Security Council presses for implementation of plan for Namibian independence, condemns 'interim government' installed by South Africa.

Security Council presses for implementation of plan for Namibian independence, condemns 'interim government installed by South Africa 

The Security Council decided on 19 June that Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar should resume immediate contact with South Africa to pave the way for the Council to adopt an "enabling resolution" to implement the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, contained in Council resolution 435 (1978).

The Council acted in adopting resolution 566 (1985), by which it also "strongly" warned South Africa that failure to co-operate fully with the Council and the Secretary-General in implementing the resolution would "compel" the Council "to meet forthwith" to consider adopting appropriate measures under the United Nations Charter, including Chapter VII, as "additional pressure to ensure South Africa's compliance" with previous Council resolutions on the subject.

The vote on the text was 13 in favour (Australia, Burkina Faso, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, Madagascar, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian SSR, USSR) to none against, with 2 abstentions (United Kingdom, United States).

In other provisions of the 16-paragraph text, the Council urged Member States that had not done so to consider, in the meantime, taking appropriate voluntary measures against South Africa, which could include stopping new investments and applying disincentives to that end; reexamining maritime and aerial relations with South Africa; prohibiting the sale of krugerrands and all other coins minted in South Africa; and applying restrictions in the fields of sports and cultural relations.

The Council condemned South Africa "for its installation of a so-called interim government" in Namibia, declared that action to be "illegal and null and void", stated that no recognition would be accorded "either by the United Nations or any Member State to it or to any representative or organ established in pursuance thereof", and demanded that South Africa "immediately rescind" that "illegal and unilateral action".

The Council reiterated that resolution 435 was "the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement" of the Namibian problem, and demanded its "immediate and unconditional implementation". It condemned South Africa for obstructing the implementation of resolution 435 "by insisting on conditions contrary" to the provisions of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

The Council rejected South Africa's insistence on linking Namibia's independence "to irrelevant and extraneous issues" and declared that Namibia's independence "cannot be held hostage to the resolution of issues that are alien" to resolution 435. The Secretary-General was asked to report on implementation of resolution 566 not later than the first week of September 1985.

The draft (S/17284/Rev.2) was submitted by Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago.

The Council held 12 meetings on the "situation in Namibia" between 10 and 19 June, hearing 81 speakers. It met persuant to the requests of the African Group and the Movement of Non-aligned Countries, made in letters of 23 May to the Council President from the representatives of Mozambique (S/17222) and India (S/17213).

Among the documents reviewed by the Council were a further report of the Secretary-General concerning the implementation of Council resolutions 435 and 439 (1978) and concerning the Namibian question (S/17242); a letter of 19 April to the Council President from India containing the statement on Namibia adopted by the New Delhi Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-aligned Countries (S/17114); and a 2 May letter to the Secretary-General from Italy containing the text of a Declaration on Southern Africa, adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the European Community in Luxembourg on 29 April (A/40/280-S/17145).

The Secretary-General had submitted his latest report concerning implementation of Council resolutions 435 and 439 on 29 December 1983 (S/16237).

Secretary-General: In his current report the Secretary-General recalled that in his August 1983 report (S/15943) he had said that South Africahs position regarding the issue of the withdrawal of Cuban troops as a precondition for implementing resolution 435 made it impossible to launch the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. "There has been no change in the position of South Africa in regard to this particular issue", he stated in the current report. "In the prevailing circumstances, it is with regret that I must report that it has not yet proved possible to finalize arrangements" for implementing the United Nations plan.

The Secretary-General recalled that in resolution 539 (1983), the Council rejected South African insistence on linking Namibian independence to irrelevant and extraneous issues, and had called on South Africa to communicate to the Secretary-General its choice of the electocal system it would use to facilitate the immediate and unconditional implementation of the United Nations plan. South Africa had thus far not given him "a definitive response in regard to its choice of the electoral system".

"The prevailing difficulties have been compounded and given a new dimension by the recent decision of South Africa to establish an interim government in Namibia", he went on. "It is imperative that all concerned respect the provisions of the United Nations plan, which is binding on the parties, and remains the only agreed basis for the independence of Namibia."

Non-aligned, EEC: The New Delhi non-aligned statement of 19 April urged the Council "to proceed forthwith to initiate appropriate actions under the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof", to ensure South Africa's compliance with resolutions 435 and 439.

The EEC's Declaration reaffirmed the commitment of its 10 States Members "in favour of the application without preconditions" of resolution 435. The Ten deplored delays in implementing the United Nations plan, which remained "the only acceptable basis for a final settlement" of the Namibian question. They considered "the recent announcment by Pretoria concerning the setting up of an interim Government in Namibia to be null and void".

SWAPO's position

Sam Nujoma, President of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), said the situation in Namibia was extremely grave. The South African policy of massive military build-up and the brutal repression of Namibians had transformed Namibia into a police State. There was a wide credibility gap about the United States' role as a reliable interlocutor in southern Africa. The "infamous", pro-apartheid policy of "constructive engagement"--or "destructive engagement"--had increased Namibians' hardships and suffering, and had failed to prove its case.

The primary obstacle to attainment of Namibia's independence was the United States precondition of linking Namibian independence to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. The United States was responsible for holding Namibia's independence to ransom. Pretoria was making full use of that situation "thanks to the linkage precondition".

The Reagan Administration had engaged in endless manoeuvrings to find alternatives to resolution 435 while publicly professing scrupulous adherence to it. In one sense, the problem before the Council involved a repetition of South Africa's arrogant defiance of United Nations resolutions, but in another it was a revealing example of the complicity of the major Western Powers with South Africa for the sake of their vested interests in Namibia, their objective being to prevent SWAPO from coming to power in Namibia, even through implementing the United Nations plan, and also to bypass the United Nations. The Council was now called upon fully to assume its responsibilities and to act decisively in fulfilment of the United Nations direct responsibility over Namibia, which must be met soon through Namibia's attainment of freedom and genuine independence.

South Africa, he said, was now scheming to achieve the secession of the Caprivi Strip, Namibia's eastern region. The Council must act to secure implementation of its own resolutions, in particular resolutiokns 385 and 435. The Western permament Council members who had shielded South Africa in the past should display the necessary political will by joining the rest of the Council in adopting comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa.

There was an imperative need for recommitment by all nations to increase their diplomatic, political, material, financial, humanitarian and military assistance to the struggle of Namibians, led by SWAPO, for freedom, self-determination and national independence. An increase in funds was needed for the assistance programmes of the United Nations system for Namibians, Mr. Nujoma concluded.

South African view

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said it would be unrealistic to consider the question of South West Africa outside the regional context to which it inextricably belonged. The problems of Angola and South West Africa were linked in the following respects: the peoples of Angola and South West Africa both wished to exercise their right to self-determination; the presence in Angola of a large number of "surrogate troops of a super-Power" represented in the Council had made it impossible for the people of Angola and South West Africa to determine their own future free from intimidation, and, in both cases, political objectives were pursued by violence rather than by peaceful means and national reconciliation.

South Africa supported the right of the peoples of both countries to self-determination and independence; it insisted on the withdrawal of foreign forces from the region; and it believed that the problems of both countries should be solved by peaceful means, through national reconciliation rather than through violence.

When the people of South West Africa decided on their future they should do so in circumstances of fairness, peace and security. Now, when South Africa, as an interim mechanism, was transferring important powers for South West Africa's internal administration into the hands of South West Africa's leaders, Council members were displeased. Apparently they preferred that total power should reside in the hands of the South African Administrator-General. His Government's position with regard to the proposed transitional administration in South West Africa had been set out by Presidet Botha in an 18 April speech to the South African Parliament. (For details see UN Chronicle 1985, No. 5.)

By accepting the international settlement plan for South West Africa, South Africa had already agreed to the reduction and the ultimate withdrawal of its own forces from South West Africa, he went on. South Africa was prepared to enter into an international agreement in terms of which all foreign forces, regardless of their origin, would be withdrawn from Angola. There was a new understanding "throughout the sub-continent of the common interests which we share". There was a new awareness of the dangers of cross-border violence, of the importance of reconciliation, of the threat of foreign intervention and of the benefits which regional cooperation could bring.

The ground rules for coexistence were slowly but surely gaining acceptance. It was within that context that South Africa was confident that the people of South West Africa would before too long be able to move forward to internationally recognized independence, Mr. von Schirnding stated.

Council members

Khurshed Alam Kham, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, said India was the first country to take up the question of South West Africa before the General Assembly in 1946. The same year it became the first voluntarily to impose comprehensive sanctions against PRetoria. Namibians would ultimately prevail, for theirs was a just cause. He quoted Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi as saying that Namibia's progress towards independence had become "a casualty to power politics and multinationals' profit."

Luis Percovich Roca, Prime Minister, President of the Council of Ministers, and Minister for External Relations of Peru, denounced the powerful international economic interests that had decisively contributed to South Africa's continued occupation of Namibia and the plunder of its natural resources and deplored the resort to delaying tactics that impeded dialogue on Namibian independence. He demanded the full and unequivocal implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia, the only universally accepted framework to ensure a peaceful transition of Namibia towards independence. The principle of Namibia's liberation was not dependent upon, nor could it be the result of, 'factors extraneous to the dynamics in a Territory under colonial control".

Boutros Ghali, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Egypt, rejected South Africa's latest manoeuvre by which it was attempting to install a provisional puppet regime in Namibia. Pretoria's persistent refusal to commit itself to implementing United Nations resolutions and Namibia's failure to achieve independence and national sovereignty represented a major threat to the peace, security and stability of the region and of Africa. The Council must consider imposing comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. Namibian independence was inevitable and inescapable.

Ling Qing (China) said South Africa was responsible for the failure to implement the relevant Council resolutions. Pretoria had not only clung to the linkage of the unrelated issues of Namibian independence and Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola, but had also intensified its efforts to prop up pr-south African forces in Namibia, and had set up an "interim government" based on a "multi-party conference." That revealed its intention to bypass the United Nations, exclude SWAPO and impose a fait accompli of its own making in Namibia.

Jose Sorzano (United States) said his country was actively involved in negotiations to create conditions to allow implementation of the United Nations plan. Any purported transfer of power that might take place now or in future to bodies established in Namibia by South Africa was null and void. No settlement outside the framework of resolution 435 was acceptable. Namibians must choose their own leaders in free and fair elections under United Nations supervision and control. Angolan and South African proposals on Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola showed agreement between the two countries on a number of broad principles and their remaining differences could be bridged.

Cavan Hogue (Australia) said the United Nations plan was the only effective means to bring Namibia peacefully to independence. South Africa had repeatedly found excuses to prevaricate and to retreat from its commitments. As for the linkage of Namibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, Australia rejected it as a precondition for the implementation of resolution 435 as well as any attempt to establish an internal administration in Namibia. The international community demanded Namibia's early independence in accordance with resolution 435.

Vassiley Safronchuk (USSR) said that as a result of South Africa's recent decision to establish a so-called interim government in Namibia, the existing difficulties in implementing the United Nations plan for Namibian independence had been further compounded. The linkage between Namibian independence and the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola was a plot by South Africa and the United States to create additional obstructions to implementing resolution 435. The allegation that the Namibian problem was only an example of East-West confrontation was a propaganda ploy. South Africa was aware of the support of the Western Powers for it and was becoming increasingly arrogant. It would be brought to see reason only by the adoption of sanctions against it.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said South Africa had consistently frustrated the implementation of resolution 435. The word "deception" came all too easily to mind in that connection. While professing adherence to that resolution, and allegedly out of concern for Namibians, South Africa continued to prepare for what it believed could be another form of internationally acceptable settlement in case Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola was not forthcoming. Namibians must, without delay, decide their own future through free and fair elections under United Nations supervision. The settlement of extraneous issues could not be a precondition for implementing the United Nations plan.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said the United Nations plan, as contained in resolutions 385 (1976) and 435, constituted the only acceptable basis for a final settlement of the question, and must be implemented unconditionally. Namibian independence could not be obstructed by extraneous considerations. The setting up of an interim government in Namibia cast doubt on South Africa's willingness to abide by agreements. The international community was increasingly irritated by South Africa's delaying tactics and intransigence on the question of Namibia. If there was no significant movement by South Africa within 18 months, France would take unilateral economic measures against it and would consider appropriate measures under the Charter. Now was not the time to resort to measures under Chapter VII.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said establishment of an interim administration in Namibia was a manoeuvre to prompt the international community to agree to link the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola to Namibian independence. The Council could not go along with that kind of blackmail. He rejected Pretoria's so-called programme to create pseudo-independence for Namibia allowing it to maintain its hegemony in southern Africa. Sanctions were the only way for the United Nations "to rid itself of ambiguity, to test the political or moral powers of the Organization in the face of abusive colonialism, exploitation and domination" on Pretoria's part.

Guennadi Oudovenko (Ukrainian SSR) said the United States and South Africa wanted "to supplant the granting of genuine independence and freedom to Namibia by a neo-colonialist variant, together with the broad assistance to South Africa from the United States and certain other Western countries and Israel in the political, economic, military and nuclear spheres". The Council must immediately take appropriate measures under the Charter, including the application of Chapter VII. The only realistic and agreed upon way to settle the Namibian problem had been laid down in United Nations decisions on the question, in particular resolution 435.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) supported United Nations efforts to bring about genuine self-determination, freedom and national independence in a united Namibia. He denounced Pretoria's insistence on linking the Namibian question to the extraneous issue of Cuban troops in Angola, as well as South Africa's measures to establish a so-called interim government in Namibia. The United Nations plan for Namibian independence should be implemented unconditionally.

Peter Malcom Maxey (United Kingdom) said resolution 435 was central to the process of achieving self-determination for Namibia. The path to an internationally accepted settlement under resolution 435 could not be circumvented by the promulgation of an internal settlement. Total power should be transferred at once, through the mechanism of the settlement plan, to an independent and democratically elected government representing all Namibians. The United Kingdom could not support any suggestion that armed struggle was to be preferred to negotiations. His country would continue efforts to facilitate implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. Laetare Basile Guissou, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Burkina Faso, said South Africa intended to maintain its colonial presence in Namibia at all costs. South Africa, while claiming to support resolution 435, was really looking for a new formula to replace the settlement provided by that resolution. The alleged interim government in Namibia was an additional stalling tactic. Pretoria wished to gain time to build in Namibia "a second South Africa, to its taste and faithful to it". Burkina Faso rejected linkage between the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and Namibian independence.

Errol Mahabir, Minister of External Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago, said the only acceptable plan of action for achieving Namibian independence was contained in resolution 435. South Africa did not intend to relinquish its hold on Namibia, nor to respect the United Nations' authority. The policy of "constructive engagement", propounded as a substitute for direct action, had failed. Options for non-violent solutions might soon run out. Resolution 566 provided a clear-cut, step-by-step approach for early implementation of the internationally agreed plan for Namibian independence.

Other views

Khurshed Alam Khan, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said South Africa had no intention of abiding by United Nations resolutions. The Council must act to compel compliance by Pretoria. The Council should chart a course of action to bring independence to Namibians, without delay, in conformity with resolution 435, and give the Secretary-General a clear mandate within that framework to monitor and secure compliance by South Africa.

Noel Sinclair (Guyana), Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, said South Africa, by its recent actions in Namibia, was undercutting and making irrelevant resolution 435. "It is the complicity, the double-dealing and the cynicism of a few which are responsible for the Security Council's image of indecisiveness in respect of Namibia." South Africa was "fortifying the barriers to freedom" in Namibia, and "feverishly seeking to shut out" the United Nations and SWAPO. South Africa had effectively pulled the rug from under the policy of "constructive engagement". The Council for Namibia urged the Council to take appropriate action to ensure South Africa's cooperation with resolution 435, without modification or preconditions.

Benjamin Mkapa, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Republic of Tanzania, speaking as representative of the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity and on behalf of Tanzania, said the "so-called policy of constructive engagement" had undermined efforts to free Namibia. The presence of Cuban troops in Angola was irrelevant to the decolonization process in Namibia. Through its strategy of the force of arms and political manipulation, including the recent imposition of the "so-called interim government", Pretoria hoped to transform Namibia into another bantustan. The Council must institute effective measures against Pretoria under Chapter VII of the Charter to force it to end its occupation of Namibia.

Marcus M. Kofa (Liberia), speaking as Chairman of the African Group, said the continued military build-up, including the recruitment and training of Namibians for tribal armies and the use by South Africa of mercenaries to suppress and exploit Namibians were obstacles to the peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. South Africa's obstinate refusal to implement United Nations resolutions on Namibia had been possible only because it enjoyed the support of certain Western Council members. He rejected all attempts to link Namibian independence to any extraneous issues that might alter its fundamental nature. Resolution 435 must be implemented without modifications or preconditions.

The foreign ministers of the United Republic of Tanzania, Nigeria, Cuba, Pakistan, Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Angola and Jamaica, the Minister of Post and Telecommunications of Algeria, the Minister for Planning and Economic Development of Uganda and the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Panama spoke.

Also participating in the debate were the representatives of Liberia, German Democratic Republic, Sudan, Morocco, Federal Republic of Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, Mexico, Kuwait, Poland, Cyprus, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Sri Lanka, Japan, Malaysia, Canada, Syrian Arab Republic, Bulgaria, Viet Nam, Seychelles, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Kenya, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Haiti, Democratic Yemen, Botswana, zimbabwe, Czechoslovakia, Guyana, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Congo, Barbados, Lesotho, Malta, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, and Guatemala. The Council also heard statements by Gora Ebrahim (Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC)) and Neo Mnumzana (African National Congress of South Africa (ANC)).

Also making statements were Joseph N. Garba (Nigeria), Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid; Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States; and Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone), Chairman of the Special Committee on decolonization.