Assembly approves three global meetings on southern Africa issues; adopts International Convention against apartheid in sports.

Assembly approves three global meetings on southern Africa issues; adopts International Convention against Apartheid in Sports

The General Assembly has decided to hold in 1986 three special global meetings related to the situation in southern Africa--a world conference on sanctions against South Africa, a special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, and an international meeting to be devoted particularly to the attainment of the "immediate independence" of that Territory.

A 22-article International Convention against Apartheid in Sports, under consideration since 1977, was also adopted by the Assembly.

Urgent appeals for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa were made in resolutions adopted following separate debates in plenary on two related items--South Africa's policy of apartheid (28 October-1 November) and the question of Namibia (19-22 November).

On 10 December, the Assembly adopted nine texts relating to apartheid; on 13 December, it approved six more on Namibia, including a 75-paragraph omnibus text. Among subjects covered were those related to possible sanctions, "collaboration" by certain States with South Africa, the situation of the front-line States, support for national liberation movements, political prisoners, implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, the work of the United Nations Council for Namibia--the legal Administering Authority for the Territory--and mobilization of public opinion regarding the situation in southern Africa.

The resolution (40/64 C) calling for the world conference on sanctions to be held in June 1986 was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 6 against (Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States), with 10 abstentions.

The conference is to be organized by the Special Committee against Apartheid, in co-operation with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries United Nations bodies, including specialized agencies, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are invited to co-operate in organizing the meeting.

The resolution (40/97 F) calling for a special session of the Assembly on Namibia was approved by a vote of 148 in favour to none against, with 6 abstentions (Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Malawi, United Kingdom, United States). The session is tentatively scheduled for 3 to 12 September 1986 at Headquarters.

By resolution 40/97 C, adopted by a vote of 146 in favour to none against, with 6 abstentions (Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), the Assembly decided that an "international conference for the immediate independence of Namibia" should be held in Western Europe during 1986, preceding the special session on Namibia. The meeting is to be organized in co-operation with the Council for Namibia, and a Secretary-General will be appointed for the conference in consultation with the Council.

"Important question": In voting on the drafts on Namibia, the General Assembly invoked the use of its provisional rule of procedure 84, deeming the matters under consideration as "important questions", and thus requiring a two-thirds majority for the passage of the texts.

All specific references to the United States or Israel with South Africa were removed in the omnibus text and the draft on the United Nations plan for Namibia as a result of separate recorded votes taken on relevant phrases in the texts. Rule 84 was applied, and the required two-thirds majority was not reached in those votes.

The provisions affected concerned the policy of linkage between Namibia's independence and the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, the policy of "constructive engagement", and collaboration by certain countries with South Africa.

A paragraph was added to the text on the plan for Namibia after a separate vote of 81 to 30, with 34 abstentions, which attained the required two-thirds majority. By it, the Assembly strongly condemned the abuse of the veto by "two Western permanent members of the Security Council" on 15 November 1985, "as a result of which the Council was prevented from taking effective measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter" against South Africa. It also appealed to those States "to desist from further misuse of the veto."

The United States, before the vote, said the drafts contained "numerous instances of name-calling" and "direct, hostile and unjustified" references to the United States which were contrary to basic General Assembly principles of "civility, fairness and factual accuracy". It also opposed the singling out of Israel.

Sports Convention: The sports Convention, annexed to resolution 40/64 G, was adopted by a vote of 125 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions.

Under the text, the Assembly appealed to all States to sign and ratify the Convention as soon as possible; requested all Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to acquaint the public as widely as possible with the Convention's text; and asked the Secretary-General to ensure the Convention's urgent and wide dissemination.

By the Convention, States parties, among other things: would not permit sports contact with a country practising apartheid; would take all possible measures to prevent sports contact with a country practising apartheid; would undertake to pursue immediately the policy of eliminating the practice of apartheid in all its forms from sports; would refuse to provide financial or other assistance to enable their sports bodies, teams and individual sportsmen to participate in sports activities in a country practising apartheid or with teams or individual sportsmen selected on the basis of apartheid; would deny visas and/or entry to representatives of sports bodies, teams and individual sportsmen representing a country practising apartheid; would take all action to secure the expulsion of a country practising apartheid from international and regional sports bodies; and would use their best endeavours to ensure universal compliance with the Olympic principle of non-discrimination.

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Drafting of an International Convention against Apartheid in Sports, established in 1976, submitted its report (A/40/36), containing the final draft, to the Assembly at its fortieth session.

United States role: In reporting to the Assembly (A/40/22), the Special Committee against Apartheid declared that United States policies towards South Africa were the "most serious hindrance to international action against apartheid". Although that country had condemned apartheid, it also continued to commend the Botha regime for its "reforms", the report stated.

Together with the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States had failed to take any meaningful measures in response to United Nations resolutions, the Committee said. The limited sanctions announced by the United States and the European Economic Community appeared to be intended only to assuage public opinion, and divert attention from the demands for urgent and effective action.

While pressing for comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Special Committee urged that, pending such sanctions, national action should be taken by Western countries against South Africa. Voluntary, unilateral, and limited sanctions by individual Western Governments were inadequate to deal with the situation, it stated.

Emphasizing the importance of an effective oil and arms embargo against Pretoria, and cessation of all military and nuclear co-operation with it, the Committee said that "any form of assistance to the military, police, intelligence or other forces in South Africa is nothing less than complicity in the crimes of the apartheid regime". The Committee supported all moves to boycott South Africa in the cultural and sports fields.

Namibia report: The Assembly also reviewed the report of the United Nations Council for Namibia (A/40/24), covering its activities from 1 September 1984 to 31 August 1985.

Acting Council President Noel G. Sinclair (Guyana) said the Council had consistently called for international pressure on and isolation of the Pretoria regime, and had been active in all regions of the world during the past year on behalf of Namibians. Although Western European States in general had endeavoured to match their political expressions with practical demonstrations, in the form of contributions to the Fund for Namibia and the Nationhood Programme, or of direct support to the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the attitude of a small minority of them was less supportive of Namibia's evolution to independence. Although the forces on the side of freedom for Namibia were greater than those for its domination, he said the outcome of the struggle, though certain, would not be achieved without more sweat, tears and even blood.

Other action: In addition to the resolutions on the world conference and the Sports Convention, the Assembly approved seven other resolutions on the question of apartheid.

By resolution 40/64 A, adopted by 122 votes to 18, with 14 abstentions, the Assembly called on the Security Council urgently to act under Chapter VII of the Charter with a view to applying comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa and condemned the policies of "constructive engagement" and active collaboration with the apartheid regime followed by certain Western and other States. It condemned the activities of those transnational corporations and financial institutions that had continued political, economic, military and nuclear collaboration with Pretoria.

It also asked all States that had not yet done so to adopt measures to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo against South Africa; effective implementation of a ban on all trade with South Africa; prohibition of any form of collaboration with South Africa in the military and nuclear fields; prohibition of the supply of oil and oil products to South Africa as well as technology to its oil industry; and prohibition of financial loans and investments as well as the withdrawal of investment in South Africa.

In resolution 40/64 B, the Assembly demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all South African troops from Angola, the end of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, and the strict observance by South Africa of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent African States. If appealed for the urgent provision of increased political, economic, educational and other forms of support to oppressed South Africans, as well as humanitarian and other assistance to South Africa's national liberation movements and decided to continue the authorization of adequate financial provision in the United Nations regular budget to enable the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) to maintain offices in New York. The text was adopted by 128 votes in favour to 8 against (Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States), with 18 abstentions.

By resolution 40/64 I, the Assembly demanded that South Africa release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners, detainees and restrictees; immediately lift the state of emergency; abrogate discriminatory laws and lift bans on all organizations, news media individuals opposing apartheid; and initiate without preconditions a political dialogue with genuine leaders of the majority population "with a view to dismantling apartheid without delay and establishing a representative government".

The Assembly also asked for dismantling the "bantustan structures" and ending the destabilization fo the front-line and other States. It urged the Security Council to take steps for the strict implementation of the mandatory arms embargo instituted in Council resolution 418 (1977) and of ther arms embargo requested in resolution 558 (1984). It appealed to all States to consider national legislative or other appropriate measures to "increase the pressure" on South Africa; appealed to Governments and organizations to end all academic, cultural, scientific and sport relations in support of the apartheid regime, as well as relations with individuals, institutions and other bodies endorsing or based on apartheid; and invited States that had not yet done so to adopt voluntary measures against South Africa.

The vote was 149 in favour to 2 against (United Kingdom, United States), with 4 abstentions (Federal Republic of Germany, Grenada, Israel, Malawi).

The Assembly also strongly condemned the continuing and increasing collaboration of Israel with South Africa, especially in the military and nuclear fields; demanded that Israel desist from and terminate all forms of collaboration with Pretoria, particularly in the military and nuclear fields; and called on all Governments and organizations to exert their influence to persuade Israel to desist from such collaboration. It did so in adopting resolution 40/64 E by a vote of 102 to 20, with 30 abstentions.

An appeal was made for increased contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa and for direct contributions to the voluntary agencies assisting victims of apartheid and racial discrimination in South Africa and Namibia in resolution 40/64 H, adopted without a vote.

The Assembly, in resolution 40/64 D, requested the Secretary-General to take steps to ensure dissemination of information "on the evils of apartheid" and on "atrocities and crimes committed by the apartheid regime". It appealed to Governments, information media, non-governmental organizations and individuals to co-operate with the United Nations in disseminating such information media, intellectuals and other public leaders to contribute to efforts to arouse the world's conscience against apartheid. The resolution was adopted by 150 votes in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Grenada, Israel, Malawi, United Kingdom, United States).

By resolution 40/64 F, the world body authorized the Special Committee against Apartheid to organize or co-sponsor conferences, seminars or other events, to send missions to Governments, organizations and conferences and to assist campaigns against apartheid. The vote was 141 in favour to 2 against (United Kingdom, United States), with 12 abstentions.

Namibia omnibus: Resolution 40/97 A, the omnibus text on Namibia, was approved by a vote of 131 in favour to none against, with 23 asbtentions. In addition to calling for mandatory sanctions, the Assembly:

* Declared that South Africa's continued illegal occupation of Namibia constituted an "act of aggression" against the Namibian people, and supported their armed struggle under the leadership of SWAPO;

* Expressed dismay at the Security Council's failure to discharge effectively its responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and security in southern Africa "owing to the opposition of its Western permanent members";

* Urged the Security Council to take, without further delay, appropriate action to ensure that the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, contained in its resolution 435 (1978), was not undermined or modified in any way and that it was fully respected and implemented;

* Welcomed dand endorsed the "universal and categorical rejection" of the "linkage" advanced by South Africa between Namibian independence and "irrelevant and extraneous issues", such as the presence of Cuban forces in Angola;

* Welcomed and endorsed the "world-wide and justified condemnation" of the policy of constructive engagement with South Africa as one which, in addition to delaying Namibia's independence, had been "discredited" and "made bankrupt" by Pretoria's actions within South Africa and in southern Africa;

* Called on Member States, specialized agencies and other United Nations organizations to render "sustained and increased" support as well as "material, financial, military and other assistance" to SWAPO;

* Called on the Security Council to adopt the necessary measures to tighten the arms embargo against South Africa and to ensure strict compliance with the embargo by all States, and to declare categorically that Walvis Bay was an integral part of Namibia;

* Strongly condemned the continuing collaboration between South Africa and certain Western countries in the political economic, diplomatic and financial fields;

* Deplored the establishment and operation by South Africa of the so-called Namibia Information Offices in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, aimed at "legitimizing its puppet institutions" in Namibia, and demanded their immediate closure;

* Expressed grave concern at the acquisition of nuclear-weapon capability by South Africa;

* Condemned and called for an immediate end to the continuing military collaboration on the part of certain Western countries with South Africa;

* Called on all States to refrain from importing arms, ammunition and military vehicles produced in South Africa and to terminate collaboration with South Africa din the nuclear field;

* Demanded that all foreign economic interests operating in Namibia immediately refrain from any new investment or any other activity in Namibia, withdraw from the Territory and end their co-operation with the illegal South African administration;

* Called on the International Monetary Fund to terminate all collaboration with, and assistance to, South Africa; and

* Asked the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which operate the Urenco uraniumenrichment plant, to have Namibian uranium specifically excluded from the Treaty of Almelo, which regulates the activities of Urenco.

Other texts: Resolution 40/97 B, on implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, was adopted by a vote of 130 in favour to none against, with 25 abstentions.

In addition to condemning the recent use of the veto by two Western Security Council members to block imposition of sanctions against South Africa, it also called on Western permanent members of the Council to support imposition of "enforcement measures" by the Council "in order to ensure South Africa's compliance with Council resolutions".

The Assembly reiterated that Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), embodying the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, constituted the "only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem" and demanded their immediate and unconditional implementation.

The Assembly condemned South Africa's continuing attempts to set up "puppet political institutions" and impose an "internal settlement" in Namibia, and demanded that South Africa immediately rescind its "illegal and unilateral" action in installing the "so-called interim government" in Namibia on 17 June 1985. That measure was declared "null and void".

"All manoeuvres aimed at diverting attention from the central issue of the decolonization of Namibia by introducing East-West confrontation" were rejected. South Africa's "persistent attempts" to establish a "linkage" or "parallelism" between Namibian independence, in accordance with resolution 435, and "any extraneous and irrelevant issues", was strongly condemned and rejected.

The Assembly also demanded that South Africa desist from its "reprehensible" position in order to allow Namibia to attain its "long overdue" independence. It called for the cessation of all co-operation with South Africa in the political, economic, diplomatic, military, nuclear, cultural, sports and other fields.

In deciding on an international conference on Namibian independence, to precede the Assembly's special session on Namibia, resolution 40/97 C, the Assembly also expressed strong support for the efforts of the Council for Namibia, both as the legal administering authority for Namibia and as a policy-making organ of the United Nations. It decided that Namibia, represented by the Council for Namibia, would participate as a full member in all conferences and meetings organized by the United Nations to which all States were invited; and approved the report of the Council, making adequate financial provisions for implementation of its recommendations.

The Assembly, by resolution 40/97 D, decided to intensify its international campaign in support of the cause of Namibia. The Council for Namibia was to intensify the international campaign for imposing comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. The Assembly asked the Secretary-General to disseminate in 1986 the list of Namibian political prisoners, as well as information on activities undertaken in the context of the twentieth anniversary of the assumption by the United Nations of direct responsibility for Namibia. It also decided to allocate $500,000 to be used by the Council for Namibia for its programme of co-operation with non-governmental organizations to promote the cause of the liberation struggle of the Namibian people. The vote was 132 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions.

By resolution 40/97 E, adopted by a vote of 148 in favour to none against, with 6 abstentions (Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), the Assembly decided that the United Nations Fund for Namibia would be the primary source of assistance to Namibians and allocated to the Fund, as a temporary measure, $1.5 million from the regular United Nations budget.

Debate

Nearly 200 speakers participated in the debates on apartheid and Namibia.

Speaking in the apartheid debate, Joseph N. Garba, Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid and Chairman of the African Group, said the condition of South Africa's black population was worse than it had been in 1946. The few rudimentary rights which they had had at that time had been taken away from them in 1948, when racial discrimination had been codified and made systematic. The racist regime had made it clear that it would use the maximum force and repression to maintain white supremacy in South Africa.

If the United Nations had not been able to act more decisively in the face of South Africa's defiance of its decisions, it was because it had been prevented from doing so by a small group of countries that had the principal responsibility for the world's peace and security and that were usually the most vocal in criticizing the Organization's alleged ineffectiveness and double standards. The use of the veto by Western Powers had prevented the United Nations from acting decisively.

South Africa was confronting an ever-widening popular revolt which it could not contain. More than a million black students had boycotted the classrooms of apartheid's education system in the past year. "Whips, tear gas, bullets, prison and torture are the face the Government presents to its own population," he said.

Almost 800 people had been killed in protests against the regime over the past year, all but a handful black. The vast majority of them had been shot by South African security forces. Thousands more had been detained.

Torture of political prisoners was now so routine that the courts had finally forbidden police to assault detainees. The South African army was in virtually permanent military occupation of the black townships. Death squads had now also made a "grisly appearance" in South Africa.

More than 16 months of determined resistance by South Africa's oppressed black majority had shattered Pretoria's "smug confidence", so manifest only a year ago. International actions had played a prominent and important part in reversing the situation. In the past year, pressure for economic disengagement from South Africa had increased beyond anything seen before. The regime's own political base in the white community seemed to have been seriously eroded.

But "even at this late and desperate hour" Mr. Botha's Government had no intentions of abandoning apartheid, Mr. Garba stated. Its only substantive response to the domestic and international demand to dismantle apartheid had been more repression. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter would not only help speed the end of the abhorrent apartheid system but, more importantly would do so with the minimum amount of violence possible.

Johnson P. Mlambo, Chairman of PAC, said it was the Western banks, particularly Chase Manhattan, that had rescued the South African racist regime from total collapse some 25 years ago and had helped to perpetuate apartheid. "The Western bankers gave a kiss of life to the monster."

Although Pretoria's bantustan policy had failed, some United Nations Member States--in particular, Israel--had established clandestine political and economic ties with "those puppet bantustans", he said. The South African army, "emulating its Zionist counterpart in the Middle East", had carried out repeated attacks against Lesotho, Mozambique, Angola, Botswana and Zimbabwe under the familiar pretext of attacking bases of national liberation movements. The sole cause of all the problems in southern Africa was the universally discredited policies and practices of the apartheid regime. "For peace to triumph, that regime must be totally eliminated."

The international community should give maximum financial and material support to the front-line and neighbouring States to withstand Pretoria's military aggression and economic destabilization. "If there were ever a regime against which the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter should long ago have been applied, it is the illegal minority racist regime of apartheid South Africa." PAC called upon the peoples of Western countries which had refused to impose sanctions to use all the means at their disposal to compel their Governments to help bring about the speedy and total elimination of apartheid.

M. Johnstone Makatini, of ANC, said apartheid was doomed. Under the cloak of the South African state of emergency, the regime's soldiers "plunder, pillage, rape and murder our peoples in the townships". The state of emergency had already claimed more than a thousand lives of unarmed people, many of whom were popular trade unionist, student and community leaders, who had been assassinated by the Pretoria regime's "death squads and their collaborators."

However, the armed struggle continued to escalate, "its pace fuelled by the violence of apartheid". The growing unity of purpose between the anti-apartheid forces and Governments in the direction of stronger and comprehensive sanctions was welcome. Conspicuously out of step with that growing world-wide momentum in favour of sanctions were the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, which helped underwrite Pretoria's programme of destabilization of the front-line States and Lesotho.

Through "devices such as constructive engagement, Fascism in its apartheid reincarnation continues to be tolerated and defended even as it ravages our continent without let", he stated. Apartheid was militarizing its police State even as it converted that police State into a concentration camp. Instead of heeding the voice of reason, South Africa was preparing to stage a last-ditch stand, which could not be anything but catstrophic in its consequences. Apartheid must be completely dismantled and replaced by a free, united, non-racial and democratic South Africa.

India said apartheid stood with its back to the wall. The indiscriminate killings, maimings, torture and detentions without trial which had followed the imposition of a state of emergency were "the paroxysms of a system struggling to escape inevitable extinction". India and the non-Aligned Movement believed that apartheid was the root cause of all the instability and tension that afflicted southern Africa. Pretoria's aim was clearly to further entrench racist minority rule and to establish hegemony over southern Africa. Some allies of South Africa were reluctant to relinquish their significant economic interests there and in Namibia, "nurtured as these are on the sweat of salve labour". In certain Western countries, the divestment campaign had picked up steam and pressure on Pretoria was steadily mounting. India and other non-aligned countries favoured imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions.

Luxembourg on behalf of the European Community, Spain and Portugal, said their goal was the elimination of apartheid. If Pretoria wished to avoid a general flare-up of the situation, it must undertake as quickly as possible constitutional reforms leading to the actual elimination of apartheid and the granting of political and civil rights to "the entire population without exception". The primary necessity was the commencement of a dialogue between the present South African Government and the authentic representatives of the non-white community, a dialogue that must lead to dismantling the in-human system of apartheid. Also, Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, including those detained under the state of emergency, should be freed forthwith. Only a political and peaceful solution would make it possible to create a climate of stability and to ensure the prosperity of all South Africans. The European Community had adopted restrictive measures against Pretoria, and political, trade union, management, cultural, scientific and sporting contacts with the non-white community would be stepped up. The question of adopting other measures, including sanctions, "remains on the agenda."

The USSR said that in South Africa, racism had been elevated to the status of a constitutional principle and a governmental policy. The country had been transformed into a vast prison, where millions of black and coloured Africans were deprived of their freedom. The entire social and political system of South Africa ensured a privileged position for the ruling white minority, while millions of black Africans lived stripped of their rights and in poverty. A war was being waged against the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, who had risen up against the criminal apartheid system. Pretoria would not have been able to disregard world public opinion so arrogantly had it not been confident of the real support of "influential Western patrons and protectors", first and foremost among them the United States. They were blocking the institution of effective comprehensive sanctions, which should include an embargo on oil and oil products. The USSR would continue to give every possible kind of support to national liberation movements in southern Africa.

Israel said that for Jews, apartheid was "the ultimate abomination", and should be abolished immediately. The allegation that zionism equalled racism was "scandalous and preposterous", and accusations regarding support by Israel for apartheid were false. Israel's diplomatic and commercial relations with South Africa in no way implied support for that country's policies. The "vaunted trade of Israel with South Africa" was insignificant, compared with that of Europe and of other States--even Arab States. The Arabs traded in the billions of dollars with South Africa, including oil exports, which were 20 times as great as Israel's entire trade with that country.

The United States and apartheid, which denied South Africa's black people of their God-given rights, was wrong. The United States condemned and rejected it, and was working towards the elimination of that unjust, unjustifiable and doomed system. United States policy was to promote positive and peaceful change that would lead to a system in South Africa based on the consent of all those governed by it. "We want to encourage change that assures rather thatn destroys South Africa's future." Apartheid would not be undone by "demagogic posturing and sloganeering". Exhortations to "bloody revolution", calls for mandatory sanctions and hypocritical talk about liberation from the leaders and representatives of some nations that denied liberty to their own people would not bring peace and justice to millions of South Africans. Measures announced on 9 September 1985 were designed to deprive South Africa of any direct or indirect United States support in maintaining its police, military and apartheid-enforcing structure, and committed the United States to sustaining a strong presence in South Africa as a basis from which to exert influence for change.

Namibia debate

In the debate on Namibia, Noel G. Sinclair (Guyana), Acting President of the Council for Namibia, said it was deeply disturbing that in November 1985, two permanent members of the Security Council had vetoed a resolution calling for, among other things, sanctions against South Africa. "It pains us that beyond the rhetoric of some, the concern still seems to be essentially that of protecting profits, rather than justice and decency and law." That double veto gave South Africa a signal that it could continue to rely on its traditional sources of support.

Andimba Toivo ja Toivo, Secretary-General of SWAPO, said the Assembly should act decisively to end Pretoria's illegal occupation of Namibia and its "brutal repression, aggression and State terrorism" against Namibia. Unarmed men, women and children were the special targets of the more than 100,000 "racist troops" stationed in Namibia. South Africa used military repression to delay Namibia's independence and to allow itself and Western transnational corporations to continue their "massive plunder" of Namibian natural resources. South Africa continued to rely on the support of its major Western allies in the military, nuclear, economic, political and diplomatic fields.

Namibia's independence was "still held at ransom to Washington's selfish, imperialist ambitions in the region of southern Africa," he said. By insisting that Cuban forces leave Angola beofre Namibia attained independence, the Reagan Administration was bluntlly telling the international community that that independence was not an urgent issue. All that counted were the geo-political considerations, namely, the economic, strategic and military interests of "United States imperialism". The United States and the United Kingdom also had opposed meaningful peaceful measures which the international community demanded against Pretoria.

Front-line States: Angola said South Africa had continued to deploy "military, political, diplomatic and even semantic moves" to prevent the implementation of resolution 435. Indepedence would inevitably come to Namibia under SWAPO's leadership. Support by the peoples of the United States and European countries for the struggle against apartheid should be a clear message to their Governments to take equally specific, mandatory measures to force Pretoria to end its illegal occupation of Namibia.

Botswana said South Africa's friends refused to accept the fact that the liberation of a people should take precendence over their economic interests. "To them we say: the blood of innocent Namibians that drips from the hands of those who are in power in South Africa drips from their hands as well." It was ironic that all impediments to the implementation of the plan that accompanied resolution 435 were "attributable to the attitutde of some members of the very group that spearheaded its evolution". Linking withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola to a resolution of the Namibian question was a "red herring" introduced solely to frustrate efforts to bring about independence. The longer the independence of Namibia was delayed "the more are chances for peace and security in the whole subregion compromised."

Mozambique said resolution 435 was the only acceptable basis for negotiated settlement aimed at Namibia's independence. It rejected the so-called linkage between Namibian independence and withdrawal of Cuban troops. South Africa and its allies, responsible for the long delay in attaining Namibian independence, should realize that no manoeuvers could save the apartheid regime from collapse. Namibians, under SWAPO's leadership, would achieve their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

The United Republic of Tanzania said the question of Namibia was "a chronicle of militarization and the utilization of the illegally occupied Territory as a springboard for aggression by South Africa, acting as the surrogate of imperialism in southern Africa". The United States and some other Western countries--"which profess love for the oppressed African and friendship and support for the oppressors of the African"--seemed motivated more by "vainglorious global strategies" than by concern over the reality facing Namibians and black South Africans. Strictly applied sanctions would "inevitably restore dignity, justice and freedom to the unfortunate majority" of South Africans and Namibians.

Zambia said the countries which had vetoed mandatory sanctions against South Africa did not want the adoption of an enabling resolution to advance the process of giving effect to resolution 435. In reality, they maintained a position of non-action, tolerant of the status quo in Namibia. Zambia advocated mandatory economic sanctions against Pretoria because they were an available peaceful means provided for in the Charter for bringing about Namibian independence and an end to the scourge of apartheid in South Africa.

Zimbabwe said Pretoria's "sinister design" had turned Namibia into "an appendage of apartheid South Africa". The international will to act decisively on the Namibian question was "continually being sapped by the unholy alliance being sapped by the unholy alliance between Pretoria and transnational corporations". In spite of the "hot air and rhetoric to the contrary", transnational corporations, the chief beneficiaries of apartheid, were ultimately responsible for delaying Namibian independence and the destruction of apartheid. The transnationals continued to exploit the Territory's natural resources, and Western investments continued to support the apartheid military machinery in Namibia. Zimbabwe wanted comprehensive sanctions and increased support for Namibians, through SWAPO.

Other views: The United States said the only basis for a just and peaceful settlement in Namibia was resolution 435. The United States had engaged in talks with the parties involved and was continuing that dialogue in the hope of moving matters as rapidly as possible to a solution. All parties must demonstrate their seriousness about reaching diplomatic solutions to conflicts in the region. Imposition of mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa would not lead to the goal sought--peaceful resolution of the problems besetting the region.

United States policies had contributed to limited improvements in the lives of oppressed South Africans. The United States had not advanced "linkage" between Namibian independence and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola; South Africa had asserted the linkage. But in those circumstances, the United States did not believe it possible to reach agreement on Namibian independence. The fundamental concerns, including security, of all parties had to be addressed.

Luxembourg, on behalf of the European Community, Portugal and Spain, said implementation of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 was the only acceptable basis for a peaceful and lasting solution of the Namibian question. The constitution of an independent Namibia should be worked out by a constituent assembly resulting from free and equitable elections under United Nations supervision, in which the entire Namibian political spectrum could contribute to the country's future political structure. South Africa should refrain from subordinating the application of resolution 435 to the fulfilment of conditions extraneous to the problem, and cease now its illegal occupation of the Territory.

India said it and the Non-Aligned Movement believed that only comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter could compel it to comply with United Nations decisions. Resolution 435 must be implemented immediately and unconditionally. Namibia remained "the most glaring vestige of colonialism, where a renegade and racist regime fights to stave off the inevitable, to stem the inexorable tide of history."

The "apologia" by some countries for not accepting mandatory sanctions lest they adversely affect the economic interests of the blacks in the region was "clearly aimed at bolstering up beleaguered Pretoria to protect the economic and geo-strategic interests of its patrons in the West." "Constructive engagement and other such theories have their ancestry in the infamous slogan of 'white man's burden' of the colonial heyday, which provided the philosophy for colonial plunder and racial barbarities." The "last vestiges of vile colonialism" in Namibia and South Africa would also be "overrun by the galloping hooves of history".

The USSR said that, supported by Western Powers, Pretoria was trying to gain time to continue Namibia's colonial exploitation in which not only South African companies, but also United States, British and other Western transnational corporations were participating. The United States and other Western Powers were protecting South Africa from sanctions and trying to impose on African countries and SWAPO more and more political concessions in Pretoria's favour.

Western Powers were also working to achieve the legalization of the Namibian "puppet political groups" within and outside the Security Council. South Africa and the United States Council decisions on Namibia with withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. "We must strengthen the role of the United Nations in the Namibian settlement by means of achieving effective participation and permanent control by the Security Council, and not by any group of States, in Namibia's achievement of genuine independence."

The adoption of strict sanctions would be the most direct way to force Pretoria to grant independence to Namibia and "normalize the situation in southern Africa". The USSR favoured the transfer of "total power" to Namibians, represented by SWAPO.

Finland, on behalf of the Nordic countries, said resolution 435 was the only internationally acceptable basis for the achievement of Namibian independence. Namibians must be permitted to determine as soon as possible their own future through free and fair elections under United Nations control. Introduction of extraneous issues or other delaying tactics must be condemned, including establishment of the "interim administration" in Namibia. South Africa should be pressured to speed up implementation of the Namibian plan. The Council should consider further effective measures towards that end, including mandatory sanctions.