Security Council rejects "interim government" in Namibia, calls for action on UN plan.

Security Council rejects "interim government" in Namibia, calls for action on UN plan

Security Council members have declared the establishment by South Africa of the "so-called interim government in Namibia" to be null and void, and have called upon Pretoria to rescind its action and to co-operate in and facilitate the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia contained in Council resolution 435 (1978), as called for in Council resolution 539 (1983). Their views were contained in a statement (S/17151) issued on 3 May by Council President Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) on their behalf.

[In a statement to Parliament on 18 April, South African State President P.W. Botha had said that executive and legislative functions in "South West Africa/Namibia" would be turned over to the Multi-Party Conference (MPC), a diverse group of parties, that had formally demanded in March that it be allowed to form a transitional goverment until independence was achieved.]

The Council statement said Council members had learned with indignation and grave concern of the decision taken in Pretoria to establish a "so-called interim government in illegally occupied Namibia". That manoeuvre was contrary to the international community's expressed will and in defiance of United Nations resolutions and decisions, in particular resolutions 435 and 439 (1978), which declared that any unilateral measures taken by the illegal administratrion in Namibia in contravention of relevant Council resolutions were null and void.

"The latest action by the illegal occupation regime in Namibia is in disregard of the demands of the Namibian people for self-determination and genuine independence and of the will of the international community", the statement said. It further complicated the efforts to proceed expeditiously with implementation of resolution 435, which remained the only acceptable basis for a peaceful and internationally recognized settlement of the Namibian question. "This once again calls into question South Africa's commitment" to the implementation of resolution 435.

Council members condemned and rejected any unilateral action by South Africa leading towards an internal settlement outside resolution 435 as unacceptable, the statement continued. Any further measures taken in pursuance of that action would be "without effect". Council members called upon all United Nations Member States and the international community at large to repudiate that action and to refrain from according any recognition to it. They reaffirmed that the United Nations had primary and direct responsibility ovedr Namibia. It was the Council's intention, in fulfilment of that responsibility, to remain seized of the situation in and relating to Namibia, with a view to ensuring "full compliance by South Africa in the expeditious and unconditional implementation" of resolution 435.

South African response

In a letter of 4 May to the Secretary-General (S/17152), South Africa transmitted the text of a statement by Foreign Minister R. F. Botha, in response to the Council statement. Foreign Minister Botha said Pretoria's views in that regard were set out in the speech which State President Botha had delivered to Parliament on 18 April and inthe aide memoire which had been presented to certain Western countries on the same date. The texts of both the documents were attached to the Foreign Minister's statement.

The statement said that for as long as there was a possibility that the present international negotiations held any real prospect of bringing about the "genuine withdrawal" of Cuban forces from Angola, South Africa would not "act in a manner irreconcilable with the international settlement plan. However, the people of South West Africa/Namibia, including SWAPO [South West Africa People's Organization], cannot wait indefinitely for a break-through on the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola."

The Foreign Minister stated that, "should it eventually become evident, after all avenues have been thoroughly explored, that there is no realistic prospect of attaining this goal, all the parties most intimately affected by the present negotiations will obviously have to reconsider how internationally acceptable independence may best be attained in the light of the prevailing circumstances". South Africa had the "fullest right to take whatever steps it may consider appropriate for the good administration of the Territory pending its accession to internationally recognized independence". However, South Africa "reserves the right to withdraw unilaterally its administration and its presence from the Territory at any time that it may so wish".

The statement of the Security Council President was "ill-founded and without effect", the Foreign Minister said. That was particularly so because no indication was given of how the State President's speech of 18 April was irreconcilable with South Africa's international commitments. The Foreign Minister sought an elucidation from the Secretary-General in that regard.

In his 18 April statement to Parliament, State President P.W. Botha said the proposed arrangement in the Territory should be seen as an "interim mechanism for the internal administration of the Territory pending agreement on an internationally acceptable independence" for it. The granting of more representative administration to the Territory did not violate South Africa's international commitments. South Africa would continue to search for a "reasonable formula for genuine Cuban withdrawal from Angola". It would also continue to strive for stability and peace in the region by encouraging all the parties, including SWAPO and Angola, to resolve their differences around a conference table instead of by violence.

South Africa, he went on, would also continue to encourage dialogue between all the Territoryhs parties in the hope that they would find a basis for a still broader consensus in respect of the Territory's future. If the Territory's parties could not achieve "a modus vivendi at this stage, then the prospects for the success of independence, however it comes about, are limited". The parties must understand that "no single group will be able to dictate what the future of the country will be". All the Territory's parties must be treated equally and impartially. If the United Nations wished to play a role in the Territory's future, it would have to demonstrate that it would be able to carry out its functions impartially.

The aide memoire presented to certain Western countries said South Africa remained committed to the implementation of the international settlement plan within the framework of the understanding reached with the United States and the Western Contact Group, "provided firm agreement can be reached on the fundamental requirements of Cuban withdrawal". South Africa's responsibilities in the Territory derived from its position that its presence and administration in the Territory were legal. There was no legally binding decision of the International Court of Justice, nor any United Nations decision taken in accordance with the Charter, to the contrary.