GENERAL ASSEMBLY - United Nations Digital Library System

AGENDA ITEM 32

President: Mr. Imre HOLLAI (Hungary).

A/37/PV.I02

102ndPLENARY MEETING

Monday, 13 December 1982,at 3.30 p.m.

N'EW YORK

naked aggression. SWAPO joins the world communityin condemning in the strongest possible terms this un- .provoked act of barbarity, which has caused the death

.of 42 Lesotho citizens and South African refugees,including innocent women and children, and thewounding of many others, as well as the destruction ofvaluable property. We extend our sympathy and con­dolences to all those bereaved families. In spite ofthese short-sighted acts ofdesperation on the part oftheracists, we remain convinced that the gallant com­batants of the African revolution will carry on the just.struggle for the total liberation of the continent and theeradication of the evil system of apartheid' in all itsmanifestations.

7. Apartheid South Africa, which is an internationaloutcast and a menace to proper human interaction, ispublic enemy, number one on the African continent..For many years it has been waging, and continues towage, undeclared war against the African masses in a,vain attempt to deflect the unanimous demand ofthe people for liberation, justice and racial tolerance.The persistent acts of aggression, militarism, inhumanrepression, nuclear adventurism, state terrorism,generalized violence and racial discrimination uponwhich the apartheid State is founded have repeatedlYbeen denounced and rejected by the internationalcommunity as a serious threat to international peaceand security.

8. In the light of this grave situation, for which theapartheid regime is totally and solely responsible, it ismost deplorable that the major Powers of the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], which have al­ways been the traditional allies of the regime, continueto intensify their collaboration with it in the nuclear,military, economic, financial, technological, culturaland political fields, in disregard of the relevant reso­lutions of the United Nations. The latest example inthis regard is the approval of an IMF loan of $1.1 bil­lion to Pretoria, the same amount that it has spent inNamibia to maintain i~ illegal regime.

9. In this context, it must be noted that these friendsof the racist illegal regime have not hesitated to misuse'the institution of the veto in the Security Council inorder to protect that regime and to prevent the Councilfrom assuming its full responsibility, including theimpositionofsanctions against South Africa. as an addi­tional means of exerting pressure on it for a meaning­ful change internally and for an end to its illegaloccupation of Namibia. This series·of vetoes can onlybe interpreted as an effective denial of the principle ofself-determination and freedom for the peoples ofsouthern Africa.

10. We· know that the capitalist ethic is predicateo,above all, on the overweening concern for profit, whichmeans th~t in southern Africa the primary interests of

1687

•w:; ~bii

Question of Namibia (continued):(a) Report of the Special Committee on the Situation

with regard to the Implementation of the Decla­ration on the Granting of Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples;

(b) Report of the United Nations Council for Namibia;(c) Reports of the Secretary-General

1. The PRESIDENT: May I remind members that thelist of ~~eak~rs. <?n this question will be closed at5 0'clock this afternoon.

2. I callI on Mr. Peter Mueshihange, Secretary forForeign Relations and observer for the South WestAfrica People's Organization [SWAPO], in accordancewith G.eneral Assembly resolution 31/152.3.. Mr. MUESHIHANGE (South West Africa Peo­ple's Organization): For the past 36 years, the GeneralAssembly has been dealing with the question of Na­mibia, both at its regular sessions and at a special ses­sion and an emergency speciai session. Throughout allthese years, the racist regime of Pretoria has remaineddefiant and I,as obstructed by every, pQssible !l\eansavailable to it the freedom and independence of Na­mibia. The record speaks for itself in this regard, andthere is a clear and mounting global consensus thatholds the Pretoria usurpers directly responsible for the·continuing sufferings of the Namibian people and thedenial of their inalienable and just rightsto' self-de~er­mination and political emancipation.4. The illegal occupation regime of South Africa hasturned Namibia into an armed fortress, controlled andterrorized by the colonial military and police forces,which are now estimated to have reached the alarmingfigure of about 100,000. It is this racist, terrorist armyand the fascist police which brutally enforce tyrannyand repression in Namibia and export from occupied'Namibia aggression, destabilization and subversionagainst the peoples and Governments of the inde­pendent African States in southern Africa.5. The explosive situation at the present time in thatregion has been brought about by the aggressive poli­cies ofHitler's disciples in Pretoria. Their expansionistactions resulting from such policies are negativelyaffecting various parts of Africa beyond southernAfrica, even as far afield as the Seychelles and otherAfrican countries south of the equator.6. At this very moment, the Security Council is seizedofa serious complaint brought before it by the Kingdomof Lesotho, the latest victim of the racist regime's

GENERALASSEMBLYTHIRTY-SEVENTH SESSION

O/fleial Records

United Nations

:e on theIn, Sales

cretariatn.the Sec­aft reso­I vote in

i subse­Ivote inslovakia

cretariatItion andour.equentlyavourof

cretariatsolutionintended

1688 General Assembly-Thirty-seventh Session-Plenary Meetings

the major NATO Powers and their transnational corpo- and organized by the American Committee on Africa,rations are mineral rights and the continued plunder of· with the active support and assistance of the Unitedthe natural resources in the region, in total disregard Nations Council for Na::libia.of the human rights and well-being of the millions of 16. These three gatherings are certainly not the onlyAfricans who live there. That has been and continues to ones of importance to Namibia, but the aspects of thebe the hallmark of colonialism, apartheid and broader question of Namibia which they consideredimperialist expansion. Consequently, the interests of have a direct bearing on the abominable collusion of thethe Africans have been relegated to the lowest priority major NATO Powers with the Boer regime, thusin the scheme of things, in which ready access to raw obstructing Namibia's independence. It is our viewmaterials and global strategic considerations assume that the findings of these meetings will be most usefultop priority and in which apartheid South Africa is an in connection with the forthcoming Internationalextension of the West. Conference in Support of the Struggle of the Namibian11. In this connection, I should like to make a passing People for Independence, to be held in Paris next yearreference to some ofthe recent international gatherings and at which the United Nations Council for Namibiawhere these permanent links between Pretoria and its and its Commissioner will be expected to ensure theWestern allies have been further exposed. adoption of effective measures and recommend such.. measures to the United Nations for implementation. .12. First, the Paris Declaration on Sanctions againstSouth Mrica1 confirmed the extent of the continuing 17. The unholy alliance is there, and the pattern ofcollaboration of the main Powers of NATO and their the convergence of the interests of the West and thetransnational corporations with the racists in the apartheid regime is clear. It is with this in ~ind ~hatnuclear, military, economic and banking fields and the I now wish to comment on the state of affairs SIncevigorous expansion in other areas, such as high t~ch- we last met in similar circumstances. It will then be-nology and sophisticated weapons systems. This state come obvious, in our view, why, in spite of muchof affairs naturally encourages the racist regime in its publicity and, in the words of an African Minftster,intransigence and defiance of the international com- "some audible shuffling of feet by the contact group",munity and constitutes a major obstacle to the process no meaningful progress has been made so far on Na-of the decolonization of Namibia, the elimination of mibia. With each passing day, it has become morethe inhuman and criminal system ofapartheid and the and more clear that Namibia's independence is veryaccession to freedom of Namibia. far off. We are just being realistic, without losing sight13. Secondly, the United Nations Council for Na- of the correct perspective, about which we are certain,

that Namibia will be free, through the bullet or throughmibia organized in Vienna, from 8 to 11 June 1982, a .Seminar on the Military Situation in and relating to the ballot.Namibia. This was indeed a very important and timely 18. Hopes and expectations ran high this time lastSeminar, considering the massive military build-up in year, during the thirty-sixth session, concerning inde-.and around Namibia and the serious threat which this pendence for Namibia. The general view was that 1982,situation poses to international peace and security, a was going to be the year in which our people wouldmatter of grave concern to the United Nations, which breathe the sweet air of freedom. But now, unlesshas assumed direct responsibility for Namibia. The we believe in miracles, it is rather obvious that Na-Seminar examined, on the basis of research papers mibia's independence will not come to pass during whatpresented by experts, in t~rms of the apartheid is left of the year, or in the foreseeable future. Thus,regime's regional aggression, the role ofthe nu~lear and the conclusion on the part of the Qppressed people ofmilitary collaboration of the NATO Powers with South Namibia is a painful and all too familiar one. The yearAfrica, Pretoria's growing nuclear armaments industry, 1982 will go down in the records of our patriotic strug-the recruitment and use of mercenaries in Namibia, gle as but another year of sufferings and sacrifices,the forced conscription of Namibians for the occupa- and we will remember the empty promises made andtion army, the sabotage of the Security Council arms the betrayal of t~st for the umpteenth time. We know,embargo, aggression and State terrorism against as we have always known, that at the end of the day,SWAPO, the unspeakable effects of the colonial war when the diplomatic bickering and recriminationon the Namibians and the peoples of the front-line has ceased, we shall, as always, have to assume fullStates, particularly Angola, and the ever-increasing responsibility for our lives and fulfil the patriotic dutymilitarization of virtually all aspects of the social and to liberate Namibia. We are the victims of fascistpolitical sectors in Namibia. tyranny, foreign domination and exploitation, and14. The conclusions and recommendations of t.he therefore we realize that our fight demands even moreSeminar provide a solid basis for the work of the sacrifices. In this we have no choice but to carry onUnited Nations Council for Namibia and also for with the struggle.action by friendly Governments and intergovern- 19. The United Nations has an unavoidable respon-mental, non-governmental and internati0!1al organ- sibility for Namibia until it attains its independence,izations in the world-wide campaign. to Isolate the and there is a declared commitment on the part of theapartheid regime and to mobilize world public opinion international community embodied in the cherishedfor sanctions against that regime. These findings form ideal that the cause of Namibia is the cause of allpart of the report of the Council to the General As- mankind for it is a cause offreedom,justice, peace andsembly [see A/37/24, chap. V, sect. B]. the rule ~f law, and these values remain universal in15. Thirdly, and lastly, I refer to the Seminar on the import and are the very basis of the United Nations'Role of Transnational Corporations in Namibia, held Charter and the Universal Declaration of Humanin Washington from 29 November to 2 December 1982 .Rights.

102nd meeting-13 December 1982

Africa,United

le onlyI of the;ideredilofthe:, thusr view:useful.ational,mibianxt yearlamibiaure theId suchation.

tern ofmd thend thats sincelen be-r muchjouster,:roup" ,on Na-e moreis veryng sight ''!''

certain,through

me last19 inde- .lat 1982:~ wouldI unlesshat Na-ngwhat:. Thus,~ople of'he yearle strug-crifices,ade ande know,the day,ninationlme fullltic dutyf fasciston, anden more~arry on

respon-mdence,lrt of theherishedse of alleaceandversal inNations·Human

20. It is in this spirit that the Namibian freedomfighters have embraced the partnership with theUnited Nations and are co-operating closely with theUnited Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Admin­istering Authority for our country until its full inde­pendence. As has been said before, mankind cannot behalf free and half oppressed. An eloquent speakerhas stated in this Hall:

"We believe that, though each of us has attainedindependence, none ofus is truly free while Namibiaremains a colony. We avow that in this context everyman is a Namibian and must have a vested interestin Namibia. Any denial of that interest is a denial ofmankind's common inheritance and shared destiny."

21. Of course, there are always exceptions to thisgeneral rule. There are those who have throughouthistory denied freedom to others and decried demandsfor justice and equality. These are the oppressors, theexploiters and the racialists. It is th~ir tyranny whichthe revolutionaries, democrats and peace-makers havebeen struggling against. This is the situation today inNamibia, and the struggle is also th~ same.22. But there is an exhilarating realization every­where. The struggle of the Namibian people is sup­ported by the overwhelming majority of States Mem­bers of the United Nations and by all sectors ofprogressive mankind around the world. On the otherhand, the racist criminals and tyrants are international'outcasts, so much so that even the hypocrites whootherwise collaborate with them are forced to do soonly clandestinely and through other means ofcamouflage.23. Mr. President, it gives me great pl~asur~." onbehalf of the struggling Namibians and in the name ofSWAPO, their sole and authentic representative, toextend to you our warmest and most fraternal felici­tations and best wishes on your unanimous electionto the high office of President of the thirty-seventhsession of the General Assembly. We are convincedthat your personal commitment to the cause of Na­mibia and your unswerving support for SWAPOqualify you in many ways to be a Namibian and that

.you continue to have a deep interest in the struggle'for a free Namibia. Hungary, your homeland, is one ofthe staunchest supporters of SWAPO and of the heroic ;.struggle of the Namibians. It therefore gives us a senseof renewed assurance that your best efforts in thisregard will prove successful and that during yourpresidency firm decisions will be taken in the best inter­est of the people of Namibia.24. In the same vein, I should like to put on recordour appreciation of and satisfaction with the vigorousefforts being pursued by the Secretary-General to givepractical effect to the resolutions of the United Nationsrelating to Nam.ibia, in particular Security Councilresolution 435 (1978).25. His personal commitment to ensuring the earlydecolonization ofNamibia and his courage in defendingby word and action the principles of the United NationsCharter, which guarantee the right of self-determina­tion of colonized peoples and countries, are a sourceof great inspiration to our people.26. I should now like to acknowledge with satis­faction and appreciation the invaluable work beingdone .by the United Nations Council for NaI1"'ibia and

1689

the Office of the United Nat{ons Commissioner forNamibia in discharge of the mandate entrusted to themto hasten Namibia's independence by all possiblemeans, ID co-operation and consultation with SWAPO.27. The report of the United Nations Council for'Namibia [A/37/24] , which Mr. Paul Lusaka introducedto the Assembly at the 101st meeting, together with therecommendations contained in part fDur of the report,and the annexes, provide food for thought. The reportcovers a broad spectrum of the activities of the Coun­cil and its assessment of developments in and relatingto Namibia. SWAPO has been fully associated withthe work of the Counc~l, as the report shows. It followsfrom this that we endorse the inspiring and informativestatement delivered by the President of the Counciland, in particular, the recommendations presentedfor adoption as resolutions of the Assembly. I wish tocommend Mr. Lusaka for his wise and dynamic leader­ship of the Council and again to assure him and themembers of the Council of our highest considerationand gratitude. I thank him also for his generous wordsabout our struggle, under the leadership of SWAPO.

28. I take this opportunity also to thank the Rap­porteur of the Special Committee on the Situation withregard to the Implementation of the Declaration onthe Granting of Independence to Colonial" Countriesand Peoples for his brilliant report on, the activitiesof the SJ2e~lal Committee in the field_, of dec910niz~,:,tion, especially regarding Namibia [A/37/23/Rev.l,chap. VIII]. We are no less grateful to the'SpecialCommittee for its historic work which has greatlyassisted the liberation ofmany"Countries and peoples inAsia, Latin America and Africa. Needless to say, theSpecial Committee will continue its work unabateduntil all men and women everywhere are free frombondage and exploitation. I take note with mixedfeelings of the fact that Mr. Frank Abdulah, ofTrinidadand Tobago, Vice-Chairman and later Chairman ofthe Special Committee for several years, will soonmove on to serve his country elsewhere. He is a friend,a brother and a comrade who has always been close tous in his work and whose commitment to Namibia'sfreedom has been total and a personal crusade. We willmiss him here, but we are consoled by the fact that,wherever he may be, his country's and his own sup­port for SWAPO will always be there.

29. I wish to put on record our thanks to and appreci­ation of a hard-working international civil servantwho will be leaving this Organization at the end of theyear after long service. This is Mr. Issoufou Djerma­koye, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs,Trusteeship and Decolonization. He has assisted us invarious ways, in particular during the difficult times atthe beginning. He has made a significant contributionwhich will remain on record.

30. I send best wishes for the coming holidays andgood luck in their new endeavours to both Mr. Abdulahand Mr. Djermakoye.

. .31. For the. past five years, notwithstanding all thegood will and the best efforts on the part of the front­line States, SWAPO and the United Nations, the racist,illegal regime has obstructed implementation of Secu­rity Council resolution 435 (1978), which, inter alia,envisages the holding of free and fair elections. Inrecent times, the racists have found a most friendly·

2 at. .! i; $2$ . .12 III

1690 General Assembly-Thirtywse~c3tb Session-·Plenary Meetings

. )

Iiii

\1)

Government in Washington. By introducing extra-.neOGS issues into the Namibia talks and by seeking tohijack the decolonization process of Namibia, theUnited States Administration has now assumed directresponsibility for the current delay. To us it meansthat the United States Administration, in cahootswith the illegal regime, is actually preventiug freeelections in Namibia. It is holding the .Namibians toransom and prolonging their sufferings.32. It is Washington which has now turned the linkageissue intO' a matter of public debate through the recentAfrica shuttle trip of Vice-President George Bush.33. It is important to note, however, that in thepresent impasse it was not Pretoria but Washingtonwhich invented the issue of a linkage between the inde­pendence of Namibia and the presence of the Cubansin Angola. South .Africa has merely found the UnitedStates insistence on this issue to be yet another con­venient excuse b~hind which to hide furthei in orderto avoid free, fair and democratic el~ctions in Namibia.34. It is indeed a sad a.nd trag~c development ofinternational politics that a leading world Power, whichclaims to be the citadel of democraey, should chooseto use the sufferings and agony of our unfortunate,small nation as a bargaining card in pursuit of its ownglobal obje~~tives.

35. BecauBr~ of the decision by the Reagan Adminis­tration to hdd li.p Namibia's independence and to useour people's agony and sufferings as a bargaining card,the process of bringing Namibia to independencethrough a negotiated settlement has now come to avirtual standstill; in the meantime, Pretoria is dailyintensifying its cold-blooded murder of our people,torturing them, burning their villages and destroyingtheir prop'erty, in an attempt to force them to accept itsown bogus arrangements in Namibia.

36. In this connection, I wish to draw the attentionof the Assembly to the ·Declaration on Namibia, issuedon 26 November 1982 at the meeting of the Heads ofState and Government of 31 African countri1es, held atTripoli from 23 to 26 November 1982. I shaH quote thefollowing two relevant paragraphs from that Decla­ration:

"Condemn the United States of America and theSouth African racist regime for their attempts toestablish any linkage or parallelism between the inde­pendence of Namibia. and the withdrawal of Cubanforces from Angola, that being a contravention ofArticle 2, paragraph 7, ofthe United Nations Charterane' a contradiction of United Nations' SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (1978) in both letterand spirit.

"Firmly reject all attempts to establi&h any linkageor parallelism betwef'~l the indeipendence ofNamibiaand any extraneous issues, j 11 particular the with­drawal of Cuban forces from Angola, and emphasizeunequivocally th&: the pers)is.ten~e of such attemptswould only retard the decolonizat!on process ofNamibia, as well as constitute not only hegemonicmanipulation of the situation in and around Namibiain order to prolong the illegal o,~cupation of Namibiaand the oppression of Namibians, but also a blatantinterference in the internal affairs of Angola."

37. SWAPQ supporis that courageous and firm posi­tion taken by those countries and urges the General

Assembly to &ncpt that position as its own. Moreover,we endorse th.t call by both the African States and theMovement of Non-Aligned Countfies for an earlymeeting of the Security Council to reassume its respon­sibilities under all relevant provisioF;, of the UnitedNations Charter and to fix its own ti"le-frame for theimplementation of the United Nations plan for Na­mibia without further delay.38. In the meantime, we request all our friends andsupporters and, indeed, the United Nations to de­nounce all fraudulent constitutional and politicalschemes through which the illegal r~gime of racistSouth Africa may attempt to perpetuate· ~ts colonialdomination in Namibia, and, in particular, we urgeall f· ates to ensure non-recognition of any administra­tion or entity installed in Namibia by the South Africanillegal regime in contravention of United Nations reso­lutions on Namibia, particularly Security Council reso­lutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978).

39. For how long must the Namibian people stillendure untold sufferings? What else must be allowed tohappen, and at what price to the Namibian patriots,for the United Natio::i;) to bring the full weight of itslegal, moral and political authority to bear on the racistillegal regime in Namibia to get out of our country,for which the United Nations has assumed uniqueresponsibility? When will the charade end, and whenwill effective action be taken? When is enough reallyenough?40. To us, the direction is clear and the determi­nation is boundless. We shall march forward as ourancestors did before us and as we have been doingfor the past 22 years of SWAPO's glorious existence'as a national liberation movement. We shall pay theprice for liberty and sacrifice even more willingly,knowing that our struggle is just and that victory is\~ertain, is inevitable. We shall continue to intensify thestruggle on all fronts, especially the military froilt,where we have been waging an armed struggle for thepast 16 years, achieving great successes against manyodds.

41. Despite all the odds we face and the forces pittedagainst us, we remain confident in the final victefy ofourjust and heroic struggle. During the past 12 months,in carrying out the directives of the Central Committeeof SWAPO, the combatants of the People's LiberationArmy of Namibia (PLAN) have liquidated 350 racistsoldiers iQ Namibia, shot down 9 enemyjetfighters and13 helicopters, put out of action 6 armoured vehiclesand seized other war materials, including radio equip­ment and large quantities of small arms and ammu­nition.42. Today, PLAN combatants are using capturedenemy weapons and means of communication, thusdemonstrating the positive development in the strugglewhereby the enemy is increasingly becoming a sourceof war materials for SWAPO.

43. For this, we pay undying homage to the PLANcombatants-the men &ond women who have displayedrevolutionary courage and anti-imperialist bo!dnessto bring Namibia to the thf~shold of liberation. Inhonouring their memories, we pledge to continue onthe path of armed resistance which they have charted,and in this regard our 1J10tto remains that it is either anindependent fatherland or death.

102nd meeting-13 Decembe:- 1982 1691

44. In conclusion, at this most critical stage, whenthe common enemies, at home and abroad,ofthe peo­ples of South Africa and Namibia are resorting to 'themost brutal fascist acts, SWAPO wishes to pay specialtribute to the comrades-in-arms of the African NationalCongress of South Africa [ANC] and its military wing,the Umkhonto We Sizwe-Spear of the Nation-fortheir splendid victories in the field and their activepolitical mobilization of the masses in South Africa, aswell as of world public opinion. We have seen in recenttimes, as evidenced by leaked official documents, theextent of the collaboration between South African mili­tary intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency,which recently made the ANC an object of its covertactivities. But we know that the ANC will take themeasure of the enemies' machinations and terrorcampaigns.

45. In yet another corner of Africa, we salute thePOLISARIO Front2 and· the Government of theSaharan Arab Democratic Republic in their heroicstruggle for self-determination and unfettered inde­pendence and against colonialist expansion.

46. Similarly, we express our militant solidarity withthe people of East Timor, led by FRETILIN,3 whosecourageous struggle for self-determination is at lastreceiving recognition and support, and particularlywith the brave and irrepressible fighters of the Pal­estine Liberation Organization, whose multidimen­sional struggle parallels the struggles of the peoples ofsouthern Africa, both being victims of the UnitedStates-South Africa-Israel alliances. With the con­tinued and increased support of the wider internationalcommunity, our common struggles will finally be vic­torious. The struggle continues. Victory is certain.

47. Mr. RAHIM (India): The Minister for ExternalAffairs of India! Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, has alreadyhad occasion, at the 14th meeting ofthe current session,to convey to you, Sir, the felicitations ofmy delegationon your unanimous election to the high office of Presi­dent of the General Assembly. I hope you will permitme, on the eve of the conclusion of this session, toextend to you a word of sincere appreciation for thevery competent and purposeful manner in which you.have guided the proceedings of the Assembly.

48. We in India feel a deep sense of pain and anguish,and of frustration, at the fact that the" people of Na­mibia continue to live in bondage and under repr~ssion.I believe that these sentiments are shared by the vastmajority of the international community. For manyyears, we have been advocating the cause ofNamibianindependence, taking decisions by overwhelmingmajorities of votes in the Assembly, pleading with theSecurity Council to demonstrate greater decisivenessin the discharge of its responsibilities, and waitingpatiently for the outcome of efforts to achieve ourcherished objective. For 160fthose years, Namibia hasbeen a direct trust of the United Nations. Yet all ourefforts, our decisions, our admonitions and ourpleading have so far been ofno avail. The racist regimein Pretoria continues to maintain its stranglehold onNamibia. The question of Namibia remains intractableand continues to appear repeatedly on the agendaoftheinternational community. The people of Namibia con­tinue ~o suffer the most inhuman degradation andbrutal repression under a racist and alien regfme.

...

49. The history of the negotiations relating to Na­mibia's independence has truly become a story offrus­tnition and disappointment. It is almost as if somecountries and some people, foremost among them thePretoria r~gil11e, take a perverse pleasure in raising thehopes of the international community from time tCl'im~, only to let them fall and be shattered to smith­ereens. More than once, attempts have been madedeliberately t~ create an atmosphere of expectation,only for that atmosphere ultimately to be rudelydispelled by the realities of the situation. All the while,South .At'rica has made use of the opportunity to con­solidate its illegal presence in Namibia and to drainthe Territory of its precious wealth.50. It is now four years since the contact group ofWestern countries took upon itself the task of imple­menting the United Nations plan for Namibia endorsedby the Security Council in resolution 435 (1978). Theinternational community has waited and watched in thehope th~t South Africa's attitude of intransigence andblatant defiance might perhaps be curbed by those inthe best position to influence it. That hope has thus farbeen belied, and the signs on the horizon are far frompromising. South Africa scuttled, on what we all knowwere flimsy grounds, the pre-implementation meetingheld in Geneva in January 1981. Ever since, Pretoriahas come up with one pretext after another to bedevilearly implementation of the United Nations plan. First,it was the so-called question of the impartiality of theUnited Nations..Then, it was the constitutional prin­ciples and the composition of UNTAG. On each ofthese, and at every step, SWAPO and the front-lineStates have demonstrated a spirit of accommodationand far-sighted statesmanship. Pretoria's response,quite characteristically, has consistently been one ofprevarication and intransigence. '51. Of late, attempts have been made to link Na­mibian independence with an extraneous issue. Call itlinkage, parallelism or what you will, the fact of thematter is that these two issues are seen by those par­ties as related to each other, and the independence ofNamibia is being made conditional on the settlement,ofissues which have little bearing on it. A pure and simplematter of decolonization is being given ideologicaldimensions, thus seriously jeopardizing the chancesofan early settlement for Namibia. We believe that thematter of Cuban troops in Angola is the sole concernofthose two sovereign States and should not be allowedto impede in any way the efforts to secure Namibia'sindependence.52. All the efforts to make South Africa heed thewj1) of the world community have had .not one iota ofsuccess in restraining South Af.rica in its acts of bel­ligerence. South Africa not only remains in Namibiaillegally, but has continued to transgress with impunitythe established frontiers of other independent AfricanStates of the region. Acts of subversion and aggressionagainst Angola, part of whose territory South Africacontinues to occupy forcibly, are repeated frequently.53. Only last week we learned "ef the unprovoked andwanton aggression carried out by South Africa againstthe sovereignty and territorial integrity of usotho.My Government has strongly condemned. that in­vasion. Similarly, South African troops have com­mitted aggression against other States, keeping there~ion in a state of terror and turmoil.and, indeed,

1692 General Assembly-Thirty-seventh Session-Plenary Meetings.

endangering international peace and security. SouthAfrica continues to receive military assistance fromvarious quarters, in contravention of the arms embargoimposed by the Security Council. The assistancerendered to the Pretoria regime in the nuclear fieldand South Mrica's reported acquisition of nuclear­weapon capability have added yet another dangerousdimension to the whole situation.

54. One of the principal explanations for SouthMrica's reluctance to release its hold over Namibia, asalso perhaps for the ambivalent attitude·of some of itssupporters, is the enormous economic stake that thesecountries have in Namibia. Transna,tional corporationscontinue to operate in that Territory, amassing hugeprofits, in violation of innumerable United Nationsresolutions as well as Decree No. 1 for the Protectionof the Natural Resources of Namibia,4 enacted by theUnited Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September1974. The result of these economic manipulations hasbeen a serious drain on Namibia's resources and large­scale repatriation of profits abroad. Namibiaf1s derivelittle or no benefit from them. The operation of theseeconomic interests is illegal and inimical. In spite ofour efforts, these activities have not ceased.

55. The United Nations cannot afford the odium thatwould result from its having to bequeath to the futureGovernment of a free Namibia a land stripped bare ofits resources and mired in underdevelopment. Thatwould be unconscionable.

56. The economic exploitation of Namibia must bestopped. We believe that, since all other means havefailed, the Security Council should no longer hesitate:"'ut should proceed to the imposition of comprehen­sive and mandatory sanctions against South Mrica.

57. In the midst of all the polemics and discussionsthat have gone on for a long time in various forums,let us not for a moment forget the people of Namibia,whose suffering and whose courage have few paralle}sin modern times. Under the leadership of SWAPO,their sole and authentic representative, the people ofNamibia have struggled patiently and steadfastly. Theindignities that are so characteristic of the abhorrentsystem ofapartheid have been heaped upon them; theyhave been imprisoned without trial and tortured; in­nocent men, women and children have been kiiled. Yettheir will to be free has not been broken, as was madeeloquently clear in the course of the moving addressdelivered immediately before my statement by the Sec­retary for Foreign Reiations of SWAPO. We know thatthey will finally prevail.

58. I should also like to pay tribute to the UnitedNations Council for Namibia, under the leadership ofits President, and to the United Nations Commis­sioner for Namibia for the dedication and tenacity ofpurpose with which they are carrying out their respon­sibilities. I had the opportunity of listening to theinspiring statement of the President of the Council atthe 101st meeting. In the face of the indifference andeven open hostility ofcertain quarters, the Council hasstriven tirelessly in the fulfilment of its mandate. Un­fortunatel:y> the Council has not been entirely free ofthereverberations. of the worsening international situa­tion. How~ver I it is to its credit that it has not let thatinhibit its functioning.

~ - .. ... ..-- ._.. ..59. As a member of the Council, as well as of the Spe­cial Committee on the Situation with regard to theImplementation of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Indiahas consistently endeavoured to make a constructivecontribution; in doing so, we have always consideredthe interests of Namibia to be of paramount impor­tance. India's sympathy and support-for the Namibiancause, both within the Council and outside it, scarcelyneed reiteration. We have extended both moral andmaterial assistance to SWAPO. The world will remem­ber that India was the first country, in 1946, to imposecomprehensive voluntary sanctions· against theapartheid regime of South Africa. We believe that ourefforts can succeed only if South Africa can be totallyisolated. That in turn requires the display of politicalwill on the part of all concerned.

60. Finally, I should like also to express a word ofappreciation for the front-line States of Africa, whichhave shown exemplary solidarity and leadership intheir advocacy of the cause of the Namibian and SouthAfrican peoples. They have time and again been thevictims of South African aggression, as well as ofotheracts of subversion and provocation. Their economiesand their social fabric have been disrupted. But theyhave been steadfast in their support of the objectivewe together cherish.61. For too long now, South Africa has continued toscoff at world opinion. Our patience is wearing thin.It would be naive of Pretoria to think that it can eithersuppress the will of the Namibian people by brute forceor can ·win their allegiance through political manreu­vres involving puppet institutions imposed from with­out. I shall only quote what the Prime Mi.nister ofIndia,Mrs. Indira Gandhi, said earlier this year when re­ferring to the struggling people of South Africa andNamibia:

"May every year, rather every day, bring greaterstrength to those who are fighting. May it bringcourage and understanding among those who arestill doubtful or those who, for their own narrow pur­poses, [1're trying to halt the march of history. I haveno doubt that no one can stop freedom. There is noact ofrepression, there is no brutality, which can stopthe forward movement of a great idea and there canbe no greater idea than the freedom of the humanbeing. That will win."•

62. Mr. ROA LOURI (Cuba) (interpretation fromSpanish): The question of Namibia, together with theheroic struggle of the Palestinian people for the attain­ment of their inalienable rights and the establishmentof their own State in Palestine, is one of the crucialissues of our time. There can be no talk of the declineof colonialism as long as colonial domination is notcompletely removed from the face of the ea11h and aslong as there exist peoples which, like the people ofNamibia, are still under Hie yoke of foreign {)ppres­sion-hence. the full force of General Assembly reso­lution 1514 (XV) and the need to redouble our efforts toachieve its full implementation in this decade.

63. In recent years, since the adoption of SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (1978) and particularly since theindependence of Zimbabwe, the international com­munity has been justified in thinking that the long trialsand tribulations of the Namibian people, ~hich hav~

102nd meetlng-13 December 198% 1693

suffered for so long under the illegal occupation of thePretoria racists, were coming to an end. Recently, talksheld in New York between the sole legitimate represen­tative of the Namibian people, SWAPO, and the front­line countries, on the one hand, and the member coun­tries of the so-called Western contact group, on theother, gave rise to optimism when it was known thatfundamentally the way had been cleared for the imple­mentation of the United Nations plan for Namibia.64. However, some new conditions were very soonmade public which one of the m~iiibers of that group,the United States, wished to impose on the Namibianpeople and on the front-line countries before theprocess leading to the independence of Namibia couldbe completed.

65. Under the euphemism of "other pending mattersin southern Africa", the imperialist North AmericanGovernment-the main ally and supporter of the SouthAfrican fascist regime-wants nothing less than tomake the independence of the Territory dependent onthe fulfilment of certain conditions which are com­pletely alien to the issue, in particular, on the W~i~l­

drawal of the Cuban internationalist forces from thePeople's Republic of Angola.

66. I should like to make clear, first and foremost~

that the presence of Cuban troops in Angola is some.­thing which is the exclusive concern of the sovereignindependent Governments of my country and thePeople's Republic of Angola. Those troops are there,pursuant to an agreement between the two Govern­ments, to contribute to the defence of Angola's ter­ritorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, whichare threatened by racist South Africa, and they will bewithdrawn only when the acts of aggression carriedout against Angola from Namibian territory hav,e finallyended and when the Government of t.he Fecpie'sRepublic of Angola so decides-·not before and notafter and, of course, never as a result of the pressureor blackmail of the imperialist Government of theUnited States or its cronies in Pretoria.

67. In any case, these imperialist pretensions havebeen firmly rejecteG by the Government of the Peo­ple's Republic of Angola, by the other front-line coun­tries and by all the independent States of Africa, &S

was reaffirmed in the Declaration on Namibia, issuedat Tripoli in NQvember 1982. A few days ag01 thePre'sidents of Angola and Zam-' ~ categorically de­clared their opposition to any atte' tpt to Hnk Namibianindependence 1\1 .tb matters quite separate fn:>m thatissue, especial!} ,he withdrawai of Cuban troops fro.nAngola. Both the Special Committ~e on the Situationwith regard to the Implementation of the Declarationon the Granting of Independence to Colonial CifJn­tries and Peoples and th~ United Nations Council torNamibia have clearly expressed their rejection ofimperialist attempts to Eet conditions for or furtherdelay the strict implem{~ntation of Security CO'Jficilresolution 435 (1978) and, consequently, the Ter­ritory's complete independence.

68. The imperialists' machinations-because Vlhatis involved here Es a North American political objectiveand not a requirement of the South Mrican regime,as some would have us believe, since that regime is amere pawn of Washington-clearly further Wash­ington's counter-revolutionary strategy in the African

continent. Specifically, they have the followingobjec­tives: to foster the establishment ofapuppet Govern­ment in Namibia,. through an "internal arrange­ment" managed by the illegal occupiers, which wouldprevent the holding of genuine elections and henceprevent SWAPO's victory; and to weaken the capacityof the People's Republic of Angola to defend itself,with a view to overthrowing the revolutionary Govern­ment of the Movimento Popular de Libe~ao deAngola [MPLA]-Partido de Trabalho, replacing itwith Washington's henchmen and hirelings and thusreturning Angola to the imperialist neo-colonialsystem.69. As always, the political short-sightedness of.North American imperialism goes hand in hand with itsunscrupulous conduct. The Angolan revolutionariesare not prepared-to allow the destiny of their people tobe compromised or the genuine process of liberationwhich has been undertaken to be reversed, nor will theNamibian patriots relax their heroic struggle forgenuine independence until they have achieved it forever and inc,ontestably. Both will use all the meansnecessary to foil any attempt to spoil the fruits oftheir historic struggle.

70. The United Nations has entered into a political&nd moral commitment to the people of Namibiawhich cannot be renounced-that of hel~ing it toachieve real and effective independence, without vacil­lation or prevarication. The United Nations Counldlfor Namibia, the s0ie legal Administering A~thori~y forthe Territory until such independen~e has beenachieved, must enjoy our total support and commit­ment, and SWAPO, the sole legitimate representativeof the N~mibian people, must be able to rely O~_ ourresolute support, so that it can step up its ju~· .J£ruggleagainst the racist oppressors until final v~ctory is won.

. .71. Our aim can be none other than a uui~ed, inde­pendent Namibia, including V~'&lvis Bay an~ the off­shore islands-Penguin~ lchaboe, Hollamsbird,Mercury, Long, Seal, Halifax, Possession, AlbatrossRock, Pomona, Plum Pudding and Sinclair's. Anyaction by South Africa to separate them from theTerritory or to claim soverei~nty over them is illegal,null and void and must be so Iiegarded by the inter-national community. .

72. The activities of foreign "conomic inter~sts

in Namibia~principally, those of British, NorthAmerican, German and French trausnat~onalcorpora­tions-are an obstacle to the Territory's independenceand expressly violate Decree No. 1 for the Protectionof the Natural Resources of Namibia,4 enacted by theUnited Nations Council for Namibia. We must there­fore take the necessary m~asures to prevent the con­tinued exploitation of resources which by right are thesole heritage of the people of Namibia, as wen as toguarantee that, once the Territory has achieved inde­pendence, those interests will properly compensate thepeople of Namibia for the indiscriminate plunder oftheir heritage.

73. The General Assembly must condemn the racistregime of South Africa for having increased its militaryforce in Namibia, for recruiting Namibians :0 servein its armed forces in the Territory, for using mercena­ries to strengthen its illegal occupation and for usingNamibia as a springboard for acts of a~ression

.2 I.1694 General ~mbly-Tbirty.seventh Sesslon-Plemry Meetings

against neighbouring independent countries, inparticular the People's Republic of Angola. In thisregard, there should be special condemnation ofthe recent act ofaggression by the South African racistsagainst the Kingdom of Lesotho, which claimedinnocent victims and resulted in loss ofproperty, and oftheir criminal policy of intimidation of countries suchas Mozap:tbique, both carried out in flagrant violationof the United Nations Charter and ofinternational law.74. It is also imperative for the Security Council toact resolutely-as called for by the Special Committeeon the Situation with regard to the Implementa~ion ofthe Declaration on the Grantirig of Independence toColonial Countries and Peoples-to counter all thedelaying tactics and fraudulent plans of the illegal,occupation regime designed to thwart the legitimatestruggle of the Naiilibian people. In view of the seriousthreat that South Africa poses to international peaceand se:curity, the Security Council must respondpositiv1ely to the call Cof the overwhe.lming majority ofmembe;r3 of the international community by imme­diately imposing on that country the ,.comprehensive,maJ",Jatory sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of theC~~arter.

75. My delegation must condemn the abuse of theveto by the Government of the United States andother Western countries in the Security Council toprevenr that body from impos:ng ihe re)/evant S?lnc­tions on the criminals in Pretoria for theiir continuingillegal occupation of Namibia, the plunder of thatcountry's natural resources and their brutal, aggres­si'\:e policy towards other independent African States.

76. We therefof{~ cf'ndemn the military and, inparticular, the nuclear collaboration of severalcapitalist States, including the United States and theIsraeli Zionists, with the apartheid regime. We alsocondemn all other forms of collaboration with thePretoria racists. In this regara, we draw the attentionof the international community to the growing links of'(he Pinochet regime in Chile and other South AmericanGovernments with the South African racists, as wellas to the imperialist plans-which have been enlargedsince the British military occupation of the MalvinasIslands and the start made on the construction ofstrategic bases in that part of Argentine territory-tocreate a reactionary miHtary alliance, in the service oftheir dubious interests, in that part of the Atlantic.77. The collusion of several imperialist Powers, firstand foremost the United States, with the racist Preto­ria regime has further been made clear by the decisionof the IMF to grant that regime a credit of $1 billionin open disregard ofGeneral Assembly resolution 37/2.Is is therefore essential for all those States which aregenuinely concerned to see United Nations decisionson Namibia implemented and which support the elimi­nation of the odious system of apartheid to adopt theappropriate measures to isolate South Africa politi­cally, economically, militarily and culturally, inconformity with General Assembly resolutions ES-8/2and 36/121 B.

78. There can be no doubt as to what needs to bedone to ensure the genuine, definitive independenceof Namibia. The parties to the conflict were defined along' time ago-South Africa, the megal occupyingforce in the Territory, and SWAPO, the sole leg,itimate

representative of the Namibian peolple-as was theframework of action, which wa~ set quite clearly inSecurity Council resolution 435 (~978). "Nhat is n~ces-,

sary now is to get the process going without furtherdelay. The international community and the over­whelming m~ority of the peoples of the world arewaiting for the Security Council to adopt approprIatemeasures so that the Namibian people can a~cede toindependence in 1983. The commitment of the UnitedNations is clear and unequivocal. It is our duty tofulfil it.79. Mr. ULRICHSEN (Qenmark)~ I h~ve the honourto speak on behalf of the 10 member States of theEuropean Community.80. Namibia is a particular respon8~~ility and con­cern of the Un;ited Nations. For a great number ofyears, it has been one cfthe most serious problems thatthe Organization has faced. The international com­munity has consistently reiterated the view that theunlawful occupation of Namibia by South Africa mustbe brought to an end in accordance with SecurityCouncil resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 {l978). Regret­tably, this aim has yet to be achieved.81. The Ten have repeatedly and firmly expressedtheir conviction that the people of Namibia must bepermitted to determine its own future through freeand fair elections, under the supervision and control ofthe United Nations, in accordance with SecurityCouncil ft~solution 435 (1978). The plan for imple­mentation endorsed in that resolution was acceptedby both SWAPO and the Government of SouthAfrica.82. In the vnew of the Ten, the United Nations planendorsed in resolution 435 (1978) provides the onlypossibility of a peaceful transition to internationallyrecognized independence for Namibia.

83. The past years have seen strenuous efforts bythe Secretary-General and his Special Representative,by the front-line States, Nigeria, SWAPO and theOrganization of African Unity [OAU], and by the fiveWestern States ~Jhich were the authors of the plan. T~eTen have consistently supported those efforts.

84. Since the last session of the General Assembly,we have seen an intensification of the negotiations.We have been encouraged to see that, this summer,all parties accepted the principles concerning theconstituent assembly and the constitution of anindependent Namibia put .forward by the five WesternStates. In, tt.; light of th~ s~bstantialprogress that hasbeen achieved, we' hope that implementation of theUnited Nations plan for Namibian independence hI nowwithin reach.

85. The Ten urge all parties concerned to faciHtatethe conclusion ofthe negotiation") without further delayand to refrain from any action which could endangerthe agreement reached. South Africa's interventionin Angola cannot but complicate this process. The Tenhave condemned the violations ofAngola's sovereigntyand territorial integrity.

86. The Ten deeply deplore all acts of intimidationand violence perpetrated in Namibia. Those acts, aswell as the continuing practice of arbitrary arrest anddetention without trial, create a cycle ofviohnce whichcauses suffering to lhe local popu~a!ion.

InUI." .

1695

87. The ten _r€!itera~.their r~~ction _Qta.!l.Y _attempt,to impose an internal settlement on Namibia. Theyremain firmly opposed to any solution that is n.ot inter..nationally acceptable and that could condemn Na­mibia to international isolation.88. The Ten reat1irm their support for all the parties.that hal,'e stri'ven over the last year to bring about theachievementof independence, peace and prosperity byNamibia. They commend them for their untiring effortsto seek a speedy solution in accordanc~ with SecurityCc/uucH resolution 435 (1978). They urge all concernednot to throw aw3.Y the prog~ess that has been made.89. In our common Gtatement bl the general debate[8th meeting], we called for statesmanship and courageand wilmed that the world community would reactstrongly to attempts to delay Namibia's independence.Today, we wish again to underline the grave con­sequences of delay in the implementation of the settle­ment plan. The Ten therefore urge all the parties con­cerned to conclude the negotiations in a spirit ofco-oJ'eration so that the United Nations plan for Na­mibia can be implemented without further delay.90. Mr. ABULHASSAN (Kuwait): At the thirty­sixth session [66th meeting], Kuwait expressed its fearthat the international community was arriving at an im­passe, an impasse indicated by the interest shown bySouth Africa in veering away from elections supervisedby the United Nations unless it is promised the victoryof the-so-called internal parties rather than of SWAPO,the sole and authentic representative of the Namibianpeople. That is why we fear that we are entering an­other cycle, and that is why we fear that the new dead­line may become a mere date that in the future will bediscussed in retrospect. We said last year, "We hopethat our fears are unfounded". That again was wishfulthinking on our part.91. The Pretoria regime, acting with disdain towardsevery effort to solve the Namibian problem by peacefulmeans, wants the international community, the neigh­bouring States and the Namibian people to acquiescein its own perception of a peaceful solution. The Pre­toria regime !mposes its own interpretation ofthe guide­lines set out by the international community. It in­dicates its choice, the kind of government Namibiashould have, and also the allies and the political regimesof the neighbouring States. Should the world com­munity acquiesceIn this, then' invasion, terror, displa­cement and exile will be the lot of the colonized peopleof Namibia and of the independent African States ofthe region.

92. Today, while we are speaking on Namibia, theSecurity Council again has before it a complaint of yetanother act ofaggression by South Africa, namely, theinvasion of Lesotho, causing havoc and death in thathapless country. ~uwait condemns this wanton attack.It is yet armther manifestation of the ill-will harbouredby the Pretoria regime towards the independent AfricanStates and the settlement of the Namibian problem.

93. Pretoria's apparent willingness to negotiate a'peaceful settlement will be viewed with disbeliefas longas it persists in following a militaristic policy towardsneighbouring States. The international community wit­nesses the situation with dismay. It sees that SouthAfrica is deriving comfort from the lack ofenforcementmeasures against it. South Africa has been assured

repeatedly that the international community will notappiy effective sanctions against it. Pretoria is not onlyderiving comfort from that assurance; it has been givenunlimited license, deliberately, on the best interpre­tation, inadvertently, by the one Power that purportsto have an interest in solving the Namibian problem.We are referring to the policy of the Reagan Adminis­tration· of so-called "constructive engagement", apolicy which has led to increased collaboration with thePretoria regime. We fear that the campaign to re­habilitate the apartheid regime will only serve to derailwhatever prospects still exist for a settlement. Sucha policy certainly brings into question the intentions ofa major party. '94. The United States, together with France, theUnited Kingdom, the Federal Republic of G~rmanyand Canada, have taken upon themselves the responsi­bility of pursuing efforts towards implementingSecurity Council resolution 435 (1978). Intermittentflurries of activity have taken place during the past fewyears. While reaffirming that it is the prime respon­sibility of the Security Council to implement theUnited Nations plan for the independence of Namibia,we must underline the role of the Five in making thata reality. Their collective or individual pressure shouldbe brought to bear on South Africa. Unfortunately, thatresponsibility was shunned lately when they ~hose

to encourage the IMF to grant the apartheid regimea credit of$I.1 billion in defiance ofa Genenl Assem­bly resolution. In our view, that action is deplorable.95. On the other hand, we note with satisfaction theposition taken by one member of the contact group,France, in rejectang the linkage between the indepen­dence of Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban forcesfrom Angola. Such constructive attitudes will help tounderline the basic issues and facilitate the negotiatingprocess. Regrettably, this attitude 'is not shared byanother member of the group of five States, namely,the United States. The American attempt to establishthat linkage contravenes the principles of the Charterof the United Nations, is in contradiction with SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (1978) and retards the settlementof the problem. The manipulation of tJtis situation bySouth Africa will only perpetuate its hegemony in andaround the area. Moreover, the presence or the with­drawal of the Cuban forces is an issue extraneous to thesettlement plan. It is a question strictly within thesovereign domain of the Angolan Government. For-­these reasons, we reject and condemn all attempts at

-linkage or parallelism.96. We have been repeating, from this platform andin other forums, our call for a just solution of the Na­mibian problem. It is our duty to reaffirm SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (1978), which approved guide­lines for a negotiated settlement. The imposition ofother principles or stmctures would mean the erosionof guidelines. Any deviation from the principles ofSecurity Council resGlution435 (1978) would only beto the detriment of the Namibian people.

97. Mr. PRADHAN (Bhutan): South Africa's refusalto impiement Security Council resolution 435 (1978)has been the biggest hindrance to the achievement ofNamibia's independence. The inability of the SecurityCouncil to agree on suitable measures against SouthAfrica has also made South Africa less amcmable toreason and intemational public opinion.

1696 General AssembIY-Thirty-seventh Session-Plenary Meetings

98. . The international commudity has been fed peri­~di~~nI- with news which has given rise toJ!QI!~S tll~tNamibia would gain independence in the immediatefuture. However, each time we hear of positivedevelopments in the negotiations with South Africa,extraneous or other issues are brought out, therebyhindering the process of Namibian independence. Forinstance, the independence ofNamibia and the freedomand self-determination of its people have been linkedto the presence ofsome 20,000 Cuban troops in Angola.My delegation, on grounds ofprinciple, has always hadreservations on the presence of foreign troops inany country, unless, ofcourse, it is explicitly the resultof a 'sovereign and independent decisio~ of the coun­tries concerned. Nevertheless, in this instance we can­not agree to the linkage of the Cuban troops in Angolawith the independence of Namibia from South Africa'sracial, political and economic domination.99. In this context, an article in The New York Timesof 23 November 1982 was very revealing. As soon asSouth Africa learnt that Namibia's independence couldbe linked with the withdrawal of the Cuban troops, thearticle says:

" ... Pretoria did drop most of its objections tol\lamibian elections and seized on the withdrawalidea as a political gain. But there is no sign that itsleaders are reconciled to setting Namibia free.A new wrangle in Pretoria over installing a mallea­ble... head of the territory's provisional regime isjust one more disturbing sigii.-- - _.-

"In the eyes not only of ... Africa but most of therest of the world, South Africa is the arrogant trans­gressor."

100. My delegation has always believed that it is upto the people of a nation to choose the type of govern­ment they want. In the case ofNamibia, it is the respon­sibility of the United Nations to ensure the self­determination and independence of this internationalTerritory. Accordingly, we have called for UnitedNations-supervised elections in Namibia for theinstallation of a legitimate government. No matterwhat type ofgovernment came into power through suchelections, it would simply fulfil the wishes ofthe peopleand have their mandate to govern. South Africa's cur­rent attempts to manipulate constitutional processes inorder to install the type of government of its choiceand suppress SWAPO is a gross violation of the rightsof the people of Namibia. Hence, my delegation hasconsistently urged that Namibia's independenceshould be within the framework of Security Councilresolution 435 (1978).

101. By delaying the implementation of UnitedNations resolutions on Namibia's independence, SouthAfrica is only exposing itself and its true intentions.When we look back and examine South Africa's atti­tude, it seems quite clear that its intentions are toprolong its hold on the international Territory of Na­mibia as long as it possibly can. Such occupation ofNamibia guarantees South Africa, and the multina­tional companies involved, continued and profitableexploitation ofNamibia's rich natural resources.lt also

. helps South Africa to consolidate its hold on thoseNamibian territories which it intends to annex, par­ticularly Walvis Bay. Further, the diversion by SouthAfrica of the attention of the world towards Namibia

/ blurs the focus ofthe international community on SouthAfrica's own policy ofapartheid and other violations ofhuman rights.102. My delegation has always attached a great dealof importance to the dialogue between the front-lineand other African States and the Western· contactgroup. Though we continue to urge that group to do allit can to ensure the early independence of Namibia,we have noted that South Africa's recalcitrant attitudehas blocked all progress so far. The group must notallow extraneous elements or issues to be brought in,as these would only create unnecessary diversions.Should these talks fail to produce the desired results inthe immediate future, my delegation urges the membersof the Security Council, and particularly those whohold the power of the veto, to impose suitable sanc­tions on South Africa within the framework of theCharter. There would be no way left to expedite theindependence of Namibia but to resort to firm andadequate sanctions.

103. Finally, my intervention would be incomplete ifI were not to express my delegation's total indignationat the recent unprovoked aggression against the small,land-locked and non-aligned State of Lesotho by theGovernment ofSouth Africa. We vehemently condemnthis aggression and urge that appropriate steps be takento safeguard the security, territorial integrity and inde­pendence of the Kingdom of Lesotho and other neigh­bouring front-line States.

104. Mr. FISCHER (Austria): Austria's position onthe modalities-for achieving a negotiated settlement inNamibia has been consistent over the years. Austriahas from the outset fully associated itself with theUnited Nations plan for Namibia's peaceful and negoti­ated tJ;ansition to independence. We regard this plan as'the most promising way ofending South Africa's illegaloccupation of the Territory and offulfilling the inherentright of the Namibian people to self-determination,territorial integrity and independence and to elect itsown government free from any outside interference orcoercion.

105. In the view of the Austrian Government, anypolitical settlement which aims at stability anddurability must rest on the broadest possible basis,comprising all the parties concerned. The UnitedNations plan, originally put forward by five membersof the Security -Council QIld subsequently endorsedby the Council in resolution 435 (1978), meets thesebasic requirements. It provides for true self-determi­nation on the basis of democratic and internationallysupervised elections and, in our opinion, constitutesthe only feasible way for the United Nations to dis­charge its special responsibility for this Territoryand to arrive at the genuine and peaceful transfer ofpower to the Namibian people.

106. Four years of intense and painstaking negoti­ations on the basis of Security Council resolution 435(1978) have resulted in a wide area of agreement on thedetails of the implementation of the transition plan.We wish to express our gratitude and apprecic:.:ionfor the determined efforts exerted by the Westerncontact group, the Secretary-General and his SpecialRepresentative, the front-line States and otherGovernments involved and, above all, by the leader­ship of SWAPO. The co-operative spirit and construc-

lI

102nd meeting-13 December 1982 1697

uth)of

ealineactalllia,(de110tin,os.dnersrhonc­thethemd

~ iflonall,themn:ende­~h-

oninria:heIti­as'~almttU,itsor

oyndis,ed~rs

ed:seni­lly:esis­Iryof

,ti­35heIn.onrnialler~r-

IC-

tive attitude ofall parties has helped to overcome manystalemates in the negotiations and to keep alive theirmomentum.

107. During four years of negotiations, the originalplan has been refined and new elements, such as theconcept of a demilitarized zone, have been introduced.We regard this as a natural phenomenon. While theestablished guidelines for Namibia's transition to inde­pendence have remained unchanged, new proposalshave been accommodated because they met with theapproval of the parties most directly concernedand were directly related to the cause of independencefor Namibia. In our opinion, this is the question ofparamount blportance~ whether a new proposal willtruly benefit the Namibian people, who have alreadybeen deprived of their most basic liational rights for toolong.

108. In the recent past, however, we have seen theintroduction of'new elements into the negotiationswhich have been rejected by several of the partiesand whose concrete relevance to the independence ofNamibia has not been established. Austria feels thatsuch issues should not be linked to the United Nationstransition plan for Namibia. Rather, they should bediscussed directly between the interested Govern­ments and should not be permitted to constitute yet an­other impediment to the implementation of the UnitedNations plan. We hope that the talks now being under­taken by South Africa and Angola will lead to mutuallysatisfactory results.

109. As far as the United Nations transition plan forNamibia is concerned, Austria Wi~~l~S to emphasizeonce again that the time has come to bring a'!~ pro­tracted negotiation process to a successful conclusionand to start the implementation of resolution 435 (1978)in all its parts without any further delay.

110. Urgency is called for not only with regard to thesituation in southern Africa as a whole but also withrespect to the internal situation in Namibia. Accordingto reports of representatives of religious and inter­national relieforganizations, the economic, agriculturaland social situation has gravely deteriorated. Inter­national economic developments have had an adverseimpact on economic conditions, thus adding anotherserious aspect to the prevailing political instability inNamibia. The recent unilateral decision of the SouthAfrican Government to prolong the mandate of thepresent internal regime in Namibia clearly illustratesthe political situation and the true extent of authorityexercised by South Africa in that country.

111. In our view, the activities of the NationhoodProgramme for Namibia and the United Nations Insti­tute for Namibia have a special bearing on the futuredevelopment of· an independent Namibia. Both pro­grammes have received and will continue to receive thesupport of the Austrian Government. I might add that,in addition to its financial contributions, Austria hasalso made available two scholarships for Namibianstudents.

112. A word of appreciation is also due to the UnitedNations Council for Namibia, which, under the experi­enced guidance of Mr. Lusaka, of Zambia, skilfullypromotes the cause of the Namibian people in worldpublic opinion.

113. We have learned with deep concern and dismayof the recent commando attacks of the South AfricanDefence Force on the capital of Lesotho, whichclaimed many civilian lives and caused heavy damage.The Austrian Government, as a matter of principle,rejects such acts of aggression as a flagrant violationof international law and of the obligation of all Statesto respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofother States. We extend our sincere condolences to theGovernment and people of Lesotho, which have be­come innocent victims of a regional crisis and of un­resolved disputes prevailing in the area.114. The frequency of such military actions directedagainst Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and nowLesotho underscores the urgent need to stabilize thesituation in southern Africa as a whole. There is .nodoubt that a peaceful negotiated solution of the ques­tion of Namibia would largely contribute to such anobjective.115. In conclusion, I should like to state once againthat Namibia is a special trust of the United Nationsand, hence, of the whole international community.For four years now, the United Nations plan hasawaited implementation. Surely the time has come forending this untenable situation.

Mr. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Vice-Presi­dent, took the Chair.116. Mrs. NGUYEN NGOC DUNG (Viet Nam)(interpretation from French): Sixteen years haveelapsed since the United Nations undertook directresponsibility for leading Namibia to indepe.ndence.117. It is indeed to be regretted that throughout these16 years thousands of transnational corporationshave ruthlessly plundered the valuable national re­sources of Namibia. Throughout these .16 years, theanachronistic apartheid regime in" Pretoria has con­stantly carried out brutal repression and killings of theNamibian population in order to impose its neo-colo­nialist domination. It was also during this period thatthe Washington-Pretoria strategic alliance imple­mented its plan to militarize Namibia for use in theglobal imperialist strategy.118. Imperialism is still hanging ~m to Namibia,trying to perpetuate its occupation by using its owntroops, its agents or mercenaries, despite the fierceresistance of the peoples of the region, which arewaging an all-out struggJ.e to abolish the selfishmonopolistic interests and to regain their own fun­damental national rights. In the imperialist strategy,Namibia is an ideal place to set up military bases andfacilities in order to threaten the independence andsovereignty of countries throughout Africa.119. Let us look closely at what the five Westerncountries have been doing since 1978 in putting for­ward one plan or solution after another. People ofgoodwill-however persevering or understanding theymay be-cannot have any confidence at all in theeffectiveness of those plans as a contribution toindependence for Namibia. It is clear that those plansare only political manreuvres designed to postponedecolonization in Namibia and prolong South Africa'sillegal occupation of the country, so that it will havetime to prepare the ground for a so-called internal set­tlement, which in essence means establishing adisguised colonial regime.

1698 General Assembly-Thirty-seventh Session-Plenary Meetings

120. So it was no surprise in April 1981 to see thethree Western countries that are permanent membersof the Security Council veto a draft resolution of theSecurity Council on comprehensive mandatorysanctions against South Africa, under Chapter VII ofthe United Nations Charter.

121. Then, four months later, in August 1981, theUnited States representative in the Security Councilonce again used the veto to prevent the Councilfrom shouldering its responsibilities, at a time whenSouth Africa was launching a massive, insolent armedinvasion ofAngola, an independent and sovereign StateMember of the United Nations.122. In expressing the great outrage felt by the inter­national community, the General Assembly, at itseighth emergency special session, unanimouslyadopted resolution ES-8/2, paragraph 10 of whichstates that the General Assembly "firmly rejects thelatest manreuvres by certain members of the Westerncontact group aimed at undermining the internationalconsensus embodied in Security Council resolution435 (1978)...". That resolution also reaffirms that "theUnited Nations plan for the independence ~f Namibiais the only basis for a peaceful settlement" and "de­mands the immediate commencement of the un­conditional implementation" of that plan by SouthAfrica "without any prevaricationy qualification ormodification and not later than December 1981".123. My delegation feels that that was a very relevantand fully justified demand by the international com­munity as a whole and that it also expressed the UnitedNations commitment to fulfil its responsibility withregard to the Namibian problem.124. Today, South Africa, flouting international lawand the resolutions of the Security Council and theGeneral Assembly, continues to occupy illegally notonly Namibian territory but also a part of southernAngola. According to information imparted to us by theAngolan Foreign Minister from this very rostrum[16th meeting, para. 200], during the first nine monthsof 1982 alone the South African army carried out580 reconnaissance flights, 18 air bombardments and96 landings of helicopter-borne forces in Angolanterritory, resulting in 31 persons dead, 65 wounded and38 missing on the Angolan side.

125. As for Mozambique, only a few weeks ago SouthAfrica concentrated its armed forces in the RosanoGarcia region, 120 kilometres from Maputo, thecapital, seriously threatening the country's securityand the security of neighbouring front-line countries.More "recently, just four days ago, on the morningof 9 December, the South African Defence Forcelaunched a raid against Maseru, the capital of Lesotho.That most cynical deed was carried out by means ofmilitary aircraft and helicopters and took the lives of31 innocent people, including women and children.

126. Once again, our delegation strongly condemsthose savage acts ofaggression and warfare perpetratedby South Africa against Angola, Mozambique andLesotho.127. Nobody can deny the fact that the South Africanauthorities dare to be as arrogant and aggressive asthey are because they are assured ofthe special assist­rmce and encouragement of the United States and itsallies, who are now using every possible means to

protect South Africa and to shield it from any kind ofsanctions by the United Nations, as well as to protectit from the wave of condemnation by almost all theStates in the world.

128. As for assistance to South Africa on the political,military and financial levels , those forces are also doingtheir utmost to provide this. At the beginning of thepresent session of the General Assembly, the inter­national community had occasion to express indignantcondemnation of the IMF for granting a loan to SouthAfrica of $1.1 billion inrspecial drawing rights, doubt­less to help it continue its policy of repression andaggression against the people of Namibia and againstother African countries in the region.

129. It is the policy of collusion between the impe­rialist, colonialist, racist and apartheid forces andthe economic monopolies and military-industrialcomplexes that is hampering the Namibian people fromexercising their right to self-determination and inde­pendence.

130. In order to offset the increasingly strong con­demnation by world public opinion, which is callingupon them to implement the United Nations plan for thedecolonization ofNamibia immediately, the imperialistforces and the South African authorities have put for­ward the ridiculous pre..condition that the withdrawalofCuban troops from Angola be linked with the endingof their colonialist policy in Namibia. In this con­nection, the Heads of State and Government of thefront-line countries, meeting in Lusaka on 4 September1982, condemned with outrage this attempt to link .negotiations for the independence of Namibia with thewithdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, which, theystated, was contrary to the letter and the spirit of Secu~rity Council resolution 435 (1978) and constitutedinadmissible interference in the internal affairs ofAngola. The Heads of State and Government alsorejected any attempt to hold the People's Republic ofAngola responsible for delaying the rapid conclusionof the negotiations on the independence of Namibia.

131. The Vietnamese people paid dearly for their·national liberation, and we warmly support the struggleof the Namibian people, which we consider to be ourstruggle also. In August 1981, a delegation of the UnitedNations Council for Namibia, which was visiting VietNam, was able to appreciate this profound solidarityof the Vietnamese people.

132. On 27 October of this year, durin& the 'Week ofSolidarity with the People 0':. Namibia and their Libera­tion Movement, SWAPO, organized by the GeneralAssembly, our President, Pham Van Dong, Chairmanofthe Council ofMinisters , in his message addressed toMr. Lusaka, President of the United Nations Councilfor Namibia, stated:

"The people and Government of the SocialistRepublic of Viet Nam resolutely support the juststruggle of the Namibian people in all its forms fortheir independence, freedom and fundamentalnational rights and are firmly convinced that theNamibian people, led by SWAPO, their sole legiti­mate representative, and with their tradition of unityand determination to fight on to final victory, strongin the powerful support of the international com­munity, will finally gain their most noble goal,

102nd meet~ng-13 ~ember 1982 1699

~ind of»rotectall the

litical,,doingof theinter­

.ignantSouthdoubt­m and19ainst

impe­:s andustrialefromI inde-

g con­~alling

for the~rialist

ut for­Jrawal~nding

s con­of theembero link'ith thel, they~Secu~

titutedlirs ofIt alsoblic of:lusionIlibia.

. their'ruggle,e ourJnitedg Vietidarity

~ek of,ibera­eneral,irmansed toouncil

iCialistle justns fornentalat thelegiti­runitystrongcom­goal,

namely, independence, sovereignty and territorialintegrity for Namibia."

133. Today, the General Assembly is once again facedwith the serious situation in Namibia resulting from theobstinate occupation of Namibian territory by the.authorities of Pretoria, with the support of the UnitedStates. Those authorities, through their inhumanpolicy of apartheid and colonial domination, are nowtrampling on all the fundamental national rights of theNamibian people and carrying out acts of war andaggression that threaten the independence of States inthe region, thus creating a serious threat to peace, secu­rity and stability in southent Africa.134. My delegation would like to propose that thissession of the General Assembly take more effectivemeasures designed to help the Security Counciltranslate into reality comprehensive mandatory sa;IC­tions against South Africa, in accordance withChapter VII of the United Nations Charter.135. That would be the best possible proof of ouractive solidarity in supporting the cause of the nationalliberation of the Namibian people as we draw to the endof 1982, the year that was declared by the GeneralAssembly as International Year of Mobilization forSanctions against South Africa.136. Whatever the manreuvres of the Pretoria author­ities and their allies across the Atlantic, there is forus not the shadow of a doubt that the heroic Namibianpeople, led by SWAPO, will have the last word.

137. Mr. CHADERTON MATOS (Venezuela)(inter­pretation from Spanish): On 29 September 1978,5Venezuela, which was then a member of the SecurityCouncil, supported the adoption of resolution 435(1978), by which the Council endorsed the UnitedNations plan for the independence of Namibia sub­mitted by the five Western States, at that time all mem­bers of that important body. The adoption of the plancame about after long years of effort on the part ofthe United Nations to achieve the independence ofNamibia and at a time of cautious optimism whichallowed people to think that there was a change ofattitude on the part of South Africa.

138. However, a few weeks after the adoption of thatresolution, States Members of the Organization hadtheir good faith once again shaken by the actions ofSouth Africa wh€m, in violation ofUnited Nations deci­sions, it uniJaterally held what were improperly termed"internal elections" in Namibia, at the same time thatit was appearing to accept negotiations on elections forthe independence of the Territory under the super­vision and control of the United Nations. Such actiondealt a severe blow to the Organization's effectivenessand, (\f course, to its authority, since the importantSecurity Council. resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978)were blatantly flouted.

139. Recently, when reference was made to a pos­sible settlement of the problem created by SouthAfrica and its obstinate illegal occupation of Namibia,the Secretary-General, in his report on the work of theOrganization, said:

"In the case of Namibia we now see some signs ofthe possibility of a solution after many setbacks.Let us hope that this will prove a welcome exceptionto the general rule. But the lesson is clear--some-

thing must be done, and urgently, to strengthen ourinternational institutions and to adopt new andimaginative approaches to the prevention and reso­lution of conflicts." [A/37/J, p. 2.]

140. These hopes were once again dashed by SouthAfrica's persistence in using extraneous matters todivert attention from the central issue and to avoidimplementing resolution 435 (1978), thus perpetuatingits illegal presence in the Territory.

141. Today, when the item is again being consideredby the General Assembly, there is a continuing questionmark over the future of Namibia, and once again the .States represented in this chamber must review theirattitude in the light of the constant flouting of the inter­national community by the racist Government ofSouth Africa. The attitude we take will mean eitherthat Namibia can exercise its 'legitimate fight to self­determination without delay, or that we allow mightand injustice to prevail and, En consequence, politicalrepression, the plundering of the natural resources ofNamibia and the inhuman exploitation of Namibianworkers to continue. This second possibility, we mustadmit, can come about only if we become accomplicesby omission, which we are sure will not happen.To put it another way, to ally oneself with colonialismis not the only way of being pro-colonialist; to donothing against colonialism is another way of helpingcolonialism, and therefore of being a colonialist.

142. It is 16 years ,since the General Assembly placedthe Territory of Namibia under the direct respon­sibility of the United Nations, and the Namibian peopleare still awaiting more resolute action by MemberStates which would enable them to exercise their rightto self-determination and to attain genuine nationalindependence. Venezuela shares with t,he Namibianpeople their aspirations for peace, freedom, social jus­tice and sovereignty, in full measure, unreservedly, andwithout any provisos or conditions.

143. Venezuela joined the United Nations Councilfor Namibia in 1978 with the aim and purpose ofworking more actively for the Namibian people andcontributing towards strengthening the Council in itspowers as the sole legal Administering ~uthority for theTerritory until it gained its independence. Venezuela'sdecision, not taken lightly, to become a member of theCouncil is but one stage in its long and notable historyas a country tenaciously opposed to colonialism, whosepractices, supported by military and economic force,have been the cause of many conflicts which are stillto be resolved.

144. Venezuelan actilln in the United Nations Councilfor Namibia is supplemented by a number of measureswhich my country puts into practice in fulfilment of therelevant United Nations resolutions and in appliCationofprinciples which govern its own foreign policy, quiteapart from whether or not there are United Nationsresolutions on the subject. Among other things, Vene­zuela does not maintain any kind of relationship orexhanges with South Africa, of a political, diplomatic,trading, sporting, academic or military nature. In thisregard, let us recall that Venezuela co-sponsored adraft resolution [A/37/L.28 and Add.I], adopted by theGeneral Assembly at the 93rd meeting, on an oilembargo against South Africa as a further contributionto the sort of actions designed to consolidate the sanc-

1700 General Assembly-Thirty-seventh Session-Plenary Meetings

tions decided upon by the Security Council and theGeneral Assembly, as well as by the InternationalConference on Sanctions against South Africa, held inParis in May 1981, whose decisions were endorsed bythe General Assembly.145. We are persuaded, however, that it will be moredifficult to move toward') a solution of the problem un­less practical action is taken to implement effectivelyand completely the plan of the five Western countriesfor Namibia's independence, not only without furtherdelay, but also without further retrogression. Thisplan is more than a plan; it is a commitment enteredinto by the five.146. Venezuela considers that plan to be a serious­minded and valuable effort by the United Nations thatdeserves to be defended and applied without furtherdelay, since it was the outcome of intensive talks andnegotiations. The introduction of additional elementsinto the initial agreements does not contribute to thefavourable development of the decolonization processin Namibia.147. The prolongation of the present situation ob­viously would involve additional tension and bloodshedin southern Africa, with repercussions for peace andstability throughout the rest of the world. Let us there­fore avoid committing the crime of such a senselessprolongation. Let us in the Assembly ratify our supportof the people of Namibia and their legitimate represen­tative, SWAPO, in their struggle for independenceand against tyranny.148. The recent armed aggression committed bythe South African racists against the Kingdom ofLesotho is further proofof the kind of interlocutor withwhich we are dealing. We must not make it a present ofextra time by accepting such absurd pretexts for delayas that which we have mentioned today.149. In closing, we wish to address expressions ofaffection and gratitude to Mr. Paul Lusaka, Presidentof the United Nations Council for Namibia, for the zealand dedication he has shown in carrying out the taskentrusted to him, in recognition ofhis competence andtrustworthiness, by the General Assembly. His pro­fessional capacity and firmne5s, backed up by effectivecaution and broad political vision, make us proud thathe represents the third world and give us hope thatwe shall really see an independent Namibia representedin this Assembly of sovereign States.150. Ms. GR0NDAHL (Norway): Once again theGeneral Assembly is discussing the question ofNamibia. Once again the deliberations are taking placein a situation characterized by stalemate. The aspira­tions of the Namibian people to independence and self­determination are yet to be fulfilled.151. Even though a final breakthrough has no' beenachieved, we should not forget that solutions werefound last summer to a number of issues. The questionof United Nations impartiality and matters relating toUNTAG; the peace-keeping force in Namibia, havebeen resolved. Substantial progress has also beenachieved regarding the future electoral system for aconstitutional assembly in Namibia. The apparent will­ingness to find mutually acceptable solutions tooutstanding issues on the basis of Security Councilresolution 435 (1978) left us with the impression thatthe independence ofNamibia was finally to be realized.

However, we were wrong. As old obstacles wereremoved, new issues blocking the way to Namibianindependence emerged. The Cuban military presencein Angola rapidly became the focal point of the discus­sions and brought the negotiating process to a halt.. .152. The Norwegian Government has given its fullsupport to the United Nations plan for Namibia, basedon Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This planprovides the required framework for the achievementof the independence of Namibia. Although we recog­nize that other issues-such as the presence of Cubantroops in Angola-may give rise to questions of impor­tance to the countries in the region of'southern Africa,the Norwegian Government is of the opinion thatsuch issues should not be allowed to obstruct theimplementation of the plan already approved by theSecurity Council. However important such issuesmight be for South Africa, they remain questions un­related to Namibia's independence. My Government,therefore, takes this opportunity to appeal to all theparties involved in the negotiations on the implemen­tation of the United Nations plan for Namibia to see toit that the unanimous decision of the Security Councilis implemented as soon as possible and on its ownmerits.

153. My delegation has noted the declaration madeby the Government of Angola that the Cuban forceswill be withdrawn as soon as the present threat toAngola ceases to exist because of South African with­drawal from Namibia. We welcome that statementNorway holds the view that conflicts on the Africancontinent should be solved by the African countriesthemselves, without foreign interference. The with­drawal of Cuban troops from Angola would, in ouropipion, be an important factor in enhancing thesecurity of the region. It would also facilitate the pro­cess ofconsolidation after the wars ofliberation in bothAngola and Namibia.

154. The Norwegian Government sees no realisticalternative to continued negotiations for the attainmentof Namibia's independence. We welcome all deliber­ations that can bring us closer to this goal, whether theytake place through the Western contact group ordirectly between the parties concerned. If the idea ofthe parallel withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angolaand South African troops from Namibia, or expandeddemilitarized zones-as.originally proposed by the latePresident Neto-can point the way out of the currentimpasse, Norway for its part would welcome that.

155. The Norweg~an Government believes that it isnow more urgent than ever before to find a solution tothe problem of Namibia. The situation in southernAfrica is becoming increasingly dangerous. SouthAfrica's attempts to destabilize the interna~ situationin many neighbouring countries have not diminished.The many attacks on Angola and the latest raid onLesotho are grim examples of that policy. Those acts,whether they occur as regular armed attacks or in moresubtle forms, are totally unacceptable. In the presentcircumstances, the bitterness and frustrations of theblack peoples in the region can only increase and makepeaceful solutions more difficult to attain, althoughthey are more desperately needed.156. The Norwegian Government has only limitedpossibilities of influencing the parties to the conflict.

157. Mr. OGNIMBA (Congo) (interpretation fromFrench): What strikes us-or should I say, what shocksus-fit;)~ in the debate which the General Assemblyonce again this year IS devoting to the question of Na­mibia is without a doubt the impression of powerless­ness, the impression that the united efforts of the inter­national community to enable the Namibian people toexercise its right to self-determination and indepen­dence seem once again doomed to failure because oftheobstinate refusal of the racist South African Govern­ment, helped by certain Western Powers, to abide bythe relevant decisions of the United Nations. Each ofus here has indeed been struck by the very disturbinglogic of the solidarity shown with the racist colonialistregime of Pretoria by certain permanent membersof the Security Council which are prisoners of theireconomic commitments in South Africa, where thosewho believe in apartheid are using international tradein a most perfidious manner, so that it has degeneratedin their hands into an instrument of blackmail-black­mail in the form of the so-called communist threat,blackmail in the form of the Christian values in thename of which millions of Africans have been crushed,despised and deprived of their most fundamentalrights, and blackmail by challenging the idealsunderlying the United Nations Charter. But all thosesubterfuges no longer mislead international pubUGopinion; it has been enlightened by the unending we~j

of crimes committed by the oppressive machinglrYof the Pretoria soldiery, which is sowing terror inNamibia and in neighbouring African States, tryingin vain to check. the course of history.

158. Sixteen years have passed since the UnitedNations adopted the historic decision that ended SouthAfrica's mandate over Namibia, the Territory whichPretoria was trying to integrate as quickly as possibleas a fIfth de facto province of the Republic of SouthAfrica. The collapse of the Salazar dictatorship andthe crumbling of Portuguese colonialism in Africa,which enabled the heroic peoples of Angola, Mozam­bique, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, and Sao Tome andPrincipe to succeed in their struggles for nationalliberation and indeI>~ndence, won at the cost of thesacrifice of thousands of African women, children andmen, led the Government of Pretoria to reconsider itsstrategy in Namibia. Its main goal remains the same asin the past, namely, to thwart all efforts by the Secu­rity Council and the General Assembly, using all pos­sible subterfuges, to prevent the Namibian people frommoving towards real independence, and to grant a formof administrative autonomy as rudimentary as it is

les werelamibianpresencee discus­a halt.

11 its fullia, based~his planevementre recog­>fCuban>fimpor­n Africa,lion that:ruct thed by theh issuestions un­~rnment,

o all theIplemen­to see to, Councilits own

c)O madelD forcesthreat to:an with­atemenL: African:ountrieshe with~

I, in ourcing thethe pro­nin both

realistictainmentdeliber­

therthey:roup ore idea of1 Angolaxpanded(the late~ currentthat.

that it is'lution tosouthern•. Southsituationlinished.raid on

()se acts,rin more~ presentIS of the.od makealthough

r limitedconflict.

102nd meetiog-13 DecC!mber 1982 1701

We are, however, prepared to assist in a peaceful way ridiculous to this colonial Territory so as to placate thein bringing about Namibian independence and pro- NATO partners and at the same time mislead interna-moting peace and progress in the tormented region of tional public opinion, which in the West was carefullysouthern Africa. This commitment has taken the prepared by considerable arrangements in favour of thetangible form of extensive aid to and co-operation South African authorities, whose bad faith was il-with several front-line States with a view to strength- lustrated irrefutably in their intensified efforts toening those nations and lessening their economic and prevent the United Nations Council for Namibia fromtechnical dependence on South Africa. We have also properly carrying out its mandate. My delegation mustrecognized the tremendous need for humanitarian here pay tribute to the lucid and courageous work doneassistance to the many refugees in the region. The by the Council and its President, Mr. Lusaka, ofNorwegian Government is participating in a number of Zambia, whose competence and devotion are admiredUnited Nations projects and conducting several by all delegations present.bilateral programmes designed to meet the needs of 159. In this. very Hall, we have often been re-these refugees. Our commitment to these activities proached, by those who now want to maintain thewill remain firm. status quo ante in the colonial territories, for being

unrealistic. But we reject a blinkered and arid realismwhich can only lead to a serious compromise on thefate of colonial peoples. In the case of Namibia, how­ever, although we are firmly convinced of the in­coherence and constantly repeated contradictions ofPretoria, we have left the field free to the five WesternPowers so that they might carry out negotiations on aconstitutional settlement of the problem of Namibiawithout hindrance. The long and inextricable negoti­ations, constantly subjected to unexpected about­turns by the South African racists, often dismayed eventheir closest allies and, in any case, shattered the faceof respectability that the Botha Government wantedto present. And yet, one may recall that it was SouthAfrica that, on 2 May 1978,6 appealed to the UnitedNations to assure the peaceful ascession to indepen­dence ofNamibia, in accordance with the conditions ofthe settlement plan of the five Western Powers. Thatplan, which the former Secretary-General, Mr. KurtWaldheim, submitted to the United N~tions on29 August 1978, set forth the stages of a process thatwas to lead to the independence of. Naniibia.

160. Four years later, we are still following themeanderings and Machiavellian whims of those whobelieve in apartheid, who art; presenting obstacle afterobstacle and who are creating delaying tactics in orderto strip Namih~aorits important natural resources. Ourdelegation ha§: constantly condemned the collusionbetween South Africa and the transnational corpo­rations that savageiy plunder Namibia's wealth and thatincrease the number of barriers to the exercise by theNamibian people of tb..eir inalienable right to self­determination and to jndependence, giving comfortto the South African administration and army in theirillegal occupation of that colonial territory.

161. For some time now, it has been fashionable incertain Western capitals to link the settlement of theNamibian question with the departure ofCuban troopsfrom Angola. The head ofthe Congolese delegation andMinister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Pierre Nze, fromthis very rostrum [31st meeting], said that our countryconsiders this legal quibbling to be absolutely un­founded. Called upon w;thin the context of proletarianinternationalism to support the young People's Repub­lic of Angola in its sacred task ofassuring the securityof the Angolan people and defending the gains of therevolution against the vicious aggression of SouthAfrica, those troops will leave Angolan territory whenthe sovereign Angolan Government decides theyshould leave-freely and not under the dictates of thirdcountries that have nothing to do with the· agreement

':"------a----__s_,.t ••IIIIXr.tiX.'UIIiilI'IW.,.¥!I!!I,••,.....----.,:...---....aaa.....---SlIIII••--;

1702 General A~mbly-Thirty·seventh Sesslon-P1enar.y Meetings

between those two friendly States. To continue to insiston this completely illegal step is an unacceptable actof interference in the internal affairs of an indepenci~~~.t

State Member of the United Nations and is in violationof'the relevant provisions of the Charter.

162. The paranoid convulsions that have engulfedSouth Africa lead that country, with unequaled in­solence, to carry out acts of aggression against inde­pendent frorit-line African States. None of them is safefrom that blind violence that the South African soldierycommits in southern Africa. Defying internationalopinion, assured of the unconditional support of itsWestern allies, whkh seem thus to encourage itscriminal acts, t~.Government of Pretoria constantlyviolates the natiOllahoyereignty of Angola, M:ozam­bique, Botswana, Zalllbia and Lesotho, kills anddestroys everything in its path and occupies with im­punity part of the territory of those independent States,leaving the United Nations no choice but shamefally toadmit its impotence and the people of Namibia nochoice other than to struggle for national liberationunder the leadership ofSWAPO, its sole and only legiti­mate representative.

163. SWAPO has been able to channel the aspirationsof the Namibian people for freedom and independence;their struggle for independence in unity and nationalintegrity against an enemy that is among the most cruelanywhere deserves our full support and assistance. Thecrude attempts by South Africa to create pseudo­nationalist parties, which are in fact nothing butpuppets worked by Pretoria, and its designs on WalvisBay will never sl:lcceed in catching us unaware~. Forour part, we condemn all those manreuvres, which arepart of the classic strategy of the former and new cola­nialists. For the People's Republic of the Congo, thereis no doubt that under the leadership of SWAPO, withthe support of those nations that love peace and respectthe ideals of the United Naticns, the Namibian peoplewill be able to gain respect and admiration. The day isnot far off wb~n that African people will in turn swellthe ranks ofthe OAU, which the forces ofevil are tryingto divide. To those friends of Pretoria who are temptedto introduce into the settlement of the Namibian ques­t;on the dusty arsenal of the East-West cold war, wewould say that nothing is less true than to see in thelegitimate struggle of the people of Namibia the in­fluence of a foreign Power.

164. The gr'eat tempest that enabled many Africancountries to free themselves from the humiliatingchains ofcolonial enslavement will without the shadowof a doubt sweep away the last bastions of colonialismand racism in Mrica. In today's world of rapid change,it is time that South Africa, if it wishes to have a sayin the future, view the present with lucidity and avoidadding it~ hallucinations to the distress that grips theworld today.

165. Mr. SLIM (Tunisia) (interpretation fromFrench): A:: we begin our consideration of the ques­tion of Namibia, I should like first of all, on' behalf ofmy delegation, to express our 8ratitu~e to the Presi-

.dent and the members of tbe United Nations Councilfor Namibia for the report which they have presentedto the Assembly [AIJ7/24] and to express our appreci­ation for their sustaintd efforts to mobilize the inter­national communi~y' in favour of the cause -of Na-

mibia and to prepare the Namibian people to takecharge of their own destiny.

166. The Tunisian delegation fully supports therecommendations and conclusions in the report andconsiders that in their realism they constitute an objec~_..tive basis and a balanced plan for leading Namibiu toindependence.

161. I am also pleased at this ~ime to pay tribute to theSecretary-General and to the United Nations Com­missioner for Namibia for the tireless efforts that bothare making to ensure the speedy accession of Namibia.to national sovereignty.

168. Several years have gone by since the UnitedNations declared that the occupation of Namibia bythe Republic of South Africa was illegal. Four yearshave gone by since the Security Council adopted reso­lution 435 (1978), which endorsed a plan for the settle­ment by peaceful means of the question of the indepen­dence of Namibia.

169. Today, the entire problem remains. No sub­stantial progress has been made towards guaranteeingthe people of Namibia the exercise of their right tos.elf-determination and independence. The P3:th toliberation remains beset with obstacles, and thesituation in the region continues to deteriorate.

170. The Pretoria regime obstinately maintains itsdomination over Namibia and continues its policy ofintimidation of and aggression against independentneighbouring countries. Day by day, it tightens its gripon Namibia and strengthens its policy of occupationand domination. It increasingly opens up the Ter­ritory to exploitation and plunder by transnationalcorporations, speeds up the recruitment ofmercenariesand the training of tribal armed forces and extends the.system of bantustanization and the creation of puppetparties and admini~trations.At the same time, it inten­sifies its repression of the people and its attacks onmilitants and combatants of SWAPO, thus showing itsdetermination to liquidate the sole authentic represen­tative of the Namibian people. It also pursue:s asystematic policy of armed aggression against neigh­bourlng independent, sovereign States.

171. ' Just as the Assembly was about to begin itsdebate on the question of Namibia j South Africa againunleashed its savage' hordes against the Kingdom ofLesotho, killing innocent men, women and children andcommitting deliberate aggression a.gainst a small,peaceful country whos~ only fault was to have offeredits hospitality to refugees fleeing the inhuman prac­tices of Pretoria. At the same time, Mozambique,another in4e~ndentcou~tryanda Stat~ MembercftheUnited Nations, was the victim of simiJ'.,: punitiveexpeditions and once again was the subject of premed-itated armed aggression. '

172. What, then, are the objectives which thePretaia authorities are pursuing, at a time when a presscampaign has been started to make us believe in apseudo-alteration in the attitude of South Africa?

173. That regime, which has systematized racismand made a State policy of terrorism and which has soaccustomed us t(1l crude manreuvrcs, can be accordedno credibility, far less any trust.

174. Nevertheless, that regime still finds favour withsome. It still finds for its policy, if not avowed accom-

I,I

pidf;bfStl

17reWlsureersoidliD!N:all

17ncNiallartbtb

17semtC(tbmttic17defOlSehamiaptone

17'evbecoantin

18lta,anth~

calotlpn

18onitsre~

m~

It icltJpr(

18:pl~

pT(th;;its

31f

L.··~~:~~-'(• ...,.;c:c~·F~:'f;l~~~}~·~~.~~.;M~\~J'.~.I"]I.I!'~I]!I!i!.l!r[1l.[I.I•.•ill?I!'••i~_~3~~~·~'~!!fii!•••~.M9!iIJ!~__m_M~~~M,,,,~M·._!!.!!!!l,~-_~m~

102nd meetlng-13 December 198% 1703

1!'I.1

[!

plices, at least firm protectors, as 'Weil as activedefenders, as we have j~"st seen in the iMF, which hasbeen unhesitatingly u~;,ed as a, means of financing andstrengthening apartheid and <,;olonialism.

175. It is true that South Africa sets itself up ~n theregion as the defender of the achievements of the freeworld and of the values of Western society. But thatsuch a mission should have been entrusted to such aregime could be ascribed to ignorance or even to tragicerror~ primarily for those very values of Westernsociety. For, if there is a battle for the defence of theideals of liberty and justice, the right to dignity andindependence, then it is the Sou~h African and theNamibian peoples that are waging it, with all the faithand determination which we know they have.176. The General Ass~mbly has frequently de­nounced and condemned the continued occupation ofNamibia. It has frequently demanded the immediateand unconditional withdrawal of the South Africanarmed forces and administration; and it has demandedthe exercise without delay by the Namibian people oftheir right to self-determination and independence.177. The will of Member States to seek a politicalsettlement to the question of Namibia found 'its unani­mous expression in the full support given to SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (1978), which, while approvingthe plan for the independence of Namibia, recom­mended the organization of free and democratic elec­tions under United Nations supervision and control.178. Those efforts have been and continue to bedefied by the Republic ofSouth Africa. Throughout thefour years of negotiations on the implementation ofSecurity Council resolution 435 (1978), South Africahas not ceased to place obstacles in the way of Na­mibia's accession to independence and the faithful,application of the provisions of the resolution. It seeksto introduce new conditions at every stage of thenegotiations.

179. The conclusion of those negotiations had, how­ever, been promised us for the end of this year or thebeginning of 1983. The members of the contact groupcommitted themselves to this when they asked Africaand the international community to give them moretime and to have greater patience.

180. We have pointed out to the members of the con­tact group, who maintain, it is true, difficult contactsand for whom we have never spared encouragement,that negotiations with the South Mrican authoritiescannot be prolonged indefinitely and that recourse toother methods marked by greater firmness and realpressures will no doubt prove necessary.

181. It is clear today that these negotiations are onlyone more way for South Africa to gain time, strengthenits domination over Namibia and weal down theresistance of the international community, so that itmay impose on Namibia the solution of its choice.It is up to the contact group to draw the obvious con­clusions and to provide itself with means of keeping itspromises.

182. My delegation believes that the United Nationsplan as it stands still constitutes a basis for the com­prehensive settlement of the question of Namibia andthat the responsibility for the Territory ofNamibia untilits accession to independence and sovereignty rests

exclusively with the United Nations. Any attempt to,settle the problem cutside the fram~wmtof the UnitedNations is contrary to the inter"~sts of th~ Namibianpeople and its right to self-determination~ndindepen­dence.183. My delegation reaffirms that it is in favour of theimmediate ending of the illegal occupatioit', the with­drawal of the South African administration fromNamibia, including Walvis Bay, and the offshoreislands, and the transfer of power to the 30le authenticrepresentative of the Namibian people, SWAPO.

184. South Africass repeated attempts to block theefforts of the United Nations to bring about the inde­pendence of Namibia not only prove the bad faith of theSouth African regime but also reveal Pretoria's trueintentions in southern Mrica and the effective rolewhich its partners and allies have assigned to it.185. Today we must accept as proven that mere con­demnation of South Africa and mere expressions ofsupport for the legitimate struggle of the Namibianpeople9 under the leadership of SWAPO, have notbrought about the desired change. The promises of thecontact group, which have still not been fulfilled, andthe new demands which have been made-which haveno direct link with the situation of the Namibian peo­ple, who are still under the yoke of colonialism-pro­duce in us the greatest scepticism.

186. The only alternative, given the uncertaintiesabout a politk 11 solUtion, is the intensification of thestruggle at evvry level, including the armed struggle.No one can reproach the SWAPO patriots and fightersfor this, and the community of nations can only givethem sympathy and support.

187. South Africa cannot for ever impose its domi­nation on a people determined to recover 'its freedom~nd dignity. South M.ica's policy of repression andexploitation certainly might delay the accession to inde·pendence of the Namibian people, but the struggle ofthat people for its liberation will finally end foreigndomination and restore to Namibia its inalienablerights. The cost will be high, but it will be even higherfor South Africa and for the interests whit;h it claimsto defend.

188. The situation in southern Mrica is a source ofconcern and disquiet for the United Nations, sinceit contains the seeds of an explosive conflict and of ageneral confrontation. It is the duty and the respon­sibility of the international community to act resolutelyto defuse the situation and to put suitable pressure onSouth Africa.

189. The conduct of the Pretoria authorities clearlyjustifies the renewed calls fOJ:" effective measures andspecific action against the Republic of South Africa.The time has certainly come to have recourse to enfor­cement measures and to apply comprehensive man­datory sanctions against the racist Pretoria regime.

190. Only through the effective application of thebroadest sanctions will the international communitysucceed in isolating South Africa and compelling it toimplement the United Nations plan for the indepen­dence of Namibia on a democrati~ basis.

191. Mr. IBRAHIM (Ethiopia): For over threedecades, the United Nations has been seized of thequestion of Namibia. In the process, much has been

1704 General A~mbly-Thlrty.seven:h Session-Plenary Meetings" .

said in support ofearly independence for the Namibianpeople and, indeed, much· has also been. done toaccelerate the process of decolonization. Therefore,n,ot much remains to be do~e, but it is critical andperhaps decisive.192. Here I am referring particularly to enforcementmeaSUlres by the Security Council under Chapter VIIof the Charter of the United Nations. Time and again,the international communit" has called for the impo­sition of mandatery sanctions against South Africa. Sofar, that call has gone unhe~<jed, and the (Jrospects forthe future do not lonk bright. So lorg as the Westernmembers of the Security CounciD fer:l that theh' eco­nomic and military interests are ~~tter served hy theperpetuation of rac2sm and colonialism in sout-hemAfrica, and so long as they feel threa!ened by thepalitical and social emancipatio, of the oppressed mas­ses of the region, so long win it ~ futile to expe1ct anymeaningful contribution by the: Security Council toensuring f'h~ independence of Namibia.193. Ani so long as the Security Com~cil us preventedfrom exercising the full range of it§ functions andpowers, so !ong will th~ option of a r~eaceful andnegotiated settlement of the problem, in accordancewith the United Nations plan endorsed by SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (19/8), definitely be closed. Isay this because we in Ethiopia find it impossible tobelieve that the South Mrican regime either has thegood will or feels the need for the speed¥ implemen­tation of the United Nations plan, p!;H1icularly new thata lack ofpolitical will on the part of the miginal authorsof the plan to exert the much-promised pressure OilPretoria is clearly evident. Indeed, if any need is feltby Pretoria, it is the need for the continued occupationof Namibia, without which it wrJuld be deprived of theeconomic anJ military advantp ~es that it now has inconsolidating apartheid and destabilizing the front­line States.194. Far from being penalized for its prevaricationsand intransigence, racist Pretoria has in fact recentlybeen awarded the privilege of "constructive engage­ment", whereby some Wes~ern States--more speci­fically the United States-not only continue tostrengthen existing ties but also explore new areas ofco-operation.

195. Moreover, through the introduction of extrane­OilS issues into the process of implementing theUnited Nations plan, attempts are also being madefurther to delay the inevitable independence ofNamibiaand to clear the racist regime in Pretoria of respon­sibility for the imminent cofIapse of the entire negoti­ating process.

196. In this regard, I should like to state the positionof the Ethiopian delegation. First of all, we view thelinkage of the termination of the illegal presence ofracist South Mrican troops in Namibia with the with­drawal of the legitimate and lawful presence of Cubaninternationalist forces in Angola as a clear stratagem toparalyse the process of implementation \\~f SecurityCouncil resolution 435 (1978). Furthermore, we alsoview this linkage as arrogant interference in the in­ternal affairs ofAngola and a challenge to Africa. Ethio­pia not only rejects this vicious ploy but also condemnsits well-known proponents. We c1r(t convinced that Pre­toria and a number of countries members of the West­ern contact group are keen not so much on the imple-

mentation of resolution 435 (1978) as, it appears, on thedestabiHzation of the Government of the People'sRepublic of Angola.

197. More than five years have elapsed since the fiveWestern States embarked on a diplomatic initiativeostensibly to find a negotiated settlement of the ques­tion of Namibia. During those years, Africa andSWAPO have shown an incredible spirit of &CCOffi­modation and statesmanship. They have accom­modated all the concerns that Pretoria and the 'Nest­ern contact group have expressed, without, of course,compromising the principle of genuine independencefor It~amibia. In short, they have done aH they couldpossibly do. What Africa is being asked to do today,unfortunately, is to infringe upon the sove:r~:gn rightof a sister African Sta,te in clear contravention of the!prindples and purposes of the Un~tedNations Charter.That Africa cannot oblige Pretoria and the UnitedStates j~l this has been stated lmequ~vocanyby AfricanStates, both ind~vEd~any and collectively. Hence, asfaT a~ Africa is concerned, fp.sponsibmty for the kil­minent collapse of the process of implementation ofthe United Nations plan rests fully and squ~rely withthe racist r~.::;ime of Pletoria and the We-sLrn conta~~tgroup.

198. After J:110ne than five years of diplomatic strug­gle, the people of Namibia and their §ole ard authenticrepresentative, SWAFO, are left w!th I~O viable ahemf:\­tive but to wage with increase~ vigo,uf and determl;­

nation their iegitimfite armed strugg}f; to regain theirfreedom and ino!eprmdence in a united Namiuia. To ihisworthy goal my ~m.mftry, Etbiopia, ;~ fuUy comm;ttea.We have no doubt that this commitment 1'8 share;d bvalll1eaCe- and freedom~lovingpeo'pI~'s U~I~ worl"'l oVf:r",

199. Mr. LOeO (Mozamti~ue): The ~llef:tion ofNamibia is or•.r;e again bghlg conSi~deredby the Gene,m!Assembly. Th~G question conti~tles to Iy~ the bUIT~ing

issue in the 8itu~donprevailing in soutbem Africa. Theracist regime of South Africa coatinues, wi~h hnpunity,its barba:ous and hideous acts ef aggression againstcountries and peoples peacefully seeking a solutjon tothe Namibian problem.

200. Our cGuntrie§ Sf? \;tiU ."1 a st \t -- L permanentconfrontation wiih the apartheid regallue, which obsti­nately refuses to accept the principle that all peopleshave the right free~ to choose their own destiny.201. While South Africa intensifies its attacks andcontinues its occupation of part of the territory of thePeople's Republic of'Angola~ it is at the same time sup­porting and promoting puppet groups such as theUniao Nacional para a Independencia Total de Angola[UNITA].

202. South Africa systematically commits acts ofarmed aggression against Botswana, Lesotho, Moz:m­bique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It violates the territorialintegrity of those sovereign ~ountrie§, showing norespect whatsoever for the iJrinciples' contained inthe Charter of. the United Nations.

203. On 9 December, a heavily armed force of SouthAfrican commandos attacked Maseru, the capital ofLesotho, murdering at least 37 defenceless refugees.We have learned that the South African commandoforces attacked 12 separate sites around the capital ofLesotho with b3Zookas, machine-guns, grenades andincendiary devices to blow up houses, vandalix.e

IiI,

1I

tli

11

~]rl

lJ,

,

I .'! ".'l\t1<\I

r

2ttr(,~

2t(

(

c~~

211

e(J

(J

2gtCltlt

102nd meeting-13 December 1982

# •

1705

residences and massacre people, and it levelled somebuildings completely.

204. It is clear that these latest South African attackson the capital of Lesotho are part of an overall effortto undermine economic development and what hasalready been accomplished in the context of regionalco-operation. In attacking the economic objecti'!~s ofthe Southern Africa Development Co-ordinationConference [SADCC] , the South African regi.me isattacking the independence of the cou:ntries of theregion.

205. Last week, the People's Republic of Mozam­bique was a victim oftwo armed aggressions carried outby South African troops. On 6 December, a SouthAfrican f)rce invaded our t~ITitory in the region ofMapulanguene, in the province of Maputo. The in­vading force violated our territorial integrity by en­tering 9 kilometres inside Mozambiqu& and wounding16 persons, among them women and children, beforedestroying a lot of :agricuH.ural equipment. On tbe veryday of the racist aggression in Lesotho, a ~pe;:jal SouthAfr;can cor"~mandll) group launched another attackagainsL thos'e Mozambican infrastructures. of vitalimportance to som';l of the SADCC countries, seWngtire to storage t.anks feeditlf the pipelines to the neigh­bouring States.

206. South Africa, the m~in bastlOlt of backwardideas.fof the maint~manceof the sta~usquo in southernAfrica, invaded Angnla with f,ie precise aim ofpreventing that cmmtry frem ~xp ~essirtg its solidarityw~th ihe p~ople of N~1inibia in thdr sbuggle for self­determination and ind~pendence.

207. In fnvading Angola, South Africa was aiming~,\t preventing that sister country from complying withthe pertinent resolu~ions ef the OAU, the UnitedNations and th.e non-aligned countries which reaffirmthe justice of the Namibian people's armed struggle fornational liberation, freedom and human dignity.

208. This hideous act of the Pretoria regime is part ofthe global imperialist strategy to destabilize the coun­tries of southern Africa that seek independent develop­ment for the region. The South African invasion isdesigned to create in southern Angola a buffer zonewhich will prevent progress and development of theactivities of SWAPO's fighters.

209. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind thatthe present situation could make way for the secessionof the southern part of Ango~an territory from the restof the country, which would then be handed over to so­called UNITA, a puppet movement created by Portu­guese colonial fascism that continues to be maintainedand encouraged by South Africa.

210. We should be alert to this possibility and spareno effort to prevent the partition of Angola by theenemies of Africa. We cannot allow part of the territoryof a State Member of the United Nations to be handedover to bands of murderers.

211. By aggression and by promoting puppetgroupings for the destabiliL:ation ofneighbouring coun­tries, South Africa seeks to transfer the contradictionsof the apartheid regime beyond its borders. It seeksto export its internal conflict and contradictions acrossthe borders to our own countries.

212. To our amazement, these aggressions againstsovereign southern African countries take place at thesame time as negotiations aimed at bringing about alasting peace and a solution to the Namibian problemare being carried out.

213. Arrogant and irresponsible, South Africa con­tinues to use dilator. manreuvres to delay self-deter­mination and independence for the people of Namibia.The people of Namibia, like every other people, has aright to its own free&om and ~ndependence.

214. In Namib:a, it is the people WilO are fighting forindependen~e.This is the reality that is being obliter­ated. This is (he reality that is being conspired against.This is why Africa has repeatedly said that a1JYattempt at linking, either direcHy or indirectly, tht~

independen~eof Namibia with the withdrawal of inter­nationalist Cuban forces from Angola is not only in­tolerable interference in the internal affairs of thePeople's Republic of Angola but a crime againstthe people of Namibia, becausle with tbis subterfuge aneffort is being m&de to prolong the war and the ma-~­

sacres.215. Before anything else is contemplated, we mU5tdemand the um.onditional withdrawal of the invadingSouth African tri>ops from Angolan territory and anabsolute. guarantee that such aggression will not berepeated.2116. The only foreign forces that frequenUy invadeand occupy the territories of independent States in ourZOlie (i'.re the forces of South Africa. We consider it anabsurdity to set the security of South Africa as a pre­condition of the independence of Namibia. We havesaid Dn many occasions that the forces that will over­throw the apartheid regime will not come from outsideSouth Africa. It is the sons of South Africa th-at willoverthrow th~ racist regime of apartheid.217. The People's Republic of Mozambique reaffirmsonce again its unconditional support for the struggleof the people of Namibi&., under the leadership ofSWAPO, their only legitimate representative.

218. As far as we are concerned, Security Councilresolution 435 (l978) remains the political and juridicalbasis for the fair solution of this problem.

. - .219. Last summer, the front-line States, together withNigeria and SWAPO, in their effort to tackle thequestion of a solution of the pending problems con­cerning the implementation of Security Council. reso­lution 435 (1916), agreed to hold informal consultationswith the five W~stern countries of the contact group;the result bas been an endless wait for an answer fromSouth Africa which has never come. We deplc-? tlteSouth African manreuvres, which continue to deiwYthe implementation of that resolution.

220. We reaffirm our position that the method of theelectoral system should be known before the adoptionof the enabling resolution by the Security Council.We believe that, with the necessary political will of theinternational community, it will be possible to solve allthe remaining problems concerning the early acces­sion to independence of Namibia, provided that theright kind of pressure is applied to South Africa. Thestruggle continues.

221. Mr. SHELOOV (Byelorussian Soviet Social­ist Republic) (interpretation front-Russian): The qu('')-

I

,..-----------.'.--a__ III!!J.__d•••~•.•U .1. ,•• ,•.•;_f~__2__~·.WI:ii_ 1

. .

1706 General A~mb~y-Tbirty-seventh Sesslon-Pl~mary Meetings

(ion of the exercise of the inalienable right of the Na- the s~y~reign States -of" southC:lrn Africa. They aremibian people to s~lf-determination(an~i~~ep~nden~e flouting the United Nations decisions on the gr/ilnting ofis at present the fundamental decoiomzailon Issue m independence to Namibia and doing aB they call to keepsouthern Africa. that country for many years to come as a sanctuary for

racism and oppression, ringed by ba.rbed wire~222. Notwithstanding the numerous Unit~d Nationsdecisions and the demands of the international corn- 223. In their criminal acts against the Namibian peo-

. . I ~ I pIe and the neighbouring African States, the SouthmUl~ity, the Pretoria regime contmues Its un awfU African racists are relying on comprehensive economicoccupation of Namibia, ;.onduc~ing a c~~pa~~~ of and financial support sut:h as that represented recentlybrutal terror and oppressIOn agamst the NailllOianS, by the loan of more than $1 billion granted to Southin particu.dar the members of SWAPO, continuing its Africa. and on the military, political and diplomaticmilitarization of the Territory and working hard toturn it into a beach-head for aggression against neigh- support of the United States and other leading Western

Powers, members of NATO. The oEsis of the alliancebouring sovereign States. of the racist& with the imperialist Western circles and223. Recently, the world has seen how the South their monopolies is well known. It consists in the dove-African racists, continuing their aggressive policy, in- tailing and interlocking of their international, politicalvaded Lesotho and Mozambique, as a result of which and strategic interests in South Africa and the desire tomany innocent lives were lost. continue the cruel exploitation of the Africans and224. With the support of the Western Powers, the the natural wealth of the area, particularly in Namibia.Pretoria regime continues to build up its military 229. There is no need to go into detail again about thepotential and consolidate its occupation of Namibia. acts of plunder by the V/estern economic and other cir-In a working paper of the Special Committee on the cles in Namibia and the disastrous consequences forSituation with regard to the Implementation of the Namibians and the future of that country; this is com-Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colo- mon knowledge. The Tsumeb Corporation, Con-nial Countries and Peoples,' we learn that the South solidated Diamond Mines of South West Africa, Ltd.,African military budget has increased sixfold in the past Rossing Uranium, Ltd.-those and other Western anddecade. Last year, nearly 3 billion rand of the South South African monopolistic octopuses have long be-African State defence allocation were devoted to those come the embodiment of imperialist plunder and mer-purposes. Notwithstanding the embargo on ar~s ciless exploitation of the indigenous population.deliveries to South Africa established by Secunty Diamonds, gold, polymetals and, particularly, Na-Council resolution 418 (1977), United Nations docu- mibian uranium, together with cheap labour providedments reveal that the co-operation of the leading West- by the indigenous Africans, are what fan the franticern Powers with South Africa in the military sphere is desires of the imperialist monopolies.still going on. 230. It is precisely the thoroughly selfish greed and225. More than 110,000 members ofthe South African the military, strategic and political interests of theoccupation forces ana their puppets in Namibia con- monopolist circles of the West that account for thetinue to suppress the aspirations and desires <;lf the greatly intensified activities of the leading WesternNamibian people for freedom and independence. In Power and other NATO countries in Namibia and theiraddition to their war machine, the Pretoria racists are position concerning a settlement of the Namibian ques-forcing young Namibians into the so-called territorial tion.forces and cynically us~ng them in the struggle 231. The actions of the NATO countries, particu-against the African people of that country. larly the United States, clearly show that what con-226. The racist South African I:egime continues cerns them is not the question of the granting of cnde-to use the Territory of Namibia for systematic acts of pendence to Namibia but quite the opposite, that is,aggregsion against neighbouring sovereign States" how to continue the present defective colonial situationparticularly Angola. South African aggressors armed to in the country and how to imp03e on it a neo-colo-the teeth, including a considerable number of merce- nialist future. And they show that their interests coin-naries from several Western countries, have invaded cide entirely with those of racist South Africa, whichthe border territory of Angola to a considerable depth, illegally occupies Namibia.in order to destabilize the political situation of that 232. It is several years since the Security Councilsovereign African country and to try to intimidate the adopted resolution 435 (1978), which was an interna-Angolan people and compel them to renounce support tionally recognized consensus on the question of afor and assistance to SWAPO. In fact, the Pretoria political settlement in Namibia. Yet what has happenedregime is waging a permanent undeciared war against in the meantime? We have seen how the Pretoriathe people of Namibia and the neighbouring sovereign regime, with the connivance and support of that self-States, employing methods and devices that are exten- same group of five, has each time engaged in everysively used by its fellow international brigand, that is, conceivable political machination and manreuvre, and,Israel, in jrg action against the Palestinian people and indeed, outright blackmail, in order to impose onthe neighbouring Arab States. This is no random SWAPO its own terms for a settlement in Namibia.analogy. Aggressiveness and expansionism on a racial And what was the so-called contact group doing all thisbasis are inherent in both those countries and in both time? With a persistence which deserved to be put tocases their protector is the same, American impe- better use, it was putting constant pressure not on therialism. colonialist and racist regime of Pretoria to compel it to227. The imperialists are openly using the South carry out the United Nations decisions but rather onAfrican regime in order to carry out, through that SWAPO, in an attempt to secure further concessionsregime, armed action and subversive activities against for South Africa. Attempts were made to limit the role

• I

J02nd meeting-13 December 1982 1707

reofepor

0­

thlic:lythticrncend'e-:altonda.heir­orm­1n­l,nd)e-~r-

10.la­edtic

odhehe:rneir~s-

:u-10­le­IS,onlo­in­ch

.cilla­

: aledria~If­

~ry

Id,on,ia.histo

:hetoonIOS[lIe

of SWAPO in the Namibian settlement and to have thequestion settled entirely outside the United Nations.

233. At this time, we are witnesses to the mostflagrant, overt and massive pressure being exerted onSWAPO and the front-line States by the United Statesand other Western Powers for the very same purpose,that of preserving the racist and imperialist rule inNamibia. Use is being made of the well-known tacticof arm-twisting, in combination with proposals for themost absurd ·conditions. Now, the proponents of allsorts of linkages are trying artificially to link the ques­tion of a settlement in Namibia with the presence ofCuban internationalist contingents in the People'sRepublic of Angola, contingents which are there at therequest of the Government of that country and fullyin compliance with the United Nations Charter. Acting,as it were, in tandem, the United States and racistSouth Africa are cynically insisting on such a linkage;otherwise they threaten yet again to disrupt a Namibiansettlement.

234. There is no need to demonstrate the incom­patibility of two substantially different matters-thedecolonization of Namibia and the sovereign right ofAngola to provide for its security against unceasing actsof aggression by the South African racists.

235. The United Nations cannot and must not pas­sively view the constant manreuvres by South Africaand its Western protectors on this question of aNamibian settlement. Its role is to rebuff most deci­sively the neo-colon~alists and racists, to unmask themand foil their scheming; it must press for the imple­mentation of the decisions it has adopted on this ques­tion. The United Nations has borne and must continueto bear responsibility for the fate of the Namibians andthe attainment of their independence. It is preciselyUnited Nations decisions which determine the waysand means for moving Namibia on to independence andendorse the role of SWAPO as the sole legitimate rep­resentative of the Namibian people.

236. It is obvious that the manreuvres of the UnitedStates and the other Western Powers in regard to aNamibian settlement have the purpose of delaying,under various pretexts, the solution of this question inorder to undermine the basis of the political settlementinherent in United Nations decisions, particularlythose of the Security Council, to legalize the puppetgroupings in Namibia, to impede the participation ofSWAPO in the determination of the future of the coun­try and to resolve the Namibian problem on a neo··colonialist basis, outside the United Nations alto­gether.237. In the light of events in connection with thesettlement in Namibia, it is particularly clear thatthere is an urgent need to adopt comprehensivemandatory sanctions against South Africa, underChapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.There must be no delay in this matter. The racistregime in Pretoria is not just the basis for colonialismin southern Africa; it is also the source of mountingdanger for the ,cause ofpeace on the African continent.

238. In conclusion, the delegation of the Byelorus­sian Soviet Socialist Republic again strongly advocatesthe prompt exercise by the Namibian people of theirinalienable right to self-determination and indepen­dence, on the basis of the preservation of the unity and

territorial" integrity of Namibia, including Walvis Bayand the offshore islands; the prompt and complete with­drawal from Namibia of all South African troops andthe South African administration; and the transfer offull authority to the people of Namibia in the person ofSWAPO, which is recognized by the United Nationsand the OAU as the sole legitimate representative ofthe Namibian people.

239. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic):The last speaker this evening is the observer ofthe Lea­gue of Arab States and I now call upon him, in accord­ance with General Assembly resolution 477 (V) of1 November 1950.240. Mr. MAKSOUD (League of Arab States): Aswe follow the evolution of the situation in Namibia,we discern a strategy of delay and procrastinationadopted by South Africa while at the same time it ispaying lip service to a vague commitment that Pretoriawill accept the United Nations plan for the indepen­dence of Namibia. The strategy has become wellknown. It entices the parties concerned into a frame­work of negotiations and then it conjures up excuseswhereby it pre-empts the outcome and sabotages theprocess itself.-witness what took place in Geneva ~n

January 1981, when South Africa sought to proliferatethe "parties" who claimed, but did not actually have,representative capacity. The purpose of the attemptwas clear: to deny SWAPO its recognized right to rep­resent the Namibian people's rights and be their solelegitimate representative.

241. Fuuahermore, South Africa rejected the well­established democratic method of free elections, inwhich each individual has one vote, and instead soughtto establish the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance in orderto institutionalize the system ofapartheid, linked withquislings whom the racist regime would seek topromote.

242. What does this remind us of? What immedi~LGlycomes to mind is the similar process which Israelintroduced in the occupied Palestinian and Arab terri­tories, where the occupation authorities seek toprovide the illegal settlements with th~ status to whichIsraeli jurisdiction applies, thus introoucing a systemofapartheid in the West Bank and Gaza, while simul­taneously trying to promote the so-called villageleagues-all in a deliberate, reckless and racistattempt to pre-empt the outcome of self-determinationfor the Palestinian people and to divert the Palestinianpeople's focus and commitment to the PLO as theirsole legitimate representative.

243. South Africa's strategy is clear in its attempt tomaintain illegal control over the natural resources andwealth of a tn,st territory, namely, Namibia, by at­tempting to introduce phantom political parties andinstitutional and legalistic trickery in the hope ofsapping the credibility and representativeness ofSWAPO, on the pretext that independence throughSWAPO would lead to the emergence of a so-calledSoviet client State.

244. Once again, what does this remind us of! Ofcourse, it brings back vividly to our memories theexcuse, the pretext, the pretence that Israel u;£~s in itsdeliberate plan of controlling the land, the resources·the wealth of the occupied territories and manipulatingthe economic sys~emJ as we mentioned during the

1108 General Assembly-Thirty-seventh Session-Plenary Meetings, I

debate on the question of Palestine, by all sorts oflegal trickery and "military orders" whose frequencyand multiplicity is intended to confuse, distract and dis­able the p'eople of Palestine in determining their rightsand their -security. Once again, all this is done on thepretext and with the e){cuse that if the Palestinian peo­ple exercise their right of self-determination they willundoubtedly have a PLO-oriented independent State,which, of course, will be a "Soviet client State".245. South Africa's strategy at this time links thewithdrawal of its illegal occupation of Namibia with thewithdrawal of the Cuban troops from Angola. Notwith­standing the fact that the administr~tion of Namibia

. by South Africa was terminated by the United Nationsand that the United Nations Council for Namibia wasentrusted with the task of administering the country,South Africa continues its occupation, in defiance andcontempt of United Nations resolutions calling forits withdrawal and the realization of the independenceof Namibia. This clearly shows that South Africawanted any excuse to perpetuate its illegal occupationand is now using, as the latest pretext, the presence ofCuban troops which are there at the request of theAngolan Government and whose departure dependson the exercise of the sovereign right of Angola to keepthem or ask them to leave.

246. Besides, the fact is that there is absolutely noevidence ofCuba wanting to stay in Angola beyond theperiod -agreed for the presence of its troops by theAngolan Government. Hence, that linkage is adeliberate South African delaying tactic in the processof the achievement of Namibian independence inaccordance with Security Council resolution 435(1978), which was unanimously adopted.

247. What does this remind us of? It reminds us ofwhat Israel is at this moment trying to do, namely, tolink its withdrawal-which has been determined anddictated by the unanimously adopted Security Councilresolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982)-with the with­drawal from Lebanon of the Arab deterrent forces,which came to Lebanon at the request of the legitimateGovernment ofLebanon and the decision ofthe Leagueof Arab States and would leave at the request of theLebanese Government.

248. Thus, Israel's linking of its illegal presence inLebanon with the condition of withdrawal of the Arabdeterrent forces is evidence of the same stonewallingtactic which South Africa exercises in Namibia. It isalso a clear example of the built-in contempt forunanimously adopted Security Couilcil resolutions bythe two remaining racist and colon~d entities in theworld. It also signals that both South Africa and Israelare intent on demolishing the credibility and effective­ness of United Nations machinery in order to per­petuate their obvious racist, Fascist and colonial settlerpolicies.

249. South Africa's strategy is to keep the Westerncountries guessing about its intentions. It involvesSouth Africa in duplicity, seeking to placate the West­ern world by making rhetorical and cosmetic changesin the apartheid system in order to divert the con­science of the Western world from pursuing the ques­tioning of, and opposition to, South Africa's apartheidpolicies and colonial behaviour. Furthermore, SouthAfrica seeks to buy time in order to consolidate its

- .. - _. ~ .._...~ ._ .. -~

devastating. milit~ry ability, both n.uf:le~r ~nd~9n­ventional, in a bid to frustrate the African front-lineStates from acting as leverage and sustenance for theNamibian people's struggle to achieve their inter­nationally recognized rights to independence andfreedom. By so doing, Pretoria is holdin~ the wholecontinent of Africa hostage to its potential militarystriking power, which it exercises intermittently-attimes in Mozambique, at times in Angola and, mostrecently, in Lesotho.

250. What does this remind us of? I suppose that it isvery easy to find more than similarity with Israel'sposture, ideology and behavioural pattern. One canspeak of something much more p~cise than mere simi­larity, for there exists an identicalness. How else canwe explain Israel's stonewalling strategy ofkeeping theWestern world, especially the United States, guessingat its attempts to buy time in order to consolidate itsoccupation and pursue its annexationist policies andthen signalling to the Western world, and particularlythe United States, that, if a negotiating process isundertaken, it might-I repeat, might-undertake whatit calls "concessions", as if compliance with UnitedNations resolutions, international law and the willof mankind was an act ofconcession rather than a duty.It is to be expected that Israel should seek to buy timein order to maintain and reinforce its striking powerfor the purpose of keeping the whole region hostageto its military prowess, as it has done repeatedly, forexample, in its strike against the nuclear 'facility inBaghdad, in using its military occupation to annex bothJerusalem and the Golan Heights, in its brutal invasionof Lebanon, in its reckless bombing and destruction ofLebanese cities and its inhumane siege Qf Beirut-alltestifying to the fact that Israel seeks to create a mil.i­tary advantage, both conventional and nuclear, in orderto frustrate the Arab and overall international commit­ment to the rights of the Palestinian people to indepen­denr.e, freedom and statehood.

251. South Africa's strategy seeks, through deliberateambiguity, to thwart any serious attempt to restrain itin the pursuit of its objectives. It is well known thatSouth Africa, aware ofthe international outrage againstits behaviour, its Jlol~cies and its racism, re§orts togeopolitical considerations in order to frustrate inter­national legitimacy and the wHl of the internationalcommunity. South Africa seeks to prevent the inter­national community ·from taking the necessarymeasures to ensure South Africa's compliance withUnited Nations re801utions and restrain its proclivityto pursue its aggression and generate a situaHon inwhich Western Powers seek to placate it under thepretext of persuading it. Hence the resort to the vetowhenever the issue of sanctions arises.

252. What does this remind us of? Does it not remindus of Security Council resolutions unanimously con­·demning Israel's beha.viour? And yet, when it comesto taking effective measures to constrain Israel'sproclivity for expansion and aggression, the rightof veto is exercised or there is a threat that the rightof veto ~ill be exercised. Sanctions, which are pro­vided for in the United Nations Charter to curtailbehaviour analogous to that of South Africa and Israel,have in many instances been rendered dysfunctional.Why? Because of the prevailing doctrine that theaggressor has to be placated in order to be persuaded.

'-'._.

IIj

j11

I

102nd meeting-13 December 1982 17U9

;QP.-·line, thelter-andholetary-atnost

it islel'scan

:imi-can~the,singe its 'Iand

,

larlyis isvhat 'I

lited 1

Iwillluty.time l)wertage, fory in

71both,sion I

Imof

1-allmili- I,rder I

lmit-pen-

~rate

lin itthat

ainstts tonter-ionalnter-marywithlivitym inr theveto

mindcon-)mes'ael'srightrightpro-

Jrtailirael,onal.t thelded.

2.53. Until when will this doctrine be allowed tocontinue? Until when can we allow South Africa andIsrael to establish a counter-legitimacy to the legiti­macy of this world body, its resolutions, its Charter andthe international consensus? Until when are we goingto make believe that an aggressor must be persuadedrather than penalized? But we can see that aggressionwithout sanctions opens the floodgates for a series ofviolations, acts ofaggression and brutality: Until whenwill the people of Namibia and Palestine remain disen­franchised from partaking in human equality andenjoying independent statehood? Until when shouldthe people of Namibia and Palestine bleed and sufferpersecution and humiliation? Is it until we discover theresults of the Western equation of placating in order topersuade?254. We in the League ofArab States have decided tomatch our utterances with performance on the issue·of Namibia. We have decided to render our policiesaction-oriented from the Arab perspective and experi­ence. Aggressors should never be placated. Theyshould be penalized.255. At its meeting in Tunis in September 1981, theCouncil of the League of Arab States emphasized andreaffirmed the firm resolve of the Arab States to isolatethe South African regime and apply a boycott againstit in all fields, particularly in the field of petroleum andoil, as mentioned in resolution 26/5 of the Council of

Ministers of the Organization of Arab PetroleumExporting Countries, dated 6 May 1981.

256. On behalfof the League of Arab States, 1 shouldlike to commend the work of the United Nations Coun­cH for Namibia and its President and members and toreaffirm the collective Arab commitment to the struggleof the Namibian people and the people of South Africato achieve as rapidly as possible the right to indepen­dence, equality and human freedom. We shall spare noeffort in our resolve to achieve this noble aim.

The meeting rose at 7.05 p.m.

NOTES

I Report of the International Conference on Sanctions againstSouth Africa, Paris, 20-27 May 1981 (A/CONF.I07/8), sect. X.

2 Frente Popular para la Liberaci6n de 5aguia el-Hamra y de Riode Oro.

3 Frente Revolucionaria de Timor Leste Independente.4 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session,

Supplement No. 24, vol. I, annex 11.S See Official Records ofthe Security Council, Thirty-third Year

2087th meeting. ' .6 Ibid., Thirty-third Year, Supplement for April, May and June

1978, document 5/12678.7 A/AC.I09/704.