousands, more in theneighbouring (Mr. Legwaila, Botswana) States, for which Namibia, because of South Africa's presence there, has become source of endless aggression and death. The question which the people of Namibia and of the regionof southern Aft&a a8a whole-have every right to ask the Council is very simple: what use-.fs to be derived from resolution 435 (1978) if it. cannot be implemented, if it cannot serve the purpose for which it was adopted by the Council nearly 10 years ago? We have, however, asked for this meeting not to determine the fate of resolution 435 (1978), but to see if there isat,long last a.willingness on the Part Of the Security Council to implement the resolution to pre-empt its'death.by neglect. We are hers to plead seriously for action ,’ to remind thecc>unciI that it Still owes the people of Namibia a debt of honour which is far too long overdue. ." The people of Namibia do not have the patience of an elephant. They haveto get on with their war of liberation without being distracted by dishonest.promises of pesceful evolution to freedom and independence through the instrumentality of an I independence plan which the Council has shown an embarrassing reluctance:to implement. They are sick and tired of waiting for old promises to be fulfilledti ': There is no question about the commitment of the South West Africa People's -: ‘Organisation (SWAP01 and the front-line States to the implementatlon:of resolution, 435 (1978). We have spared no effort to demand its implementation. For us, the resolution should.have been implemented nine years agoI in 1978r after it was ’ adopted by the Security Council. Every one of those nine years has been too costly for our region in every conceivable sense. They have been years of death and*- I :-.. .: misery, not Only f Or the people of Namibia but for the region asa whole. WC. wzjnt; ali this to come to an end. But are South Africa and the Security Council as committed aswe. are to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978)? Indeed , we are surprised that the Security Council has thus far failed to agitate for the implementatian of .. L- ,” ‘.’ * . *c . . (Mr. Legwaila, Botswana) I.. . -. - resolution 435 (1978), despite the settlement of all the so-called outstanding iSSUeS, including in particular the issue of the electoral system to'be employed in the conduct of the elections in Namibia. ' Has the Council been recruited to the linkage bandwagon?~ Why the deference-to Pretoria's sensibilities on an i&sue - an irrelevant issue -'whichha& been rejected by the Council? Has the Security Council now resigned itself to cohabiting in peace and harmony with the impertinent linking of Namibia's independence to the presence of Cuban troops in the neighbouring independent and sovereign State of&Angola? We have every right to ask those.que$tions. South Africa's refusal to implement resolution 435 (1978) is a known fact, but what about the Security Council? Why the deafening silence, despite the fact that no reason exists anymore to justify the non-implementation of resolution 435 (1978)? The people of Namibia deserve answers to these questions, and we are here to,get those answers. Whataabout the Western Five, the famous - or infamous - contact group,'the godfathers of the United'Nations plan for Namibia? Where are they? Have they Come t0 suspect that because resolution 435 (1978) would have produced a truly free and independent Namibia, its implementation is consequently not in their interest? We are..not accusing them.of'bad faith, yet we deem it our right to suspect the ‘ original.motlve &their initiative back in 1977 which gave birth to resolution 435. (1978). Why'have they not insisted on the implementation of's plan they laboured so hard to bring to life? Why? Why the,silence, the indifference, the hibernation? The Security Council must redeem its honour. It must not allow South Africa and its friends,to ruin its image. It must not force the people of Namibia and the world at large to lose faith in.it. It must not allow a tiny minority of its members to transform it, the Council, into the worthless paper factory it has often been accused of having degenerated into. I said earlier that we have come here not to determine the fate of resolution. 435 (1970) but to see if the Security Council., nearly 10 years after the adoption Of that resolution, is at long last ready to proceed, without any prevarication or excuses, with the implementation of the resolution. The parties to the Naxibian isSUe, South Africa and SWAP0 - South Africa, of. course, with bad faith - have now agreed on the electoral system to be used in the elections to be conducted and cokolled by the United Nations. All the other so-called outstanding issues were settled in August 1982, settled between SWAP0 , the front-line States and-the.. contact groupr before it went into hibernation. . ._ .'. (Mr. Legwaila, Botswana) It was agreed then that, on agreement being reached by the parties on the > '1 t:+ electoral system to be used in the elections, the Secretary-General would be . , informed and the President of the Security Council would be called upon to convene a meeting of the Council for the purpose of adopting a resolution by which the * implementation of resolution 435 (1978) would be triggered off. This is what we are here for - to implore the Council, on our knees, to live up .to its responsibilities to the long-suffering people of Namibia by implementing a plan .' which has the potential of saving them from the traumas of a protracted war of liberation. Our region is in no need of pious ideological posturings by outsiders. We want freedom and peace for Namibia , South Africa and the region as a whole, not hegemonistic souabbles by outsiders over spheres of influence over us. We reject with contempt any suggestfon that southern Africa is a pliable and mindless candidate for external ideological influence-peddling and proselytizing. We want to be free of all foreign influences which complicate our lives. What we want is freedom for our people, peace and stability, not foreign influences antagonistic to our own way of life. The Security Council must realize that too much is at stake in southern Africa. The continued occupation,of Namibia by South Africa must not be taken ', lightly, even by those whose sympathies may lie with that racist country. The Council must understand clearly that without a solution to the Namibian question a solution to the question of apartheid would become a pipe dream. That is why the Pretoria regime would not allow implementation of resolution 435 (1978). It knows that apartheid South Africa will become the sole focus of international attention and pressure once resolution 435 (1978) is implemented and Namibia is allowed to .- proceed to.independence..L The Council must not allow the dgime to continue to use Namibia as, a protective shield for the.perpetuation of the intolerable:-atatus quo . . ../.,’ Our..agitation for the,implementation'of resolution 485 (1978) is thus inspired by more than a mere yearning on our part for a speedy.end to bloodshed.and Suffering -in Namibia::- it is inspired, most importantly, by our belief that,South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia carries in it the seeds of a more catastrophic Situat~ion. in southern Africa; the consequences of which the wor.ld has yet to experience. This is no empty bluster.. The Council must not make the grave mistake Of thinking that the countries of southern-Africa, whose brutalisation by the South African r&fine most cf the Western world has greeted with,pious pledges .-. of sympathy and understanding,'will allow themselves to die without trying, as they must, to survive. I say to representatives: "Some of you may detest the presence Of Cuban troops in Angola, but you haven't seen anything yet* if by your action or inaction you are going to continue to be so permissive towards South Africa% brutal rape Of the People's Republic-of Angola, or of anybody else. in the region.* Angola must'survive - and ,it will - with the.assistance, if need be,'of anyone it chooses in the exercise of its sovereignty. We all must survive in the region - and survive we'will - with the assistance, if need be of even the devil himself. Those who side with the. enemies of the people of.Angola cannot claim to have the interests of Angola or of our region at heart.' It is all rudimentary common . sense. Those who fuel the conflict in Angola are enemies of peace in our region, especially as they combine their destabilization of Angola with the unconscionable. denial af independence to Namibia. “ : _. . . Namibia'ilreedom is long'!overdue. -Angola's peace anti stability andthe t:':,*‘ J:, enjoyment by-.?.$s *people..of their hard-wonindependence has for too long .&en': .'.x;:-:.., ' denied. The region as a whole has long been bereft of the tranquillity it so ,much _,! deserves,if.-#&is to get down to, the task"of nation-bu.ilding and-the pursuit of happiness and:aprosperfty for%ll'fts peoples, . _* :. ., : , ,. r I, ),' And SO-.we ask the Council $0 rise to. the occasion, 'to respond constructively -'I and with a determined sense,'of purpose.and mission tozPthe: cries of:the people Of Namibia for .freedom, forso long-denied them,:-We call :for. the implementation..- the / speedy implementation - of resolution 435 .(1978.). ,Anything less wouldbe a I ,;x ,1 tragedy,.not only for Namibia and. southern Africa, but.for the,Council@s utility . r: and efficacy, I Do.not,allow this premier organ of the United.Nations to become a : laughing-stock to both its supporters and its detractors. '_ " The Council has the potential to act decisively.to seize the golden opportunity which resolution 435 (1978) has presented all these years - the .' opportunity to decolonize Namibia without further bloodshed. The permanent members in particular have shown that they can act,together. The impressive solidarity of intent and purpose they.. have; recently.displayed on the Iran-Iran issue would not be out of order on the question of Namibia. Imagine the cathartic.effect of the symbolism of an appearance on television by the permanent members of the Council, with the Secretary-General standing in their midst, agitating for-implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and threatening dire conseouences if South Africa blocked such implementation. .Imagine.how much that could do for the morale of-the people of Namibia, They would very much appreciate such a display of solidarity with them. Their morale would receive a needed boost. Yet all we shall soon hear from some 'members of the Council, which we have not heard, of course, on the-question of the Gulf, is that threatening South Africa with dire consequences for refusing to implement resolution 435 (19781 is a resolution 435 (1978), as if only South Africa in our region had security concerns , . ,, that must be addressed. We shall be treated to a staple diet of diversions, : .'._ .I i . diversions from concentrating on the question of Namibia to discussing the internal ,.' ., e... .,I ..i '. _ affairs of Angola. .,) .' '. ._, The selective morality practised here is unbelievable. Deadlines issued by ;' I the Council are the, order of the day in the case of the Gulf conflict, while in the case of South Africa's arrogant defiance of the Council's injunctions the veto is readily invoked - with indecent haste, I must add - to block even a modicum Of . * : action by the Council. There is even a campaign in certain quarters that the '_ : ". apartheid cow must be fattened first in order to encourage South Africa to be amenable to reason. What logic! And is it not utterly incredible and unconscionable that the representative of a Government which has under merciless subjugation 28 million people in South Africa should appear'in the Council and piously pontificate about mercy and compassion for.'the plight of the people of Angola* (s/PV.2757,p.22)? What does South Africa know about mercy and compassion for the black man? What about the daily suffering of the people of South Africa , whose only crime is to strive peacefully to be free in their own land? Is it not also true that whatever sorry plight the people of Angola are 1 , .. enduring has resulted in large measure from Pretoria's repeated invasion and destabilization of Angola? -i , ., . . ( citing as an example the exploding anti-personnel mine incident on 23 October in ,.'. OWambo; which killed three'children. Please let us.be'honestr' will‘the Council . I ' ', .~ ever know the number of the children of southern Africa as‘a whole - not only of - South Africa - whose young, innocent lives have been brutally snuffed out by the . I- South African police and nocturnal commandos? Will we ever'know the exact number .' '. of those children who have been murdered in cold blood by South African commandos ., ~ * coming into the front-line States under cover of darkness? Among the innocent victims of Pretoria.6 brutal raid on the capital of my own country in 1985 was a six-year-old child who did not even know what the initials "ANC" stood for. Be was murdered on the suspicion that he was a leading member of the African National Congress (ANC) plotting subversion and terrorism from the capital of my country! WOW merciful and compassionate was that heinous act of State terrorism, we ask? South Africa is .at war. I see that in his statement the representative of South Africa said that South Africa was not at war, not even with SWAPO. South Afr.ica is at war. That is a fact. South Africa is at war not only with its own people in South Africa, where‘people are being mowed down every day, but with the ;..' ;I I people of Namibia, Angola and everybody else in southern Africa, and we want the blood-letting to stop. As a start let us have a cease-fire in Namibia. Let us - allow the people of Namibia to proceed to independence without delay. Everything will then follow. It is true that international attention and pressure will then be focused on the racist r&gime itself. We do not want to leave anybody in any doubt that the independence of Namibia would relieve the rigime in South Africa of the pressure for change, meaningful change, not reforms. If we allow Namibia to proceed to independence as a start , South Africa will also have to change. Only then will our-region , the region of southern Africa I at long last begin to go about fulfilling the callings of all its peoples, white and black, in peace, freedom and stability. The PRESIDEWT: I thank the representative of Botswana for the kind words he 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 the consideration of the item on the agenda will take place at 3 p.m. today. The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.