International Conference for Independence of Namibia calls for mandatory sanctions against South Africa.

International Conference for Independence of Namibia calls for mandatory sanctions against South Africa

The International Conference forthe Immediate Independence of Namibia, held from 7 to 11 July in Vienna, has called for the immediate adoption and imposition by the Security Council of "comprehensive mandatory sanctions", under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, against South Africa.

The Conference also called for the"immediate implementation without precondition or modification" of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, as embodied in Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). (For background on plan, see p. 33).

The Conference was attended by128 Governments. Also participating were representatives of United Nations organs, specialized agencies and other intergovernmental organizations, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), SWAPO, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), as well as international and national non-governmental organizations.

The Conference acted after reviewingand analyzing in depth the prevailing situation in and relating to Namibia and obstacles to Namibia's transition to genuine independence and other factors. It adopted by acclamation two documents: a 37-paragraph Programme of Action and a 25-paragraph Declaration.

"The struggle of the peoples ofSouth Africa and Namibia has reached an acute turning point", the Conference stated in its Programme of Action. "In this twentieth year after the General Assembly terminated South Africa's mandate over Namibia, the United Nations must take all necessary measures to bring about the immediate independence of Namibia."

It invited the General Assembly atits forthcoming special session on Namibia, scheduled to be held from 17 to 20 September in New York, to "consider and adopt effective action to secure the immediate independence of Namibia".

The Conference appealed to theUnited States and the United Kingdom, "permanent members of the Security Council, which have thus far prevented the Council from acting effectively, to reconsider their position" regarding imposition of sanctions.

Governments were called on "torender sustained and increased moral and political support, as well as financial, military and other material assistance to the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) in its legitimate struggle for the liberation of Namibia".

In its Declaration, the Conferenceaffirmed the immediate independence of Namibia decreed by the United Nations. The United Nations plan for Namibian independence was "unconditional", it stated. (The plan foresees a cease-fire in the Territory under United Nations supervision to be followed by a withdrawal of South African forces and free elections supervised by the Organization. A United Nations peace-keeping force would also be sent to the Territory).

"Namibia's independence cannot,therefore, be held hostage to the global political and economic designs of some Powers, and the convenience of a universally condemned regime", the Conference stated in the Declaration. "The determination and courage of the Namibian people must be invigorated by complementary international action for freedom, independence and human dignity, which is what the Conference . . . stands for."

Six substantive agenda items wereconsidered: consideration of the situation in and relating to Namibia; review of progress and problems encountered during two decades by the international community in its effort to implement General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), terminating South Africa's Mandate over Namibia; concrete proposals for new initiatives aimed at implementing that resolution and recommendations to accelerate the achievement of independence for Namibia; measures for securing the early implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence; solidarity with and assistance to the people of Namibia in their struggle for self-determination and independence; and a comprehensive study on and economic map of Namibia.

'Clear message of support'

At the opening session, Secretary-GeneralJavier Perez de Cuellar said the international community as a whole should use the Conference to "send a clear message of support to the people of Namibia and to the Government of South Africa, an expression of its determination to continue its struggle for the independence of Namibia".

Conference President BenjaminMkapa, foreign Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, said the Conference was another initiative in a series designed to "reawaken the conscience of the international community to the plight of the Namibian people and to their cause."

General Assembly President Jaimede Pinies of Spain said the continued illegal occupation of Namibia not only denied the right to self-determination of Namibians, but was an important source of instability and conflict in the region. The people of the area had made it abundantly clear that they were no longer prepared to live under the abhorrent and unjust system of apartheid.

Council for Namibia President PaulJ.F. Lusaka (Zambia) said the international community must render increased assistance of every kind to the Namibian people in their struggle for self-determination and independence under SWAPO.

SWAPO President Sam Nujomasaid he hoped the Conference would encourage the Namibian people and further strengthen the continuing international campaign to end South Africa's illegal occupation of their country.

Ibrahima Fall, Foreign Minister ofSenegal, speaking for the President of the OAU, Senegalese President Abdou Diouf, said the international community must use the opportunity provided by the Conference to go beyond oral indignation to concrete measures to hasten the demise of the segregationist South African regime. He called for the complete isolation of that regime by gradually breaking all the ties which still linked it to certain Powers.

Eduardo Faleiro, Minister of Statefor External Affairs of India, on behalf of the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, said that a regime which subscribed to racism and was afraid of the people must not be sustained by Powers outside.

Suchati Chuthasmit (Thailand), onbehalf of Security Council President Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand), said that the Council had recognized the unique responsibility of the United Nations in furthering the interests of Namibians and remained firm in its commitment to discharge its responsibilities in this regard.

Peter Jankowitsch, Foreign Ministerof Austria, said peace in the crucial region of southern Africa would remain an elusive goal as long as Namibia had not joined the ranks of the sovereign and independent nations of Africa. Namibians had been victim for over a hundred years of the "politics of postponement". There was a chance now for South Africa to arrive at a solution to its problems and to achieve its transformation into a viable, democratic, multi-racial and open society, based on the fundamental principles of human rights.

Closing statements: On 11 July,Conference President Mkapa said the international community could not countenance any attempt from whatever quarters to undermine the authority of the United Nations over Namibia. South Africa's friends and allies must bring their policies in line with that of the overwhelming majority of States.

SWAPO President Nujoma said theConference's work had been crowned with success. Those who had come to express support for SWAPO could leave determined to implement the Declaration and the Programme of Action and act to impose comprehensive sanctions against South Africa.

Council for Namibia President Lusakahoped that those States which had resisted comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against Pretoria would now join the international consensus and clear the way for the Security Council's adoption of comprehensive sanctions.

If revocation of South Africa's mandateover Namibia had been enforced 20 years ago, there would today have been a generation of free Namibians voting for a Namibian government, he stated. That Namibians were still not free was to the eternal regret and shame of the community of nations.

Programme of Action

In its Programme of Action, theConference stated that, considering the "fast deteriorating situation created by the racist regime of South Africa poses a grave danger to peace and security in the region, as well as a growing and direct threat to international peace and security", there should be an "immediate, effective and comprehensive response" by the international community.

The denial of the national rights ofthe Namibian people and the continued illegal occupation of the Territory by South Africa was "a key factor in the growing turmoil in the southern African region", the Conference stated.

States were called on to exert everyeffort towards the immediate and unconditional implementation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), "which remain the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question". They should also oppose attempts by the United States and South Africa "to link the implementation of the United Nations plan (for the independence of Namibia) with irrelevant and extraneous issues, such as the presence of Cuban troops in Angola".

The international community wasurged to reject "all manoeuvres aimed at interpreting the present conflict in southern Africa as an East-West confrontation and at diverting attention from the central issue of the decolonization of Namibia".

Maximum pressure should be exertedon South Africa to withdraw from Namibia. "The so-called policy of constructive engagement" with South Africa was categorically rejected, and the Conference appealed to the United States to abandon that policy.

The creation in Namibia by SouthAfrica of "the so-called interim government" was condemned, and States were called on to refrain from according recognition to it, or any other regime that South Africa might seek to impose on Namibians.

The Security Council was calledupon to adopt, as a matter of utmost urgency, measures to ensure strict compliance by all States with the arms embargo against South Africa, and was requested to reiterate that Walvis Bay and the offshore islands were an integral part of Namibia and should not be the subject of negotiations between South Africa and an independent Namibia.

States, institutions and individuals,pending the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa, were asked "to immediately adopt and implement effective sanctions by severing all links and dealings with the racist regime, inter alia in the political, economic, diplomatic, military, nuclear, cultural, sports and other fields".

States were also urged "to refrainfrom rendering any type of assistance to South Africa that might encourage it to continue its policy of State terrorism and systematic acts of aggression and destabilization against its neighbouring independent countries".

The Conference called on the internationalbanking community as well as national and international financial institutions, in particular the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to refrain from giving new loans to South Africa or rescheduling its existing debts.

Specialized agencies and otherUnited Nations institutions were called on to provide assistance on a priority basis to Namibians through SWAPO, "their sole and authentic representative".

Governments and regional and internationalorganizations were called on to give maximum political and moral support, as well as increased economic and military assistance, to the front-line and other neighbouring States so that they might reduce their economic dependence on South Africa and defend themselves from Pretoria's "acts of aggression and destabilization". (The front-line States are Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.)

States were called on to adopt effectivemeasures to prevent the recruitment, training and transit of mercenaries for service in Namibia. The Conference urged the provision of increased material assistance to thousands of Namibian and South African refugees. It appealed for pressure to be exerted on South Africa for the immediate and unconditional release of all Namibian political prisoners, and for the granting of prisoner-of-war status to "all captured Namibian freedom fighters".

States were urged to recognize thevalidity under international law of the United Nations Council for Namibia's Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia and to take effective measures to ensure compliance by all corporations and individuals within their jurisdiction with the Decree. (The 1974 Decree bans mining and other activities in Namibia undertaken without the permission of the Council, which is the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until independence.)

The Conference called on the FederalRepublic of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom--which operate the Urenco uranium enrichment plant--to have the use of Namibian uranium specifically excluded from the Treaty of Almelo, which regulates Urenco's activities, on grounds that it was illegally obtained.

Reservations on certain paragraphsof the Programme were expressed by the representatives of the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Colombia, Australia, Austria, Turkey, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Venezuela and Argentina.

Declaration

In its Declaration, the Conferenceaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of Namibians 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". It expressed firm solidarity with Namibians in their liberation struggle under the leadership of SWAPO, and called for "increased all-round assistance" to them and to that liberation movement.

It demanded that South Africa withdrawimmediately and unconditionally from Namibia, including Walvis Bay and the Penguin and other offshore islands.

The Conference condemned theSouth African regime for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia, its "ruthless repression" of Namibians, its policy and practice of apartheid, and other gross violations of human rights perpetrated against Namibians, and demanded an immediate end to those policies.

It denounced South Africa's "massivemilitarization" of the Territory, its introduction of compulsory military service for Namibians, its forced recruitment and training of Namibians for tribal armies and its recruitment of mercenaries and other foreign agents "to carry out its policies of internal repression and external aggression". The use of the Territory by South Africa "as a launching pad for its aggression and subversion" against neighbouring African States was condemned.

The Conference also strongly condemnedand rejected attempts by the United States and South Africa to establish a "linkage" or "parallelism" between the independence of Namibia and "any extraneous and irrelevant issues, in particular, the presence of Cuban forces in Angola".

Grave concern was expressed at therapid depletion of Namibia's natural resources "as a result of plunder" by South African and other foreign economic interests, and the activities of all foreign economic and other interests in Namibia were condemned.

"the continuing collaboration ofcertain Western States, Israel and other States" with South Africa in the political, economic, military and nuclear fields was condemned. The Conference noted with satisfaction "the intensified and well co-ordinated public campaign, especially in certain Western countries", against South Africa.

The Conference noted with graveconcern that the Security Council had been prevented "by vetoes exercised by one or more of the Western countries that are permanent members of that body" from taking effective measures against South Africa, under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Joint appeal

The Conference noted a joint appealby a group of seven Eminent Persons who participated in the Conference. The Eminent Persons called for the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa to bring about Namibia's immediate independence on the basis of resolution 435, and for moral, material and diplomatic assistance to the front-line States. They also called for adequate measures to compensate those countries for the effect of the policy of aggression and destabilization being pursued by South Africa, which was using Namibia as a base for aggression against those countries and other regional States.

In their appeal--read out by theirChairman, former President of Mexico Luis Echeverria--the Eminent Persons said they regretted that several countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, had failed to exert stronger pressure on Pretoria, "out of apparent reluctance to sacrifice the gains they derive from economic co-operation with South Africa". Those countries that could influence South Africa should "forcefully impress upon it the imperative need to unconditionally set in motion the plan for Namibia's independence".

The others Eminent Persons are: IssoufouS. Djermakoye, former Vice-President of the Council of Ministers of Niger and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Department of Political Affairs, Trusteeship and Decolonization; Bishop Trevor Huddleston, President of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement; Abdul Halim Khaddam, Vice-President of the Syrian Arab Republic; Bruno Kreisky, former Austrian Chancellor; Milka Planinc, former Prime Minister of Yugoslavia; and Swaran Singh, former Foreign Minister of India and member of the executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

The Conference also launched acomprehensive study--entitled "Namibia: Perspectives for National Reconstruction and Development" and an economic map of the Territory.

Reports

The Conference reviewed severalreports prepared by the Council for Namibia.

A report dealing with the militarysituation in and relating to Namibia (A/CONF.138/4) stated that South Africa had increased the use of military force to suppress popular resistance in Namibia and to destabilize neighbouring countries. Large numbers of heavily armed troops had been moved into the Territory; mercenaries from a number of countries had been recruited to serve with the South African "forces of occupation" in Namibia; and repeated acts of subversion and aggression against the frontline States had been launched.

South Africa had continued its militaryactivities "on and from Namibian territory with the continuing support of some Western countries and Israel, which are maintaining their military and nuclear collaboration with Pretoria". Since 1981, Namibia's African population had been subjected to compulsory service in the army of "the occupation regime".

Another report (A/CONF.138/5)reviewed political developments related to Namibia and described recent action by the international community in that connection. Despite the constructive position taken by SWAPO and Angola, South Africa had continued its "stubborn insistence" on the issue of "linkage" regarding the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, it stated. Two meetings had been held between SWAPO and South African representatives in Lusaka and Cape Verde in 1984, where SWAPO had proposed an immediate cease-fire in order to begin implementation of the plan for Namibia's independence. However, South Africa had categorically stated that there could be no discussion of resolution 435 without a firm commitment on the withdrawal of Cuban troops.

A report on the social conditions inNamibia (A/CONF.138/3) examined the adverse consequences on Namibians of South Africa's "deliberate policies of social and racial fragmentation" of Namibians in areas such as education, health, living conditions and the status of women. In a section on human rights, "repressive legislation" enacted by South Africa was described, as was maltreatment of political prisoners, and "terrorization" of the general population.

A report on foreign economic interestsoperating in Namibia (A/CONF.138/7) stated that South African, Western and other interests had continued to exploit the Territory's economic resources. Those activities had proved detrimental to Namibians and had further entrenched South Africa's illegal occupation.

      Debate
      African views

Brownson N. Dede, AssistantSecretary-General for Political Affairs of the OAU, said freedom and independence of Namibia should not be held hostage to extraneous ideological considerations. The Conference must not lose sight of the "frightful human tragedy that was rapidly engulfing southern Africa". As the apartheid regime staggered towards its inexorable end, it was growing increasingly defiant and desperate. The European Economic Community (EEC) leaders had been blinded by the glitter of gold.

He wondered whether those Governmentsopposed to sanctions against Pretoria would have resorted to their present policy if the persons being buried every day in South Africa were white rather than black. "We refuse to believe that there is perhaps a thin dark thread of racism running through the torturous economic and ideological arguments being put forward by some of these Governments." Freed from the heavy chains of callous vetoes, he said, the Security Council could move immediately to implement resolution 435.

Luke J. Mwananshiku, ForeignMinister of Zambia, said that when it had become clear that there were no substantive obstacles to Namibian independence, the Reagan Administration, in collaboration with South Africa, had introduced the extraneous issue of linkage, which had diverted attention from the question of Namibian independence to that of East-West rivalry. The United States should abandon its so-called policy of constructive engagement and linkage.

Jose Carlos Lobo, Vice ForeignMinister of Mozambique, said South Africa was the sole source of the evils prevailing in southern Africa. It was unfair and indecent for someone to claim that the main obstacles for Namibian independence could be found in Angola, which had existed as an independent State only since 1975--nine years after the United Nations had withdrawn South Africa's mandate over Namibia. Nor should the presence of Cuban troops in Angola be used to justify the continuation of Namibia's colonization, because Namibians had nothing to do with the Cuban troops in Angola.

Elijah W. Mwangale, ForeignMinister of Kenya, asked how one could explain the behaviour of those who had worked out the plan for Namibian independence and at the same time had used their veto power in the Security Council to protect South Africa from the wrath of the world community for its failure to comply with that plan? He appealed to those Western States who were not co-operating with the rest of the international community to change their thinking.

Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi, ForeignMinister of Algeria, said Pretoria was backed by the protection of certain Western Powers. There were those who spoke for dialogue and compromise. But in the face of deliberate obstinancy, dialogue had lost its raison d'etre. Faced with the diktat of absolute evil, no compromise was possible without the risk of compromising collective values.

Issoufou S. Djermakoye of Niger, anEminent Person attending the Conference, said that on the decision of those who had only paid-lip-service to the Namibian cause would depend peace or the aggravation of a conflict, which could spread to all of southern Africa. Those who were ready to act were not in a position to change the opinions of South Africa's leaders. Those who could do so had to act.

Legwaila J.M.J. Legwaila (Botswana)said the intentions of some members of the Western Five vis-a-vis Namibian independence would remain suspect so long as they allowed South Africa to frustrate the implementation of the plan they had fathered. If the West wanted to protect its interests in southern Africa, it must force South Africa to co-operate in the implementation of resolution 435, and to admit that its "constructive engagement" with South Africa had failed.

Farouk Abdel-Rahman (Sudan) saidall measures must be taken to aid Namibians and to support SWAPO, their only legal movement. The financial interests of members of the EEC and other foreign countries had led them to pillage Namibia's natural resources, and were the main obstacle to its independence. He expressed concern at the co-operation between the "two racist regimes of South Africa and Israel" in the military and nuclear fields.

Elisio de Figueiredo (Angola) saidthe so-called policy of constructive engagement had been a complete failure, exacerbating the situation in southern Africa. He appealed to Western Europe and its friends to join the overwhelming majority of States in taking concrete action, immediately, so that what had been a hope might emerge a reality. Such action would fulfil the hopes of Namibians and stave off one of the biggest betrayals of modern history.

Tharcisse Ntakibirora (Burundi) saidsome Western delegations had indicated their approval for sanctions against South Africa, but had not said anything about armed struggle as a means of liberating Namibia. That position did not do justice to Namibians. Well-deserved independence was always demanded by peaceful means. But when it was stubbornly refused, it had to be taken by any means.

Marcus M. Kofa (Liberia) said thoseopposed to the imposition of economic and mandatory sanctions against South Africa were being hypocritical when they argued that sanctions would hurt the black people of Namibia. Economic hardship was a price that the black people were prepared to pay, as against the alternative of continuing enslavement and oppression. Those who opposed sanctions against South Africa did so because of their narrow and ill-conceived economic interests, and for ideological and strategic consideration.

Mohamed El-Taher Shash (Egypt)favoured a firm position to be adopted against South Africa by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. Resolution 435 and South Africa's withdrawal from Namibia served as the only framework for peaceful transition to Namibian independence. South Africa must be prevented from exploiting Namibia's national resources.

Jonathan Kabo Umar (Nigeria)found difficult to comprehend the position of States which condemned the illegal occupation of Namibia but did everything to sustain South Africa's arrogance. Nigeria strongly condemned the policy of constructive engagement, and was outraged that "the rebel leader of the UNITA mob", Jonas Savimbi, had been received by the United States administration.

Alemayehu Seifu (Ethiopia) said acombination of world pressure and intensification of armed struggle would lead to Namibian independence. Efforts should focus on mobilizing Western public opinion against Pretoria and in favour of the liberation struggle so that there would be an impact on official policy regarding economic sanctions. In addition, material and financial assistance must be extended to the liberation struggle being waged by Namibians under SWAPO's leadership.

Francois Xavier Ngoubeyou (Cameroon)said that, at the same time that "terrorist" South Africa pretended to have made constructive proposals for implementing the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, it was busy making those proposals unacceptable by the addition of conditions that it knew would be rejected by the Security Council. That attitude was not only tolerated but also supported by a number of countries which had special responsibility for maintaining peace and which were in the forefront in defending the rights of man.

R. Juddoo (Mauritius) said some obscureminds were at work in some well-known lobbies in Western Europe and other countries, with a view to retarding Namibia's decolonization on the "perverted assumption" that the question of Namibia's independence was linked to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. A dramatic cut in the flow of investment from Europe towards South Africa would paralyse the South African economy. Pretoria must bow to the will of the international community.

Germaine Pitroipa (Burkina Faso)said there were those who had neither friends nor enemies, but only vested interests and who had had "the gall" to say that they opposed sanctions because it would add to the sufferings of blacks. They should stop arrogating to themselves the right to give lessons to blacks and should shed their paternalistic attitude, for only the blacks knew and would know what was right or wrong for them.

Moktar Zannad (Tunisia) said therewas "collaboration" between the regimes of Tel Aviv and Pretoria, which had set aside concerns of international morality in implementing their repressive policies. Both had not hesitated to launch aggression against other countries. There would be no peace as long as they continued their colonial policies against Palestinians and Namibians.

Taoufik Kabbaj (Morocco) said therewere numerous similarities between the racist regime of South Africa and "the Zionist entity". Both regimes symbolized occupation, repression and racism. The alliance between the two regimes constituted a major threat to international security.

Liberation movements: SWAPOPresident Sam Nujoma said conditions of fascism and state terrorism existed in Namibia. The continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa was the foremost obstacle to implementing resolution 435. The Reagan Administration and "the Botha regime" had callously imposed another major impediment in the form of the objectionable linkage pre-condition policy. While Namibians were being killed at home or driven into exile, the racists, their capitalist allies and transnational corporations were plundering the countrys' wealth. Another impediment to Namibian independence was the abuse of the veto power by Pretoria's friends in the Security Council, who were only too quick to use the veto to shelter "their racist client" from the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions.

As 1 August--which was offered asa possible date for implementing the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia--approached, SWAPO was ready, provided that no irrelevant and diversionary elements were introduced. SWAPO had declared 1986 as "the year of general mobilization and decisive action for final victory". All sections of the Namibian population had been given specific directives to implement the programme and particularly "the combatants of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia had orders to leave no stone unturned in order to accelerate the liberation of the motherland".

James Stuart, representative of theANC, said South Africa continued its illegal occupation of Namibia thanks to the support of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, among others. With that support, the Pretoria racists were trying to impose an "internal solution" to the Namibian problem, which would in effect preserve colonialism in Namibia and ensure the continued illegal exploitation of its natural and human resources.

Joseph Mkwanazi, representative ofthe PAC, said the so-called "Contact Group"--the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada--had given South Africa the time it needed to entrench its occupation of Namibia. That Group had died a natural death after it had served South Africa's purpose. The apartheid regime would not leave Namibia of its own accord--it had to be driven out through a sustained struggle.

Other views

Abdul Halim Khaddam, Vice-Presidentof the Syrian Arab Republic and an Eminent Person attending the Conference, said the continuing colonialist oppression against Namibians was the offshoot of the strategic and economic interests and designs of world imperialism. Those interests and designs represented the basis of the American colonialist policy known as "constructive engagement". The "fascist racist regime in South Africa--exactly like the racist, Nazi, Zionist regime in occupied Palestine--enjoys the lavish support of American imperialism in all fields: political, economic, financial, military and nuclear", he said.

Vahit Halefoglu, Foreign Ministerof Turkey, said his country strongly condemned the illegal presence of South Africa in Namibia and its aggression against neighbouring countries. Namibia would only become independent if South Africa felt the pressure of the international community. Measures against it must be reinforced. Turkey had no diplomatic relations with South Africa and did not support it on any level.

A.C. Shahul Hameed, ForeignMinister of Sri Lanaka, said that, to those who preached democracy, the Conference was the opportunity to practise its virtues. The independence plan for Namibia must be implemented, and comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria were the only effective weapon of peace available. Time lost meant lives lost. The time for talk was gone, and the time for action had arrived.

Zain Noorani, Minister of State forForeign Affairs of Pakistan, said th e implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence had been prevented by Pretoria's "deceit and sophistry". Namibia's independence was a question of decolonization; it could not be linked with the internal affairs of a sovereign country. Constructive engagement stodd discredited as a self-deluding scheme and must be disavowed.

L. Popov, Deputy Foreign Ministerof Bulgaria, said the main obstacle to Namibian independence was South Africa's refusal to comply with relevant United Nation resolutions and its attempts to impose an "internal solution". Lack of progress in implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence was also due to the United States' discredited policy of constructive engagement and the political, economic and military cooperation of the United States and other Western countries with South Africa.

Isidoro Malmierca Peoli, ForeignMinister of Cuba, said foreign economic interests participating in Namibia's exploitation included many of the most powerful firms and financial institutions in the world, from South Africa, Israel, Western Europe and North America. South Africa and its American allies had created a pretext to hinder implementation of resolution 435 by trying to link the process of Namibia's independence with the withdrawal of Cuban fighters in Angola. Cuba was ready to remain in Angola "as long as necessary in order to fulfil its internationalist duty". In accord with the Government of Angola, the troops would start pulling out from Angolan territory "the same day the apartheid regime disappears and Namibia obtains its independence".

Fathulla Jameel, Foreign Minister ofMaldives, said that South Africa, with the support of its allies, had subjugated Namibians, but it would never be able to subjugate their will to emancipate their country. The Conference was an appropriate gathering for those who had time and again "spoken rhetoric for the sake of the record", to embrace reality and commit themselves to exercise the critical leverage needed to free Namibia.

Simon Alberto Consalvi, ForeignMinister of Venezuela, said some countries were arrogating to themselves the right to speak on behalf of South Africans regarding the imposition of sanctions against Pretoria, and had also given to their statements an ideological East-West slant to hide the colonialist attitude involved. Namibia's decolonization was a universal cause which could not be victim to East-West rivalry. The time had come for coercive and effective measures to dismantle apartheid.

Nana S. Sutresna, Deputy ForeignMinister of Indonesia, said the threat or exercise of the veto by South Africa's major trading partners, when taken together with the continued reliance on "constructive engagement", linkage and other appeasement policies, sent the wrong kind of signal to Pretoria. "South Africa's powerful friends" must urgently reassess their position and act decisively in concert with the international community to secure Namibia's speedy liberation.

Stefan Murin, Deputy ForeignMinister of Czechoslovakia, said South Africa could not pursue its policy in respect of Namibia were it not for the wide support and co-operation on the part of its close Western allies, who fully identified themselves with Pretoria's primary intention of preventing the transfer of power to SWAPO, the genuine representative of Namibians. He condemned the continuing military and nuclear co-operation of the United States, some other Western States and Israel with South Africa.

A.L. Adamishin, Deputy ForeignMinister of the USSR, said that, "protected by the bayonets of the occupiers, Western monopolistic and transnational corporations continued to plunder Namibia's natural resources". Seeking profits, as in the old colonial days, lay at the root of the evil. Those who called for a withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola were doing everything possible to prevent that. It if were not for the continuing and growing interference by South Africa--with the overt support of the United States--into Angola's internal affairs, Angolans would have solved all their problems long ago.

Wissam Al-Zahawe, Deputy ForeignMinister of Iraq, said resolution 435 was the basis of Namibian independence. Certain countries supported Pretoria because they did not support Charter principles. The two racist entities at either end of the African continent were trying to impose their hegemony on their neighbours. Co-operation between the South African and Israeli regimes was based on an identity of interests.

Keyan Imani (Iran) said the so-calledpolicy of constructive engagement had encouraged South Africa to delay the implementation of any United Nations plan to achieve Namibian independence. Transnational corporations were increasingly active in the exploitation of Namibia's rich mineral resources. The support of the United States, some Western Powers, Israel and other main trading partners of South Africa had effectively protected the racist regime from the most important international sanctions such as an oil and arms embargo.

Alejandro Serrano Caldera, Presidentof the Supreme Court of Nicaragua, said some countries had continued to abuse their right of veto in the Security Council to prevent effective action from being taken against South Africa. Certain Governments and transnational corporations continued to exploit valuable national resources which were the exclusive property of Namibians. The policy of the United States in Namibia, as in other cases, supported illegitimacy and prevented international resolutions from being implemented.

Swaran Singh of India, an EminentPerson attending the Conference, said that to attempt to defer implementing resolution 435 by introducing irrelevant and extraneous issues was not surprising when Pretoria's record was considered, but to have such "deliberate dilly-dallying" encouraged by some of the very nations which had supported the resolution in the Security Council, certainly challenged comprehension: The direct linkage was not between the colonial situation in Namibia and the internal political solution of the independent neighbouring State but between Namibia and the strategic ambition, commercial greed and political expedience demonstrated by such nations.

Cao Guisheng (China) said certaininternational forces had tried to link the two different questions of Namibian independence and Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola, thus conniving with, and backing up, Pretoria's intransigent position. Pending a Security Council resolution on mandatory sanctions aginst South Africa in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter, Member States, and permanent Councl members in particular, should take measures to isolate South Africa.

Christopher Denne (United Kingdome),on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community, said Namibia's illegal occupation by South Africa must be ended. The right of Namibians to self-determiantion and independence must be exercised through free and fair elections, under United Nations supervision and control as prescribed by resolution 435. The settlement plan, to whose urgen implementation the Twelve were committed, should not be delayed or set aside for extraneous reasons or for arrangements inconsistent with that resolution. The Twelve categorically rejected South Africa's unilateral internal settlements in Namibia. They deplored South Africa's repressive policy against Namibians and its armed incursions into countries neighbouring Namibia. In spite of those desappointing developments, the United Nations had a primary duty to promote peaceful solutions in conformity with the Charter.

Klaus Tornudd (Finland), on behalfof the five Nordic countries, aid resolution 435 offered the only internationally acceptable basis for Namibian independence. Namibians must be permitted to determine their own future. Delaying tactics must be condemened. The issue of Namibia must be dealth with on its own merits without linkage to extraneous preconditions. Implementation of the plan for Namibian independence should start immediately. Effective mandatory sanctions must be imposed by the Security Council, and those permanent Council members whose concurrence was needed for the imposition of sanctions should carefully reconsider their position. Political prisoners should be released and SWAPO should be allowed to function legally in Namibia. A 200-mile exclusive economic zone for Namibia should be established as soon as possible.

John Kelso (Australia) rejected theconcept of linking implementation of resolution 435 to withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. Concerted international action on Namibia must be based on renewed commitment to that resolution; condemnation of attempts by South Africa at a so-called internal settlement and its policies of aggression and regional destablization; and urging Pretoria to honour its professed adherence to the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. If South Africa continued to obstruct the plan's implementation, the Security Council should consider the adoption of mandatory economic sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Francois de la Barre d'Erquilinne(Belgium) said South Africa's illegal administration of Namibia was coming to an end. A dialogue between SWAPO and the political movements now organized within the Territory was needed. That would facilitate implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. Some Africans questioned the sincerity of EEC members who opposed global sanctions, the efficiency of which remained to be proved. Nothing had shown that sanctions would lead South Africa to recant.

Carlos Augusto de Proenca Rosa(Brazil) said the Security Council must take further action in support of Namibia's freedom and independence. Resolution 435 should be promptly impelemented. It was unacceptable to portray the Namibian question as part of an East-West confrontration and to introduce extraneous rivalries in that context. The abolution of apartheid and Namibia's accession to independence were sine qua non conditions for peace in southern Africa.

Petrit Bushati (Albania) said that, instigatedby the all-around backing and support of imperialist Powers, in particular the United States, South Africa was doing its utmost to crush the resistance of Namibians and to undermine the security of neighbouring States. For geo-strategic reasons, the United States and other imperialist Powers used various political, economic and military pressures to prolong the so-called talks on the Namibian issue. They also sought to make the independence of Namibia conditional on irrelevant issues.

Sang Ock Lee, Vice ForeignMinister of the Republic of Korea, said the United Nations plan for Namibian independence should be immediately implemented. Resolution 435 was the only internationally accepted basis for settlement of the Namibian question. Amy measure taken by South Africa that was incompatible with resolution 435 was null and void.

Choi Ci Chol, observer from theDemocratic People's Republic of Korea, said the imperialists and the racists of South Africa were fiercely opposing the cause of the national liberation of Namibians with the support of, and at the instigation of, certain Western countries. Neither Namibian independence nor peace and security in southern Africa could be assured as long as the South African racist clique existed. The racists must leave Namibia unconditionally.

Marin Marinov, representative ofthe Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), said South Africa could not have ignored world public opinion so frankly and persistently unless it had felt real support from influential Western interests. The Security Council should impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria as provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter.

Manuel dos Santos (Mozambique)President of the Economic and Social Council, said the South African regime was entrenching itself under the guise of so-called reforms of the abhorrent system of apartheid. For reasons known only to themselves, some States tolerated its policies and attitudes. The international community should take concrete action and come to the aid of South Africans and Namibians.

Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba), ActingChairman of the Special Committee on decolonization, said the Security Council, when faced with repeated refusals by South Africa to comply with its decisions, found itself prevented from taking effective action under Chapter VII of the Charter, because of the negative votes cast by certain Western permanent members. Measures had to be adopted not only to enforce effective implementation of the existing arms embargo against South Africa, but also to bring about South Africa's total isolation through imposition of a comprehensive boycott of all dealings with South Africa.

Serge Elie Charles (Haiti), representativeof the Special Committee against Apartheid, said the policies of South Africa were the basis for all conflict in southern Africa. There was a close link between Namibian independence and the total elimination of apartheid. It was necessary to increase international pressure on Pretoria and to come to the aid of the oppressed peoples of southern Africa. Peripheral considerations were being used to delay Namibian independence; such tactics must be dropped.

Jan Nico Scholten, President of theAssociation of West European Parliamentarians against Apartheid, said more and more European countries were playing a positive role in the campaignm for economic sanctions against South Africa. "The hard core of the resistance lies in London and Bonn." The higher the price South Africa had to pay to keep Namibia occupied, the more quickly it could be forced to agree to the implementation of resolution 435. Sanctions were the best way of raising the price.

Alun Roberts, representative of theNamibia Support Committee, said the Committee had been formed in 1968 in response to the struggle of Namibians under SWAPO's leadership and to provide direct campaign assistance and research information on Namibia. There was need to ensure the momentum that was currently in the parliaments of Western States, particularly in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.

Abdul Minty, representative of theWorld Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, said Namibia had been fully militarized with the acquiescence of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel and certain other countries. Certain Western enterprises had been negotiating with South Africa to dump nuclear wastes in Namibia. People's agitation in South Africa and Namibia had created a serious crisis for the allies of apartheid. Namibia must achieve independence immediately.