General Assembly demands action for immediate implementation of Namibian independence plan, comprehensive sanctions and South African withdrawal from the territory.

General Assembly demands action for immediate implementation of Namibian independence plan, comprehensive sanctions and South African withdrawal from the Territory

THE General Assembly, at itsfourteenth special session (17-20 September, New York), called on the Security Council to convene urgently to take action for the immediate and unconditional implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, as endorsed by Council resolution 435 (1978).

The Council was also asked to adoptcomprehensive, mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter as the "most effective peaceful measures" to ensure South African compliance with United Nations resolutions and decisions on Namibia.

In adopting a 21-paragraph resolutionat the conclusion of four days of debate and deliberation, the Assembly also demanded that South Africa immediately and unconditionally withdraw its "illegal administration, occupation army and police force" from Namibia.

The Assembly, in its resolutionS-14/1, also reaffirmed that the United Nations plan for Namibian independence was the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question and demanded its immediate implementation "without pre-condition or modification".

The plan foresees a cease-fire in theTerritory under United Nations supervision, to be followed by a withdrawal of South African forces and free elections supervised by the Organization. A United Nations Transition Assistance Group would also be dispatched to the Territory.

The vote on the text--submitted by41 nations on behalf of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal administerity authority for the Territory for the last 20 years--was 126 in favour to none against, with 24 abstentions. (Those abstaining were: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States).

The special session, convened oneday after the opening of the regular forty-first General Assembly, held seven meetings at which 90 speakers gave their views on the Namibian question. The Assembly on 13 December 1985, in resolution 40/97 F, had decided to convene such a session, expressing grave concern that South Africa continued illegally to occupy Namibia, in violation of United Nations resolutions and decisions.

Last year, the General Assembly, inadopting resolution 40/97 C, authorized the convening in 1986 of the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, (7-11 July, Vienna). It adopted a Programme of Action and Declaration calling for immediate implementation of the independence plan and imposition of comprehensive sanctions, and affirming the legitimacy of the struggle of Namibians by every means at their disposal, including armed struggle, and invited the Assembly at its special session to consider and adopt effective action to secure Namibian independence (see story, p. 21).

An 'attitude of duplicity': "SouthAfrica's attitude towards the United Nations in respect of Namibia's liberation has been characterized, at every turn, by contempt, duplicity, bad faith and intransigence", Humayun Rasheed Choudhury told the special session. Mr. Choudhury, Foreign Minister of Bangladesh and newly-elected President of the forty-first Assembly, was elected by acclamation as President of the special session.

More recently, the proclamation ofa so-called "interim government" in Namibia had demonstrated that South Africa was determined to subvert and bypass the United Nations and to institute its own process of change in the Territory, calculated to ensure its continuing domination of the Territory.

"The agony and travail of this unfortunatepeople continues", he said. "The situation has reached a point which the international community can no longer tolerate." He appealed to all concerned to co-operate in a constructive manner to end "this intolerable situation".

The convening of the special session,Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar told delegates, was "another expression of the broad commitment of the United Nations to support the demand of the Namibian people for freedom and independence" and reflected "a mounting sense of urgency about working out a just and peaceful settlement" of the question.

There must be, he said, "imemdiateand tangible progress towards the goal of justice and human dignity for all if peace and stability are to be restored to southern Africa".

"Good intentions, pious hopes orringing words of condemnation cannot suffice to overcome the intransigence of Pretoria, which will only honour the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations if it is subjected to effective means of pressure", said Antoine Ndinga Oba, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Congo, on behalf of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

Africa, he said, was determined topursue efforts towards establishing without delay "the most favourable conditions for the eradication of apartheid, the major political challenge to Africa at the present time, in order to permit the setting up of a democratic, egalitarian and non-racial society in South Africa and to hasten the independence of Namibia".

"Regrettably, Namibia is still notfree", said Theo Ben Gurirab, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). "The agony and injustice of colonial occupation continues unabated." The "politics of eternal postponement" of Namibia's independence and the introduction of the linkage pre-condition "continue to hold our independence to ransom and cause untold suffering to our people, whose only demand is freedom".

No 'linkage': Under the special sessionresolution, South Africa was called upon to desist from linking Namibian independence to "irrelevant and extraneous issues such as the presence of Cuban troops in Angola", as such linkage was incompatible with the relevant United Nations resolutions, particularly resolution 435. The Assembly strongly rejected the policies of "constructive engagement" and "linkage", which had served to encourage South Africa to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia, and called for their abandonment.

Member States were called upon togive SWAPO, "the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people", increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to enable it to intensify its struggle for Namibia's liberation. The Assembly upheld "the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people by every means at their disposal, including armed struggle, to repel South Africa's aggression and to achieve self-determination, freedom and independence in a united Namibia".

South Africa was strongly condemnedfor its continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its "persistent refusal" to comply with General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and decisions, and for installing "the so-called interim government" in Namibia in June 1985. The Assembly rejected as illegal, null and void "all such fraudulent constitutional and political schemes" by which South Africa attempted to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia.

The Assembly emphasized that theonly parties to the conflict in Namibia were the Namibian people represented by SWAPO and "the racist regime of South Africa". The international community was called upon to urgently extend "all support and assistance" to the front-line States (Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe) to enable them to defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity against South Africa's "repeated acts of aggression".

Those States that had no done sowere strongly urged to cease forthwith all dealings with South Africa. the Assembly condemned "the plunder" by South Africa and other foreign economic interests of Namibia's natural resources. The United Nations Council for Namibia--the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until independence--was called upon to take "immediate practical measures" to establish its Administration in Namibia.

Separate votes: Prior to the vote onthe text as a whole, the Assembly, in two separate recorded votes, removed specific references in the text to the United States--concerning the policy of linkage between Namibia's independence and the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, and the policy of "constructive engagement" with South Africa.

President Choudhury had ruled thaton important matters, in application of special rule F of annex III of the Assembly's provisional rules of procedure and in accordance with Article 18, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter, decisions "shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting". The ruling was applied, and the required two-thirds majority was not attained in the votes.

Two other special sessions have beendevoted to Namibia--one in 1967 (when it was referred to as South-West Africa) and another in 1978. Other recent special sessions have dealt with disarmament (1978 and 1982), international economic co-operation (1975 and 1980), and establishment of a new international economic order (1974). The thirteenth special session, on the critical economic situation in Africa, took place earlier this year (27 May-1 June) at which a five-year Programme of Action for Africa's economic recovery was adopted.

A 'sterile course': In an 18 Septemberletter (A/S-14/5-S/18354) to the Secretary-General, South Africa's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Kurt von Schirnding, stated that the decision to call a special General Assembly session to consider the question of South-West Africa/Namibia "follows the sterile and confrontational course which the United Nations seems set on pursuing when considering this matter".

South Africa, Mr. Schirnding said,was concerned at "the growing intervention from outside in the affairs of southern Africa". All of the region's countries would "at some stage or another have to face up to the real danger which the presence of proxy forces in the sub-continent presents", he said.

Mr. von Schirnding said that SouthAfrica was prepared to play its part in establishing peace and stability in southern Africa and to co-operate fully with its neighbours. "The peoples of South-West Africa/Namibia deserve to take their rightful place in the community of nations through a process which will reflect and accommodate their wishes and aspirations without intimidation from any quarters." South Africa would continue to help them to realize that objective. South Africa called on the other countries of the region to assist in making that possible. "Differences can only be resolved through dialogue; the interests of the sub-continent and its peoples call for it."

South Africa had been accused ofexploiting the Territory's natural resources, he observed. That was ironic, especially as South Africa was annually requested to make up the shortfall which the South-West African/Namibian exchequer experienced. Without South African assistance, the Territory's people would experience "unbearable hardship", he concluded.

Other documents before the specialsession were the report of the Special Committee on decolonization, which dealt with the question of Namibia between 4 and 11 August (A/4/23, Part V), and the report of the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia (A/CONF.138/11) containing its Programme of Action and Declaration.

Ninety speakers, including 23 ForeignMinisters, participated in the debate. A selection of their views follows:

Assembly President Choudhurysaid that in recent months, the situation in and around Namibia had further deteriorated. Namibia had been subjected to increasing militarization and exploitation by the "oppressive forces of the occupation regime". Thousands continued to flee the Territory "to escape the colonial yoke".

The racist regime continued unashamedlyto use the Territory as a springboard for acts of aggression and subversion against the neighbouring African States, he said. The main obstacle to Namibia's independence was South Africa's refusal to fulfil its obligations under the Charter. He hoped that "sanity will prevail" and that South Africa would accept resolution 435 "in letter and in spirit". The alternative, he warned, could be further bloodshed and instability in southern Africa seriously affecting global peace and security.

Secretary-General Perez de Cuellarsaid that the continued stalemate over Namibia threatened southern Africa's peace and stability and raised fundamental questions about the norms of international behaviour and the rule of law. Securing the right to self-determination and independence for Namibians was the central issue in Namibia. That right had been denied them far too long. The United Nations plan for Namibian independence had been accepted on all sides. The inordinate delay in its implementation had been caused by the raising of "extraneous and irrelevant" issues.

All outstanding issues pertaining tothe plan's implementation had been resolved in November 1985, Mr. Perez de Cuellar went on. Agreement had then been reached on the electoral system. At that time, he had urged South Africa to se the earliest possible date for a cease-fire and the implementation of resolution 435. In response, South Africa had proposed 1 August 1986 for the plan's commencement, on condition that a firm and satisfactory agreement be reached before that date on the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. South Africa had insisted on that condition despite the fact that he had repeatedly made it clear that that linkage had been rejected by the Security Council as incompatible with resolution 435.

In June this year, he said, after consultationswith Zambia and Angola and with other Governments that were in a position to help, as well as with SWAPO, he had informed South Africa that the United Nations was ready to begin implementation of the plan on 1 August 1986. He had mentioned that Angola had categorically rejected linkage and that its position was supported by the front-line States and SWAPO. He had also reconfirmed SWAPO's readiness to proceed to a cease-fire with South Africa in order to commence the implementation of resolution 435. However, on 28 July, South Africa had insisted once again on the linkage pre-condition. In the circumstances, it had not been possible to proceed to implement the plan.

The continued obstruction of theprocess leading towards independence, the Secretary-General stated, would not only prolong the suffering of Namibians but also "aggravate the turmoil and instability in the region as a whole". He would spare no effort in the search for a just and final settlement "which will enable the people of Namibia to take their rightful place in this Assembly as a free and sovereign nation".

Mr. Ndinga Oba, Foreign Ministerof Congo, on behalf of the OAU, said there was "an alarming situation" in South Africa and Namibia, characterized by violence and "the massacre of thousands of innocent people, and by considerable material destruction". The only concern of certain foreign economic interests was the exploitation of Namibia's resources. Any attempt to present the situation in Namibia as part of an East-West confrontation or to link it to other extraneous considerations could only further delay Namibian independence.

South Africa continued in its policyof apartheid, occupation and colonial exploitation of Namibia because of the support of certain Western and other countries, including some permanent Security Council members. Member States should refrain from giving Pretoria any assistance likely to encourage its policies of state terrorism and its acts of aggression and destabilization of the front-line countries.

He said the permanent SecurityCouncil members who had prevented that body from taking effective action should reconsider their position in light of the increasingly explosive situation in Namibia and of Pretoria's intransigence. The fight against apartheid must entail the effective application of sanctions against South Africa in all areas. Namibians not only continued to suffer from the humiliation inherent in every colonial situation and from all forms of abuse, but they were also "bound hand and foot and forced to witness the systematic and savage depredation" of their wealth. He appealed to all countries, particularly the Western countries, to scrupulously and immediately apply resolution 435.

Mr. Gurirab, Secretary for ForeignAffairs of SWAPO, said that his organization refused to be "intimated by the machinations and manoeuvres of the imperialists and their racist clients in Pretoria". The continued illegality of the racist regime and its "endless political manoeuvrings in favour of puppet groups and institutions" had already sowed seeds of enmity, distrust and civil strife in the country.

The plunder of Namibia's naturalresources by the major Western Powers and their transnational corporations continued to denude the country of its natural resources, while Namibians were being impoverished in "an extremely scandalous and debilitating manner", without regard to their present and future interests. Condemnable and discredited cold-war tactics had also been introduced by Pretoria's friends in an attempt to "distort, for selfish and dangerous reasons, our patriotic struggle for liberation and to make it an aspect of the East-West conflict in order to justify aggression which will lead to interference in the region and obstruction of Namibia's independence", he said.

Namibians were victims of aggression,humiliation and degradation. Namibians would have liked to become independent peacefully. Those who professed abhorrence of violence and the intensification of the armed struggle should show the courage of their convictions by removing the South African occupation army from Namibia. So long, as that army remained in Namibia, SWAPO would have no qualms about calling for support to intensify the armed struggle for Namibia's liberation, he concluded.

African views

Afonso Van Dunem, ForeignMinister of Angola, said the possibility of persuasion of and dialogue with South Africa did not seem to exist any longer. Only once had the Security Council applied military sanctions, by means of resolution 221 of 9 April 1966, to prevent the landing in Beira of ships believed to be carrying fuel oil for Southern Rhodesia. The Council should adopt the same measure with respect to South Africa because "its criminality, arrogance and intransigence" more seriously challenged the United Nations than had Rhodesia. There was no connection between Namibian independence and the presence of the Cuban forces in Angola, but there was one between Namibia's illegal occupation and south Africa's aggression against Angola because Pretoria used Namibia for attacking Angola.

Benjamin Mkapa, Foreign Ministerof the United Republic of Tanzania, also on behalf of eastern African States, said South Africa's intransigence and defiance of the will of the international community as a whole had been encouraged by the United States policy of constructive engagement. The racist regime, not sure of its own survival in South Africa, was trying to cling to Namibia to use it ultimately as a buffer against what it alleged to be an onslaught from neighbouring black African States or, when appropriate, in its bargaining scheme to perpetuate apartheid in southern Africa.

L.J. Mwananshiku, ForeignMinister of Zambia, said the United States, in collaboration with Pretoria, continued to frustrate all attempts to implement resolution 435 by introducing extraneous issues. Their insistence on linking Namibia's independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola was a deliberate attempt to transform what was fundamentally a decolonization problem into an ideological East-West issue. The failure to impose sanctions was not due to concern for the suffering of black people; it was due to "the selfish desire for the huge profits derived from the exploitation of the black man" under apartheid.

Obed Asamoah, Foreign Minister ofGhana, said Namibia was being laid waste by greedy exploitation of its natural resources by transnational corporations. South Africa refused to accord to the African majority elementary human rights; instead, it was engaged in "savage repression" of Namibian efforts toward liberation. He hoped that public opinion would eventually force the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal and Japan to sever economic links with South Africa. To achieve the demise of apartheid in the shortest possible time, sanctions--if agreed upon--must be universally applied.

Ahmed Hatata (Egypt), on behalf ofNorthern African States, said his region's freedom and independence would not be complete until the whole African continent was independent "and rid of the remaining pockets of traditional colonialism in its southern part". Through its aggressive policies, Pretoria was responsible for the deterioration of the situation and "the exacerbation of terrorism" in southern Africa. The Security Council must impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria under Chapter VII of the Charter. North African States rejected any linkage between the withdrawal of the forces occupying Namibia and other extraneous factors.

Joseph Garba (Nigeria) said four factorshindered progress towards Namibian independence: the policy and practice of apartheid; the United States policy of constructive engagement and "the spin-off policy of linkage"; foreign economic interests in and around Namibia; and the policies of the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan. The United Kingdom, in particular, by its "regular reflex veto" against sanctions in the Security Council, had acted to hold back Namibian independece. The Western permanent members of the Security Council should join the international consensus for sanctions against Pretoria.

Paul Bamela Engo (Cameroon) saidpressure must be intensified to compel the Pretoria regime to remove the obstacles it had created in the way of Namibian independence. The Security Council had given a good lead by adopting resolution 435. It must "know its historic function and play its critical role". The Council included "all the most effective Powers of the world", which now should provide leadership. Pretoria "must be bullied into acceptance".

Kwam Kouassi (Togo) said "the arrogance,intolerance, and scorn" shown by Pretoria with regard to United Nations resolutions on Namibia had been encouraged by the acquiescence of certain major Powers. The imposition of comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa was the only effective way to ensure the end of its illegal occupation of Namibia.

Before adoption of the Resolution,Timon Sam Mangwazu (Malawi) said Namibian freedom and independence were long overdue. He supported the idea of a free Namibia, but not that of linkage or of naming countries as causing a delay in Namibian independence. Malawi was also reluctant to support mandatory sanctions, he said.

After the vote, Legwaila J. Legwaila(Botswana) said that although his country supported the resolution totally, it was unable to implement any sanctions against South Africa.

Thabo Makeka (Lesotho), also in explanationof vote, said his country supported the resolution's "purport in general", but was not in a position to impose any form of sanctions on South Africa.

Other Foreign Ministers

P. Shiv Shankar, Minister of ExternalAffairs and Commerce of India, said that even as Pretoria continued to enslave Namibia, it pursued a simultaneous and far more sinister plan of trying to ensure that Namibia, when independent, would be crippled economically and otherwise. The Security Council must make it clear that it would not "accept alibis, distortions and outright procrastination" to frustrate its collective will. Resolution 435 had "the sad distinction of being perhaps the most quoted and the least implemented one" in the Council's history. The International Court of Justice should be approached to seek relief from all foreign "exploitative activities" in Namibia and for the protection of Namibia's natural resources.

Hugh L. Shearer, Depurty PrimeMinister and Foreign Minister of Jamaica, said a concerted effort was needed to gain South Africa's cooperation in implemeting the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. The problem of Namibia would not be finally resolved until "the obnoxious system of apartheid and racism" in South Africa was dismantled. The illegal activities and operations by foreign economic interests in Namibia directly assisted Pretoria's illegal occupation of the Territory. Legal proceedings should be initiated in the courts of Member States against corporations and concerns engaged in the plunder of Namibia's natural resources.

Wu Xueqian, Foreign Minister ofChina, said a major obstacle to Namibia's independence was linking it to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. The "linkage" formula was a South African attempt to find a pretext for delaying implementation of resolution 435. Any attempt to resist the "historical trend" of bringing about Namibian independence in accordance with United Nations resolutions was "doomed to complete failure". The international community should exert greater pressure on South Africa while providing more effective support to Namibians. The Security Council should apply effective sanctions against South Africa.

Paavo Vayrynen, Foreign Ministerof Finland, said resolution 435 should be implemented immediately. No pretext for putting new obstacles in the way of Namibian independence was acceptable. Linkage to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola was unacceptable, as was establishment of "the so-called interim government" or any other unilateral South African solution. The development of economic, social and educational institutions supporting Namibia's future independence should be intensified. Permanent Security Council members whose concurrence was still needed for imposing sanctions against Pretoria should reconsider their position.

Raif Dizdarevic, Federal Secretaryfor Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, said the message from the recent non-aligned summit in Harare was "clear and unequivocal"--immediate and unconditional independence for Namibians, and implementation of resolutions 385 (1976) and 435. There could be "no justification or pretext, linkage or other", for further postponement of Namibian independence the pre-conditions for which had been fulfilled.

Allan Wagner tizon, ForeignMinister of Peru, said some States had gravely violated international responsibilities by refusing to join in sanctions against South Africa, the illegal occupying Power in Namibia, and in persisting in policies which brought them "ill-gained material benefits". The independence of Namibia was "appropriate in the decolonization context and it is an instance of grave neglect to try to adjust this situation to opportunistic preceptions and wrong perceptions of an East-West conflict". All efforts should be made to render assistance to SWAPO "through the established machinery". The countdown for Namibia's liberation had begun.

Bohuslav Chnoupek, ForeignMinister of Czechoslovakia, said his nation was against imposing "a puppet government" upon Namibians. It rejected making the granting of independence to Namibia conditional on such issues as the withdrawal of Cuban units from Angola. Pretoria was enabled cynically to mock the United Nations authority by the "selfish interests of multinational monopolies" in its wealth and by "the strategic plans of militaristic circles in the West that see Namibia as an important Atlantic base". Those "global ambitions of imperialism" corresponded to the interests of South African leaders, he concluded.

Vladimir Kravets, Foreign Ministerof the Ukrainian SSR, said a major obstacle in Namibia's path to independence was the continued support for South Africa by a number of Western States and Israel. The policy of "constructive engagement" helped to perpetuate Pretoria's illegal occupation of Namibia. The imposition of mandatory sanctions against South Africa would effectively influence "the acts of the unbridled racists". All States should strictly comply with the limited sanctions against South Africa imposed by the Security Council. Resolution 435 should be implemented.

Sahabzada Yaqub-Khan, ForeignMinister of Pakistan, said that only South Africa's intransigence and defiance thwarted Namibian independence. Proposals in the Security Council to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa had been vetoed by the very countries whose proposals formed the core of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. The continued tolerance of South Africa's dilatory tactics by the five Western States responsible for the elaboration of that plan would aggravate the danger to peace and security in southern Africa. If peaceful means could not persuade Pretoria to change its policies, "militant resistance and struggle will escalate".

Shah Mohammad Dost, ForeignMinister of Afghanistan, said the United States and the United Kingdom repeatedly abused their veto power in the Security Council to prevent the adoption and enforcement of comprehensive, mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. To create "deliberate hurdles" in the way of the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, the United States and South Africa were introducing "irrelevant and extraneous issues" such as the presence of the Cuban "internationalist contingent" in Angola. He called for increased military, political, economic, moral and diplomatic assistance to SWAPO.

Oskar Fischer, Foreign Minister ofthe German Democratic Republic, said that since South Africa received political, economic and military backing from "some States which are known to the Assembly", it could "again and again challenge world public opinion". International pressure must be brought to bear on Pretoria to force it to abandon its policies of "state terrorism and racism". The policy of constructive engagement and Western collaboration with South Africa was an obstacle on Namibia's road to independence. The Security Council must impose comprehensive and binding sanctions against Pretoria, and determinedly enforce its decisions. It was imperative "strictly to comply with, and verify, the sanctions adopted".

George Iacovou, Foreign Minister ofCyprus, said Namibian independence could only be achieved on the basis of resolutions 385 and 435, which were the only acceptable basis for a lasting settlement of the Namibian question. Cyprus rejected South African attempts to link Namibian independence with extraneous and irrelevant issues. Cyprus supported all efforts to bring pressure to bear upon South Africa to abandon its attempts to delay Namibian independence, including the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII.

Marian Orzechowski, ForeignMinister of Poland, said South Africa had resorted to various manoeuvres and evasive actions to perpetuate its colonial occupation of Namibia. The apartheid regime was "brutal and aggressive, predatory and treacherous". Poland did not share "the illusions still harboured by South Africa's Western partners that through co-operation and trade, investments and maintaining channels of communications, it is possible to influence the Pretoria regime, and by exerting pressure on it to induce it to change its external and internal policies". International pressure on Pretoria should be increased, with a view to "divesting it of its colonial rule of Namibia".

Anatoly E. Gurinovich, ForeignMinister of the Byelorussian SSR, said the policy of constructive engagement was "tantamount to an attempt to pacify the apartheid regime and to help it to maintain the colonial status of Namibia, encouraging it to use that Territory as a beachhead for aggression against independent African States". The problem of Namibia was a problem of decolonization. Any attempt to represent it as a confrontation between East and West was invalid, as was any attempt to link Namibian independence with extraneous matters. Despite "the machinations of the South African racists and imperialist forces", Namibians would achieve "authentic freedom and independence" with the support of "the forces of peace, progress and justice".

A. C. Shahul Hameed, ForeignMinister of Sri Lanka, said "a combination of force and guile adopted as a twin strategy" by South Africa was blocking off prospects for a peaceful settlement in Namibia. South Africa had attempted to inject aspects of great-Power rivalry and elements of East-West confrontation into the Namibian independence struggle. "The ideological dimension has been deployed to conceal the fundamental decolonization issue that is in reality involved." The Security Council must take swift, sure action and the Namibian independence plan must be set in motion.

Abdul Aziz Al-Dali, ForeignMinister of Democratic Yemen, said genuine independence for Namibia meant above all immediate termination of South Africa's illegal occupation of the Territory and exploitation of its economic wealth and resources. All States must be completely committed to implementing relevant United Nations resolutions, foremost among which was resolution 435. It also required "the confrontation of all imperialist attempts in various forms to circumvent that resolution and avoid being committed to it". The Security Council should impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Isidoro Malmierca Peoli, ForeignMinister Of Cuba, said attempts by the international community to end South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and to destroy apartheid had not resulted in concrete and successful world action because of the "connivance" of the United States and its closest allies with Pretoria. Angola and Cuba had stated that the gradual and progressive withdrawal of the 20,000 Cuban combatants in southern Angola would begin once resolution 435 had been implemented and the threats of aggression against Angola and "the dirty war and support for the mercenary bands" had ceased. The remaining Cuban military personnel would be withdrawn only when Angola and Cuba considered it "convenient, with no conditions whatsoever".

Other Views

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom),on behalf of the European Community, said the settlement plan endorsed by resolution 435 should be immediately implemented in its entirety. South Africa should not subordinate its implementation to the fulfilment of extraneous conditions. The Twelve categorically rejected any unilateral South African moves to transfer power in Namibia. No political group in Namibia should be designated in advance as the "sole and authentic representative" of the Namibian people. The Twelve could not endorse the call for Member States to render increased military assistance to SWAPO, and could not support armed struggle as a means of bringing Namibia to independence. They rejected "any arbitrary and selective attack against Member States" or groups of countries. The Security Council alone was authorized to take decisions binding upon Member States.

A.L. Adamishin (USSR) said SouthAfrica could not "so brazenly" defy international public opinion but for the "conniving posture" of the United States, the United Kingdom and some other countries. The Security Council must impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. Vigorous efforts must be exerted to achieve a political settlement of the Namibian problem. The United States deliberately pursued a policy of delaying Namibian independence, and should desist from linking Namibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban "internationalists" from Angola. Namibia should be immediately granted "a genuine rather than fictitious independence"; to that end, full use should be made of the United Nations "considerable capabilities".

Anders Ferm (Sweden) said Namibianswere subject to the abhorrent system of apartheid. South Africa was using Namibia as a springboard for its "terrorist" and military actions against neighbouring States. Effective measures -- including mandatory sanctions decided upon by the Security Council -- were imperative if South Africa was to be made to accept the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. Sweden rejected all attempts to introduce extraneous issues into the implementation of resolution 435. There was a need to extend increased support to SWAPO.

Vernon Walters (United States) supportedfully the peaceful and rapid implementation of resolution 435, convinced that "the presence of foreign troops in the area is an impediment to peace". He rejected accusations that held the United States responsible for lack of progress towards Namibian independence. Angola had "implicitly accepted the principle" that such independence could only be achieved in the context of Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola, he said, adding that Cuba could not unilaterally determine the conditions for the removal of its troops from Africa. The resolution adopted would not advance Namibian independence in any way, he said, as it rejected by inference a peaceful resolution of the Namibian issue.

Richard Woolcott (Australia) said hiscountry saw the following considerations as the basis for effective and concerted international action on Namibia: a renewed commitment to resolution 435; and condemnation to any unilateral South African action which could lead in the direction of a so-called internal settlement, South Africa's policies of aggression and destabilization, and its insistence on linking Namibia's independence with extraneous issues such as the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. If South Africa continued to resist implementation of resolution 435, the Security Council should consider the adoption of "appropriate measures" under the Charter against it.

William Hupper-Arguello, FinanceMinister of Nicaragua, said the presence of Cuban troops in Angola was "simply an expedient link used to hide the lack of will on the part of South Africa and its protectors to meet their international obligations". The argument that sanctions did not work was groundless. "Pretoria itself has been able to show Washington their effectiveness when it has applied them against its neighbours". The efforts of many Western Governments to reduce to a minimum their ties with Pretoria and to strengthen the embargo against it must be acknowledged. But the situation in southern Africa would continue to worsen while the United States and the United Kingdom continued their present policy.

K. Kikuchi (Japan) said the partiesconcerned should "faithfully implement" resolution 435--the only internationally accepted basis for a settlement of the Namibian question. Efforts to resolve the Namibian question must not be obstructed by the introduction of any extraneous issues. Japan had taken vigorous measures to press South Africa to end its apartheid policy and its illegal occupation of Namibia, and had assisted Namibians by contributing to United Nations humanitarian and educational funds and programmes. Japan was determined to extend such assistance as long as the need existed.

Hordur Helgason (Iceland) speakingon behalf of the Nordic countries, said resolution 435 was the only internationally acceptable basis for a peaceful and lasting solution. All attempts to introduce extraneous issues or other delaying tactics must be condemned. Pressure on South Africa should be increased in order to speed up the implementation of the plan for Namibian independence and the Security Council should immediately consider effective measures to that end, including mandatory sanctions. The resolution contained a number of elements that caused the Nordic countries "difficulties of principle".

Mfanafuthi Makatini, of the AfricanNational Congress of South Africa (ANC), said lack of progress on the question of Namibian independence must be attributed not only to the Botha regime's intransigence but also to the Reagan Administration, which through the policy of constructive engagement continued "to invoke and insist upon extraneous and therefore irrelevant issues" such as "linkage", in order to frustrate attempts to implement resolution 435. "Through strategems designed to impose puppet proxies" in order to circumvent resolution 435 and to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia, Pretoria was also attempting to "programme Namibia for civil strife". As the result of apartheid, the situation in southern Africa continued to deteriorate at an accelerated pace.

Lesaoana Samuel Makhanda,representative of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), said the Council for Namibia had been unable to carry out its mandate because of the intransigence of "the racist regime" and "the overt and covert support" it continued to receive from "some Western quarters, particularly the Administrations of Reagan, Thatcher and Kohl". They had refused to implement effective sanctions against Pretoria, "despite their constituencies" undeniable support" for such action. If Great Britain and the United States continued to frustrate the imposition of mandatory comprehensive sanctions, the international community must increase its aid to Namibians and their national liberation movement.

Noel G. Sinclair (Guyana), ActingPresident of the Council for Namibia, said efforts to implement resolution 435 "foundered on the rock of South African intransigence" on an issue first raised by the United States--that of prior withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. That was the pretext now being used by South Africa for maintaining the status quo in Namibia.

Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba), ActingChairman of the Special Committee on decolonization, said the Security Council found itself incapable of taking any effective action against Pretoria under Chapter VII of the Charter because of the use of the veto by certain Western permanent Council members.

Serge Elie Charles (Haiti), ActingChairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, said South Africa was set on sabotaging the United Nations plan for Namibian independence altogether. Its refusal to cooperate in that plan's implementation had not deprived it of the collaboration of Powers that had been actively involved in drawing it up. One had even declared itself to be on Pretoria's side regarding the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, who were there at Angola's invitation to help it defend itself against Pretoria's aggression.

Witnes Magunda Mangwende(Zimbabwe), on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, said the Pretoria regime and the continuing existence of the apartheid doctrine in South Africa remained the prime obstacles to the resolution of the Namibian issue. Sanctions would speed up the eventual collapse of the regime in South Africa, by sapping its strength from within and by undermining the Afrikaner self-confidence.