S/PV.2876 Security Council
I should like to inform the
Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Angola, Cameroon,
Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, South Africa, the United Republic of.Tanzania
and Zambia in which they request to be invited ti 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 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. Gbeho (Ghana) took a place at the
Council table, Mr. Diakenga Serao (Angola), Mr. Rngo (Cameroon), Mr. Oramas Oliva
(Cuba), Mr. Dadawi (Egypt), Mr. Diakite (Mali), Mr. Garba (Nigeria), Mr. Shearar
(South Africa), Mr. Mongella (United Republic of Tanzania) and Mr. Zuze (Zambia)
took the places reserved for them at'the side of the Council Chamber.
The Security Council will
now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is
meeting in response to the requests contained in two letters dated 10 August1989
from the Permanent Representatives of Ghana and Zinbabwe to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Security Council, documents S/20779 and S/20782,
respectively.
I should like to draw the attention of metiers of the Council to the following
documents: S/20784, letter dated 10 August 1989 from the Permanent Pepresentative
of Zimbabwe to the United Nations addressed to the Secretar;-General; and S/20788,
letter dated 15 August 1989 from the Permanent Representative of South Africa to
,~ the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.
The first speaker is the representative of Ghana, who wishes to make a
statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of African States for the month
of August.
Mr. C;BEIB (Ghana): I should like to begin my statement before the
Council with an expression of sincere congratulations to you, Sir, on your
assumption of the very important office of President of the Security Council for
the month of August. As an illustrious son of Africa who has achieved this
distinction, you fill us with justifiable pride. I have-no doubt that your
accomplishments as a diplomat and negotiator will benefit the Council immensely.
May I take this opportunity to offer my thanks and appreciation to His
Excellency Mr. Dragoslav Pejic of Yugoslavia for his successful leadership of the
Council during the month of July.
I have come before the Council today in my capacity as Chairman of the Group
of African States at the United Nations to express the Group's serious concern at
the current situation in Namibia as the Territory continues preparations for its
independence. The African Group has turned to the Council because it was this body
which mandated the transitional process in the Territory and also ensured the
involvement of the United Nations Transition Group (UNTAG).
(The President)
In short, we wish to draw the Council's urgent attention'to current conditions
in the Territory which, in our considered view , militate against the achievement of
the objectives of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We are here to request
the Council urgently to reassess the situation in Namibia with a view to further
exercising its powers and influence for ensuring free and fair elections in the
Territory.
However, let me first convey the appreciation and gratitude of the African
Group for the creditable work that the Secretary-General,
Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, and his staff continue to perform in respect of
Namibia. The difficulties that they have encountered since the transitional
process began are colossal and the limited success achieved so far commendable. We
are nevertheless here today to entreat the Council to do a little more to support
and enhance the efforts of the Secretary-General so that there is an assurance not
only of the holding of elections by a certain date but also a guarantee that all
asp&S of the electoral process will be beyond reproach.
When an Agreement was signed by Angola, Cuba and South Africa on
22 December 1988, that event ushered in a prospect for peace such as the Territory
of Namibia had never experienced before. The Agreement committed the countries in
the region, including the Republic of South Africa, to co-operate with the
Secretary-General to ensure the independence of Namibia through free and fair
elections. It was accepted - and the Council endorsed it - that the process
leading to the independence of Namibia should be in accordance with Security
Council resolution 435 (1978). That resolution and subsequent resolutions of the
Council have cons'istently maintained'that the electoral process should be free and
fair, and that it should be under the supervision and control of the
Secretary-General and his Special Representative in the Territory.
After a serious and careful assessment of the situation in Namibia, the
African Group considers it its bounden duty to inform the Council that, four whole
months after its commencement, the electoral process is still neither free nor fair
and that the actions of South Africa, through its Administrator-General, have
virtually diminished the authority of the Special Representative rather than
assisted him to be an effective controller. Almost routine departures from agreed
procedures have,continued over a long period.
The African Group could have turned to the Council earlier but for the fact
that the Secretary-General had scheduled a visit to the Territory in July, and the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), the relevant regional organization, had also
planned to discuss the same matter at the.recently held summit meeting in
Ethiopia. It was decided, in the circumstance , that any action should await the
completion of those two events. Both have now taken place and, regrettably, the
situation in Namibia does still not augur well for the holding of free and fair
elections. It has become necessary to call the urgent attention of the Council to
this unsatisfactory and dangerous situation in order to ensure justice to all
parties in the remaining period of the electoral process.
The first major concern of the African Group is the continued presence and
violent activities of the erstwhile South African counter-insurgency unit known 'as
Koevoet. Let me quote the Secretary-General on this unhappy situation. In his
address to the twenty-fifth summit meeting of the Organization of African Unity, in
Addis Ababa on 24 July 1989 he said:
"Regrettably, these provisions have not been fully respected. First, after / / I the dibandment of the counter-insurgency unit, Koevoet, certain elements of
that unit were absorbed into the South West Africa Polioe (SWAPOL). In the
years preceding implementation of the United Nations plan, Koevoet had earned
an evil reputation in northern Namibia. UNTAG has clearly established that
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
ex-Koevoet elements in SWAFOL have not adjusted to the new political situation
in Namibia and have continued to harass and intimidate the civilian
population. They are not suitable for continued employment in the police
fOrCe under the terms of the United Nations plan. Furthermore, the use by
SWAEOL, especially the ex-Koevoet elements , of the armoured personnel carriers
known as CASSPIRS and of the heavy machine-guns , is clearly contrary to the
settlement plan's stipulation that the 'police should be lightly armed'."
As a result of the efforts deployed by the Secretary-General and his Special
Representative, the Secretary-General reports that some progress has been made in
this area. However, the international media and numerous eye-witness accounts of
events in Namibia in the last few days , confirm that elements of Koevoet are still
murdering, maiming and g'enerally harassing rural dwellers , especially supporters of
the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) , with the obvious intention of
compelling them'to switch political support.
In addition to recognizing that the unlawful and evil activities of the
dreaded Koevoet constitute a threat to life, limb and property, the Council must
also agree that the integration of elements of that unit into the South West Africa
Police (SWAFOL) is contrary to the terms of resolution 435 (1978) and also unwise,
considering the-terrible reputation of the Koevoet. Even more'important is the
fact that if the harassment continues unchecked it would doubtless affect many
Namibians psychologically, especially the simple peasants and other rural dwellers, I
in a manner that could impact adversely on the elections in November. Of course,
this is the objective of the Koevoet, for whose activities the I Administrator-General and'South Africa are responsible.
The Council is under no obligation to be party to this infraction of
resolution 435 (1978). Indeed, as the Secretary%eneral said in the statement I
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
referred to earlier, and the African Group agrees with him totally:
II . . . there must be full compliance with the settlement'plan's provisions
relating to the police."
The Council is obliged to uphold this important view. Any reported intention of
the Administrator-General to have Koevoet elements confined will still not meet the
requirement of resolution 435 (1978) because the Koevoet unit was supposed to have
been disbanded and its command structure dismantled. The recently announced
measures by the Administrator-General fall short of the requirements of resoltition
435 (1978) and therefore cannot be accepted.
The second matter of concern to the African Group , and which also requires the
urgent attention of the Council , centres cn the loop-hole in the recent Voter
Registration Proclamation which allows South African nationals to register and to
vote in the forthcoming elections.
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
.In May this year the Government of South Africa, through its
Administrator-General in Namibia, published a draft Registration of Voters Law
(AG19) 1989, which provided for the registration and voting of non-Namibians in the
proposed elections for the Constituent Assetily. Quite apart from the imprudence
of allowing only 21 days for the submission of comments on the draft before it
becomes law, the Administrator-General proceeded to ignore all reasoned connnents
made by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the churches and the
trade unions by finalizing the draft law and promulgating it; Information
emanating from Namibia indicates that this law has enabled a host of South Africans
and other foreigners to be registered to vote in the Constituent Assembly elections.
The draft Constituent Assembly Proclamation of 21 July 1989 in Section 4(l)
states that:
"Any person whose name appears on the register of voters and who is of or
over the age of twenty-ale years and is not subject to a qualification
mentioned in subsection (2) shall be qualified to be elected, or to be a
member of, the Assembly."
This broad definition of who is qualified to be elected to the Constituent Assembly
surely goes beyond the wording of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which
Provides in paragraph 6 of the Western proposal (S/12636) that "every adult
Namibian" shall be eligible to stand for elections. The only point at issue in
that recommendatory provision is who is a Namibian. In'the absence of a legal
mean ing , because current Namibian citizenship as such does not exist, it should by
any reasonable inference exclude (a) citizens of other countries and '(b) persons
who, although born in Namibia, have either taken up permanent residence elsewhere
or have transferred their allegiance by taking foreign citizenship, serving in the
armed forces of another country or voting in foreign elections.
(Mr; Gbeho, Ghana)
Amendments to the present law are therefore necessary if we are to stem the
Present rush to register by South African erstwhile soldiers and civil servants who
have served in the administration, armed forces or police-in Namibia. Their
,purpose, of course, is to frustrate the electoral process which the Council and the
international community insist should be free and fair. The Council therefore
should act to Stop this practice because it is unfair to the people of Namibia and
the electoral process itself.
The African Group would like also to draw the particular attention of the
Council ti some important aspects of the series of draft proclamations recently
issued by the Administrator-General because they constitute a subtle attempt at
excluding a substantial number of SWAP0 members , especially its leadership, from
registering, being qualified to be elected or voting in the proposed elections.
Such an attempt is forbidden by resolution 435 (1978) and no proclamation should
make it legal.
The subsections of Section 4(2) of the draft Constituent Assembly, for
example, bar persons from serving who should be eligible for membership of the i Assenbly. Section 4(2) (a), to be precise , states that no person shall be qualified
to be elected to, or to be a member of, the Assen-bly if he
"has'been anvicted of an offence referred to in Schedule I of the Criminal'
Procedure Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977)'.
Of course Schedule I of Act 51 specifically includes not only the poliical crimes
of treason and sedition, but also "any offence" punishable by a term of -_ t imprisonment of more than six months without the option of a fine. The
interpretation of the phrase "any offence" by the South African authorities,
notably the Administrator-General, is that it covers all political offences.
Surely this was not the intention of resolution 435 (1978).
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
In assessing this clause I ask the Council to bear in mind that a substantial
nutier of SWAPO's most active supporters in Namibia have been convicted by South
Africa of political crimes. This was the unavoidable part of the political
StrUggl$ for independence which the Council understands and now wishes to settle
through the plan for the independence of Namibia. Indeed, many refugees had fled
the Territory at some time or other in order to avoid constant harassment after
serving a term for such an offence. If this provision were therefore to remain
law, many of SWAPO's most prominent metiers, including for example Ibivo ya Toivo,
who spent several years in gaol because of his nationalism, would be disqualified.
Nor is that the end of the attempt by South Africa to deal an indirect blow 'to
one of the parties, SWAPO, in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). Section
4(3) (a) states that
"a person who has been granted a free pardon shall be deemed not to have been
convicted of the offence in respect of which he has been pardoned".
This otherwise generous and logical provision is, however, intended to delude. A
careful examination would reveal that it is of no benefit to many SWAP0 members who
have been convicted of political crimes since the anmesty recently granted to
returnees under Proclamation AG 13 of 1989 apparently does not constitute a
pardon.. P'urthermore, that amnesty applies only to returning refugees and not to
Namibians who remained in the Territory.
The Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not succeed in having
all such unfair clauses expunged-from the various draft proclamations, presumably
because resolution 435 (1978) confers responsibility for proclamations on the
Administrator-General only. Put we hold that such an attitude is in conflict with
the Council's directives that the Special Representative should "supervise and
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
control" the implementation of the said resolution. We call upon the Council in
,the circumstance to resolve the problem in favour of fairness and justice-&o all
parties.
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
The last point that I wish to make about the various proclamations now
obtaining in Namibia is the excessive power they vest in the
Administrator-General. In the matter of the functioning of the Constituent
Assembly, for instance, he has the authority to ignore the Assenbly's requests,
recommendations and proposals as to any course of action the Assembly desires to be
followed for the attainment of the sovereign independence of Namibia.
Section 2 (4), of the Constituent Assembly Proclamation states that:
"The Administrator-General shall not be obliged to give effect to any request,
recommendation or proposal submitted by the Assembly under subsection (3) ".
Subsection (3) allaws the Assembly to submit requests, recommendations and
proposals to the Administrator-General on
"any course of-action it desires to be followed or any steps it desires to be
taken with a view to the attainment of independence by the territory as a
sovereign state".
This means that all requests or proposals are at the total discretion of the
Administrator-General and do not have to meet certain established criteria or even
to represent the unanimous view of the Assexrbly.
If these two subsections stand as they are presently worded, then the
inference could be that Namibia can never gain independence unless the Constituent
Assembly drafts a constitution that is totally acceptable to the
Administrator-General. And we know what constitution would be-preferred by the
Administrator-General. Such a provision flies in the face of resolution 435 (1978)
and should be reconsidered.
I have presented some of the reasons that have led the African Group to
conclude that the plan for the independence of Namibia is not being faithfully
implemented. This finding echoes the general oonclusions of the people of Namibia,
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
the churches, trade unions and many impartial international observers. For
instance, a'united States-based conxnission on independence for Namibia, which is
jointly chaired by Senator Paul Simon, the Democratic Senator of the African
Sub-Committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Dr. Burke Marshall,
professor of law at Yale University and former Assistant Attorney-General for Civil
Rights in the United States Department of Justice , was reported by the newspaper
Namibian as having concluded after a study tour on 23 June that
"the United Nations supervision and control of South Africa's role in the
transitional period had hitherto failed to produce conclusive conditions that
are the prerequisite to free and fair elections called for in United Nations
Security Council resolution 435".
The international Catholic delegation to Namibia has stated, as reported in
its press release dated 28 July 1989 that
"by the time of our visit to Namibia in mid-July, disappointment at UNTAG's
role had been translated into distrust. At times when concerned UNTAG
personnel worked diligently under the constraining circumstances of the
UNTAG-South Africa agreements, this mistrust was misplaced. On other
OCCaSiOnS, when UNTAG were being hoodwinked by SWAFOL, were biased in their
judgement through lack of communication with the community, or found local
complaints not being pursued vigorously at higher level, distrust was more
than appropriate".
Menbers of that Catholic delegation were Robert Dumas, Adviser to the United
States Conference, from the United States, Bishop Edward Adams, of South Africa,
Sudthoorn; Khotso Kekana, press officer, South Africa Catholic Bishops Conference,
South Africa; and Ian Linden, General Secretary of the Catholic Institute for
International Relations, of the United Kingdom. . 3
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
The same delegation concluded:
*we listened attentively to Chief Inspector Brune, SWAFOL Liaison
Officer, and to the Administrator General as they attempted to justify the use
of Koevoet forces in SWAFOL. After -collecting detailed information on
KoevoetfiWAFOL in a number of areas, it is our conclusion that their
justification disguises either a cultivated ignorance of the systematic nature.
of human rights violations by SWAFOL or a deliberate political intent to keep
a militarised counter-insurgency force in operation in violation of
resolution 435".
It is a fact that the plan for independence of Namibia isnotworking well and
that the general political atmosphere in Namibia is polluted and discouraging.
The Secretary-General has informed the Council about what his efforts have so
far achieved, and we appreciate them enormously. But the question at this stage is
not whether Casspirs have been reduced from 380 to 60, nor whether some or211 of
the machine-guns mounted cn them have been removed. The fact is that Koeveot
elements are still in brutal and intimidating evidence in Namibia and must be
removed. The issue-is that the so-called progress registered still does not answer
to resolution 435 (1978), which demands full compliance.
We have come to'the Security Council to request that action be taken '.
immediately to address the unsatisfactory situation because its continuation will
frustrate Namibians, render the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) a sham and
hold the,United Nations, the Security &uncil included, to open ridicule.
Furthermore there can,be no one in'the Council who is not aware of the past record
Of South Africa on Namibia. The Administrator-General's action to obfuscate the
implementation of the plan is a deliberate strategy to undermine cne of.the patties
in the elections. In the name of decency and justice, he must not be allowed to
succeed.
In the face of this unacceptable and even dangerous situation in Namibia, I am
mandated by the African Group to request the Security Council to act urgently t0
ensure compliance with resolution 435 (1978) and to clear the political atmosphere
in the Territory. The Council's actions must preferably follow the following
recommendations:
First, to adopt a resolution that will ensure that the Secretary-General, the
Special Representative and UNTAG as a whole have the power to supervise and COntrol
events, especially the electoral process in Namibia;
Second, to firmly request South Africa and its Administrator-General,in
Namibia to urgently disband totally and dismantle the command structure of the
remaining Koevoet elements in SWAPOL and to end all forms of harassment Of
Namibians my metiers of that group; the announced reduction and the intention to
confine Koevoet are not terms that match the prequisites of resolution 435 (1978)e
Third, to urgently review all laws and draft proclamations currently obtaining
in the Territory, and bearing cn the plan for the independence of Namibia with a
view to requesting South Africa and the Administrator-General to remOve all clauses
that discriminate or give unfair advantage to ane or other of the parties involved;
Fourth, to request South Africa to withdraw all Casspirs from use by SWAmL,
and that specific concurrence of UNTAG should be required for any deployment Of .a
that vehicle.
Fifth, to ensure that sufficient and equal time is given to all political
parties on radio and television to educate the electorate and campaign for the
elections;
Sixth, to request South Africa and the Administrator-General to remove the
recent ban on the use of baptismal records for registration purposes by the Chief
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
Registration Officer, as a response to two or three isolated cases of falsification
of d=uments; in Namibia, as in most developing countries, the ban on this only
reliable record will lead to the unjustifiable exclusion of thousands of qualified
voters; .
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
Seventh, to review the laws pertaining to the actual conduct of elections with
a view to offering guidance on ensuring-secrecy and the elimination of loopholes
that might allow electoral malpractice; *
Eighth, to ensure that the present practice of South Africa and its
Administrator-General of undermining one of the parties ceases at once; and
Ninth, to consider seriously the need or otherwise of adjusting the cut-ff
date for the registration of voters in order to give those who have hitherto been
affected adversely by present laws and practices the opportunity to rectify their
status or condition.
The African Group must confess to being rather weary of the excuser and the
assurance, that South Africa will eventually adhere to the terms of the plan. If
the South African authorities have not adhered to the rules since April the
.liklihcod of their doing so voluntarily in the remaining two and a half months
before the elections is almost zero. That excuse helps the South African cause
more than it ensures the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). To delay further
would be to aid South Africa in cheating the system.
We place the difficult and delicate task before the Security Council in the
fuli knowledge that the Council is the ultimate authority on the transition of the
Territory of Namibia to independence. We implore metiers of the Council,
therefore, to call on their sterling qualities so as to save the people of Namibia
from trickery and treachery , and the United Nations as a whole from inaction and
condemnation.
States mexrbers of the African Group stand ready to offer all assistance within
their power and to work in harmonious and inspired collaboration with the Security
&U&il for the achievement of free and fair elections in Namibia.
(Mr. Gbeho, Ghana)
I thank the representative
of Ghana for the kind words he addressed to me.
The next speaker is the representative of Egypt, who wishes to make a
statement as current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity. I invite him
to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. BAUAWI (Egypt) (interpretaticn from Arabic)8 I am speaking today not
Only as representative of Egypt but also as Chairman of the Organisation of African
Unity (OAU).
I take this opportunity, Sir, to express our sincere congratulations to you on
your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council, the highest body
entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security. I am certain
that thanks to your great ability you will guide the work of the Council
effectively. I am well acquainted with your vast experience and political wisdom,
and I wish you all success in your tasks. Because of the links of Arab brotherhood
between our two countries, Algeria and Egypt , I am particularly proud to see you
occupying the presidency of the Security Council. I
I wish also to express our gratitude and appreciation to the Ambassador of
Yugoslavia, Mr. Dragoslav Pejic, for having guided the,work of the Council last
month with such wisdom and skill.
Today, the Security Council is discussing a question that goes back to the
very inception of the United Nations , one that was considered at the General
Assetily's first session. For more than four decades the General Assembly has been
adopting numerous resolutions on this subject. Many resolutions have been adopted
also by the Security Council and other principal organs of the United Nations.
The General Assembly's 1966.adoption of its historic resolution 2145 (XXI),
which put an end to South Africa's Mandate over the Territory and conferred upon
the United Nations direct responsibility for the administration of the Territory
until independence, was a vital step forward that was unprecedented in the history
of the world Organization.
The unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) crowned the
Organization's efforts to move towards the peaceful settlement of 'the question of
Namibia.enabling those who possess legitimate rights to exercise them and
contributing to the peace and security of an important region of Africa.
The international cornnunity welcomed that resolution and saw in it the single
internationally accepted pl.an to enable the Namibian people to exercise its right
to self+Ietermination and independence and to sovereignty over its natural wealth
and economic resources.
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) has shared the international
community's interest in the independence of Namibia , and it has been on the,OAU's
agenda since its inception. The OW believes that the freedom of the African
continent will be fully achieved only with the independence of Namibia. Like-the
rest of the international community, the OAU therefore welcomed the United Nations
plan to achieve that objective and actively supported diplomatic efforts to that
end, in order to bring about the implementation of the plan.
Although the international community agrees cn the need to implement the plan
in order to enable the Namibian people to exercise its right to freedom and
-independence, its practical implementation has met with obstacles. Diplomatic
efforts last year gave rise to the hope that we should be able to proclaim the
independence of Namibia and to give true effect to the United Nations plan as of
1 April 1989.
(Mr. Badawi, Egypt)
Egypt has supported every effort to lead Namibia to independence and to bring
peace and security to southern Africa. Thus, it welcomed the choice of Cairo as
venue for the first round of talks cn the implementation of Security Coh2il
resolution 435 (1978).
I
(Mr. Badawi, Egypt)
.
In Egypt we are proud of our participation, which we believe is only natural,
given ourcommitment to the just causes of Africa. Cairo's hosting the talks
represented the crowning of our efforts in support of the right of the Namibian
people to freedom and dignity , support that goes back to before the South West
Africa People's Organization (SWAPG) chose Cairo to open me of its first OffiCeS
abroad.
The international community; which is moving ever closer to the achievement of
its objectives, considers it essential for all parties fully to respect the
international plan and implement it in all its aspects, in a spirit.of co-operation
and good faith. However, the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) is still.
encountering obstacles, whose perpetuation might jeopardize our undertaking and
undermine the chances of peace or might lead to a precarious form of independence,
leading to an endless cycle of struggle in and.around Namibia that would have
disastrous consequences difficult to foresee for the region and indeed for world
peace and security.
We in Africa believe that by maintaining the criminal Koevoet elements in the
service of the local police South Africa is not 'only bringing about an escalation
of violence and provocation in Namibia but thereby shaking international confidence
in the possibility of achieving free and normal elections. We believe that that is
also a violation of the spirit and letter of the peace plan.
Africa shares with the Secretary-General and his representative in Namibia and
With the whole international conanunity deep concern about the deteriorating
situation in Namibia, especially in the northern area8 where Koevoet elements are
engaging in acts of provocation and aggression - indeed, murder. Africa insists
that these elements be demobilized and that their activities be ended.
Those deteriorating security conditions do not permit the holding of free and
normal elections - the objective of resolution 435 (1978) - which are designed to .
(Mr. Badawi, w)
. &able the Namibian people to exercise its right to self-determination and decide
its own fate. Accordingly, we ask the Government of South Africa to contjnue to
show a sense of responsibility and reason and to spare the'region further trouble
and instability,thus enabling the peoples of the region to face the challenges'of
development and survival.
We also ask the Government of South Africa fully to respect the peace plan and
to co-operate sincerely with the Secretary-General's Special.Represen&tive in'.the
plan's implementation. For Africa, that is the only approach to enable the
Namibian people to exercise its right to self-determination. All oi Africa
believes that that is the beginning of the-right road to peace and security in the
region as a whole, in the interests of all concerned.
In expressing the wish to see all the parties concerned displaying a spirit of
sincere co-operation with the Secretary-General in the implementation of the
independence plan for Namibia and showing themselves equal to this historic
responsibility, the international community believes that South Africa must at this
stage increase its efforts to demonstrate to the international oammuni.ty that it is
seriously committed t6 peace. Indeed, p&t experience has, to say the least, t ser%ously undermined confidence in South Africa's good intentions.
Africa invites all the parties concerned to shoulder their leespo:nsibilities
and to persist in their efforts to convince South Africa and invite it by all
possible means to seize this opportunity, which will not coma again, to bring peace
to the region and to respect the will of the international ammun-ity by fully
carrying out its commitments under the peace plan. It should also enable the plan + to progress normally and with certainty in order to enable the Namibian people to
determine its fate in ccunplete freedan.
(Mr. Badawi, Egypt)
We venture to hope that the Pretoria Government will respond to this appeal'
and to th-e voice of wisdom and show political courage and good faith by taking the
necessary measures to restore international confidence in the implementation of the
plan for peace and independence for Namibia.
The Organization of African Unity is making ready .to receive an independent
Namibia into its metiership, thus marking the fall of the last bastion of
colonialism on the African continent and harnessing Namibia's human resources in
the economic and social development of Africa. We hope that we shall not have a
long wait.
We in Africa know that the Secretary-General's task in Africa is perilous and
thorny-. It is also a unique and historic responsibility. We have confidence in
his wisdom and experience and we rely on his impartiality, objectivity and ability
to bring this vessel to a safe port.
Let me take this opportun.ity to express Africa's deep appreciation of the >
Secretary-General's efforts. Africa wishes him full success in carrying out his
historic duties and reaffirms its faith in him. We hold in high esteem the
sincerity and determination he and those who are helping him have demonstrated in
circumstances we all know are extremely difficult and complex.
I thank the representative
of Egypt for his kind words addressed to me. .
The next speaker is the representative of Zambia. I invite him to take a
place at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. ZUZE (Zambia): I& me first respond to the needs of tradition by
expressing Zambia's sincere congratulations to you, Sir, on your accession to the
presidency of the Security Council for the month of August. You represent a
friendly, non-aligned country with which my country, Zambia, enjoys the best of
relations. At a personal level, you have remained a symbol of dedication,
(Mr. Badawi, Egypt)
commitment and devotion to duty and to the freedom-struggle in Namibia. It is
therefore fitting that as we come before this lofty body to seek justice and fair
play at this critical period in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) we do
SO under the esteemed leadership of a seasoned diplomat and a great son of Africa.
day your presidency see us through to a successful conclusion of our
deliberations.
(Mr. Zuze, Zatiia)
deserved tribute to another dear colleague of
May I take the 1 iberty-to pay a
mine, Ambassador Pejic of Yugoslavia , who guided the work of the Security Council
with great tact and wisdom during the month of July. I also wish to place on
record my delegation's appreciation ti metiers of the Security Council for acceding
to Zambia's request to particpate-in this important debate.
During negotiations that culminated in adoption by this Council of resolution
629 (1989) and 632 (1989) we in the African Group and the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries expressed our concerns about South Africa's hidden agenda in Namibia.
We knew then, as we know nowI that South Africa would eventually phase itself
out of Namibia, but that it intended to maintain its presence by.other means, for
it is against human nature for South Africa to legislate itself out of existence or
to preside over its liquidation.
It was also foreseeable at that time that South Africa would strive to
discredit the South West Africa People's Grganiiation (SWAPG) militarily and
pol it&ally. The events of 1 April and the subsequent intimidation and'killing of
SWAP0 supporters in northern Namibia by Koevoet must therefore be seen as South
Africa's efforts to prevent SWA#)'s electoral victory‘apd to guarantee its puppet's
constitutional role in the evolution of Namibia's independence. That is one way
South Africa wishes to maintain its presence in Namibia. '.
Although we are half-way through the transitional period to Namibia's
indepenhence the situation in the country remains precarious. SWAPG's leadership
remains exposed to assassinations by Koevoet and others who are afraid of a SWAP0 , electoral victory. South Africa, which had 11 years of non-implementation of
resolution 435 (1978) to prepare‘for rigging both the electoral process and the
electoral results, akntinues to engage in a propaganda campaign to malign SWAFfJ,
pointing to events prior to and following 1 April as having been caused by bad
judgement cn the part of SWAP0 leadership - disinformation which is aimed at giving
(Mr. Zuze, Zambia),
credibility to a SWAP0 defeat. Despite the fact that the United Nations Settlement
plan Call.55 for the demobilization of the citizen.commandos and ethnic forces and
the dismantling of their command structure, South Africa has refused to demobilize
and to dismantle the comnand structure of.Koevoet and the so-called South West
Africa Territorial Force (SWATF).
The issue is not whether Koevoet should be redeployed away from northern
Namibia, nor that we should Change the scale of arms supplied to Koevoet, nor
indeed that Koevoet should be confined to a designated area. It is not whether
South Africa should reduce the number of its CASSPIRS. The issue is simply one of
compliance with the settlement plan , which demands disbandment of the enlisted
forces and the dismantling of‘ their command structures.
As we meet today, Koevoet elements , who have merely been absorbed into the
South West Africa police, are wreaking havoc upon the civilian population in
Namibia. They are engaged in the intimidation and general harassment of SWAPG
supporters, a fact which has been confirmad by the Secretary-General in his last . statement to the Security Council, to the effect that
"DNTAG has clearly established that ex-Koevoet elements in SWAPOL" -
as opposed to SWAFO -
"have not adjusted to the new political situation in Namibia and have
continued to harass and intimidate the civilian population. They are not \
suitable for continued employment in the-police force under the terms of the -.
United Nations plan."
The present situation in Namibia is unsuitable for conducting free and fair
elections. Apart from the hostile activities of Koevoet elements against SWAPO,
the South African-controlled media have embarked on anti-SWAP0 propaganda, clearly
violating the impartiality principle. As we have said before, the impartiality . issue.binds all concerned parties and must be strictly observed. In order for the
(Mr. Zuze, Zambia]
implementation process ta succeed all the parties to the agreement must Play -the
game according to the rules. ',
Elections in Namibia should be free and fair at every stage throughout the
processr 'they must be free during the counting of votes, they must be free during
the registration of voters, they must be free during the campaign, and at every
stage the Security Council should blow the'whistle at every indication Of foul
play.
We have not seen much intervention from the Security Council. The Council
should demand, for example, the removal of Koevoet from the South West Africa
Police (SWAPOL), It should demand that South Africa release all of the Namibian
political prisoners - not just some, but all of them - in its gaols. The Security
Council should be telling the South Africans that the'existence of Koevoet in the
South West Africa Police makes the police force in Namibia unsuitable for providing
security to SWAP0 leadership.
The registration laws and the electoral laws in Namibia are more prone to
manipulation. Security Council resolution'435 (1978) nullifies all laws Put in
place by the illegal rggime. F'or example, treating, which is the idea of
organizing parties to which many people are invited and at which raffles are
conducted clearly violates the impartiality principle. The payment of s.alaries to
Koevoet and SWATF is a violation of the impartiality principle. Permission for
South Af+ica to speak during the current debate would be a violation of the
impartiality principle and therefore against the law.
The law must be specific. The Security Council must be absolutely sure that
the legal framework is appropriate. Ibgistical material for use during campaigning
must be protected by law to guarantee free and fair elections. Safeguards must.be
created against multiple voting. Laws that may permit non-Namibians to participate
in the electoral process must be abolished.
(Mr. Zuze, Zambia)
Secrecy is of paramount importance. The Security Council must look into
legislation for secrecy, especially given the weakness in the United Nations
surve.illance.
The problems of intimidation , arrest and detention should be thoroughly
examined and courts to deal with them properly set up in order to guarantee free
and fair elections. misting courts cannot be considered suitable because they are
creations of South Africa and therefore dubious. Voting controls must be tight to
avoid the possibility of rigging, There must be equal access,to radio, television
and the press. There is also a possibility that farmers and industrialists would
prevent equal access to their workers in the farms, mines and industries. The
electoral law must prevent this from happening if the elections are to be certified
as free and fair.
Separate counts should take place immediately after the voting to make it
difficult to switch ballot boxes. After the count the results should be
immediately published. Voters should be familiarized with the voting procedures
through a well-calculated programme of voter education by the United Nations-
Let me end by briefly going into the recent history of this situation% After
the Lancaster Agreement, Lord Soames was determined to keep the process going Until
the point of no return. He pushed it past the point planned for a coup d'e'tat by
General Peter Walls.
That is not the case in Namibia. We do not kncnv, for example8 who will
convene the constituent assembly after the elections in November. The
Administrator-General will have'completed his job, whether well done or not, of .L running the elections. The last south African soldier will either have.-left or
will be in the process of leaving.
(Mr. Zuze, Zambia)
The South West Africa/Namibia Territory Force (SWATF) and Koevoet, whose .' i command structures have not been dismantled, will be standing by for orders to I(
i regroup for possible mischief , not excluding-a coup d'etat, in the event of an
outright'electoral victory by SWAFf3. Indeed, the proposed draft constituent
assembly proclamation must be seen as intended to formalize the coup d'etat by the
Administrator-General.
I would have liked to portray to the Council the picture of the end of a long
and turbulent march into Namibia. I would have wished to say to the Council that I
hear the distant drums of freedom as our dreams and the dreams of-the international
community are about to be fulfilled. I would have liked to tell the Council about
a nation standing on the threshold of birth, knocking on the door to be born. I
would have wished to say to the Council that Namibia is about to be .born as a
sovereign independent nation , no longer under the control of an occupying force.
But I still hold the view that there exist no prospects for free and fair elections
in Namibia. At the end of the day, South Africa will select a group of people to
form the government - but never an election free and fair.
The IW33IDENT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative
of Zambia for the kind words he addressed to me.
The last speaker for this morning is the representative of South Africa. I '
invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. SHEXRAR (South Africa): It is a great pity that the Security Council
has chosen to convene a formal meeting on the Namibian issue at this critical and
delicate stage in the implementation process regarding.the independence of that
country. -
(Mr. Zuze, Zambia)
These Security Council proceedings - and we are already beginning to see-
evidence of that - will remove that process from the atiit of the quiet and
effective diplomatic negotiations within which it has thus far been conducted and
place the settlement plan in the-realm of public and politically motivated rhetoric' c_
which can anly serve to harden attitudes, create non-negotiable positions and
perhaps jeopardize the successful solution to which South Africa, the
Secretary-General, the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (DNTAG) and, wc
believe, the Council, are fully committed.
Furthermore, this meeting represents a lack of faith in the judgement of the
Secretary-General and of his Special Representative that the implementation Of
resolution 435 (1978) is well on track despite some remaining obstacles.
During his attendance at .the summit meeting of the Organization of African
Unity (OAU) in Addis Ababa in July 1989, after his visit to Namibia- and South
Africar the Secretary-General expressed his optimism about the way the
implementation process was developing in the following terms:
" . . . despite all difficulti&, past and present, the implementation of the
United Nations plan is on track and Namibia's independence is at hand."
He also said:
'1 returned from Namibia.much encouraged . . . I am confident that* if all sides I honour the commitments which they have entered into under the settlement plan
and related understandings , and if the parties in Namibia, conduct their
election campaign in a spirit of democracy and national reconciliation, a free
and fair election can.take place in early Novextber."
In his most recent report to the Council, presented on 3 August 1989, I understand
he also expressed this sentiment.
(Mr. Shearar, South Africa)
As recently as 3 August, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for
Namibia stated:
"I am reasonably confident that we are three months away from the holding of
free and fair elections in Namibia. The implementation of 435 is well on
track."
At a meeting on 9 August, Mr. Ahtisaari again referred to the excellent
co-operation he was receiving frcm South African and Namibian officials in the
conduct of the implementation process.
Indeed, if there has been one consistent element throughout these past
18 months of negotiations, it is South Africa's commitment to the settlement plan
approved by the Security Council in September 1978 and its determination to
-overcome all obstacles in the way of its implementation.
If ever there was a time to convene the-Council .i.n formal session on "the
deteriorating situation in Namibia", it was on 1 April when the leaders of SWAFQ
ordered their troops across the border in the most blatant and cynical violation of
every undertaking it had given the Organisation which has for so long cherished
it. In SO doing, it caused the most serious threat to a process that had been
painstakingly built up over many years. Not only that; it placed the Tripartite
Agreement of 22 December 1988 in jeopardy.
Although under provocation to draw the obvious conclusion from SWAPG's acts,
South Africa demonstrated in the clearest possible fashion its commitment to
Namibian independence by closely consulting with the Special Representative before
taking any action. In agreement with him and with the Secretary-General, it was
decided to redeploy military forces which had already returned to their bases and
to reconstitute the counter-insurgency police units which were clearly the only
ones capable of dealing with this threat.
(Mr. Shearar, South Africa)
waves of SWAP0 Infiltration, South Africa, in
Throughout the subsequent
concert with the other parties
to the Tripartite Agreement, took practical steps to
reduce the threat to the implementation process to a minimum and continued with the
Practical arrangements for its implementation without which it would have been
seriously delayed.
Note should also be taken of the constructive and important role played by
many of Africa's leaders , in particular President DOS Santos of Angola, and by
several other countries, in their efforts to retrieve the situation created by
SWAPO. But the Council was seen in Namibia to have failed in its duty.
These events and this failure created substantial and justified concerns among
Namibia's population about the true intentions of SWAP0 and the United Nations / ability to address these concerns.
On 1 April 198.9 SWAPS lied to the world. What prevents it from lying again?
Is the tiuncil willing to include in any resolution it might,cbnsider a
guarantee that SWAPS will not again conduct a military incursion into Namibia?- The
Secretary-General and his Special Representative have expressed to the South
African Government their conviction that SWAP0 no longer poses an external military
threat. South Africa appeals to the Council to endorse that conviction and to
assume publicly'its responsibility should such an eventuality'occur.
(Mr. Shearar, SouthAfrica)
In the light of these grave and legitimate concerns, it is a tribute to the
determination of the South African authorities that the withdrawal of the South t African Defence Force units was completed ahead of schedule and that the ethnic 8 forces were disbanded and, despite-what is being said here today, their command
structures dismantled in accordance with the programme set out in the settlement
plan. This action was taken despite constant intelligence reports to the effect ,
that not all the SWAP0 infiltrators had returned to Angola or were confined to base
north Of the 16th parallel under UNTAG monitoring as provided for in the settlement
plan.
In the meantime, and despite all these difficulties, the Administrator-General
and the Special Pepresentative continued negotiating the other steps required of
the former, including the discharge of second-tier authorities, the abrogation of '
discriminatory legislation which might hinder the holding of free and fair
elections, the promultation of the Amnesty Proclamation and the Proclamation on the
Registration of Voters and , in agreement with the independent jurist appointed for
the purposel the release of the few remaining prisoners held in Namibia regarded as
falling within the category "politicala.
At the same time negotiations at the United Nations High Cornnissioner for
' Refugees continued, resulting in the return of Namibian expatriates who had
registered with the High Commissioner. While the international community had been I led by SWAPS to believe that there were-some 80,000 such refugees, only about I 41,000 have registered, and of these 41,000 some 36,000 have already returned to
Namibia. This demonstrates South Africa's faithful commitment to the
implementation of resolution.435 (1978) once again,
In contrast to South Africa's release of its prisoners, allegations persist
about deta-inees still held by SWAFQ in its camps. In June 1989 SWAW announced the
release of some 200 detainees, who are now said to have returned to Namibia. Of
(Mr. Shearar, South Africa)
these a group of about 133 adults and 21 children reported that there were still
many of their compatriots in detention. They also reported the appalling treatment
that had been meted out to them. Despite their Statements no impartial
international investigation has been permitted by SWAFO, The Secretary-General,
while attending the Summit Meeting of the OAU in Addis Ababa, expressed his concern
about not having received any conclusive evidence on SWAP0 detainees.'
How then can we believe SWAPO's claim that it has released them all?
Should yet further proof be required of South Africa's commitment tc the
settlement process and its willingness to co-operate with the Special
Representative, there is the fact that 565,844, or 86.4 per cent, of the estimated
eligible voters have already registered for the election. Their registration has
been completed in terms of resolution 435 (1978) by a dedicated staff: under'the
authority of the Administrator-General to the overall satisfaction of the Special
Reprcsentative,and the officials whom he appointed to monitor this task.
A draft election and a draft proclamation on the Constituent Assembly have
been prepared by the Administrator-General and , in order to ensure that they meet
with general satisfaction and address any concerns that the Special Representative
might have, were published for a period of three weeks for the expres.s purpose of
receiving comments and representations frcm any interested persons Or
organizations. The final text is being negotiated in the light of the comments and
representations received b d the negotiations will continue until canplete
agreement has been reached between the Administrator-General and.the Special
Representative. I would emphasize that the comments of the Organization of African
Unity are amongst those being carefully considered.
The foregoing will demonstrate the total commitment of the Administror-General
and the South African authorities to the implementation of the settlement plan and
to the full participation of all eligible Namibians , including those born in the
(Mr. Shearar,.South Africa)
country but residing abroad and their children, in the elections to determine their'
country's future.
In this regard I would refer to the ridiculous assertion by the President of
SWAP0 on 9 August that as many as 150,000 South Africans are being brought t0 s
Namibia to regis.ter and vote in the election. Those persons who are resident in
South Africa and qualify to register must be allowed to do so if they so wish. TO
date the number that have registered at the .two registration centres on the
southern border of Namibia is just on 2,300 with only a month left for
registration. These figures speak for themselves.-
It was never expected, given its historical background,' that this process
would be a simple one.' It is testimony to the remarkable dedication of both the
Administrator-General and the Special Representative that in spite of the events of
1 April 1989 the position has been reached where the Secretary-General was able to
advise the Organization of African Unity that he was optimistic that free and fair
elections could be held in early November despite certain remaining obstacles to be
overcome.
, Amongst these obstacles were reports of intimidation by certain elements of
the South West African Police Force (SWAFOL), who were former.memberg of the
Cwnter-inSUrgency unit popularly known as Koevoet. Since 1 April, some 436
canplaints of intimidation by all sides, including SWAPO, have been received. Of
these only 110 were levelled against SWAPOL. All such complaints were investigated
and where they are well-founded the perpetrators are brought to trial - also in the
case of meIIberS of SWAFOL and SWAPS.
The Administrator-General has taken serious note of the concerns expressed to
him by the Secretary-General regarding Koevoet and , as noted by the latter, has
taken a number of steps to alleviate them. They -include the reduction of the
number of land-mine resistant vehicles known as CASSPIRS from 400 to 60, excluding
(Mr. Shearar, South Africa)
those released to UNTAG or used for game preservation against poachers. There was
also agreement that they should not be deployed at night. They are in fact
deployed only in areas where the danger of land mines continues to exist. Other
measures to tighten discipline have also been taken.
Last week the Administrator-General was assured by the Special Representative
that the great majority of elements of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia
(PLAN) had returned to Namibia as civilians; that the Plan's command structure had
been dismantled in the sense that some of its commanders had returned to Namibia
also as civilians+ and that PLAN's weapons had been stored and greased and were
kept under lock and key by Angola. The Secretary-General reaffirmed the assurances
to the South African Government on 11 August 1989. Angola had also previously-
assured us that there were virtually no armed PLAN elements in Angola south. Of the
16th parallel.
Acting on these assurances , and in accordance with his stated.position that he
would consider the reduction of SWAPOL forces in the north of the Territory as and
when the threat posed by PLAN elements north of the border receded, the
Administrator-General has now decided to remove from duty and confine to base the
1,200 metiers representing the remainder of former.menbers of Koevoet who were
reintegrated into SWAPOL following the SWAP0 incursions of 1April 1989. They will
remain subject to monitoring by UNTAG.
The Administrator-General emphasized, however, that should th-e situation in
Ovamboland or elsewhere deteriorate he would be obliged, in accordance with his
responsibilities under the settlement proposal, to consider the taking of any steps
necessary to restore law and order.
I must also point out that it is the conviction of my Government that UNTAG
has not fully discharged its responsibilities in regard to the mon-itoring of
intimidation, despite repeated appeals by the Administrator-General.
i ((Mr. Shearar, South Africa) ,I
Paragraph 10 of the Settlement PLan requires the Special Representative to
"take steps. to guarantee against the possibility of intimidation or
interference with the electoral process from whatever quarter".
This responsibility. is further spelled out in the Secretary-General's report to the
Security Council of 29 August 1978 (S/12827), where it is stated in paragraph 29
that
"The duties of the civil police element of UNTAG will include taking
measures against any intimidation or interference with the electoral process
from whatever quarter, accompanying the . . . police forces, when appropriate,
in the discharge of their duties and assisting in the realization of the
function to be discharged by the Administrator-General to the satisfaction of
the Special Representative of ensuring the good conduct of the existing police
forces." (S/12827, para, 29)
In paragraph 31 (c) of the same report, the tasks of the non-police element of the
civilian canpcnent of UNTAG are further described as
"Ensuring the absence of or investigating complaints of intimidation,
coercion or restrictions on freedom of speech, movement or peaceful political
assembly which may impede the objective of free and fair elections".
The South African Government must reiterate its request that these provisions
be fully complied with..' The situation in the north of the Territory requires UNTAG
involvement in checking all acts of intimidation from whatever quarter. This is
all the more important now that the former metiers of Koevoet have been restricted
to base.
The Administrator-General has taken steps to reduce the alleged threat posed
by the presence of the former counter-insurgency unit. He approaches with equal
seriousness his obligations under paragraph 9 of the Settlement Plan to maintain
law and order, particularly in the light of the concerns expressed by the
(Mr. Shearar, South Africa)
inhabitants of Namibia over the return of trained PLAN soldiers under the aUSpiCeS
of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the uncertainty regarding those who have
not returned or may be south of the 16th parallel or even have infiltrated into
northern Namibia.
Despite repeated requests over the past months we have been unable to obtain
from the Special Representative any figures relating to the number of PLAN members
who have returned to Namibia or the nurber of those who are still in Angola. Only
when we have substantiated figures in this regard will we have 6atiSfaCtorY
assurance that SWAFC's incursion of 1 April will not be repeated.
This Council, the Secretary-General and UNTAd are now under an obligation not
only to ensure that SNAP0 from new on abides both by the letter and the Spirit of
the obligations laid upon it in terms of resolution 435 (1978) but also to convince
the population of Namibia that it is committed thereto and able to implement this
commitment.
- There are no further
speakers for this meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to continue
consideration of the item on its agenda will take place tomorrow, 17 August, at
10.30 a.m.
The meeting rose at 1.35 p.m.
(Mr. Shearar, South Africa)