S/PV.2877 Security Council

In accordance with decisions taken at the 2876th meeting, I invite the representative of Ghana to take a place at the Council table, I invite the representatives of Angola, Cameroon, Cuba, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, South Africa, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Gbeho.(Ghana) took a place at the Council table; Mr. Diakenga Serao (Angola), Mr. Engo (Cameroon), Mr. Oramas Oliva (Cuba), Mr. Badawi (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. I The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I should like to inform the Council that I have received from the representatives of Burundi, Guatemala, India and Indonesia letters in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's" provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Niyungeko (Burundi), Mr. Villagran'de Leon (Guatemala) , Mr. Dasgupta (India) and Mr. Sutresna (Indonesia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

The Security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of Angola. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement. Mr. DIAKENGA SERAO (Angola) (interpretation from French)t I wish first of all, Sir, to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the : Security Council for the month of August. It is gratifying for us to participate in this debate an the important question of Namibia under the wise guidance Of an eminent representative of Algeria , a country which has earned the respect of the world for its unequivocal support for peace and the national liberation of peoples struggling to recover their dignity. In view of your diplomatic talents and Personal qualities, we are certain that the work of the Council will meet with success. I cannot fail on this occasion to convey to your predecessor, His ESrcellency Mr. Dragoslav Pejic, Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia, my delegation's appreciation of the wise and effective way he conducted the work of the Council last month. The current meetings are of particular importance. This is the first Security Council debate cm the question of Namibia since the emplacement of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) , which marked the entry into force of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. There is every reason to believe that the process now under way is irreversible and will lead to the birth of the new nation of Namibia. While that prospect gives us reason to hope for the end of the colonial era in Namibia, we remain skeptical in the light of developments related to the process of implementing resolution 435 (1978). The disturbing facts warranted the convening of the present series of meetings. The purpose pf this debate is to assess the situation and evaluate the events of the past four months , a period which accounts for nearly half the tirretable the Security Council assigned to UNTAG. The special role of the United Nations in the problem of Namibia gives the members of the Security Council a special (Mr. Diakenga Serao, Angola) responsibility. The Council would thus be shirking its solemn responsibility if it were to remain silent at the alarming developments in Namibia. The process, in which the United Nations is totally committed , seems to be inspiring mixed feelings. Although the deployment of UNTAG was an important step inthe Namibian independence process, it has not in the least diminished concern with respect to free and fair elections in Namibia. It may indeed be said that the road to free and fair elections is littered with obstacles. Among the facts that cast doubt on South Africa's true intentions with respect to the process is the re'gime's obstinate'refusal to abide scrupulously by the provisions of resolution 435 (1978) with respect to the presence among the police of Koevoet forces, who have becoma notorious for their intimidation and brutality against civilians. i The retention of the command structure of the so-called South West Africa Territory Force only adds to our doubts about South Africa's intentions in the &ent of a victory by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPS). The United Nations plan clearly provides that military and paramilitary forces are to be dismantled. The well-prepared and carefully calculated false alarms and defamatory campaigns, such as those carried out by South Africa just before.the . , %CretirY-&lleral's visit ta Namibia in July, are aimed at discrediting SWAEG and giving an electoral advantage to other political groups; these remove from South Africa any pretense to impartiality. My Government has alwaysreacted with restraint to these problems. But how can we not be concerned about a series of events that violate commitments we have undertaken and which we are respecting in good faith? How.can we not be concerned about the inclusion on voters' rolls of non-Namibians who have been ordered to vote against SWAJK) in an attempt to deprive SWAFO of the victory it is sure to win? How (Mr. Diakenga Serao, Angola) can the international community be assured that free and fair elections will be held if there are rules that seem to place one of the parties at a disadvantage? Such activities violate the spirit and the letter of resolution 435 (1978). We hope the measures recently announced by the South African anthorities in Namibia reflect an effort towards the genuine implementation of the resolution. The Government of the People's Republic of Angola was a party to the Wew York agreements of 22 December 1988, which opened the way for the current process, and we consider that the violation of resolution 435 (1978) is per se a violation of the New York agreements. We therefore demand that South Africa respect its connnitments. For a peaceful settlement of the Namibian conflict there is noalternative to the transfer of power to the people of Namibia through free and fair elections under United Nations supervision and control in conformity wit&Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Accordingly, we call on the Security Council to take the necessary steps to create conditions favourable to such elections. Those conditions naturally include the complete implementation of the provisions of the resolution. It is urgent that there be full uxnpliance with the United Nations plan with respect to military and paramilitary forces, the promulgation Of a fair electoral law, the cessation of registering non-Namibians as voters, the voiding of voting slips held by foreigners posing as Namibians, and the canplete revocation df all discriminatory laws with a view to providing all current forces equal electoral opportunities. My Government is very encouraged by the Secretary-General's efforts towards the effective implementation of.resolution 435 (1978). Wd continue to believe that those efforts require the support of the Security Council. Well-iatentioned though they may be, measures the Secretary-General may formulate will not have the desired . . (Mr. Diakenqa Serao, Angola) effectiveness unless they are complemented by material resources. The Security Council discussed that problem when it adopted resolution 632 (1989), and experience seems to bear out those who supported the deployment of the entire DNTAG Complement provided for in resolution 435 (1978). My delegation appeals to all members of the Council, whobear this responsibility,' to endorse new measures that will ensure free and fair elections in Namibia.

I thank the representative of Angola for his kind words addressed to me. Mr. TADESSE (Ethiopia)% Let me at the outset, Sir, say how happy the Ethiopian delegation is to see you in the chair as President of the Security Council for the month of August. Keenly aware of your proven abilities and intimate knowledge of the issue , as well as your country's well-known commitment to the cause of decolonization, we are confident that the deliberations of the Council cm this very important question will culminate in the adoption of appropriate measures' that will bring abcut conditions for the full.implementation of the United Nations independence plan for Namibia. Allow me also to express the appreciation of my delegation to Ambassador Dragoslav Pejic of Yugoslavia for the able manner in which he guided the work of the Council during the past month. Since the commencement of the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) metiers of the Council, Members of the United Nations and indeed the international conUnunity as a whole have followed the situation in Namibia with the utmost concern. Despite the difficulties encountered at the initial stage of the implementation process and the attendant loss of life , it has been accepted that the process was back on track. None the less, as the situation obtaining in the Territory clearly reveals, the day-to-day implementation of the plan is fraught with serious difficulties. The .worst fears of the international communi&y regarding intimidation and security risks from the notorious Koevoct and the questionable conduct of some members of the South West Africa Police (SWA#)L) seem to have been confirmed. We realize that the Secretary-General has been making a relentless effort to discharge his heavy responsibility in the process through various important steps, including those taken with a view to enhancing the monitoring capabilities of the (Mr. Tadesse, Ethiopia) United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG). In the field, ccanprising as it does functionaries and volunteers from no fewer than 109 countries, UWTAG continues to deploy considerable energy aimed at creating the necessary conditions for a free and fair election. Hcwever, we still feel that, with the presence of the infamous Koevoet in the ranks of SWAFOL and its continued unleashing of terror on the Namibian people, conditions and possibilities for a free and fair election are being jeopardized. Gne cannot be expected to trust that a force trained only in the mastery of torture, harassment and the killing of Namibians can overnight qualify to serve in a law enforcement capacity, particularly at such a delicate stage of the Territory's march towards long-awaited independence. This state of affairs, as confirmed by disturbing field reports, has not only hmnpered the otherwise well-co-ordinated repatriation of Namibian refugees and their settlement but, under the circumstances, has also cast a dark shadow over possibilities-of the whole process being free and fair. As the continued manifestation'of security-related problems emanating from the misconduct of South African police and paramilitary forces is bound to have detrimental, if not colossal, ramifications for the implementation of.the independence plan, it is our considered view that the Council should take appropriate measures aimed at addressing the root causes of the problem, including South Africa's obstinacy, particularly as pertains to the disbanding of the Koevoet and the dismantling of the command structure of the south West Africa Territorial Force. Although our overriding concern about the implementation of the independence ? plan is admittedly related to the freedan and security of the Namibian electorate and the prevalence of peace in the Territory, we would be less than candid if we (Mr. Tadesse, Ethiopia) were to overlook other problems with a serious impact cn the fairness of the electoral process. Indeed, it must be emphasized that information from various observer missions within the Territory clearly point to various loopholes in laws purported to govern the whole electoral process. We continue to be as apprehensive about the voter registration procedures , which allow non-Namibians to register, and by the lack of provision for secrecy as we are about the possibilities of ballot box tzmpering. As the United Nations has not yet commented on the eJ.ection laws, we wish only at this stage to register our serious concern about the motive behind the deliberate ambiguities and loopholes prevalent in those draft l.aWS. In our attitude to the problems obtaining in Namibia at present we are not, of course, oblivious to South Africa's latest manoeuvres with regard to confining the killer Koevoet to base. Tuesday's announcement requires no in-depth analysis to see that it is not only half-hearted but also ineffectual in removing the obstacles to free and fair elections in accordance with the United Nations independence plan for Namibia. If Pretoria for once wishes to prove to the world that it can respect international obligations, it must demonstrate this by honouring fully its part of the commitment to the present process of implementation of resolution 435 (1978). Any retreat from the agreed plan or modifications to it would only compound the problem. Namibia remains the legal and direct responsibility of the United Nations until the people exercises its full right to self-determination and national independence. Therefore, our endeavours must continue unabated until the independence goals embodied in resolution 435 (1978) are fully attained. In this respect, while we appreciate the Secretary-General's untiring efforts, we -believe that they must be urgently canplemented by swift and concerted action by the Security Council. Admittedly, it behoves the Council, as the author of the (Mr. Tadesse, Ethiopia) independence plan for Namibia, to deal with the situation effectively - and better now, with the present difficulties, than allowing through its silence the germination of the seeds of future problems, perhaps more intractable 'problems, problems difficult to contain. The time has indeed come for the Council to use its wisdan and authority to ensure success in the .Herculean task facing the United Nations. We alS0 once again urge all those who have influence on South Africa to help good sense to prevail. The Namibian people has struggled for so long and sacrificed so much to reach the present stage. South Africa should not be allowed to obstruct the historic process by which the people of Namibia can truly exercise' its inalienable right to self-determination and national independence. It is the general view of even the most dispassionate observers that, as matters stand, much remains to be done by the Council in order to bring about the desired climate and conditions in which Namibians can freely &termine their own future, without any fear or intimidation. On our part, we are convinced that the deteriorating situation must be rectified - urgently - before it is too late. To this end we are prepared to engage in any process that may help make the Council meaningful in the lives and future of the Namibian people.' The PREIUENT (interpretation from French18 I thank the representative of Ethiopia for his kind words addressed to me. Mr. ALENCAR (Brazil): Allo me to congratulate you, Sir, on the assumption of the high office of President of the Security Council. You are the _ - able representative of a .country with which Brazil is fortunate to maintain close . relations of cooperation. You also represent a country whose diplomacy has a splendid record of fruitful work for the cause of justice, peace and understandinq. It comes therefore as no surprise to my delegaticn that you are steering the work of the Security Council in such a skilful and efficient manner. Allow me also to salute the Permanent Representative of Yugoslavia, Ambassador Pejic, for the smooth and efficient way in which he presided over the Council during the month of July. mch of the credit for the important decisions taken by the Council last month goes ti his prudent, yet firm, conduct bf our business, and we are grateful to him for that. We seem to have come to a crucial point in the just struggle of the Namibian people for independence. There is a widespread feeling that the Security COUnCfl, which bears the heaviest responsibility in this case , cannot afford to allow another derailing of the process of implementation of resolution 435 (1978). -Brazil has often spoken in favour of strong support by the Council to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the United Nations Transition Group (UNTAG), especially since the difficult moments which the implementation process experienced in its early days. At the same time, Brazil has constantly insisted that close permanent necessary in order to ensure that all aspects of surveillance by the Council was the United Nations plan for the Wamibian independence are implemented fully in 435 (1978). keeping with Council resolution (Mr. Alencar, Brazil) In this connection, we have stressed the need for the members of this body to ample and updated information concerning all relevant developments in the have Territory. ,In order, among other things, to expand its information base the Brazilian Government is taking steps to set up an office in Windhoek. This cannot, however, be seen as a substitute for the information, opinions and advice we receive from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Council members recently received another report from the Secretary-Generals . after his visit to southern Africa. It is comprehensive, informative and candid. Though reassuring in its overall tone, the report points to some serious problems remaining to be adequately solved lest the whole process of independence of Namibia be undermined. Some essential t-asks remain to be accomplished. We think it is necessary to ensure the continuation of the safe return of refugees to their places of origin) to guarantee that the registration of voters is carried out in a fair, strict manner ; and to see to it that the electoral legislation is in conformity with the independence plan and with recognized international standards. In addition, it is high time-that the liberation of all political prisoners be achieved. Finally, as regards the important question of the behaviour of the police force in the Territory, we noted the statement made on 15 August by the Administrator-General as contained in document S/20788. We welcome the annOunCeient of the removal from duty of the unruly Koevoet elements still remaining in the South West Africa Police (SWAFOL) as a step in the right , direction, We also note, however, that no specific time has been set for the implementation of the decision. We expect that it will be carried out promptly and that, from now on, SWAPQL will exert maximum restraint in the performance of its duties. As we issue this call we have very much in mind, among other things, the (Mr. Alencar, Brazil) very disturbing report #at , as recently as 10 August, two of UNTAG'8 installations were the target of armed attack resulting in one death and considerable dama.ge. We believe that the Security Council-should remain vigilant in order to avoid the recurrence of any action which may represent a threat to the orderly electoral process in Namibia. We also believe that unilateral or concerted action in the same direction by those countries which are in a position to do so can be invaluabIe. We would like to put on record our appreciation for the efforts of those countries. Time is running out. Much has been done, but further responsible action seems to be required. The PRE3IDmT (interpretation from French)% I thank the representative of Brazil for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Nigeria. I 'invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement. Mr. GAPBA (Nigeria): May I at the outset express the warm felicitations of the Government and the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and my Own personal delight, on your well-deserved assumption of the presidency of this lofty body for the month of August. I have no doubt that your wealth of experience and the innumerable excellent qualities for which your country is universally acclaimed will Combine to ensure a most rewarding stewardship to the internattonal community. I am sure-you know that you can count on the unreserved cooperation of the Nigerian delegation in the accomplishment of your onerous assignment. I should also like to pay a warm-and equally well-deserved tribute to Anbassador Dragoslav Pe-jic .of Yugoslavia, who presided over the Council last month. (Mr. Garba, Niqeria) It is ironic that almost half way into Namibia's rather tortuous journey to freedom, and less than four months to the envisaged elections in November, we are gathered here not to rehash a long-overdue requiem to colonialism in Namibia but OnCe again to urge that sanity be etiraced by a party to the United Nations settlement plan. And yet my delegation is,not totally surprised by the difficulties South Africa has continued to place on Namibia's long march to freedom. Right from the very inception of the decolonization plan authorized by the Security'Council, it was clear that the process was not going to be allowed to run smoothly, as originally envisaged. The well-orchestrated incidents which nearly mar red, indeed definitely atrophied,. the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)'now seem to have assumed their true purpose. The picture that is fast emerging is that of a consistent pattern of gross violations, both in letter and spirit, of key aspects of the United Nations settlement plan for Namibia by South Africa. While the aim may not be to stop Namibia's transition to independence - for we believe that that is an inevitable development - it would appear that South Africa is bent on dictating the nature of the independence Namibia is entitled to enjoy. The events thnt t:orltinue to unfold in Namibia, especially South Africa's defiance of the will of the Council, as embodied in its resolution 435 (1978), only serve to justify the apprehensions Africa, and indeed the, international community, voiced during the initial stages of the process. (Mr. Garba, Niqeria) It is very well known that the murderous paramilitary unit known by the quaint Afrikaans name of Koevoet has been neither disarmed nor disbanded, as required by Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Instead, elements of this unit have been reabsorbed into the existing South West Africa Police Force (SWAFO'L) controlled by South Africa, where they have been unleashed on the Namibian people, unchecked and unrestrained. The resulting intimidation and harassment, by a force still armed with lethal weapons of warfare, and which continues to engage in search-and-destroy miSS,ionS in the same CASSPIR armoured personnel carriers of the coloniai days, cannot be compatible with free and fair elections. The provisions of the United Nations settlement plan are thus being violated by 'South Africa, the creator and sponsor of that notorious unit which should not exist at this time. And yet, South Africa, as the erstwhile colonial occupier of Namibia, and a party to the settlement plan, is expected to regard resolution 435 (1978) as sacrosanct. The question of Koevoet is considered to be very important not. cnly because South Africa's refusal tc disarm and d&band that unit constitutes yet another breach of the settlement plan, but also because it is directly related to the all-important issue of free and fair elections in Namibia. Of all the processes etiodied in the United Nations plan, the issue of free and fair elections under the control and supervision of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (iTNTAG) is, in our view, of the utmost importance. How can this be realized when the political atmosphere in Namibia is not conducive to it? How can the continuous harassment and intimidation of Namibians, especially the menbers and supporters of one bf the political parties, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAW) t guarantee the objective of free and fair elections? It is for these reasons that we commend the Secretary-General whose public statements and private discussions and reports have clearly demonstrated his (Mr. Gar ba, Nigeria) meqUiVOCa1 stance on the matter of Koevoet. South Africa's characteristic reaction, as evidenced in the statement of its Administrator-General last week, must be seen for what it is - an obfuscation deliberately designed to mislead the international community. The issue at stake is not the redeployment of 1,290 elements of the murderous band, Koevoet, from the northern part of Namibia. Similarly, the issue is not the confinement of the criminal elements so redeployed so as to enable their close monitoring by UNTAG. Resolution 435 (1978) states Clearly, categorically and unequivocally that Koevoet and other paramilitary, citizen, ethnic and commando forces must be disarmed, demDbilized and disbanded and their connnand structures dismantled. Besides, the South African authorities have admitted in the past, and this has been confirmed by independent sources, that Koevoet numbers.more than the 1,200, as the racist spokesman in Windhoek mentioned. It is our view that quite apart from the illegality which such an action would entail, UNTAG must not overstretch itself by falling for the South African bait of undertaking to monitor elements of a force that should not exist - all the more so when such an action would violate the express directive of the Council and confer some serblance of legitimacy on the force in question. We therefore urge this body to strengthen the hand of our Secretary-General and his Special Representative by insisting that Koevoet cease to exist. A similar fate must befall the notorious South West Africa Territorial Force (SWATI?), which the renmant racist administration in Namibia has also refused to disarm and disband completely but, instead, has prepared for quick remobilization, obviously for mischief-making. The proposed elections to the Namibian Constituent Assembly must not Only be free and fair, but should be manifestly seen to be so. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General must certify the electoral process at every stage, without (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) let or hindrance, and in conformity with the provisions of resolution 435 (1978). It is for this reason that we view with concern the unilateral promulgation of the Voter Registration Proclamation by the South African appointed Administrator-General in Namibia, without due regard for .the intelligent comments made by significant segments of the Namibian body politic. It is clear that under that Proclamation, non-Namibians, including thousands of South Afdcan military and police personnel, as well as civil servants, would be allawed to vote in the Namibian elections. Thus the colonial administration, even as numbered as-its days in Namibia would seem to be, has perfected a plan ta perpetuate its control Over the Territory by influencing the outcome of the proposed elections. This plan, if allowed to be implemented, is bound to give a new meaning to rigging and almost certainly assure civil and political upheaval in Namibia. It is time to tell South Africa that its obsession with preventing SWAP0 from forming the legitimate Government of independent Namibia must not make it open a pandora"s box whose consequences it may not be able to control. It is a well-known maxim that those who sow the wind, must be prepared to reap the whirlwind. The same bad faith that has been demonstrated in regard to the registration Of voters seems to have been extended to the election and Constituent Assetily proclamations, which are currently under consideration. It is evident that those two proclamations, although still in draft form, contain major flaws that are deliberately designed to cause mischief. The draft election proclamation, for instance , does not make provision for secrecy in the voting process and contains a ccmpldcated counting system not suitable for an emergent nation like Namibia. The draft ConstituentiAssexbly proclamation, on the other hand, proposes to give the South African Administrator-General veto powers over recommendations and proposals that the Assembly can, and would , make in regard to Namibia's accession to sovereign independence. What is even more preposterous is the stipulation that the Administrator-General should be the unelected President of the Constituent Assenbly, a body that will come.into existence hopefully through a democratic process. How can an unelected representative of a dying colonial administration be made to preside over an Assembly of the representatives of the Namibian people and be vested with powers to veto the will of that people? South Africa's contempt for the democratic process is well known but should it be allowed to foist its own standards on the international community? Do we not have a right to insist that the international standards embodied in resolution 435 (1978) be observed and respected all through the entire process? Must the Council allow itself to be hoodwinked by South Africa's shenanigans? It is our belief, .indeed Africa's belief, that the Security Council should assert its authority and call South Africa t0 retrace its steps from the thorny path it seems to have chosen. We can go on and on listing instances of bad faith. The repeal of all discriminatory and restrictive laws in Namibia has only been partially done, leaving key and dangerous pieces of legislation still in place. The general amnesty envisaged to apply to all Namibians has only been extended to those returning from-exile, to the exclusion of Namibian political prisoners whose Only crime was to ask for freedom and independence. The release of political prisoners stipulated in the settlement plan has not been fully effected. Some SWAP0 members are still incarcerated in South Africa's gads , on the spurious excuse that they are common criminals. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Namibian detainees and disappeared persons still remain unaccounted for, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Council's plan for'a settlement in Namibia. (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) Instead of its addressing these issues, what we see is South Africajs resort to false alarms and self-serving propaganda regarding alleged or planned infiltration of SWAW forces into Namibia - this, despite the definitive statement of all concerned, including South Africa , that SWAPS forces have been disbanded or otherwise confined to base and their weapons kept under lock and key by both ONTAG and the- Angolan authorities. We are not, and I trust the Council is not, fooled by these red-herrings. (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) Let it be known that Africa and all peace-loving nations resorted to this Council to apprise-it of the dangerous situation in Namibia, as required by our Charter, We trust that the C!ouncil.will take immediate measures to correct the situation and put implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) back on track. It is for this reason that we fully endorse the recommendations made to this Council yesterday by Ambassador Victor Gbeho of Ghana in his capacity as Chairman of the African Group. It is our view that those recommendations are not only sensible but very practical. They address adequately the concerns that have been clearly expressed by all well-meaning people. Finally, it is an accepted principle of international law that agreements freely and voluntarily entered into by nations must be honoured. Hence the dictum, pacta sunt servanda. South Africa, which claims to be part of the Western heritage, should embrace this time-hcnoured principle of civilized conduct. The outbreak of peace which seems to have suddenly occurred in other dangerous parts of the world must be allowed to have full play in Namibia. Everything must be done to allow Africa's last formal colony to accede to independence. We must not allow Africa's attention and energies to be diverted from the continent-wide efforts at addressing major social and economic difficulties. We trust and hope that the Security Council will not be an accessory to such a sinister Plan= Action is urgently needed.

I thank the representative of Nigeria for the kind words he addressed to me. I now invite the representative of Cameroon to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. ENCO (Cameroon): The delegation of the Republic of Cameroon expresses gratitude for the opportunity provided by the convening of the Council for us to participate in this important debate reviewing the Namibian situation. We come to address you in the hope of removing any lingering doubts about the unity of African concerns over the present situation in Namibia. The times dictate that implementation of a dec.ision reached byconsensus, cne delicately elaborated in the form of a document, must be pursued with collective scrutiny and ensured through measures dictated by prudence and , in an ongoing atmosphere of uncertainty, the will to build confidence. We do not believe that this is the moment for confrontation, Africans everywhere continue to share with their Namibian brethren the pangs of humnger and a thirst for freedan and an end to acrimony and bloodshed. We pers.-fst in the belief that there is a happier option in peace , security and development in the subregion as a whole if justice and the norms of international law are permittzd' to prevail. We have often made it clear that independence for any of our nations in Africa is meaningless while parts of the continent .remain under political or other form of external bondage. This is not a mere sentimental feeling, it is the reality of ou'r circumstances and the predicament of peoples divided by political and economic lines of demarcation instituted to cater for harmonious exploitation by the treasure-seeking Bowers of the past. At least for this period in time, our destinies are fundamentally bound in the same misery. We walk the lanes of imposed darkness together, foreign tongues dividing us, foreign systems engag-ing us. We want this truth to be known, and known very well. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) We can only hope that the rest of the world - rich and poor, great and small - will dutifully endeavour to understand that Namibia and South Africa as issues are notthe exclusive domain of concern of African peoples. An unstable southern Africa can never contribute to peace and security in a contemporary world of interdependence and advancing technology. Southern Africa, with the Namibian situation as a focus of legal, political and military irresponsibility, could ignite a conflagration so far unimaginable. The existing tragedy in southern Africa stems from two equally dangerous situations. The first is the apartheid system, which seeks for the convenience of its proponents external guarantees of dominion for a minority race. The second involves the canplications of deep-rooted conflicts of interest external to those of the multi-racial peoples of the subregion. The dicourse a-~ the universally denounced system of apartheid, as well as the intermittent terrorism of the archdeacons of Pretoria, has tended to overshadow or even hide the seriousness of global tensions and war psychosis deriving from the southern African situation. It may be difficult to ascertain the actual scope, but it appears clear that the racist re'gime has been encouraged by circumstances to pontificate retrograde theological dogma about the so-called non-whites. It would appear to us imperative that the Security Council view the current situation in all its aspects. It is even more imperative that the policy-makers of the principal actors on the international scene be guided by the truest realities Of the situation. It is often said that wars are'caused not by incidents but by deep and vital conflicts of interest. As we see it, the conditions. for belligerency in southern Africa are not small in dimension because of the nature of the major interests engaged. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) While we ask Pretoria to wake up 'to the writing cn the walls of history, we must also invite all who claim interests in the subregion - interests~ that are considered critical to their national interests - to consult among themselves about the meaning of things that cbviously are. -Those who by their acquired supremacy of power have become preoccupied with nuclear strategy and the phenomena of glcbal peace and security must accept the commensurate burden of taking the situation mOre seriously. Mr. President, dear brother, we are particularly pleased to see an inspired and knowledgeable statesman like you presiding over the Security Council at this critical moment. You know only too well that the fortunes of the Namibian people constitutes a challenge for our universal Organisation, the United Nations, which is mobilized to end illegal military occupation , colonialism and despicable systems geared to suppressing the right of peoples to the genuine exercise of self-determination. The Chairman of the African Group, our brother Ambassador Victor- Gbeho, has communicated to you the sentiments of a concerned and committed people. It is not our intention to repeat the details he so articulately outlined. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) We consider it important that this Council demonstrate very clearly its determination to employ the collective will and the resources available to the metiership in ensuring free choice in the impending Namibian elections. Free choice must be seen to emerge from unimpeded opportunity for all parties to express their views in political campaigning - a process that must be devoid of intimidation, harassment and improper and unfair manoeuvring on the part of the authorities. The human dilexmna in a technological age is the burden of having to make important choices and critical decisions. It cannot be helpful for Namibians at this time to be-bullied by the appalling cynicism of outsiders. They need help in ensuring a climate of clear thinking and reasoned choice: The Council must become closely involved, especially through co-operation among the various sectors of its membership, in this first step towards lasting peace and progress in Namibia. It iS in our overall interest that co-peration replace confrontation because this alcne would be more productive of organized rather than imposed peace in Namibia. Free elections will bring an end to decades of instability, of hatred and of misery. They will usher in an era of national construction and rational management of natural rescurces, raising the standard of living of the Namibian people, creating an atmosphere of peace and progress and therefore security. If we permit these elections to be manipulated and thus decree the frustration of the hopes and dreams which constitute the wishes of the Namibian people, we shall launch a new era of discontent, division and instability; we shall write into history the scope of our incapacity to design and to maintain lasting peace and' security. The United Nations has for far too long remained hostage to ideological conflicts, to narrow sectional interests and to excessive 'and retrograde (Mt. Engo,, Cameroon) nationalism. That has not helped to reassure the international public that political will exists for promoting Charter norms and ideals. Successful conduct of free and fair elections in Namibia could add an immeasurable dimension to what the public appears to welcome as a revival of faith in our Organisation, its institutions and forums, as well as its ideals* This Council will do this universal,body good if it is seen to respect the constitutional consensus documented by the Charter of the United Nations. The Namibian people have seen enough senseless bloodshed. They are tired of seeing their children growing under hard conditions of deprivation and Of war. They have watched fellow Africans obtain political'independence and freedom - freedom to design their own destinies in a cruel world. Parents and generations of them have increasingly joined the rest of the world in trying to find answers to the searching questions of children and new generations concerning the whys and why-nots of the ups and downs from which unpleasant life takes its rhythm today. Southern Africa cannot be expected to provide comfort to global peace and security until the wrongs and misgivings of the past and present give way to the rule of law and the decency of the universal conscience. The Security Council has an opportunity now and must exploit it. The permanent members of this Council must be seen to act in concert and with determination. In the final analysis it is in their political hands that lies the power to-dictate the fortures of that region as elsewhere. The leadership role granted to them by history could be lost throuqh a refusal or reluctance to use acquired power to achieve a just and peaceful world. There is a consensus provided in resolution 435 (1978), but it is a greater universal desire to see all aspects of that document properly implemented. (Mr-. Hngo, Cameroon) Peace-keeping procedures are contemporary instruments of pacific resolution of conflicts and conflict-provoking conditions. It must be addressed by all of the international community if it is to be effective for peace and security. We must scrutinize all facets, from the provision of neutral troops or police to reassure the populace and parties concerned, to the campaign for new visions of international peace, security and development. The leadership is there. Those of us who had the pleasure of meeting and deliberating international issues with a.United States delegation headed by Ambassador George Herbert Walker Bush in the early 1970s remember him as a man dedicated to international understanding and global peace. What proved to be his formative years in the United States Congress , at the United Nations and in responsibilities elsewhere have equipped Mr. Bu&with personal knowledge of peoples and States and to play a more decisive role in southern Africa. We want to express hope and confidence that this nation of a "thousand lights" will take new and firm initiatives to guarantee for Namibians the free elections and choice that makes the revolutionary American dream work for the peoples of the United States. i' History has also brought to Moscow a leader with the privilege of virtually being a legend in his lifetime, a man who came to the General Assen'bly to call for change - change towards peace and understanding , away from the horrors of confrontation. President Mikhail Gorbachev, like President George Bush, was 1 schooled in a clear understanding of the growing realities of contemporary life around the globe as well as domestically.' These two leaders and their.acclaimed allies can work for and provide guarantees - first for Namibian freedom, secondly‘for the desperate administration in Pretoria, which undoubtedly is bullied by changing times to seek insulation from feared retribution in a post-freedun era. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) us If Pretoria is caught in a web of its own rhetoric about apartheid, let help them out of it. Let those who wield global influence mediate to create new conditions. Let them appease the African populations that have suffered humiliations, deprivations, oppressions and death in seeking to exercise fundamental rights. Co tell the South African whites that, in spite of the atrocities of the past, there is great living awaiting them in a peaceful and free country in-which they would continue to be important citizens. Tell them all of that. Tell them too that the doors of> the Org-anisation of African Unity would be open to them. Tell them that thereafter the doors t0 African markets and other mutually beneficial possibilities would also be open to tht3Il. Africans have shown that, in spite of the misgivings during a colonial or kin:dred period, we do not hurt and mistreat foreign settlers. Qi the contrary, the practice remains to preserve human life and legitimate socio-economic activities. Wo African leader has ever demanded the exodus of foreign rulers-or foreign settlers-turned-citizens. Southern Africa has cried out against discrimination. Zimbabwe and others have made a clear case that Africans are not attracted by the Unreal mistreatment of those who have made home in a new country and.whose contribution to economic and social progress is essential to national development. Tell them that other Africans whom Foreign Minister Potha chose,to call brothers here last fall are waiting for them. We all want to join in a n-ew endeavour, an exciting challenge of rebuilding a recovered Aftioaliexploiting God-given resources for the betterment of mankind as a whole. (Mr. Engo, Cameroon) We appeal for peace, and for the will to work for it. But let that not be taken for complacency and weakness. Let it be known that Africa's determination to be free will not be relaxed or reduced until freedom is attained. Sanctions and pressure will continue until the day dawns on freedom. South Africa knows well the effect of the economic and military pressure it applies to front-line States - a medicine to which it claims immunity. The pressure of sanctions against Pretoria must not be relaxed until change is in fact achieved. In closing, permit us to congratulate the Secretary-General on his sustained personal dedication. Mr. Perez de Cuellar recently returned from a Visit to South Africa and Namibia. He reported on his trip and outlined a number of important conclusions. This man of peace asks no more than resolution 435 (1978) requests Of US all in general and the Security Council in particular, that is, the quality of support that will make things work for good. Last December the General Assembly adopted resolution 43/85 on the strengthening of regional and international peace and security, with situations such as the present one in mind. That resolution urged ‘ "all States, in the implementation of agreements reached with the United Nations regarding Peace-keeping arrangements, further to strengthen co-operation with the Secretary-General in the discharge of his functions ' deriving from . . . ;inter alia the mandates and decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly". (General Assembly resolution 43/85, para. 11 May we look forward to adding success in Namibia to the laurels well deserved by the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar. We thank metiers of the Security Council for their generous patience. The PPB-IDENT (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of Cameroon for the kind words he addressed to me. The next 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. MONGELLA (United F&public of Tanzania): First, Sir, I should Iike to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of August. My delegation is particularly delighted to see you, a distinguished diplomat from Algeria, chairing the deliberations of the Council. YOUr great country, which.has a proven history of being a staunch advocate of international peace and security and an active champion in the struggle against mlO?IfaliSm, is one country with which my own country, Tanzania, enjoys close and cordial fraternal relations. My delegation is confident that, given your diplomatic skills and experience, you will successfully guide the wor-k of the Council this month. My delegation would like also to extend its felicitations ta your predecessor, His Excellency Amb-assador Dragoslav Pejic of Yugoslavia, for having presided over the Council so successfully last month. The Security Council has once again been convened to consider the question of Namibia, and my delegation is highly satisfied with the decision to convene the Council at this particular moment. The situation in Namibia has been uncertain for quite some tine nw, and at the moment is such as to demand an urgent review by the international cormunity and by all peace-loving peoples all over the world whoare keen to see a genuinely independent Namibia achieved through free and fair elections under the control and supervision of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG), as envisaged by Security Council resolution 435 (1978). (Mr. Mongella, United Republic of Tanzania) My delegation has been following very closely the process now under way for the independence of Namibia. We have in particular been following keenly the events that have been taking place in Namibia since the emplacement of UNTAG on 1 April 1989. What has transpired and what continues to evolve leaves a lot to be desired if the objective of a genuinely independent Namibia is to be realised under the control and supervision of the United Nations , and through free and fair elections. The scenario makes this particular series of meetings of the Security Council highly crucial. It is crucial in the sense that the Council is meeting, on the one hand, some four months after the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) began and, on the other hand, when there'are some three months left before the people of Namibia go to the polls to elect metiers of a-constituent assembly. These meetings of the Council are crucial also because of their timing, as‘ they will enable the Council to take stock of the activities of UNTAG and the South African re'gime in the whole process, so as to come to some realistic prescriptions for corrective action in the current implemenQtion of f&curity Council resolution 435 (1978) in conformity with the United Nations settlement plan for the independence of Namibia. It will not be fair to the people of Namibia, to the international community or to the United Nations if during the Council's deliberations attempts are made to avoid coming to grips with the hard facts of the situation , however unpleasant they might be. My delegation views with great concern the situation in Namibia and would like to register its position that the events that have been taking place in Namibia, if left unchecked, will not be conducive to a structural and administrative environment for free and fair elections in Namibia next November. (Mr. Mongella, United Republic of Tanzania) The structures that have been scheduled to be eliminated since last April are still in place. The adninistrative arrangements that had emerged with the emplacement ,of UNTAG are faltering and, as if by design, are being marginalized. It is our contention that the question of ensuring the conditions for free and fair elections in Namibia is the prerogative first and foremost of the United Nations. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the brain-child of the Security Council, and it is therefore the Council which must ensure - and must be seen to be ensuring - that the resolution is implemented in its original and definitive form, as reaffirmed by the Council in its resolution 632 (1989). In that regard, we call upon the Security Council to heed the concerns communicated to the Council by the Secretary-General after his tour in that region last month. The Secretary-General is not a lone voice in stating such.concerns.. A group of prominent Americans from the Commission on Independence for Namibia, who toured the region in June this year, also noted that "There still exist major obstacles to free and fair elections. in that Territory". Those voices only add to the concerns already raised on several occasions by the Those voices only add to the concerns already raised on several occasions by the front-line States, front-line States, the Organization of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement. the Organization of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement . We now call upon the Security Council to extend-its fullest co-operation to the We now call upon the Security Council to extend-its fullest co-operation to the Secretary-General, as envisaged in paragraph 54 (g) of the Secretary-General's Secretary-General, as envisaged in paragraph 54 (g) of the Secretary-General's report contained in document S/20412 of 23 January 1989, in order to redress the report contained in document S/20412 of 23 January 1989, in order to redress the deteriorating situation in Namibia. deteriorating situation in Namibia. My delegation notes with grave concern the numerous actions by the racist regime of South Africa which do not comply with the letter and spirit of resolutions 435 (1978). As just one example, the South African % Administrator-General is unlaterally refusing to disband the notorious Koevoet squad, which continues to intimidate and kill the Namibian people to this date. The recently announced overtures about finding new roles for Koevoet do not meet the position of resolution 435 (1978), which categorically demands the ccmplete disbanding of that unit. The paramilitary structures are not being dismantled; the crucial restrictive and discriminatory laws are not being repealed; political Prisoners have not all been released from their incarceration; obvious restrictions to access to the press are being imposed by South Africa on some of the political parties, and in particular the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPS). We are extremely concerned that the South African re'gime appears to be doing all that with apparent impunity and total disregard for, and defiance of, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Windhoek, who appears to be powerless and with no authority. My delegation hesitates to come to the conclusion that such continued non-compliance with resolution 435 (1978) by the South African re'gime suggests that the Security Council appears to have no power or'authority to prevent the Administrator-General in Namibia from doing whatever he and the South African rCgime want. In addition, two recent pieces of legislation, the Registration of Voters Law (AGl9, 1989) which is already in force , and the Draft Consti Went Assembly PrOClamatiOn of 21 July 1989, should be brought to the Council's attention so that any articles that further entrench and legal&e actions jeopardizing the process towards having free and fair elections in Namibia shall be rejected. The Council has such poweri the permanent members of the Security Council have that power and (Mr. Mongella, United Republic. of Tanzania) that influence. What is needed now is the political will by the Council to exert such force and influence as would ensure the true independence of Namibia. Otherwise, if the Council leaves matters to drift , as it appears to have been doing since last April , a blank cheque will be given to South Africa to manipulate the election process in violation of the independence plan for Namibia. It is in this light that our delegation associates itself fully with the statement of the Chairman of the African Group to the Council yesterday. We endorsethe concerns expressed and the proposals put forward in that statement. We do not think there can be any understandable argument for the Security Council to sit back and condone all that South Africa is currently and openly doing to the independence process for Namibia. The stakes are too high if the process for holding free and fair elections in Namibia is torpedoed by South Africa for its own economic and political short-term interests. My delegation ardently hopes that the Council's deliberations in this series of meetings will culminate with a decision urgently and realistically to tackle the deteriorating situation in Namibia. It is our expectation that the- Council will force the South African re'gime to respect the expectations of, and decisions adopted by, the Security Council. If nothing happens to reverse the cur-rent unsatisfactory situation in Namibia, posterity will blame the Security Council for missing this golden opportunity to ensure true independence for the Namibian people.

I thank the representative Of the United Republic of Tanzania for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Mali. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. DIAKITE (Mali) (interpretation from French): I wish first, Sir, to express my delegation's satisfaction at seeing you presiding over the Security Council for the month of August. You are the representative of a friendly country, Algeria, with which we have excellent relations. The long liberation struggle of the Algerian people and the permanent, distinterested support your country has given to people struggling against foreign domination, as well as your personal qualities guarantee the success of our work. My delegation also'takes this opportunity to congratulate the Ambassador of Yugoslavia on the skill with which he conducted the Council's work last month. Finally, through you, Sir, I pay tribute to the Secretary-General for his praiseworthy, tireless efforts to implement the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. Developments in Namibia are causing grave concern to Africa and the : international community. Resolution 435 (1978 ),'whose complete and correct implementation would make it possible for Namibia to become independent within the framework of free and fair elections, is constantly being violated by South Africa. After the events of 1 April this year , provoked and cynically exploited by South Africa, we have witnessed for some months a further deterioration of the sitation in the Territory. It will be recalled that resolution 435 (1978) provides for, among other things, the dissolution of all ethnic and paramilitary forces as well as the dismantling of their command structures. What do we see today on the ground? South Africa continues to defy the ,United Nations, flagrantly resisting the dissolution of its Koevoet death squads , integrated into the South West Africa Police (SWAPOL). With the elections only a few months away, the Namib.&an people is being terrorized. Supporters of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAP01 are (Mr. Diakite., Mali) subjected to daily intimidation. South Africa is manipulating the electoral lists, and many Namibian political prisoners are still in detention. All of that causes us profound concern, because the m%nimum conditions fat: guaranteeing free and fair elections are far from being met. That concern is shared by the whole international community and by eminent independent persons. For example, some eminent Americans, including legislators, belongings to a body known as the Commission on Independence for Namibia, testified eloguently in The New York Times of 12 August 1989 after a recent visit to Namibia. On the basis of their firsthand experience, they stated that there still existed major obstacles to I free and fair elections in Namibia next November. (Mr. Diakite, Mali) It reached those conclusions QI the basis of facts which have been noted and denounced by other independent sources. Indeed the Commission accuses South Africa of exerting a negative influence ct.the development of the independence process in Namibia in order to keep an independent Namibia within its sphere of influence. Still referring to the facts noted by that Commission, elements of Koevoet, which have bien integrated into the local police force - the South West Africa Police (SWAFOL) - are more than ever before terrorizing the civilian population, in particular the refugees returning home to the Territory in order to exercise their right tdvote. Furthermore, the South African authorities are encouraging South African nationals to be registered in Namibia in order to take part in the elections with the aim of upsetting the results. The South African adninistration has prepared draft legislation which is prejudicial to the secret nature of the balloting as well as to the regular counting of the ballots. Furthermore, the constituent assembly to emerge from future elections will under this legislation only have the power to make proposals and issue recommendations; and these proposals and recommendations will have to be approved by the South African Administrator to be fully implemented. That is tantamount to conferring the right of veto upon the Administrator. The Independent Commission also found that the political parties do not all have equal access to the media and other means of connnunication. All those violations by South Africa , which we vigorously denounce, have been carried out in spite of the presence of the United Nations forces, whose ability to operate is diminishing with every passing day. Faced with this dangerous escalation , we cannot remain passive. The international community bears a particular responsibility on the question of Namibia, and it must react in order to prevail upon South Africa to comply with the (Mr. Diakite, Mali) provisions of resolution 435 (1978). The Security Council, upon which the Charter has conferred a special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and securiw, must as a result of this debate take specific steps to make it possible for the Namibian people to decide its own future with complete peace of mind. To this end the Security Council must denounce South Africa's manoeuvres, which are designed to keep Namibia under its domination; demand that it dismantle the Koevcet death squads and cease all acts of terrorism and intimidation against supporters of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAFO), as well as all policies aimed at rigging the electoral lists; and require the release of all Namibian political prisoners. Lastly, we believe that, faced with an unstable South Africa which flouts the decisions of our Organization and .is incapable of honouring its own commitments, the Security Council must proceed with more firmness. We are not asking for anything that is beyond the ccmpetence of the Council. Like all other peoples, the Namibian people - which has suffered so much from oppression and domination at the hands of the Pretoria racists - aspires to freedcsn and independence. It is up to all of us to ensure that no obstacle will stand in the way of the exercise of this inalienable right.

I thank the representative of Mali for his kind words addressed to me. There are no further speakers for this,meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to continue its consideration of the item on its agenda will be held tomorrow, 18 August, at 10.30 a.m. g. The meetin