Security Council resolution 385 (1976) [on elections in Namibia and the transfer of powers to Namibians]
Symbol: S/RES/385(1976)
Date: 1976-01-30
Meeting record: S/PV.1885
Subjects: MILITARY OCCUPATION|POLITICAL PRISONERS|NAMIBIA|SOUTH AFRICA|ELECTIONS|NAMIBIA QUESTION|BANTUSTANS
Notes: Concerns elections in Namibia and the transfer of powers to Namibians.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1976. - S/INF/32. - 1977. - p. 8-9. - (SCOR, 31st year).

Resolution 385 (1976)
of 30 January 1976

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the President of the United
Nations Council for Namibia, 28

Having considered the statement by Mr. Moses M.
Garoeb, Administrative Secretary of the South West Africa
People’s Organization, 28

Recalling General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27
October 1966, by which the Assembly terminated South
Africa’s Mandate over the Territory of Namibia, and
resolution 2248(S-V) of 19 May 1967, by which it
established a United Nations Council for Namibia, as well as
all other subsequent resolutions on Namibia, in particular
resolution 3295 (XXIX) of 13 December 1974 and resolution 3399 (XXX) of 26 November 1975,

Recalling its resolutions 245 (1968) of 25 January and
246 (1968) of 14 March 1968, 264 (1969) of 20 March and
269 (1969) of 12 August 1969, 276 (1970) of 30 January.
282 (1970) of 23 July, 283 (1970) and 284 (1970) of 29
July 1970, 300 (1971) of 12 October and 301 (1971) of 20
October 1971, 310(1972) of 4 February 1972 and
366 (1974) of 17 December 1974,

Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court
of Justice of 21 June 1971 29 that South Africa is under
obligation to withdraw its presence from the Territory,

Reaffirming the legal responsibility of the United Nations
over Namibia,

Concerned at South Africa’s continued illegal occupation
of Namibia and its persistent refusal to comply with the
resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the
Security Council, as well as with the advisory opinion of
the International Court of Justice,

Gravely concerned at South Africa’s brutal repression of
the Namibian people and its persistent violation of their
human rights, as well as its efforts to destroy the national
unity and territorial integrity of Namibia, and its aggressive
military build-up in the area,

Strongly deploring the militarization of Namibia by the
illegal occupation régime of South Africa,

1. Condemns the continued illegal occupation of the
Territory of Namibia by South Africa;

2. Condemns the illegal and arbitrary application by
South Africa of racially discriminatory and repressive laws
and practices in Namibia;

3. Condemns the South African military build-up in
Namibia and any utilization of the Territory as a base for
attacks on neighbouring countries;

4. Demands that South Africa put an end forthwith to
its policy of bantustans and the so-called homelands aimed
at violating the national unity and the territorial integrity
of Namibia.

5. Further condemns South Africa’s failure to comply
with the terms of Security Council resolution 366 (1974);

6. Further condemns all attempts by South Africa
calculated co evade the clear demand of the United Nations
for the holding of free elections under United Nations
supervision and control in Namibia:

7. Declares that, in order that the people of Namibia
may be enabled freely to determine their own future. it is
imperative that free elections under the supervision and
control of the United Nations be held for the whole of
Namibia as one political entity:

8. Further declares that, in determining the date, time-table and modalities for the elections in accordance with
paragraph 7 above, there shall be adequate time, to be
decided upon by the Security Council, for the purpose of
enabling the United Nations to establish the necessary
machinery within Namibia to supervise and control such
elections, as well as to enable the people of Namibia to
organize politically for the purpose of such elections;

9. Demands that South Africa urgently make a solemn
declaration accepting the foregoing provisions for the
holding of free elections in Namibia under United Nations
supervision and control, undertaking to comply with the
resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and with
the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
of 21 June 1971 in regard to Namibia, and recognizing the
territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation;

10. Reiterates its demand that South Africa take the
necessary steps to effect the withdrawal. in accordance with
Security Council resolutions 264 (1969), 269 (1969) and
366 (1974), of its illegal administration maintained in
Namibia and to transfer power to the people of Namibia
with the assistance of the United Nations,

11. Demands again that South Africa, pending the
transfer of power provided for in paragraph 10 above:

(a) Comply fully in spirit and in practice with the
provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(b) Release all Namibia. political prisoners, including all
those imprisoned or detained in connexion with offences
under so-called internal security laws, whether such
Namibians have been charged or tried or are held without
charge and whether held in Namibia or South Africa;

(c) Abolish the application in Namibia of all racially
discriminatory and politically repressive laws and practices.
particularly bantustans and homelands;

(d) Accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in
exile for political reasons full facilities for return to their
country without risk of arrest, detention, intimidation or
imprisonment;

12. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to meet
on or before 31 August 1976 for the purpose of reviewing
South Africa’s compliance with the terms of the present
resolution and, in the event of non-compliance by South
Africa, for the purpose of considering the appropriate
measures to be taken under the Charter of the United
Nations.

Adopted unanimously at the
1885th meeting.

28 Ibid., Thirty-first Year, 1880th meeting.

29 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of
South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding
Security Council resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, LC.J.
Reports 1971, p. 16.

Texto español (official Spanish version): Recordando su resolución 253 (1968) de 29 de mayo de
1968, por la que se imponían sanciones a Rhodesia del Sur,

Recordando además sus resoluciones 277 (1970) de 18 de
marzo de 1970 y 318 (1972?) de 28 de julio de 1972,

Tomando nota con reconocimiento de la decisión del
Gobierno de Mozambique de cortar de inmediato todos los
vínculos comerciales y de comunicación con Rhodesia del
Sur, de conformidad con la decisión del Consejo y en
estricta observancia de las sanciones económicas,

Considerando que esta decisión constituye una importante contribución al logro de los objetivos de las Naciones
Unidas en Rhodesia del Sur, de conformidad con los
propósitos y principios de la Carta,

Reconociendo que la medida tomada por el Gobierno de
Mozambique está en armonía con la resolución 253 (1968),

Teniendo presentes las disposiciones de los Artículos 49 y
50 de la Carta,

1. Encomia al Gobierno de Mozambique por su decisión
de cortar todas las relaciones económicas y comerciales con
Rhodesia del Sur;

2. Condena todos los actos de provocación y agresión,
incluso incursiones militares, realizados por el régimen
minoritario ilegal de Rhodesia del Sur contra la República
Popular de Mozambique;

3. Toma nota de las necesidades económicas urgentes y
especiales de Mozambique, que dimanan de su aplicación de

la resolución 253 (1968), como se indicó en la declaración
de su Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores;

4. Insta a todos los Estados a que proporcionen inmediatamente asistencia financiera, técnica y material a
Mozambique, a fin de que pueda llevar a cabo normalmente
su programa de desarrollo económico y aumentar su
capacidad para aplicar plenamente el sistema de sanciones;

5. Pide a las Naciones Unidas y a las organizaciones y
programas interesados, en particular al Consejo Económico
y Social, al Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el
Desarrollo, al Programa Mundial de Alimentos, al Banco
Mundial, al Fondo Monetario Internacional y a todos los
organismos especializados de las Naciones Unidas, que
ayuden a Mozambique en la actual situación económica y
examinen periódicamente la cuestión de la asistencia
económica a Mozambique con arreglo a lo previsto en la
presente resolución;

6. Pide al Secretario General que, en colaboración con
los organismos competentes del sistema de las Naciones
Unidas, organice, con efecto inmediato, todas las formas de
asistencia financiera, técnica y material a Mozambique, a fin
de ponerlo en condiciones de superar las dificultades
económicas que origina la aplicación por este país de
sanciones económicas contra el régimen racista de Rhodesia
del Sur.

Aprobada por unanimidad en
la 1892a. sesión.

La situación en Namibia? 5

Decisiones

En su 1880a. sesión, celebrada el 27 de enero de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de Argelia,
Egipto, Guinea, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mauricio, Nigeria y
Yugoslavia a participar, sin derecho de voto, en el debate
del tema titulado “La situación en Namibia: carta, de fecha
16 de diciembre de 1975, dirigida al Presidente del Consejo
de Seguridad por el Secretario General (S/11918)”26.

En la misma sesión, el Consejo decidió también enviar una
invitación, en virtud del artículo 39 del reglamento provisional, a una delegación del Consejo de las Naciones
Unidas para Namibia, integrada por el Presidente de ese
órgano y los representantes de Finlandia, Indonesia, Polonia
y México.

En la misma sesión, el Consejo decidió además, a solicitud
de los representantes de Benin, la República Arabe Libia y
la República Unida de Tanzanía?7, enviar una invitación al
Sr. Moses M. Garoeb en virtud del artículo 39 del reglamento provisional.

25 El Consejo también aprobó resoluciones o decisiones sobre esta
cuestión en 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 y 1975.

26 Mimeografiado. Para el texto de la resolución que se transmite
con la carta, véase Documentos Oficiales de la Asamblea General,
trigésimo período de sesiones, Suplemento No. 34, resolución
3399 (XXX).

27 Documentos Oficiales del Consejo de Seguiridad, Trigésimo
Primer Año, Suplemento de enero, febrero y marzo de 1976,
documento S/11943.

En su 1881a. sesión, celebrada el 27 de enero de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de Liberia,
Mauritania y Sudáfrica a participar, sin derecho de voto, en
el debate de la cuestión.

En la misma sesión, el Consejo decidió también enviar una
invitación, en virtud del artículo 39 del reglamento provisional, al Relator del Comité Especial contra el Apartheid.

En su 1882a. sesión, celebrada el 28 de enero de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de la Arabia
Saudita, Cuba, la India, Jordania, Malí y Polonia a
participar, sin derecho de voto, en el debate de la cuestión.

En su 1883a. sesión, celebrada el 29 de enero de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de Bangladesh,
Burundi, Kenya, Kuwait y Túnez a participar, sin derecho
de voto, en el debate de la cuestión.

Resolución 385 (1976)
de 30 de enero de 1976
El Consejo de Seguridad,
Habiendo oído la declaración del Presidente del Consejo
de las Naciones Unidas para Namibia?8,

28 Ibid., Trigésimo Primer Año, 1880a. sesión.

Habiendo examinado la declaración del Sr. Moses M.
Garoeb, Secretario Administrativo de la South West Africa
People's Organization? ,

Recordando la resolución 2145 (XXI) de la Asamblea
General, de 27 de octubre de 1966, por la que se puso fin al
Mandato de Sudáfrica sobre el Territorio de Namibia, y la
resolución 2248 (S-V), de 19 de mayo de 1967, por la que
se creó el Consejo de las Naciones Unidas para Namibia, así
como todas las resoluciones subsiguientes sobre Namibia, en
particular las resoluciones 3295 (XXIX) de 13 de diciembre
de 1974, y 3399 (XXX) de 26 de noviembre de 1975,

Recordando sus resoluciones 245 (1968) de 25 de enero y
246 (1968) de 14 de marzo de 1968, 264 (1969) de 20 de
marzo y 269 (1969) de 12 de agosto de 1969, 276 (1970)
de 30 de enero, 282 (1970) de 23 de julio, 283 (1970) y
284 (1970) de 29 de julio de 1970, 300 (1971) de 12 de
octubre y 301(1971) de 20 de octubre de 1971,
310 (1972) de 4 de febrero de 1972 y 366 (1974) de 17 de
diciembre de 1974,

Recordando la opinión consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia de 21 de junio de 19712, según la cual
Sudáfrica está obligada a retirar su presencia del Territorio,

Reafirmando la responsabilidad jurídica de las Naciones
Unidas respecto de Namibia,

Preocupado por la continuación de la ocupación ilegal de
Namibia por Sudáfrica y por su persistante negativa a
cumplir las resoluciones y decisiones de la Asamblea
General y del Consejo de Seguridad, así como la opinión
consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia,

Gravemente preocupado por la brutal represión del
pueblo namibiano y la persistente violación de sus derechos
humanos por Sudáfrica, y por sus esfuerzos para destruir la
unidad nacional y la integridad territorial de Namibia, así
como por la intensificación agresiva de su poderío militar
en la zona,

Deplorando vivamente la militarización de Namibia por el
régimen ilegal de ocupación de Sudáfrica,

1. Condena la continuación de la ocupación ilegal del
Territorio de Namibia por Sudáfrica;

2. Condena la aplicación ilegal y arbitraria por Sudáfrica
de leyes y prácticas racialmente discriminatorias y represivas en Namibia;

3. Condena la intensificación del poderío militar de
Sudáfrica en Namibia y cualquier utilización del Territorio
como base para ataques a países vecinos;

4. Exige que Sudáfrica ponga fin inmediatamente a su
política de bantustanes y de los llamados territorios patrios
encaminada a violar la unidad nacional y la integridad
territorial de Namibia;

5. Condena además el incumplimiento por parte de
Sudáfrica de las disposiciones de la resolución 366 (1974)
del Consejo de Seguridad;

6. Condena además todos los intentos de Sudáfrica
destinados a eludir la inequívoca exigencia de las Naciones
Unidas de que se celebren elecciones libres en Namibia bajo
la supervisión y el control de las Naciones Unidas;

7. Declara que, para que el pueblo de Namibia pueda
decidir libremente su propio futuro, es imperativo que se
celebren elecciones libres bajo la supervisión y el control de

29 Conséquences juridiques pour les Etats de la présence continue
de VAjrique du Sud en Namibie (Sud-Ouest africain) nonobstant la
résolution 276 (1970) du Conseil de sécurité, avis consultatif, CJ.
Recueil 1971, pág. 16.

las Naciones Unidas en toda Namibia, considerada como
una sola entidad política;

8. Declara además que, al determinar la fecha, el
calendario y las modalidades de las elecciones de conformidad con el párrafo 7 supra, se deberá prever un plazo
suficiente, cuya extensión fijará el Consejo de Seguridad,
para que las Naciones Unidas puedan establecer dentro de
Namibia los mecanismos necesarios para supervisar y
controlar las elecciones, así como para permitir que el
pueblo de Namibia se organice políticamente para esas
elecciones;

9. Exige que Sudáfrica formule urgentemente una declaración solemne en la que acepte las disposiciones que
anteceden para la celebración de elecciones libres en
Namibia bajo la supervisión y el control de las Naciones
Unidas, se comprometa a acatar las resoluciones y decisiones de las Naciones Unidas y la opinión consultiva de la
Corte International de Justicia de 21 de junio de 1971
relativa a Namibia y reconozca la integridad territorial y la
unidad de Namibia como nación;

10. Reitera su exigencia de que Sudáfrica adopte las
medidas necesarias para llevar a efecto, de conformidad con
las resoluciones 264 (1969), 269 (1969) y 366 (1974) del
Consejo de Seguridad, el retiro de la administración ilegal
que mantiene en Namibia y para traspasar el poder al
pueblo de Namibia con la asistencia de las Naciones Unidas;

11. Exige una vez más que Sudáfrica, hasta tanto se
concrete el traspaso del poder previsto en el párrafo
10 supra:

a) Cumpla plenamente, en el espíritu y en la práctica, las
disposiciones de la Declaración Universal de Derechos
Humanos;

b) Ponga en libertad a todos los presos políticos namibianos, incluidos todos los que están detenidos o encarcelados en relación con infracciones a las denominadas leyes
de seguridad interna, ya sea que dichos namibianos hayan
sido acusados o juzgados o bien estén encarcelados sin
acusación, tanto en Namibia como en Sudáfrica;

c) Derogue la aplicación en Namibia de todas las leyes y
prácticas racialmente discriminatorias y políticamente represivas, particularmente los bantustanes y los territorios
patrios;

d) Conceda incondicionalmente a todos los namibianos
que estén en la actualidad en el exilio por razones políticas
plenas facilidades para regresar a su país sin riesgo de ser
arrestados, detenidos, intimidados o encarcelados;

12. Decide seguir ocupándose del asunto y reunirse el 31
de agosto de 1976, o antes de esa fecha, para determinar si
Sudáfrica ha cumplido las disposiciones de la presente
resolución y, en caso de que no lo haya hecho, para estudiar
las medidas apropiadas que haya que tomar con arreglo a la
Carta de las Naciones Unidas.

Aprobada por unanimidad en
la 1885a. sesión.

Decisiones

En su 1954a. sesión, celebrada el 31 de agosto de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar al representante de Madagascar a

Texte français (official French version): La situation en Namibie? s

Décisions

À sa 1880€ séance, le 27 janvier 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d'inviter les représentants de l’Algérie, de l’Egypte, de la
Guinée, de l’Indonésie, de la Jamaïque, de Maurice, du
Nigéria et de la Yougoslavie à participer, sans droit de vote,
à la discussion de la question intitulée ‘“La situation en
Namibie : lettre, en date du 16 décembre 1975, adressée au
Président du Conseil de sécurité par le Secrétaire général
(S/119182 6)”,

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, en vertu
de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire, d’adresser
une invitation à une délégation du Conseil des Nations
Unies pour la Namibie composée du Président de cet organe
et des représentants de la Finlande, de l’Indonésie, de la
Pologne et du Mexique.

A la même séance, le Conseil a en outre décidé, sur la
demande des représentants du Bénin, de la République
arabe libyenne et de la République-Unie de Tanzanie?7,
d’adresser une invitation à M. Moses M. Garoeb en vertu de
l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire.

À sa 1881€ séance, le 27 janvier 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de l’Afrique du Sud, du Libéria et
de la Mauritanie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé
d’adresser une invitation au Rapporteur du Comité spécial
contre l’apartheid en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement
intérieur provisoire.

À sa 1882€ séance, le 28 janvier 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d'inviter les représentants de l’Arabie Saoudite, de Cuba, de
l’Inde, de la Jordanie, du Mali et de la Pologne à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

À sa 1883€ séance, le 29 janvier 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants du Bangladesh, du Burundi, du
Kenya, du Koweït et de la Tunisie à participer, sans droit
de vote, à la discussion de la question.

25 Question ayant fait l’objet de résolutions ou décisions de la
part du Conseil en 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 et
1975.

26 Miméographié. Pour le texte de la résolution transmise dans la
lettre, voir Documents officiels de l’Assemblée générale, trentième
session, Supplément n° 34, résolution 3399 (XXX).

27 Documents officiels du Conseil de sécurité, trente et unième
année, Supplément de janvier, février et mars 1976, document
S/11943.

Résolution 385 (1976)
du 30 janvier 1976

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Ayant entendu la déclaration du Président du Conseil des
Nations Unies pour la Namibie?8,

Ayant examiné la déclaration de M. Moses M. Garoeb,
secrétaire administratif de la South West Africa People's
Organization?8,

Rappelant la résolution 2145 (XXI) de l’Assemblée
générale, en date du 27 octobre 1966, par laquelle le
Mandat de l’Afrique du Sud sur le Territoire de la Namibie
a été terminé, et la résolution 2248 (S-V) du 19 mai 1967,
par laquelle un Conseil des Nations Unies pour la Namibie a
été créé, ainsi que toutes les résolutions ultérieures de
l’Assemblée générale sur la Namibie, en particulier la
résolution 3295 (XXIX) du 13 décembre 1974 et la
résolution 3399 (XXX) du 26 novembre 1975,

Rappelant ses résolutions 245 (1968) du 25 janvier et 246
(1968) du 14 mars 1968, 264 (1969) du 20 mars et 269
(1969) du 12 août 1969, 276 (1970) du 30 janvier, 282
(1970) du 23 juillet, 283 (1970) et 284 (1970) du 29 juillet
1970, 300 (1971) du 12 octobre et 301 (1971) du 20
octobre 1971, 310 (1972) du 4 février 1972 et 366 (1974)
du 17 décembre 1974,

Rappelant l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de
Justice, en date du 21 juin 197129, selon lequel l’Afrique
du Sud a l’obligation de retirer son administration du
Territoire,

Réaffirmant la responsabilité juridique de l’Organisation
des Nations Unies à l’égard de la Namibie,

Préoccupé par l’occupation illégale continue de la
Namibie par l’Afrique du Sud et par le refus persistant de
l’Afrique du Sud de se conformer aux résolutions et
décisions de l’Assemblée générale et du Conseil de sécurité,
ainsi qu’à l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de
Justice,

Gravement préoccupé par la répression brutale et la
violation persistante des droits de l’homme du peuple
namibien par l’Afrique du-Sud et par les efforts qu’elle fait
pour détruire l’unité nationale et l’intégrité territoriale de la
Namibie, ainsi que par le renforcement agressif de son
appareil militaire dans la région,

Déplorant vivement la militarisation de la Namibie par le
régime d’occupation illégal de l’Afrique du Sud,

1. Condamne l'occupation illégale continue du Territoire
de la Namibie par l’Afrique du Sud;

2. Condamne \’application illégale et arbitraire par
lAfrique du Sud de lois et pratiques répressives et
entachées de discrimination raciale en Namibie;

3. Condamne le renforcement de l’appareil militaire
sud-africain en Namibie et toute utilisation du Territoire
comme base d'attaques contre des pays voisins;

4. Exige que l’Afrique du Sud mette immédiatement fin
à sa politique de bantoustans et de prétendus foyers

28 fbid., trente et unième année, 1880° séance.

29 Conséquences juridiques pour les Etats de la présence continue
de l'Afrique du Sud en Namibie (Sud-Ouest africain) nonobstant la
résolution 276 (1970) du Conseil de sécurité, avis consultatif, C.IJ.
Recueil 1971, p. 16.
nationaux, qui a pour objet de violer l’unité nationale et
l’intégrité territoriale de la Namibie;

5. Condamne en outre la non-observation par l’Afrique
du Sud des dispositions de la résolution 366 (1974) du
Conseil de sécurité;

6. Condamne en outre toutes les tentatives faites par
l’Afrique du Sud pour se soustraire à la demande clairement
exprimée par l’Organisation des Nations Unies d’organiser
des élections libres sous la supervision et le contrôle de
l’Organisation en Namibie;

7. Déclare que, pour permettre au peuple de Namibie de
déterminer librement son propre avenir, il est impératif que
des élections libres sous la supervision et le contrôle de
l’Organisation des Nations Unies soient organisées pour
toute la Namibie considérée comme une seule entité
politique;

8. Déclare en outre que, pour déterminer la date, le
calendrier et les modalités des élections conformément au
paragraphe 7 ci-dessus, il sera ménagé un délai suffisant, à
fixer par le Conseil de sécurité, aux fins de permettre à
l’Organisation des Nations Unies d’établir le dispositif
nécessaire à l’intérieur de la Namibie pour superviser et
contrôler ces élections ainsi que de permettre au peuple de
Namibie de s’organiser politiquement en vue de ces
élections:

9. Exige que l’Afrique du Sud fasse d’urgence une
déclaration solennelle marquant qu’elle accepte les dispositions qui précèdent concernant l’organisation d’élections
libres en Namibie sous la supervision et le contrôle de
l’Organisation des Nations Unies, qu’elle s’engage à se
conformer aux résolutions et décisions de l’Organisation des
Nations Unies et à l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice en date du 21 juin 1971 concernant la
Namibie et qu’elle reconnaît l’intégrité territoriale et l’unité
de la Namibie en tant que nation;

10. Réitère sa demande que l’Afrique du Sud prenne les
mesures nécessaires pour opérer, conformément aux résofutions 264 (1969), 269 (1969) et 366 (1974) du Conseil
de sécurité, le retrait de l’administration illégale qu’elle
maintient en Namibie et pour transférer le pouvoir au
peuple de Namibie avec l’assistance de l’Organisation des
Nations Unies;

11. Exige de nouveau que l’Afrique du Sud, en attendant le transfert de pouvoir prévu au paragraphe 10
ci-dessus :

a) Se conforme entièrement, dans ses intentions et dans
la pratique, aux dispositions de la Déclaration universelle
des droits de l’homme;

b) Libère tous les prisonniers politiques namibiens, y
compris tous ceux qui sont emprisonnés ou détenus au
motif d’infractions aux prétendues lois sur la sécurité
intérieure, que ces Namibiens aient été inculpés ou jugés ou
soient détenus sans inculpation et qu’ils soient détenus en
Namibie ou en Afrique du Sud;

c) Abolisse l’application en Namibie de toutes les lois et
pratiques entachées de discrimination raciale et politiquement répressives, en particulier les bantoustans et les foyers
nationaux;

d) Accorde inconditionnellement à tous les Namibiens
actuellement en exil pour des raisons politiques toutes les
facilités pour rentrer dans leur pays sans risque d’arrestation, de détention, d’intimidation ou d’emprisonnement;

12. Décide de demeurer saisi de la question et de se
réunir le 31 août 1976 au plus tard afin d’examiner

l’observation par l’Afrique du Sud des dispositions de la
présente résolution et, en cas de non-observation par
l’Afrique du Sud, d’envisager les mesures appropriées à
prendre en vertu de la Charte des Nations Unies.
Adoptée à l'unanimité à la
1885€ séance.

Décisions

A sa 1954 séance, le 31 août 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter le représentant de Madagascar à participer, sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question intitulée “La
situation en Namibie”.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, en vertu
de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire, d’adresser
une invitation à une délégation du Conseil des Nations
Unies pour la Namibie ayant à sa tête le Président par
intérim de cet organe.

A sa 19562 séance, le 28 septembre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants du Kenya, du Malawi, du
Maroc et de Maurice à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, sur la
demande des représentants du Bénin, de la République
arabe libyenne et de la République-Unie de Tanzanie>°,
d’adresser une invitation à M. Sam Nujoma en vertu de
l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire.

À sa 1957€ séance, le 30 septembre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants de l’Algérie, de l’Arabie
Saoudite, de Cuba, de l’Egypte, du Ghana, de la Guinée, du
Kampuchea démocratique, du Mozambique, du Nigéria, de
la Sierra Leone, du Yémen et de la Yougoslavie à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

A sa 1958 séance, le 12' octobre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter le représentant de la Zambie à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

A sa 1959 séance, le S octobre 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d'inviter les représentants de l’Ethiopie, du Niger et de la

30 Documents officiels du Conseil de sécurité, trente et unième
année, Supplément de juillet, août et septembre 1976, document
s/12205.
Somalie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la
question.

À sa 19602 séance, le 7 octobre 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants du Burundi, de la Pologne et de
Sri Lanka à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de
la question.

A sa 1961© séance, le 13 octobre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants du Bangladesh, du

Botswana, du Libéria et de la République démocratique
allemande à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de
la question.

À sa 1963 séance, le 19 octobre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé, sur la demande des représentants du Bénin, de la
République arabe libyenne et de la République-Unie de
Tanzanie3!, d’adresser une invitation à M. Theo-Ben
Gurirab en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur
provisoire.

31 Ibid, Supplément d'octobre, novembre et décembre 1976,
document S/12216.

Plainte du Kenya, au nom du Groupe des Etats d'Afrique à l'Organisation des Nations Unies, concernant
l’acte d'agression perpétré par l’Afrique du Sud contre la République populaire d’Angola

Décisions

A sa 1900 séance, le 26 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé,
conformément à l’Article 32 de la Charte, d’inviter le
représentant de la République populaire d’Angola à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question
intitulée “Plainte du Kenya, au nom du Groupe des Etats
d’Afrique à l’Organisation des Nations Unies, concernant
l’acte d’agression perpétré par l’Afrique du Sud contre la
République populaire d’Angola : lettre, en date du 10 mars
1976, adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité par le
représentant permanent du Kenya auprès de l’Organisation
des Nations Unies (S/1200732)”.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé d’inviter
les représentants de Cuba, de l’Egypte, de la Guinée, du
Kenya, de Madagascar, du Nigéria, de la Sierra Leone, de la
Somalie, de la Yougoslavie et de la Zambie à participer, sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

A sa 1901€ séance, le 29 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de la Pologne et de la République
démocratique allemande à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À sa 1902€ séance, le 29 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d'inviter les représentants de l’Inde et de la République-Unie du Cameroun à participer, sans droit de vote, à
la discussion de la question.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, en vertu
de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire, d’adresser
une invitation à une délégation du Conseil des Nations
Unies pour la Namibie composée du Président et de quatre
membres de cet organe.

32 Ibid, Supplèment de janvier, février et mars 1976.

A sa 1903€ séance, le 30 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants du Mali, de l’Ouganda et de la
République arabe syrienne à participer, sans droit de vote, à
la discussion de la question.

À sa 1904€ séance, le 30 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de l’Afrique du Sud, de l’Arabie
Saoudite et du Congo à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À sa 1905© séance, le 31 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de la Bulgarie, de la Guinée-Bissau et du Portugal à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À sa 19062 séance, le 31 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter le représentant du Mozambique à participer, sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

Résolution 387 (1976)
du 31 mars 1976

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Ayant examiné la lettre adressée par le représentant
permanent du Kenya au nom du Groupe des Etats
d’Afrique à l’Organisation des Nations Unies33,

Ayant entendu la déclaration du représentant de la
République populaire d’Angola34,

Rappelant le principe selon lequel aucun Etat ou groupe
d’Etats n’a le droit d’intervenir, directement ou indirectement, pour quelque raison que ce soit, dans les affaires
intérieures ou extérieures de tout autre Etat,

33 Ibid., document S/12007.
34 Ibid, trente et unième année, 1900Ë séance.

Русский текст (official Russian version): ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ В НАМИБИИ 5

Решения

На 1880-м заседании 27 января 1976 года Со-
вет псстановил пригласить представителей Лл-
жира, Гвинеи, Египта, Индонезии, Маврикия, Ни-
герии, Югославии и Ямайки принять участие без
права голоса в обсуждении вопроса, озаглавлен-
ного «Положение в Намибии: письмо Генераль-
ного секретаря от 16 декабря 1975 года на имя
Председателя Совета Безопасности (5/11918) »?5.

На том же заседании Совет постановил также
пригласить на основании правила 39 временных
правил процедуры делегацию Совета Организа-
ции Объединенных Наций по Намибии в составе
Председателя этого органа и представителей
Финляндии, Индонезии, Польши и Мексики.

На том же заседании Совет далее постановил
по просьбе представителей Бенина, Ливийской
Арабской Республики и Объединенной Респуб-
лики Танзания 27 пригласить г-на Мозеса М. Га-
руба на основании правила 39 временных правил
процедуры.

На 1881-м заседании 27 января 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Либе-
рии, Мавритании и Южной Африки принять уча-
стие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права го-
лоса.

На том же заседании Совет также постановил
пригласить в соответствии с правилом 39 времен-
ных правил процедуры Докладчика Специально-
го комитета против апартеида.

На 1882-м заседании 28 января 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Ин-
дии, Иордании, Кубы, Мали, Польши и Саудов-
ской Аравии принять участие в обсуждении это-
го вопроса без права голоса.

На 1883-м заседании 29 января 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Бан-
гладеш, Бурунди, ‚Кении, Кувейта и Туниса при-
нять участие в обсуждении этого вопроса без
права голоса.

Резолюция 385 (1976)
от 30 января 1976 года

Совет Безопасности,

заслушав заявление Председателя Совета Ор-
ганизации Объединенных Наций по Намибии *$,

— в .

* Резолюции или;решения по этому вопросу были так-
же приняты Советом в 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1974 и 1975 годах.

® Отпечатан на мимеографе. Текст резолюции, препро-
вождаемой в письме, см. Официальные отчеты Генеральной
Ассамблеи, тридцатая сессия, Дополнение № 834, резолю-
ция 3399 (ХХХ).

*# Официальные отчеты Совета Безопасности, тридцать
первый год, Дополнение за январь, февраль и март 1976
года, документ $/11943.

2% Там же, тридцать первый год, 1880-е заседание.

рассмотрев заявление г-на Мозеса М. Гаруба,
Административного секретаря Народной органи-
зации Юго-Западной Африки 28,

напоминая о резолюции 2145 (ХХ!) Генераль-
ной Ассамблеи от 27 октября 1966 года, которая
прекратила мандат Южной Африки на террито-
рию Намибия, и о резолюции 2248 (5-У) от
19 мая 1967 года, учредившей Совет Организа-
ции Объединенных Наций по Намибии, а также
о всех других последующих резолюциях по На-
мибии, в частности о резолюции 3295 (ХХХ) от
13 декабря 1974 года и резолюции 3399 (ХХХ)
от 26 ноября 1975 года,

напоминая о своих резолюциях 245 (1968) от
25 января и 246 (1968) от 14 марта 1968 года,
264 (1969) от 20 марта и 269 (1969) от 12 авгу-
ста 1969 года, 276 (1970) от 30 января, 282
(1970) от 23 июля, 283 (1970) и 284 (1970) от
29 июля 1970 года, 300 (1971) от 12 октября и
301 (1971) от 20 октября 1971 года, 310 (1972)
от 4 февраля 1972 года и 366 (1974) от 17 декаб-
ря 1974 года,

напоминая о  консультативном заключении
Международного Суда от 21 июня 1971 года 29
о том, что Южная Африка обязана прекратить
свое присутствие в этой территории,

подтверждая правовую ответственность Орга-
низации Объединенных Наций за Намибию,

будучи озабочен продолжающейся незаконной
оккупацией Намибии Южной Африкой и ее упор-
ным отказом выполнять резолюции и решения
Генеральной Ассамблеи и Совета Безопасности,
а также консультативное заключение Междуна-
родного Суда,

будучи серьезно озабочен жестоким подавлени-
ем намибийского народа Южной Африкой и ее
упорным нарушением прав человека, а также
предпринимаемыми ею попытками — уничтожить
национальное единство и территориальную цело-
стность Намибии и агрессивным наращиванием
ею военного потенциала в этом районе,

глубоко сожалея по поводу милитаризации На-
мибии незаконным — оккупационным режимом
Южной Африки,

1. осуждает продолжающуюся незаконную ок-
купацию территории Намибия Южной Африкой;

2. осуждаёт незаконное и произвольное при-
менение Южной Африкой расистски  дискрими-
национных и репрессивных законов и практики
в Намибии;

® Гера! Сопзедиепсев Гог 51а1е5 о] {пе Сопйпией Ргевепсе
о Зошй Аеса (п Мата (Зошй №е5Е  Агса) Мойшйй-
$’апйте  Зесигйу  Соипсй гезойиНоп 276 (1970), Адибзогу
Оргтоп, 1. С. 1. Керог1в 1971, р. 16
3. осуждает наращивание Южной Африкой во-
енного потенциала в Намибии и любое использо-
вание этой территории в качестве базы для на-
падений на соседние страны;

4. требует, чтобы Южная Африка немедленно
положила конец своей политике бантустанов и
так называемых хоумлендов, направленной на
подрыв национального единства и территориаль-
ной целостности Намибии;

5. осуждает далее отказ Южной Африки вы-
полнять положения резолюции 366 (1974) Совета
Безопасности;

6. осуждает далее все попытки Южной Афри-
ки, рассчитанные на то, чтобы уклониться от вы-
полнения четкого требования Организации Объ-
единенных Наций о проведении в Намибии сво-
бодных выборов под наблюдением и контролем
Организации Объединенных Наций;

7. заявляет, что, для того чтобы дать возмож-
ность народу Намибии свободно определить свое
собственное будущее, необходимо, чтобы во всей
Намибии, как одной политической единице, были
проведены свободные выборы под наблюдением
и контролем Организации Объединенных Наций;

8. заявляет далее, что при определении даты,
расписания и условий проведения этих выборов
в соответствии с пунктом 7, выше, следует выде-
лить достаточное количество времени, решение
о чем должен принять Совет Безопасности, с тем
чтобы дать возможность Организации Объеди-
ненных Наций учредить внутри Намибии необхо-
димый аппарат для наблюдения и контроля за
указанными выборами, а также позволить наро-
ду Намибии создать политические организации
для проведения таких выборов;

9. требует, чтобы Южная Африка безотлага-
тельно выступила с торжественным заявлением
о том, что она согласна с вышеупомянутыми ус-
ловиями проведения свободных выборов в Нами-
бии под наблюдением и контролем Организации
Объединенных Наций, обязуется выполнять резо-
люции и решения Организации Объединенных
Наций и консультативное заключение Междуна-
родного Суда от 21 июня 1971 года в отношении

амибии и признает территориальную целост-
ность и единство Намибии как страны;

10. подтверждает свое требование о том, чтобы
Южная Африка приняла необходимые меры для
осуществления вывода в соответствии с резолю-
циями 264 (1969), 269 (1969) и 366 (1974) Со-
вета Безопасности своей незаконной администра-
ции, содержащейся в Намибии, и для передачи
власти народу Намибии с помбщью Организа-
ци Объединенных Наций;

11. вновь требует, чтобы Южная Африка до
передачи власти, предусмотренной в пункте 10,
выше:

а) полностью соблюдала по духу и на практи-
ке положения Всеобщей декларации прав чело-
века;

Ь) освободила всех намибийских политических
заключенных, включая тех, которые находятся
в тюрьмах или под арестом в связи с наруше-
ниями так называемых законов внутренней безо-
пасности, независимо от того, предъявлено ли
таким намибийцам обвинение, состоялся ли над
ними суд или они содержатся в заключении без
предъявления обвинения, и независимо от Того,
содержатся ли они в Намибии или в Южной
Африке;

с) отменила применение в Намибии всех раси-
стски дискриминационных и политически репрес-
сивных законов и практики, в особенности прак-
тики бантустанов и хоумлендов;

@) предоставила без всяких условий всем на-
мибийцам, находящимся в настоящее время в из-
гнании по политическим причинам, все возмож-
ности для возвращения в свою страну без риска
ареста, задержания, запугивания или тюремного
заключения;

12. постановляет продолжать заниматься этим
вопросом и собраться 31 августа 1976 года или
ранее, с тем чтобы рассмотреть вопрос о ВЫПОЛ-
нении Южной Африкой положений настоящей ре-
золюции и, в случае невыполнения их Южной
Африкой, для рассмотрения надлежащих мер,
которые должны быть приняты в соответствии
с Уставом Организации Объединенных Наций.

Принята единогласно на 1885-м
заседании.

Решения

На 1954-м заседании 31 августа 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителя Мада-

гаскара принять участие без права голоса в об-

суждении вопроса, озаглавленного «Положение

в Намибии».

На том же заседании Совет также постановил
пригласить в соответствии с правилом 39 времен-
ных правил процедуры делегацию Совета Орга-
низации Объединенных Наций по Намибии во
главе с исполняющим обязанности Председателя
этого органа.

На 1956-м заседании 28 сентября 1976. года
Совет постановил пригласить представителей Ке-
нии, Малави, Маврикия и Марокко принять уча-
стие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права
голоса. `

На том же заседании Совет также постановил
по просьбе представителей Бенина, Ливийской
Арабской Республики и Объединенной Республи-
ки Танзания %° насолаить приглашение г-ну Сэму
Нуйома на оснозаняля правила 39 временных пра-
вил процедуры.

На 1957-м заседании 30 сентября 1976 года
Совет постановнл пригласить — представителей

® Официальные отчеты Совета Безопасности, тридцать
первый год, Дополнение за июль. август и сентябрь 1976
года, документ $/12205.

中文文本 (official Chinese version): 严格 履行 经 济 制裁 ， 而 决定 立即 同 南 罗 得 西亚 断绝 一
切 贸易 和 交通 的 联系 ，

认为 这 项 决定 构成 根据 联合 国 完 章 的 原则 和 守
旨 ， 在 南 罗 得 西亚 实现 联合 国 目标 的 重大 贡献 ，

承认 莫桑比克 政府 的 行动 是 符合 第 253 (1968) 号
决议 的 ，

铭记 关联 合 国 宪章 第 四 十 九 和 第 五 十 条 的 规定 ，

1. 赞扬 莫桑比克 政府 同 南 罗 得 西亚 断绝 一 切 经
济 和 贸易 关系 的 决定 ;

2. 误 责 南 罗 得 西亚 非法 少数 政权 对 莫桑比克 人
民 共 和 国 的 一 切 挑 峡 和 侵略 行为 , 包括 军事 侵犯 在 内 ;

4.， 呼吁 所 有 国家 立刻 向 莫桑比克 提供 财政 、 技
术 和 物质 援助 ， 使 莫桑比克 能 够 正常 地 执行 它 的 经 济
发 展 方案 和 加 强 它 充分 执行 制裁 制度 的 能 力 ;

5. 请 联合 国 和 各 有 关 组织 和 方案 ， 特 别 是 经 济
及 社会 理事 会 、 联 合 国 开发 计划 署 .世界 粮食 计划 署 ，
世界 银行 .国际 货币 基金 组 织 和 所 有 联合 国 专门 机 构 ，
援助 莫桑比克 目前 的 经 济 状况 ， 并 定期 审议 依照 本 决
议 的 规定 向 莫桑比克 提供 经 济 援助 的 问题 ;

6. 请 秘书 长 协同 联合 国 系统 内 的 负责 机 构 ， 立
即 作 出 安排 向 莫桑比克 提供 一 切 形式 的 财政 、 技 术 和
物质 援助 ， 使 它 克 服 由 于 对 南 罗 得 西亚 种 族 主 义 政权

3 注意 到 莫桑比克 外 交 部 长 声明 中 所 表示 的 该 突 稳 经 济 讽 和 雇 7 生 的 经 济 图 素 。
国 在 执行 第 253 1968) 号 决议 时 所 引起 的 紧急 而 特殊 第 一 八 九 二 次 会 议 一 致 通
的 经 济 需要 过 。
纳米 比 亚 局 势 @

决 和 定

一 九 七 六 年 一 月 二 十 七 日 安理会 第 一 八 八 口 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 阿尔 及 利 亚 、 埃 及 、 几 内 亚 . 印度尼西亚 、
牙买加 、 毛 里 求 斯 、 尼 日 利 亚 和 南斯拉夫 代表 参加 讨
论 下 列 项 目 ， 但 无 表决 权 : “纳米比亚 局 势 ， 一 九 七 五
年 十 二 月 十 六 日 秘书 长 给 安全 理事 会 主席 的 信 (S/
11918)”。 因

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第
士 九条 向 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 主席 及 芬兰 、 印 度 尼
西亚 、 波 兰 和 墨西哥 代表 组 成 的 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事
会 代表 团 发 出 邀请 。

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 经 贝 宁 、 阿 拉 伯 利比亚 共和 国
和 坦桑尼亚 联合 共和 国 代表 的 请 求 , @ 并 决定 按照 暂

国 一 九 六 八 生 、- 九 六 万 年 、 一 九 七 口 年 、 一 九 七 一 年、
一 九 七 二 年 ， 一 九 七 三 年 、 一 九 七 四 年 利 一 九 七 五 年， 安理会
也 曾 就 本 问题 通过 决议 或 决定 。

全 以 油印 本 印发 。 关 于 估 内 所 递送 的 决议 全 文 ， 见 《大 会
正式 记录 ， 第 三 士 届 会 议 ， 补 网 第 34 号 ?， 第 3399 (XXX) 刁
决议 。

@@《 安 全 理事 会 正式 记 波 ， 第 -二 一 年 , 一 妃 七 六 年 一 月 、
二 月 积 三 月 份 补 编 >》 3S711943 导 文 件 。

行 议事 规则 第 三 十 九条 ， 向 摩西 加 罗布 先生 发 出 邀
请 。

一 九 七 六 年 一 月 二 十 七 日 安理会 第 一 八 八 一 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 利比里亚 、 毛 里 塔 尼 亚 和 南非 代表 参加 讨
论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第 三
十 九条 , 向 反对 种 族 隔 离 特别 委员 会 报告 员 发 出 邀请 。

一 九 七 六 年 一 月 二 十 八 日 安理会 第 一 八 八 二 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 古巴 、 印 度 、 约 旦 、 马 里 、 波 兰 和 沙特 阿
拉 伯 代 表 人 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 一 月 二 十 九 日 安理会 第 一 八 八 三 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 重 加 拉 国 、 布 隆 迪 、 肯 尼 亚 、 科 威 特 和 突
尼斯 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 一 月 三 十 日
第 385(1976) 号 决议

安全 理事 会 ，
听取 了 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 主席 的 发 言 , @

甸 问 上 《第 十 一 年 》， 第 一 八 八 口 次 会 议 。
审议 了 西南 非洲 人 民 组 织 ( 西 南非 民 组 ) 行 政 书记
摩西 “加 罗布 先生 的 发 言 , @

回顾 大 会 一 九 六 六 年 十 月 二 十 七 日 关于 终止 南非
对 纳米 比 亚 领土 的 委任 统治 的 第 2145 (XXXD 号 决议 和
一 九 六 七 年 五 月 十 九 日 设立 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 的
第 2248(S-V) 号 决议 ,以 及 其 后 所 有 其 他 关于 纳米 比
亚 的 决议 ,特别 是 一 九 七 四 年 十 二 月 十 三 日 的 第 3295
CCXXIX) 号 决议 和 一 九 七 五 年 十 一 月 二 十 六 日 的 第
3399 (XXX) 号 决议 ，

回顾 安全 理事 会 一 九 六 八 年 一 月 二 十 五 日 第 245
(1968) 号 、 三 月 十 四 日 第 246 (1968) 号 、 一 九 六 九 年
三 月 二 十 日 第 264(1969) 号 . 八 月 十 二 日 第 269(1969)
号 、 一 九 七 〇 年 一 月 三 十 日 第 276(1970) 号 .七 月 二 十
三 日 第 282(1970) 号 .七 月 二 十 九 日 第 283(1970) 号 和
第 284(1970) 号 .一 九 七 一 年 十 月 十 二 日 第 300(1971)
号 、 十 月 二 十 日 第 301(1971) 号 .一 九 七 二 年 二 月 四 日
第 310(1972) 号 以 及 一 九 七 四 年 十 二 月 十 七 日 第 366
(1974) 号 等 决议 ，

回顾 一 九 七 一 年 六 月 二 十 一 日 国际 法 院 的 咨询 意
网 @@ 认为 南非 有 义务 从 该 领土 撤 走 ，

重申 联合 国 对 纳米 比 亚 所 负 的 法 律 责任 ，

对 南非 继续 非法 占领 纳米 比 亚 和 坚持 拒绝 遵行 大
会 和 安全 理事 会 的 各 项 决议 和 诀 定 以 及 一 九 七 一 年 六
月 二 十 一 日 国际 法 院 的 咨询 意见 ， 表 示 关 切 ，

对 南非 残酷 地 镇 压 纳米 比 亚 人 民 和 持续 侵害 他 们
的 人 权 ， 以 及 南非 破坏 纳米 比 亚 的 民族 团结 与 领土 完
整 的 行径 及 在 该 区 域 增强 侵略 性 的 军事 力量 ， 表 示 严
重 关 切 ，

痛惜 从 事 非 法 占领 的 南非 政权 将 纳米 比 亚 予 以 军
事 化 ，

1. 谴责 南非 继续 非法 占领 纳米 比 亚 领 士 ;
2. 谴责 南非 在 纳米 比 亚 专横 非法 地 实施 种 族 歧

视 性 和 镇 压 性 的 法 律 和 乌 例 ;
全 《南非 不 顾 安 全 理事 会 第 276 (1970) 到 决议 继续 贸 驻 纳
米 比 亚 ( 西 南非 ) 对 于 各 国 的 法 律 后 末 ， 上 国际 法 陀 ， 咨 询 辣 见 ，

一 九 七 一 年 的 报告 》， 第 16 页 。

3. 谴责 南非 在 纳米 比 亚 增强 军事 力量 及 利用 该
领土 作为 攻击 邻 国 基地 的 任何 行动 ;

4. 要 求 南非 立即 终止 其 目的 在 于 破坏 纳米 比 亚
的 民族 团结 和 领土 完整 的 班 图 斯 坦 及 所 谓 的 本 土 政
策 ;

5,， 进一步 遗 责 南 非 没 有 遵行 安全 理事 会 第 366
《1974) 号 决议 的 规定 ;

6. 进一步 唱 责 南非 骨 在 规避 联合 国 关于 在 联合
国 的 监督 和 控制 之 下 在 纳米 比 亚 举行 自由 选举 的 明确
要 求 的 一 切 企 图 ;

7.， 宣布 在 联合 国 的 监督 和 控制 之 下 的 自由 选举
必须 在 把 整个 纳米 比 亚 当 作 一 个 政治 实体 的 情况 下 来
举行 ， 以 便 使 纳米 比 亚 人 民 可 以 自由 地 决定 他 们 上 自己
的 前 途 ;

8. 又 宣布 在 按照 上 文 第 7 段 决定 选举 的 日 期 、
时 间 表 和 方式 时 ， 应 由 安全 理事 会 规定 充分 时 间 ， 使
联合 国 可 以 在 纳米 比 亚 设 立 必 要 的 体制 以 监督 和 控制
这 种 选举 以 及 使 纳米 比 亚 人 民 可 以 为 了 举行 这 种 选举
而 在 政治 上 组 织 起 来 ;

9.， 要 求 南 非 立 即 庄 严 声 明 接受 上 述 关 于 在 联合
国 的 监督 和 控制 之 下 在 纳米 比 亚 举行 自由 选举 的 规
定 ， 并 承诺 遵行 有 关 纳 米 比 亚 的 联合 国 各 项 决 和 诀
定 和 一 九 七 一 年 六 月 二 十 一 日 国际 法 院 的 咨询 意见 ，
以 及 承认 纳米 比 亚 作 为 一 个 民族 的 领土 完整 和 统一 ;

]0. 重新 要 求 南 非 采 取 必 要 步骤 , 按照 安全 理事
会 第 264(1969) 号 、 第 269(1969) 号 和 第 366 〈1974)
号 决议 的 规定 ， 实 行 撤 退 它 在 纳米 比 亚 所 维持 的 非法
行政 机 构 ， 并 在 联合 国 的 协助 下 将 权力 移交 给 纳米 比
业 人 民 ;

11. 并 要 求 南非 在 按照 上 段 规定 移交 权力 之 前 :

Ca) 在 精神 上 和 实践 上 完全 遵守 《世界 人 权 实
言 》 的 规定 ;

(b》 释放 所 有 纳米 比 亚 政治 犯 ， 包 括 一 印 因 违
犯 所 谓 国内 安全 法 而 被 监禁 或 拘留 的 那些 人 人， 不论 这
些 纳米 比 亚 人 是 否 已 被 控诉 或 审判 或 未 经 控诉 而 被 拘
留 ， 也 不 论 他 们 被 拘留 在 纳米 比 亚 或 南非 ;
《ec) 废除 在 纳米 比 亚 实 施 的 一 切 种 族 此 视 性 和
政治 压迫 性 的 法 律 和 惯例 ， 特 别 是 班 图 斯 坦 和 本 土
法 ;

Cd) 无 条 件 给 予 所 有 目前 因 政 治 原 因 流 亡 在 外
的 纳米 比 亚 人 充分 的 便利 ， 以 返回 他 们 的 国家 ， 不 受
巡捕、 拘留、 威胁 或 监禁 的 危险 ;

12. 决定 继续 处 理 本 问题 , 并 于 一 九 七 六 年 八 月
三 十 一 旦 或 该 日 以 前 举行 会 议 ， 以 便 审 查 南 非 遵守 本
决议 各 项 规定 的 情况 ， 如 南非 不 遵守 本 决议 ， 则 考 虚

按照 4 宪章》 所 应 采取 的 适当 措施 。
第 一 八 八 五 次 会 议 一 致 通
过 口
决定

一 九 七 六 年 八 月 三 十 一 日 安理会 第 一 九 五 四 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 马达 加 斯 加 代表 参加 讨论 下 列 项 上 月， 但 无
表决 权 : “纳米 比 亚 局 势 "。

辐 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第 三
十 九条 ， 向 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 代理 主席 率领 的 联
合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 代表 团 发 出 邀请 。

一 九 七 六 年 九 月 二 十 八 日 安理会 第 一 九 五 六 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 肯尼亚 、 马 拉 维 、 毛 里 求 斯 和 摩洛哥 代表
参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

同 次 会 议 , 安理会 经 贝 宁 . 阿 拉 伯 利比亚 共和 国 和

坦桑尼亚 联合 共和 国 代表 的 请 求 ,@ 并 决定 按照 暂行
议事 规则 第 于 十 九条 , 向 萨 姓 ， 努 乔 马 先 生 发 出 邀请 。

一 九 七 六 年 九 月 三 十 日 安理会 第 一 九 五 七 次 会 议
决定 邀请 阿尔 及 利 亚 、 古 巴 、 民 主 柬埔寨 、 埃 及 、 加
纳 、 几 内 亚 、 莫 桑 比 克 、 尼 日 利 亚 、 塞 拉 利 品 、 沙 特
阿拉 伯 、 也 门 和 南斯拉夫 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无
表决 权 。

一 妃 七 六 年 十 月 一 且 安 理会 第 一 九 五 八 次 会 议决
定 邀 请 赞 比 亚 代 表 参 加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 十 月 五 日 安理会 第 一 九 五 九 次 会 议决
定 邀 请 埃塞俄比亚 、 尼 日 尔 和 索马里 代表 参加 讨论 本
问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 十 月 七 日 安理会 第 一 九 六 〇 次 会 议决
定 邀 请 布 隆 迪 、 波 兰 和 斯 里 兰 卡 代 表 参 加 讨论 本 问
题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 十 月 十 三 日 安理会 第 一 九 六 一 次 会 议
决定 邀请 和 加 拉 国 、 博 欧 瓦 纳 、 德 意志 民主 共和 国 和
利比里亚 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 十 月 十 九 日 安理会 第 一 九 六 三 次 会 议
经 贝 宁 、 阿 拉 伯 利 比 亚 共 和 国 和 坦桑尼亚 联合 共和 国
代表 的 请 求 , 旦 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第 三 十 九条
向 西 奥 。 本 “' 古里 拉 布 先生 发 出 邀请 。

全 《安全 理事 会 正式 记 昌 ， 第 一 一世 芋 六 年 上 月 、
八 月 和 上 月 份 补 编 》S712205 区 文件 。
国 呈 上 《一 交 芋 人 年 上 用、 十 有 和 证 过 月 份 补 编 》3，S7

12216 信 文 作 。

背 尼 亚 以 联合 国 非洲 国家 集团 的 名 义 控 诉 南非 侵略 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国

妆 宇 六

决

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 二 十 六 日 安理会 第 一 九 O 〇 O 次 会
议决 定 按照 《 宪 章 ? 第 三 十 二 条 的 规定 ， 邀 请 安哥拉 人
民 共 和 国 代 表 参 加 讨论 下 列 项 目 ， 但 无 表决 权 :“ 肯 尼
亚 以 联合 国 非洲 国家 集团 的 名 义 控 诉 南 非 侵 略 安哥拉
人 民 共 和 国 ; 一 九 七 六 年 三 月 十 日 肯尼亚 常 驻 联合 国
代表 给 安全 理事 会 主席 的 信 《〈S/12007)”。 久

仿 川 上 ，

《一 也 七 六 年 月、 月 和 二 月 份 补 网 》。

1]10

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 邀请 古巴 、 埃 及 、 几 内
亚 、 肯 尼 王 、 马 达 加 斯 加 、 尼 日 利 亚 、 塞 拉 利 郧 、 索
马里 、 南 斯 拉夫 和 赞比亚 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无
表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 二 十 九 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 一 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 德意志 民主 共和 国 和 波兰 代表 参加 讨论 本
问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 二 十 九 晶 安理会 第 一 九 〇 二 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 印度 和 喀麦隆 联合 共和 国 代表 参加 讨论 本
问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第 三
十 九条 ， 向 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 主席 及 其 成 员 四 人
组 成 的 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 代表 团 发 出 邀请 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 三 次 会 议
决定 邀请 马里 、 阿 拉 伯 叙利亚 共和 国 和 乌干达 代表 参
加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 四 次 会 议
决定 邀请 刚果 、 沙 特 阿 拉 伯 和 南非 代表 参加 讨论 本 问
题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 一 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 五 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 保加利亚 、 几 内 亚 比 绍 和 葡 葡 牙 代 表 参 加
讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 一 且 安 理会 第 一 九 O 〇 六 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 莫桑比克 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决
权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 一 日
第 387(1976) 号 决议

安全 理事 会 ，

审议 了 肯尼亚 常 驻 代表 以 联合 国内 非洲 国家 集团
的 名 义 的 来 信 , 蚁

听取 了 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 代 表 的 发 言 ,@@

回顾 任何 国家 或 国家 集团 ， 无 论 为 何 原因 ， 都 无

权 直 接 或 间接 于 涉 任何 其 他 国家 的 内 政 或 外 交 的 原
则 ，

又 回顾 每 一 国家 都 有 行使 主权 ， 向 任何 其 他 国家
或 国家 集团 要 求援 助 的 固有 合法 权利 ，

鲜 问 上 上 ，S/12007 号 文件 。
昌 辣 上， 《第 三 十 一 年 2， 第 一作 @O 次 会 议 。

铭记 着 联合 国 各 会 员 国 在 其 国际 关系 上 不 得 为 侵
害 任 何 国家 领土 完整 或 政治 独立 的 目的 ， 或 以 与 联合
国 宗 旨 不 符 的 任何 其 他 方法 ， 以 武力 威胁 或 使 用 起
力 ，

严重 关切 南非 对 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 所 进行 的 侵略
行为 以 及 对 其 主权 和 领土 完整 的 破坏 ，

谴责 南非 利用 纳米 比 亚 这 个 国际 领土 发 动 这 次 侵
略 ，

并 严重 关切 南非 入 侵 部 队 使 安哥拉 遵 受 的 损失 种
破坏 及 其 对 安哥拉 的 设备 和 物资 的 抓 夺 ，

注意 到 南非 常 驻 代表 关于 南非 部 队 撤 退 的 来
信 , 凶

1. 诅 责 南非 对 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 进行 的 侵略 ;

2.， 要 求 南非 严格 莽 重 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 的 独
Y、 主 权 和 领土 完整

3. 又 要 求 南非 停 直 利用 纳米 比 亚 这 个 国际 领 十
对 安哥拉 人 民 共 利 国 或 任何 共 他 非洲 邻 国 发 动 挑 峡 或
侵略 行为 ;

414. 责成 南非 政府 实现 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 所 提 充
分 补偿 该 国 遭 受 的 损失 和 破坏 并 将 入 侵 部 队 所 拔 夺 的
设备 和 物资 交还 该 国 的 正当 要 求 ;

5. 请 秘书 长 密切 注意 本 决议 的 执行 情况 。

第 一 九 品 六 次 会 议 以 九 标
对 零 票 ， 五 票 并 权 (法 国
意大利 、 日 本 、 大 不 列 着
及 北 爱尔兰 联合 王国 、 美
利 坚 合众国 ) 通 过 。 四

国 间 上 《第 于 二 一 年 ， 一 娘 上 训 年 一 下 、 月 和 和 一 胃 份
补 网 》，S712026 切 文 件 。
国 一 个 成 员 国 (中 国 ) 没 有 佐 加 表 次 。


Draft resolution (S/11950):
UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY
COUNCIL

Distr.
GENERAL

$/11950
20 January 1275

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Benin, Guyana, Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden
and United Republic of Tanzania: draft resolution

The Security Council,

Having heard the statement by the President of the United Nations Council for
Namibia,

Having considered the statement by Mr. Moses M. Garoeb, Administrative
Secretary of the South West Africa people's Organization (SWAPO),

Recalling General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXTI) of 27 October 1966, which
terminated South Africa's mandate over the Territory of Namibia, and
resolution 2248 ((5-V) of 19 May 1967, which established a United Nations Council
for Namibia, as well as all other subsequent resolutions on Wamibia, in particular,
resolution 3295 (XXIX) of 13 December 1974 and resolution 3399 (XXX) of
26 November 1975,

Recalling Security Council resolution 245 (1968) of 25 January and
2h6 (1968) of 1h March 1968, 264 (1969) of 20 March and 260 (1969) of 12 August 1969,
275 (1970) of 30 January, 282 (1970) of 23 July, 283 (1970) and 284 (1970) of
29 July 1970, 300 (1971) of 12 October and 301 (1971) of 20 October 1g7L, 310 (1972)
of 4 February 1972 snd 366 (1974) of 17 December 197k,

Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of
21 June 1971 that South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its presence from
the Territory,

Reaffirming the legal responsibility of the United Nations over Namibia,

Concerned at South Africa's continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its
persistent refusal to ccaply with resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly
and the Security Council, as well as with the advisory opinion of the International
Court of Justice of 21 June 1971,

Gravely concerned at South Africa's brutal repression of the Namibian people
and its persistent violation of their human rights, as well as its efforts to
destroy the national unity and territorial integrity of Namibia, and its aggressive
military build-up in the area,

Strongly deploring the militarization of Namibia by the illegal occupation
régime of South Africa,

7602314 /...
5/11950
English
Page 2

1. Condemns the continued illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia
by South Africa;

2. Condemns the illegel and arbitrary application by South Africa of
racially discriminatory and repressive laws and practices in Namibia;

3. Condemns the South African military build-up in Wamibia and any
utilization of the Territory as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries;

L, Demands that South Africa put an end forthwith to its policy of
bantustans and the so~called homelands aimed at violating the national unity and
the territorial integrity of Namibia:

5. Purther condemns South Africa's failure to comply with the terms of
Security Council resolution 366 (1974) of 17 December 1974;

6. Further condemns all attempts by South Africa calculated to evade the
clear demand of the United Nations for the holding of free elections under United
Nations supervision and control in Namibia

T. Declares that in order that the people of Namibia be enabled to freely
determine their own future, it is imperative that free elections under the
supervision and control of the United Nations be held for the whole of Namibia as
ouiie political entity;

8. Further declares that in determining the date, time-table and modalities
for the elections in accordance with paragraph 7 above, there shall be adequate
time to be decided upon by the Security Council for the purposes of enabling the
United Nations to establish the necessary machinery within Namibia to supervise
and control such elections, as well as to enable the people of Namibia to organize
politically for the purpose of such elections;

9. Demands that South Africa urgently make a solemn declaration accepting
the foregoing provisions for the holding of free elections in Wamibia under United
Nations supervision and control, underteking to ccmply with the resolutions and
decisions of the United Nations and with the advisory opinicn of the Internaticral
Court of Justice of 21 June 1971 in regard to Namibia, and recognizing the
territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation;

10. Reiterates its demand that South Africa taken the necessary steps to
effect the withdrawal, in accordance with resolutions 26h (1969), 269 (1969) and
366 (1974), of its illegal administration maintained in Namibia and to transfer
power to the people of Namibia with the assistence of the United Nations;

11. Demands again that South Africa, pending the transfer of powers provided
for in the preceding paragraph:

(a) Comply fully in spirit and in practice with the provisions of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
8/11050
English
Page 3

(b) Release all Namibian political prisoners, including all those imprisoned
or detained in comnexion with offences under so-called internal security laws,
whether such Namibians have been charged or tried or are held without charge and
whether held in Namibia or South Africa;

(c) Abolish the application in Wamibia of all racially discriminatory and
politically repressive laws and practices, particularly bantustans and homelands;

(a) Accord unconditionally to all Namibians currently in exile for political
reasons full facilities for return to thelr country without risk of arrest.
detention, intimidetion or imprisonment;

12. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to meet on or before 31 August 1976
for the purrose of reviewing South Africa's compliance with the terms of this
resolution and, in the event of non-complisnce by South Africa, for the purpose of
considering the appropriate measures to be taken under the Cherter,

orn im mm ag

Meeting record:
UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL RECORDS

THIRTY-FIRST YEAR

th
1 88 5 MEETING: 30 JANUARY 1976 {JN JRRARY

JUN 2 9 1384

NEW YORK
idee A ae
CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agendafl1885) ....... citi 1
Adoption of the agenda ........ cc. iii iii titi iia 1

The situation in Namibia:
Letter dated 16 December 1975 from the Secretary-General addressed to the
President of the Security Council (S/11918) ...... iii, 1

Statement of the President concerning a telegram from Mr. Ali Soilihi, head
of State of the Comoros... vvvvi iii iii iin ii iierennns AP 15

S/PV.1885
NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United
Nations document. ;

Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/...) are normally published in
quarterly Supplements of the Official Records of the Security Council. The date
of the document indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given.

The resolutions of ‘the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a
system adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Resolutions and
Decisions of the Security Council. The new system, which has been applied
retroactively to resolutions adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative
on that date.
1885th MEETING

Held in New York on Friday, 30 January 1976, at 3 p.m.

President: Mr. Salim A. SALIM
(United Republic of Tanzania).

Present: The representatives of the following States:
Benin, China, France, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Libyan
Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic
of Tanzania and United States of America.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1885)
1. Adoption of the agenda

2. The situation in Namibia:
Letter dated 16 December 1975 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security
Council (S/11918)

The meeting was called to order at 3.55 p.m.
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.

The situation in Namibia:

Letter dated 16 December 1975 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security
Council (S/11918)

1. The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decisions taken previously [/880thrd meetings], 1
invite the representatives of Algeria, Bangladesh,
Burundi, Cuba, Egypt, Guinea, India, Indonesia,
Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nigeria, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Tunisia and Yugoslavia to take the places
reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber,
on the usual understanding that they will be invited to
take a place at the Council table whenever they wish
to address the Council. I also invite the President and
members of the delegation of the United Nations
Council for Namibia to take their places at the Council
table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Rahal (Algeria), Mr. Karim (Bangladesh), Mr. Mikanagu
(Burundi), Mr. Alarcén (Cuba), Mr. Abdel Meguid
(Egypt), Mr. Camara (Guinea), Mr. Jaipal (India),
Mr. Marpaung (Indonesia), Mr. Hall (Jamaica),
Mr. Sharaf (Jordan), Mr. Maina (Kenya), Mr. Bishara
(Kuwait), Mr. Minikon (Liberia), Mr. Kanté (Mali),

Mr. El Hassen (Mauritania), Mr. Ramphul (Mauritius),
Mr. Harriman (Nigeria), Mr. Jaroszek (Poland),
Mr. Baroody (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Botha (South Africa),
Mr. Driss (Tunisia) and Mr. Petri¢ (Yugoslavia) took
the places reserved for them at the side of the Council
chamber; Mr. Kamana (President of the United
Nations Council for Namibia) and the members of the
delegation took places at the Security Council table.

2. The PRESIDENT: The Security Council will now
continue its consideration of the item on its agenda. The
first speaker is the representative of Cuba. I therefore
invite him to take a place at the Council table and to
make his statement.

3. Mr. ALARCON (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): I have here a Secretariat document prepared for
the United Nations Council for Namibia which is
28 pages long and which confines itself to an account
of the recent action of the Security Council on Namibia.
A similar document reflecting what the Assembly has
done on the matter would be much more voluminous,
since the Assembly has been dealing with the subject
for many years over which it has reached a verdict
which is well known and reflects the opinion of the
overwhelming majority * of the international community. But let us revert to the shorter document.
It contains the texts of 14 resolutions adopted by the
Council in the period from 25 January 1968 to 17 December 1974, when the Security Council last adopted
a resolution on Namibia.

4. This means that about two resolutions on Namibia
are adopted a year—one every five months—by this
body entrusted with maintaining international peace
and security, resolutions whose texts contain various
provisions which it would be useful to recall at this
stage. Repeatedly these resolutions state that the
members of the Council condemn the illegal presence
of South Africa in Namibia, that they recognize the
inalienable right of the Namibian people to selfdetermination and independence and the principle of
the national unity and territorial integrity of that people,
that they consider also that the continued occupation
of Namibia by South African forces could result in
situations which might jeopardize peace and security
in southern Africa; and that they request those Members of the United Nations which have special relations
with the Government of Pretoria, to do their best to
persuade it to adopt a line of conduct more compatible
with the principles laid down by the Organization.
5. I will not, of course, proceed to read out these
resolutions because I know that members of the Council are well aware of them and that they will bear them
in mind as they once again consider the subject of
Namibia. I do want to recall some of the decisions taken
by the Security Council, as, for example, the decision
contained in paragraph 9 of resolution 301 (1971)
adopted on 20 October 1971, that is, over four years
ago. Therein the Council declared that any further
refusal on the part of the South African Government
- to withdraw from Namibia could create conditions
detrimental to the maintenance of peace and security
in the region.

6. There is another reference in resolution 323 (1972),
adopted on 6 December 1972, in paragraph 2 of which
the Council pointed out that the overwhelming majority
of the opinions of those consulted by the representative of the Secretary-General in Namibia categorically
rejected the policy of bantustans, demanded their
immediate abolition, demanded the immediate withdrawal of the South African administration from
Namibia, and further demanded the accession of that
Territory to national independence and the preservation of its territorial integrity. The Council also pointed
out that, accordingly, the opinion of the vast majority
of the Namibian people was consistent with the
repeatedly expressed position of the United Nations on
the matter.

7. ‘The last resolution, as the Council well knows,
resolution 366 (1974) of 17 December 1974, demanded
that South Africa make a solemn declaration that it
would comply with the resolutions and decisions of the
United Nations and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice... that it recognize the territorial integrity of Namibia as a nation, such declaration
to be addressed to the Security Council.

8. The rest is all too well known to members of this
body. Members all well know what the reply of the
South African régime was. They know further what the
unfortunate circumstances were which made it impossible for this United Nations body to discharge its
duty, preventing it even from being consistent with
its’ previous decisions. By virtue of the triple veto

[see 1829th meeting] the Council was hindered from".

adopting the appropriate measures and continuing to

consider and deal with the question of Namibia in.
keeping with the Charter and the duties of this United

Nations body.

9. We are meeting, then, once again to consider
a situation which was described by the Security Council more than once as one that generated threats to
peace and security in Africa. And the Council meets
once again after long awaiting a South African reply
which has not yet come and conciliatory action which
some Members of the United Nations are in a position
to carry out. At this meeting of the Council theré is
only one new procedural element. This is nothing

other than the surprising reappearance in the chamber

of Mr. Botha, the representative of the racist minority
of South Africa. This spokesman of the South African
racists and colonialists appears, but not exactly to
bring us the reply that the Security Council has been
expecting since 17 December 1974, not even belatedly
to state that he appeared in the chamber because he
recognized, even to some degree, the role of this
United Nations body regarding the Territory that South
Africa has usurped; nor did he come to announce that
his Government was in a position to amend a policy
which has met with the most categorical repudiation
by the world public. .

10. On the contrary, he has come to remind the
Security Council that the situation in Namibia is a
grave threat to international peace and security. He
has come to tell the Council that the South African
régime is far from harbouring the least intention of
changing its well-known policy. He has come to place
on record once again that the racist minority of
Pretoria continues to flout international opinion. That
it persists in perpetuating its oppression not only of
the African masses in South Africa but also of the
oppressed people of Namibia and it is doing so as
brazenly as the colonialists and racists who organized
and promoted the slave trade from the earliest times
of the Cape colony, as though the world had not
progressed an inch since the colonialists began their
massacres of the population of former South-West
Africa, since they began their senseless depredation of
that ‘Territory, plundering their land and their livestock, indiscriminately - murdering the indigenous
African population. :

11. Very seldom has the Council or the Organization witnessed a more revealing statement than the
one it had the opportunity to hear on 27 January
[I881st meeting] from the South African representative. He began by saying that the Security Council,
the = International Court of Justice, the General
Assembly and all mankind were wrong and maintained
an unrealistic unilateral attitude, which was contrary
to the interests of what he called ‘‘the peoples’ of the
Territory. Moreover, he described his Government
as if it were absolutely innocent of the history and of
the problems of what he still insists on calling South-West Africa and he came again, like the old colonialists,
to play: a Messianic role, as it were, by presenting his
régime as accomplishing a historic and paternalistic
mission among the African peoples.

12. Let us just look ata quotation f from 1 Mr. Botha’ Ss
revealing statement:

“As no » homogenous people exists in South West
. Africa, progress towards self-determination must
‘necessarily proceed, if it is not to be imposed,
along the lines of agreement between the different
peoples concerned. The role of South Africa thus
becomes obvious: it is to promote agreement
between the peoples of the Territory without
imposing a solution on them.” [Ibid., para. 96. :
13. Since the first slave-trader came to the shores of
the Namibian ‘Territory the European colonialists
have attempted to present that Territory as one
populated by a series of conflicting tribes, peoples
incapable of governing themselves, who have to wait

for the white man in his bounty to lead them along

the path of peaceful and harmonious development.
That was the inspiration of the colonialists since the
far-off time when Mr. Heinrich Goering, the father of
the notorious Nazi, began the colonization of that
Territory. That was the attitude of other racist and
colonialist leaders, some of whom bore the same name
as the gentleman who spoke before the Council, and
this continues to be the attitude and the excuse of the
South African régime in denying the people of Namibia
their right to self-determination and independence.
The historical experience of all African peoples and
of all peoples anywhere in the world who have been
victims of colonialism attests precisely to the contrary.
The essential pre-condition for the people of Namibia
to organize itself into a progressive and democratic
society is the immediate withdrawal of the oppressors,
of those who are assailing and plundering that Territory, those who have oppressed that population for
too long a time for the international community to
admit that we. shall confine ourselves merely to
continuing to adopt resolutions which are not implemented i in practice. ’

14. Mr. Botha made other comments in his statement
on other African problems, to which I will refer briefly
later on, since I fully share the opinion you expressed,
Mr. President, when you urged the members of the
Council to keep to. the subject of Namibia, which is
sufficiently important and striking in itself to merit
our exclusive consideration. Of course, my delegation,
at any time if members of the Council so wish it,
would be ready to debate here the situation in Angola
.or any other subject that the Council may want to
consider. However, I think it is worth reflecting in the
records of the Council what another spokesman for
South Africa, whose surname, coincidentally; is the
same as that of the representative who spoke here,
was saying in Cape Town, South Africa at virtually
the same time as Mr. Botha in the Council was
expatiating on the virtues of South Africa policy and
even venturing to speak of its readiness to work in
peace and co-operation with other African States. -

15. 1 have before me a cable from the British news
agency Reuters, dated Capetown, 28 January last. 1
shall read it out:

**The South African Government today introduced
legislation empowering the armed forces to cross
the country’s borders to counteract any threat to

~ security. The legislation, Defence Amendment Bil,
defines South Africa as ‘Africa south of the
equator’.”’*

* Quoted in English by the speaker.

The: cable goes on to explain that previously, before
being able to cross the South African border, the
military personnel of that country had to submit
papers showing that he did so voluntarily. It goes on
to say that this Bill was submitted by the Defence
Minister, Mr. Peter Botha, and that it is hoped that it
would become law at the end of next month. The
defence service of the Republic is defined in the cable

as including:

*‘the suppression of any armed conflict outside the
- Republic which, in the opinion of the State President,
is or may be a threat to the security of the Republic”.

I repeat that the geographical ‘definition given in this
Bill by the other Mr. Botha in regard to what would
from now on be South Africa is *‘Africa south of the
equator”.

16. * So as ‘not to be unfair to the representative of
South Africa, I was curious enough to look at a document [S/11948 and Add.I] he distributed which features
a map of the African continent, on which members of
the Council will be able to see the equator line. Out
of curiosity, I looked at the trajectory of that line and
at how far the powers of the South African army
would reach in establishing the law and order of the
racists, according to this new legislation. On the
basis of the map distributed by the South African
delegation, the area in which the troops of the racist
régime could intervene freely, by the end of next
month, according to Reuters, would include 20 African
countries of which 19 are sovereign and independent
States—the other one is Namibia—almost all of them
States Members of the United Nations, some of which
are present in this chamber.

17. Itis no accident that today an important African
newspaper, the Daily News of Dar es Salaam, features
on its first page a strong editorial reply to the proposed
amendment to the law submitted to the South African
Parliament. The Daily News editorial rightly stresses
the threat that that South African declaration contains
for all African States, from Zaire, Kenya and Gabon
all the way down to the south, and calls upon the
peoples of the continent to redouble their vigilance in
view of that threat and to continue and intensify their
struggle against the apartheid régime:

18. - The fact that the existence of the racist régime
in South Africa is a constant threat to peace, to
international security and to the independence and
freedom of Africa cannot be denied by anyone. It has
imposed on the masses of South Africa the most
cruel exploitation and racial oppression. South ‘Africa
has extended that exploitation illegally, despite the
repeated demands of the international community, over
the Territory of Namibia, which it has utilized and
continues -to utilize as a base for aggression against

* Quoted in English by the speaker.
other neighbouring territories, and specifically at this
time against the People’s Republic of Angola. Moreover, according to what I have just mentioned, there
are no limits to that South African aggressive action
until it reaches the equator.

19. Moreover, that has been the official, publicly
acknowledged policy of the racist régime. I draw the
attention of the members of the Council to another
reference also from British sources, namely The
Guardian of London of 11 April 1973, quoting the
White Paper on Defence published that year by the
South African Defense Ministry. At that time this
South African document referred to the national
liberation struggle of the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau against Portuguese
“colonialism, and recognized the role that the South
African troops were already playing in repressing that
liberation struggle of the then Portuguese colonies and
of the oppressed people of Rhodesia. These were the
words of the Minister of Defence of South Africa,
according to The Guardian:

“I do not wish to spread alarm, but I must state
unambiguously that for a long time already we have
been engaged in a war of low intensity and that this
situation will probably continue for some considerable time to come.”’*

20. It would be an endless task to list the record
of aggressive activities by South Africa against the
African peoples—it would be endless but it would also
be unnecessary, because, as you can see, the leaders
of Pretoria have not really been discreet in revealing
to the world their plans for enslavement not only of
the African peoples whom they now oppress, but
even of the African continent as a whole. That is why
we believe it is high time for the Security Council to
take stock of the action it has taken so far on Namibia
and to take note of what has happened since 17 December 1974, or rather, of what has not happened, and
consequently adopt vigorous measures to put into
practice the repeated decisions of the Council with
respect to Namibia. It is high time that this United
Nations body expressed clearly and unambiguously
its support for the Namibian people who led, by the
South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO),
is waging a heroic and difficult struggle to win its
sacred right to independence. It is high time for the
Council to act in accordance with the General
Assembly’s repeated pronouncements and it is high
time for the Council to act in a manner consistent
with its own decisions, in particular resolution 366
(1974) of 17 December 1974.

21. There were other comments in the statement
made by the representative of South Africa which do
not deserve any special reply on our part because it
is obvious that the purpose of his statement was to
reveal once again the contempt of his Government for

* Quoted in English by the speaker.

the Council, the United Nations and world opinion
and to try to divert your attention from the important
task at hand. I shall only say that our support for
and our diplomatic, political, moral and material
solidarity with the people of Angola are a direct consequence of an international policy based on principles

which we have always consistently maintained. Our

assistance to that country has been given upon the
request of its legitimate Government, the Government
presided over by Comrade Agostinho Neto, which
has been recognized by most members of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) and by dozens
of States Members of the United Nations.

22. We must, however, thank the representative of

Pretoria for his long anti-communist lecture, because
itis a good lesson for all. The anti-communist and anti-Soviet hatred felt by Mr. Botha precisely confirms
the fact that the Soviet Union, the socialist countries
and, in general, the forces of the world defending
socialism are the firmest and most loyal allies, the
staunchest support and the sincerest friends of national
liberation - movements. The States of Africa, the
peoples of Africa, will not be hoodwinked by the lies
of the racists and professional slanderers, who cannot
deceive anyone. They know where their friends are,
those who have shown themselves to be such
throughout the long struggle against colonialism.
Among them they have always relied and will continue
to rely on our country.

23. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the
representative of Jamaica. I invite him to take a place
at the Council table and to make his statement.

24. Mr. HALL (Jamaica): My delegation wishes to
express our warmest congratulations to you, Sir, on
your performance as President of the Council for the
month of January 1976. We hope that under your
guidance the Council will deal effectively with the
current grave international situation with which we are
confronted.

25. The Security Council is now meeting once again
to discuss the question of Namibia and my Government is grateful for being given this opportunity to
participate in the debate on this matter. A few months
ago, on 6 June 1975, three of the permanent members
of the Security Council, namely, the United States, the
United Kingdom and France, vetoed a draft resolution on this subject. It was the second time in the
history of the United Nations that a draft resolution
in the Security Council was subjected to a triple veto.
The first such phenomenon occurred on 30 October
1974 [see 1808th meeting]. In both instances, the triple
veto was exercised by the same countries on matters
relating to the activities of that pariah of the international community, the Government of South Africa.

26. Many resolutions on the question of Namibia
have been adopted by various United Nations bodies,
and indeed the Security Council, by unanimous vote,
adopted its resolution 366 (1974) in December 1974
which, inter alia, demands South Africa’s withdrawal
from the Territory and its recognition of the territorial
integrity and national unity of'Namibia. In that resolution the Security Council also decided to remain seized
of this matter for the purpose of reviewing South
Africa’s compliance with the terms of the resolution,
with a view to considering the appropriate measures
to be taken under the Charter in the event of noncompliance by South Africa. The result was the
reaffirmation by South Africa of its refusal to comply
with the resolutions of the Security Council and of the
General Assembly, and the subsequent display of
impotence by the Security Council in midto
deal with this intransigence.

27. Undaunted by the outcome of the consideration
of this matter by the Security Council, the General
Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, adopted
resolution 3399 (XXX) on 26 November 1975: a vote
of 110 in favour, none against, and 7 abstentions.
Those countries abstaining were Belgium, Canada,
France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy,
the United Kingdom and the United States. On that
resolution, which deals with the effective enslavement
of indigenous people by a racist minority, those
countries abstained.

28. Where is the moral outcry in the international
communications media against those countries which
abstained? And yet many countries have recently
been subjected, and indeed are still being subjected,
__to an intense campaign of vilification in the international media for having abstained in the voting on
other issues which are less clear-cut in their ramifications. Such is the degree of impartiality and objectivity
of those who would mould international opinion and
seek to impose international standards of morality.

29. The granting of fundamental human rights to the
people of Namibia, the eradication of their exploitation
by a minority racist régime, the cessation of the reign
of terror imposed on those suffering people—all these
are sacrificed on the altar of greed resulting from
massive investments by transnational corporations,
these merchants of death and destruction which wield
such influence and power over the policies of the
abstainers.

30. Both the United Nations Council for Namibia and
the Special Committee on the Situation with regard
to the Implementation of the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples are to be congratulated on their continued
efforts to bring to the attention of the international
community the current situation in Namibia. Under
the glare of this spotlight the activities of South Africa,
aided and abetted by its allies, cannot be concealed
from the international community.

31. The Security Council heard a few days ago an
incredible statement by the representative of South

Africa on the activities of his Government's illegal
occupation of Namibia. That statement shows the
contempt of the South African Government for the
Council as well as the United Nations and, indeed,
for the international community as a whole. It is a
statement which reflects the paranoia which permeates
the racist régime of Pretoria.

32. The General Assembly has recognized for some
time that the situation in Namibia constitutes a threat
to international peace and security. The validity of that
recognition has been forcefully brought home by the
invasion of the independent State of Angola by South
Africa. And the representative of that racist régime
of Pretoria has the temerity to come here to justify
the invasion of Angola by South African troops on
9 August 1975 as an exercise by a platoon designed
for the holding of discussions—I repeat: to hold discussions—so that workers on the Calueque Dam
could return to work. This constitutes a gross insult
to us all. My Government strongly condemns this
action by the Pretoria régime, which is an attempt to
expand its influence over southern Africa, and we
denounce all those who support this military manceuvre. We welcome the recent news that South African
troops, under military and political fire, are scurrying
out of Angola, and we look forward to the day when
we shall hear of their eviction from Namibia under
similar circumstances—if necessary.

33. The real intentions of South Africa are to
perpetuate its control over Namibia, and we are given
a clear illustration of this by the reference to the
Namibian town of Walvis Bay as a South African
port in a statement by the Foreign Minister of South
Africa [see S/11948 and Add.l, annex, footnote a}.
What is the purpose of the militarization of Namibia
by South Africa? What is the purpose of the military
base at Grootfontein in Namibia, if not to launch
acts of aggression against neighbouring States? The
Declaration of Dakar on Namibia and Human Rights
[S/11939, annex], adopted earlier this month, clearly
points out the purpose of this militarization as a means
of consolidating the illegal occupation of Namibia
and of repressing tHe legitimate resistance of the
people of Namibia, as well as using Namibia as a base
for intervention in the internal affairs of African
countries.

34. Several speakers have called for the holding of
free national elections in Namibia under the supervision and control of the United Nations for the entire
Territory as a single political entity, and it is the hope
of my delegation that steps will be taken by the Security
Council to compel the South African Government
to accede to this demand. Draft resolution S/11950,
which was introduced yesterday by the representative
of Guyana constitutes, in the view of my Government, the minimum position that can be expected at
this time, and it is our hope that the Security Council
will unanimously adopt the draft resolution.
35. The past two decades have witnessed the success
of national liberation movements in their relentless
fight to secure the freedom of their peoples from
foreign, colonial and racist domination. In this regard
Africa constitutes a shining example to oppressed
peoples throughout the world. Indeed, we recently
saw the victory of the indigenous peoples of Africa
over a colonial Power that had existed for 500 years.’
SWAPO is following in the footsteps of those successful liberation movements, and my Government fully
supports the activities of that organization in the
pursuit of its war of liberation.

36. My Government is convinced that the independence of Namibia is an historical inevitability and that
this will be achieved under the leadership of SWAPO,
which is the authentic representative of the Namibian
people. But the international community has a legal
obligation to hasten the establishment of an independent Namibia with the preservation of its national
unity and territorial integrity. The current situation in
that region of Africa demands action by the Council
to set in train those measures which are called for in
General Assembly resolution 3399 (XXX).

37. Whatever the outcome of this series of meetings
of the Security Council on the question of Namibia,
my Government will continue to give moral and
material support to the people of Namibia and their
representative, SWAPO, and will continue to denounce
‘the Pretoria régime and all those countries which
collaborate with that régime by maintaining military,
diplomatic, economic, consular and other relations
with it.

38. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker i is the representative of Mali.. Accordingly, I invite him to take a
place at the Council table and to make his statement.

39. Mr. KANTE (Mali) (interpretation from French):

Mr. President, I should like first of all to take this

opportunity through you to thank the members of the
Security Council for having given my delegation a
chance to participate in their deliberations on the
question of Namibia, a painful problem which distress so many African States. It is. also a pleasant duty
for my delegation, Mr. President and dear brother,
to congratulate you on your assumption of the
presidency of the Security Council. We are particularly
pleased because you are a worthy son of a brotherly
country which has excellent relations with mine. The
remarkable results obtained by the Security Council
on the question of the Middle East are a measure of
your ability and your sincere militant commitment
to defend the lofty principles of the Charter. We are
assured in advance that the debates you preside over
will make it possible for us to take an important
stride forward in the liberation of Namibia.

40. - The question under consideration today is one of
the most serious problems with which the Organization has had to deal since it was created. Indeed,

the dispute between the racist régime of South Africa
and the United Nations over Namibia goes back to
1947, when the United Nations was informed of South
Africa’s categorical refusal to place that Non-Self-Governing Territory—then known as South West
Africa-——under the international Trusteeship System.

Since that time, the authorities in Pretoria have heaped
nothing but a revolting scorn on the decisions and
recommendations of the Security Council and the
General Assembly. We shall not here dwell on the
impressive number of decisions adopted on the
question by the competent bodies of the United
Nations. We would however wish to bring up some
important events which have occurred in the evolution of the question in various United Nations bodies.

41.- On 27-October 1966, faced with the obstinacy
of South Africa, the General Assembly felt compelled
to adopt a resolution to terminate South Africa’s
Mandate over South West Africa and to place that
Non-Self-Governing Territory under its direct trusteeship, in accordance with the Charter.! By creating
in 1967 the United Nations Council for Namibia,?
charged with the administration of the Territory and
with the subsequent appointment of a United Nations
Commissioner for Namibia, the international community intended to underscore its determination
effectively to carry out its mandate over South West
Africa.

42. ‘However, in spite of all the recommendations
and admonitions of the Security Council and of the
General Assembly, and notwithstanding the advisory
opinion of the International Court of Justice of
21 June 1971,% which declared the continuing presence
of South Africa in Namibia to be illegal, the racist
régime of Pretoria none the lesss continues to occupy
that Territory which is under international administration. What is even worse, it is carrying out blind
repression there. The odious policy of apartheid has

‘systematically been extended to the Territory, while

bantustanization of the Territory, which is intended to
destroy the unity and national identity of the Namibian
people, is being frantically pursued. :

43. “The delegation of Mali forcefully denounces the
so-called constitutional conference convened . in
Namibia by South Africa as being contrary to the
real interests of the Namibian people. By organizing
this masquerade by way of a plebiscite the Fascist
régime of Pretoria has sought to deceive the world
public, its sinister design being, as we are well aware,
to set up puppets so as to allow it to continue
indefinitely its subjugation of the people of that
Territory.

44. Tt is clear today to everyone that the occupation
of Namibia by the racist régime of Namibia constitutes
a serious threat to international peace and security.
The apprehensions of independent Africa are therefore
justified. Indeed, quite recently there were threats by
Pretoria against the territorial integrity of Zambia. Now
there is open. aggression by South African troops
against the young, independent Republic of Angola, an
agrgression for which Namibia constitutes the primary
staging area. Africa has unanimously condemned this
invasion. .

45. The effrontery and brazenness of the advocates
of apartheid are due to the refusal of the Organization to have recourse to the relevant provisions of
the Charter to subdue their stubborn determination
to perpetuate their domination of Namibia. The allies
of paleface power in southern Africa will surely agree
with us today that fighter planes, heavy helicopters,
tanks and other "so-called conventional weapons,
which they have supplied under unofficial agreements
and in disregard of the relevant resolutions of the
United Nations, serve not to defend the country, as
they would have had us believe each time we protested,
but to violate the territorial integrity of the indepen-
‘dent States of Africa, to slaughter the civilian population in the name of so-called Christian and Western
civilization.

46. Those terms, incidentally, are the terms used
by the authorities in Pretoria themselves to justify their
craven and barbaric aggression against the young
People’s Republic of Angola. No one in those circles
has spoken out to denounce, to blast and to condemn
this further act of defiance. Is there this conspiracy
of silence because the victims are Africans? We
would not like to believe that, but we cannot but
recall the audacious Stanleyville airlift carried out
in the 1960s, supposedly to save the lives of a few
dozen Europeans who were allegedly threatened by
fighting—which, nevertheless, was going on far from
that town.

47. We should prefer not to acknowledge complicity
on their part, for we are reluctant to believe that they
identify with the brand of Christian, Western civilization preached by Pretoria and reflected only in the
odious policy of apartheid which, at least in their
speeches before us, they condemn. Their silence,
however, has not been complete. Some in those
circles have spoken out, loudly to be sure, but only
to equate the armed aggression of South Africa against
the People’s Republic of Angola with the valuable and
effective assistance which the Soviet Union and Cuba
have given Angola in its struggle to safeguard its
independence under international agreements properly
concluded. Their admonitions, if that is what they can
be’ called, were intended solely to create a certain
amount of confusion to justify and to foster the
colonial reconquest of Angola.

48. But the world will not be duped, and fortunately
has recognized with us that the Soviet Union and
Cuba have provided, since the outbreak of armed
fighting in Angola, that is, since 1961, their constant
material, political and moral assistance to the patriots
of MPLA [Movimento Popular de Libertacdo de
Angola), whereas those who today criticize them

arsed the Expeditionary Corps of Salazar and

Caetano, of grim memories, against the Angolan
people. Moreover, we can safely say that since the
Second World War the Soviet Union, the People’s
Republic of China and other socialist countries,
including, of course, Cuba, as well as democratic
organizations in Western Europe, have not spared
their selfless. and effective support for the peoples
who are fighting against colonial domination throughout the world. In so doing they have made an inestimable contribution to the liberation of the peoples
of the world, to the universality of the United Nations
and to the maintenance and safeguarding of international peace and security. We call the entire world
to witness.

49. One cannot honestly compare that legal and
moral assistance, which, what is more, is in accordance
with the relevant resolutions of the Organization on
the emancipation of the peoples of the world, with the
deliberate aggression which the racist régime in
Pretoria has perpetrated against the Angola people.

50. Has not the Organization, in a number of its
resolutions, committed its Member States to giving
assistance of all kinds to the national liberation
movements? Would the independent Republic of
Angola exist today had it not been for MPLA and the
support provided by the socialist countries and
progressive forces throughout the world? That is a
question that one is bound to ask in the face of the
allegations and the assertions of certain circles.

51. Let us not fall into believing that there are those
who pull the strings behind South Africa, which,
however, seems to be saying-just that in a number
of its speeches, at least in so many words. I believe
that these parenthetical comments were certainly
necessary so as to bring out once again the dangers to
the security of African States and therefore to peace,
posed by the continuing occupation of" Namibia by
South Africa.

52. Today we have seen one way in which the
situation has escalated. After decreeing a general
mobilization, the authorities at Pretoria on 28 December 1975 enacted a law authorizing them to extend
their ‘‘military operations’’ beyond their boundaries.
That, we must admit, is a unique example in the annals
of history. Even Hitler's fascism did not arrogate
such licence unto itself, either under national law orin
its proclamations.

53. In the meantime, the other régime, which is an
outcast of the international community and ‘an
immediate neighbour of South Africa, the rebel clique
of Ian Smith, is at its wits’ end trying to foster a
state of armed tension in Southern Rhodesia in order
to lend a helping hand to its cousins at Pretoria in the

" racial confrontation which they are planning to bring

about in southern Africa.
54. Is it not a paradox that the last redoubt of
colonialism in Africa is precisely Namibia, a Territory
under international administration? Is it not paradoxical that it is the representative of apartheid who
calls upon the United Nations to take control of the
situation in the People’s Republic of Angola, whereas
his abject régime, which is an outcast of the international community and which has been refusing for the
past 30 years to withdraw from a Territory under the
administration of the United Nations? Is it not a
paradox that, according to the advocates of apartheid, the heterogeneity of the population in Namibia
is an obstacle to the political emancipation of the
Territory? But are the inhabitants of South Africa
homogeneous? In what country of the world, can one
find such homogeneity, today? The peoples of the
entire world, in all countries without any exception,
are made up of different races, ethnic groups and
tribes. That is true not only of Africa. However,
enough of paradoxes.

55. The Security Council must purely and simply
reject the dilatory arguments of the Pretoria authorities.
We were expecting something other than this from the
representative of that country, pleading his case, as
he has done, in such poor taste. We had thought
that Pretoria would have used its suspension from the
Organization to examine its conscience. It would then
have come to us to say: we shall abandon our obstinacy
regarding the question of Namibia, and we are prepared
to withdraw for the benefit of the United Nations.

56. However, as in the past, wisdom has yet again
not prevailed in the minds of the advocates of apartheid. If it had, we should have been surprised. The
allies of Pretoria must resolve to understand that their
circumspection has only served to encourage Pretoria
to pursue its disastrous policies. We concede and
acknowledge that the good faith of some must have
been betrayed by their friends in South Africa, but
now that the pressures that they have brought to bear
bilaterally have proved ineffective in lessening the
obstinacy of Pretoria, they must change their minds
and take it upon themselves to co-operate actively
with the United Nations to liberate Namibia. It is time
for them to prove to their African friends, not in
proclamations this time, but in concrete deeds, that
international security is one and indivisible, that the
détente which they advocate for Europe cannot be
strengthened while peace continues to be deliberately
broken by paleface power in Africa. Interdependence
and our common destiny make it compelling. The hour
is grave; it is no time for hesitation, for rumblings
of war are already heard in southern Africa. This is
an appeal which we make to our friends in Western
Europe in the name of justice and in the name of that
friendship, which they claim.

57. The fight against communism cannot justify any
alliance with South Africa nor constitute extenuating
circumstances in its breaches of the peace. We are
faced with a rebel Member which has turned a deaf

ear for close to 30 years to all appeals to reason, to
all recommendations and warnings of the Organization. Today the facts are clear and events overwhelming. Our interminable hesitations and compromise resolutions have only emboldened Pretoria.
Indeed not content with maintaining its domination
over Namibia, it uses it for the conquest of other
African countries. It uses the Angolan problem as a
pretext in order to set itself up as a censor or a
policeman in southern Africa. Yet it should realize that
the African peoples are able to assume responsibility
for their own destiny, just like all other peoples.
The Angolan problem is exclusively within the competence of the Government of the People’s Republic
of Angola.

58. Chou En-lai, the prestigious former Premier of
Council of State of the People’s Republic of China,
said in 1968, after a visit to east Africa, that Africa
was ripe for revolution. I would say, to confirm the
words of that great statesman that Africa has come of
age and cannot allow outside forces to choose its
options, not even through the intermediary of puppets
or Trojan horses. Yesterday the peoples of Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau to mention only them, made
their choices under the banners of FRELIMO [Frente
de Libertagcdo de Mogambique] and PAIGC [Partido
Africano da Independéncia da Guiné e Cabo Verde].
Today the Angolan people under that of MPLA, headed
by their prestigious leader, Mr. Agostinho Neto, have
in turn just made theirs. Tomorrow the peoples of
Namibia and Zimbabwe will make their choices, under
the African National Congress (ANC) and SWAPO.
This is not a romantic notion; this is the law of history.
However, Africa is not therefore either racist or
sectarian; it is humanistic and accordingly, open to
the entire world. It remains devoted to the moral
values which make the strength of mankind and of
peoples.

59. The aggression of South Africa against the
People’s Republic of Angola launched from Namibia
gives a new dimension to the problem before the
Security Council. The Council’s decision must take
into account the dire consequences of the illegal
occupation of that Territory under international trusteeship by the advocates of apartheid. You bear -
weighty responsibilities, because it is up to you to
defuse a racial confrontation for which the racists of
Pretoria have taken the initiative. The martyred
peoples of Namibia, Zimbabwe and Azania have their
eyes on the Council today. You are their final recourse,
before they reach the point of no return. Their expectation is that you will reach a firm decision commensurate
with the grave menace of paleface power to the lives
and security of millions of men, women and children
living in that part of the continent. Furthermore, the
expansionism of South Africa, if not contained in time,
would engulf southern Africa in a virulent racial war
with unpredictable implications.

60. We do not doubt that the members of the Security
Council fully appreciate the gravity of the current
situation in that part of the world and we are sure
that their decision on the question of Namibia will be

adopted solely in the light of the interests of peace,

excluding all other considerations, even emotional
ones, and that it will meet the expectations of the
peoples of Africa and in particular of the peoples of
Namibia, Zimbabwe and Azania.

61.. The PRESIDENT: As there are no further
speakers inscribed for the general debate I. should
like to make a statement as representative of the
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA.

62. 1should like to begin by expressing the particular
satisfaction of my delegation at the participation in
our deliberations of the delegation of the United
Nations Council for Namibia led by its illustrious
President, my good friend, colleague and brother,
Mr. Kamana of Zambia. We all know the important
role played by the United Nations Council for Namibia
in this question, and the participation of Mr. Kamana
and his colleagues has certainly enriched our
deliberations.

63. 1 should like also to take this opportunity to
express the appreciation of the Government of the
United Republic of Tanzania for the devoted and
outstanding services to the cause of the Namibians
rendered by the United Nations Commissioner for
Namibia, our friend, Mr. MacBride. It is also selfevident that the statement made by our brother,
Mr. Garoeb, Administrative Secretary of SWAPO,
at the beginning of the meetings on this question has
tremendously assisted the Council to gain a proper
perspective of the developments in that international
Territory.

64. When my Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke
before the Council in June last year [/826th meeting],
he did so against the background of the statement
issued by the racist régime of South Africa with regard
to Namibia. He made clear the position of the Govern-
. ment of the United Republic of Tanzania on the
question of Namibia. At that time, he pointed out the
"arrogance of the racist régime and the cynicism that
characterized the reply of that régime to Council resolution 366 (1974). It was the conclusion of the United
Republic of Tanzania then that no change had occurred
in the defiant position of that régime and that what
remained was for the Council to take enforcement
measures against that régime with a view to getting
it to comply with the decisions of the Council.

65. To that end, the Tanzanian delegation, together
with other African delegations, sponsored a draft
resolution [S//1713] which was reasonable, with a
view to enabling the Council to take the necessary
enforcement measures. Much to our regret, that
reasonable draft resolution was vetoed by three
Western permanent members of the Council. At that
time, none of those members thought that South Africa
had complied with resolution 366 (1974). In their

statements they showed how inadequate was the reply
of the racist régime. Yet it was not only the reply
which was inadequate, for none of the demands which
had been spelled out in resolution 366 (1974) had been
implemented. Consequently, political prisoners continued and still continue to languish in the racist
prisons. The racially discriminatory and politically
repressive laws and practices continued and still
continue to run rampant in Namibia. The Namibians
exiled for political reasons continue to be threatened
and kept out of Namibia. Free expression of political
views has long been and continues to be a dream for
a distant future. Meanwhile, the abominable policy
of the Bantustanization and the so-called homelands
is being implemented. South Africa has sought to
whitewash its image in a big cover-up by the institution of the so-called constitutional conference
between various races of the Territory.

66. In those circumstances, we were surprised that
the triple veto was used to block the necessary enforcement measures. At that time we were told that there
were signs of change in Namibia. We were told that
our differences were on the methods rather than the
objectives we sought in Namibia. We were further
told, therefore, that the best way would be to encourage a movement for a change through negotiations
between the racist régime and the United Nations.
Yet, we had heard these arguments before. In 1971
a chance was given to those arguments to take effect.
Unjustified hopes were raised in the minds of the
people of Namibia that their aspirations were at last
going to be realized. Those hopes were dashed.
Nothing came out of the contacts because South Africa
never accepted the basic position of the United Nations
to withdraw.

67. Itis now more than six months since we witnessed
the sorry sight of the triple veto cast in the Council.
Those who cast those vetoes had a moral obligation
to apply pressure on the racist régime to accept the
position of the United Nations. And we are not
unaware of the initiatives they have taken. The most
recent welcome initiative in this direction is the one
taken 26 January 1976 by two of those members,
namely, the United Kingdom and France jointly with
their European Economic Community partners [see
S111945].

68. But, in spite of such initiatives, during these
six months we have seen no movement in Namibia for
the better. In fact, oppression is growing worse. South
Africa is turning Namibia into a staging area for
aggressive purposes against independent neighbouring
States contrary even to the terms of the Mandate of
1920, which South Africa itself accepts. Populations
are being forcibly evicted from their areas of residency
in attempts to thwart the growing tide of freedom
struggle. Political trials have continued to be the
corner-stone of the racist régime and the purging of the
African population of ‘a political view which differs
from that of the racist régime continues to be an
important instrument = of the South African
Government. Everything has demonstrated the
emptiness of the so-called constitutional talks. In this
exercise detentions have played an important role of
frustrating all voices which dissent from the racist
views. In this context, it is not only political leaders
who have fallen victims to detention, but also church
leaders. These leaders have been the subject of such
detention too, as has been the case of Pastor Zephania
Kameeta, Principal of the Lutheran Paulium Theological College at Otijimbigwe. Would. it. surprise
anyone, therefore, that it is out of concern for their
Christian doctrine that some of them write pastoral
letters for which they are arrested?

69. In the letter of Mr. Kameeta, the following point,
which speaks for itself, appears:

“The struggle on our hands has not only to do with

the liberation of Namibia, but goes ‘further and

~ deeper than that. The presence of South Africa is

_ not just a political question, but it is a threat to the

Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus I see it as a task

~ of every Christian to work for the bringing down of

~ this Government. In this country, which claims to

~ be Christian, you can be a Christian 10,000 times

over, but if you are not white you are treated like
a dog.”

Nor should it surprise members of the Council that the
effect of this letter was to ensure Mr, Kameeta’ Ss
detention.

70. Thus apartheid continues to reign rampant in
Namibia. Should the international community close
its eyes to what is happening there? Surely, the Security
Council could not be indifferent to the flagrant violation of the rights of the people of Namibia without
failing in the lofty tasks that the Charter places on it..
For the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia
poses a threat to international peace and security.
- The basic objective of the Council is to get South
Africa to leave Namibia. That is why the General
Assembly terminated the Mandate of South Africa in
its resolution 2145 (XXI). It was because of the
recognition of the rights of the people of Namibia
that the International Court of Justice, on 21 June
1971, ruled that South Africa was under the obligation
to withdraw from the Territory. The Security Council is, therefore, duty bound to take the necessary
measures to get the apartheid régime to comply with
the decisions of the Organization. We cannot wish this
responsibility away. :

71. One of the most important measures that must be
taken is completely to isolate South Africa from all
international intercourse of every kind. In the political
field South Africa must be isolated. There has been
important progress to that end. But a more concerted
international action is needed. For example, the time
is long overdue where there must be a complete
severance of all diplomatic and other relations which

10

enable that régime to continue enjoying some form of
political respectability. Of immediate relevance; we
call for all disruption of diplomatic and other political
relations with the South African régime in sO far as
Namibia i Is. concerned. Che :

72. Similarly, there. must be | a severance of all
economic relations with South Africa in so far as it
relates to Namibia. My delegation is disturbed at the
role of foreign firms in Namibia. Those firms continue
relentlessly to exploit the economy of that Territory.
The South African Weekly Financial - Mail has
characterized: ‘the economy of the Territory as being

“operated in a colonial style, with South Africa
playing the imperial Power and most of its spoils of
fishing and mining sucked by foreign firms’’. Thus
over one third of the new wealth generated is
expatriated. All this is done with the sweat of the
exploited black masses, who serve under a labour
system which denies even their basic elements of.
human rights. Those who profit from the benefits of
the activities of these firms cannot, therefore, be
absolved from the evils which the South African
system has established in Namibia.

73. Elucidating on the effects of economic collaboration with South Africa, my President, Julius Nyerere,

at arecent address at Oxford University on 19 November 1975, had the following to say: :

“Yet all those who invest in South Africa, or
otherwise treat it as a respectable member of the
international community, are giving support to

"apartheid and everything which follows from it.
Institutions do not invest in a foreign country out
of philanthropy. They invest to make a profit or to
get an interest on their money. And by investing for
these purposes, they have bought (together with
the stocks or shares), an interest in what is called

“political stability’—which in this case means the
maintenance of apartheid. Their interest in this will
be the greater, the larger the amount they invest and

“the greater the return on their investment. And the
stronger the South African economy, the larger the

- resources which the South African Government can
devote to upholding racial privilege.”

7a. Thus it should be equally obvious. that to have
any economic relations with the South Africans in
Namibia is to support South Africa’s political presence
there. We appeal, therefore, to those who sit and
condemn South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia
to follow these verbal condemnations with action.
One such action is certainly to disrupt all economic
relations with Namibia. - :

75. South Africa has defied the international com- -
munity for too long. It is high time that South Africa
was made to accept the authority of the United
Nations over Namibia. For our part, in the United
Republic of Tanzania, we shall continue to support the
struggle of the people of Namibia till victory is won.
Our objective remains the achievement of independence for Namibia as a whole. We reject any attempts
by South Africa to hoodwink the world by cosmetics
and rhetorics.” We ‘oppose any attempt to divide the

Territory, and we reject any so-called constitutional

talks calculated simply to maintain South Africas

occupation and promote bantustanization of the’

Territory. Our intention still remains the achievement
of a solution by peaceful means, or, to be more precise,
to achieve a solution of a less violent nature. We
have proclaimed this intention in world forums, as
well as within OAU. As the Dar es Salaam Declaration

on Southern Africa clearly asserted, Africa continues
to believe that if South Africa wanted a peaceful

solution it should have implemented .resolution 366
(1974), thus accepting the ‘authority - of the United
Nations and respecting the right of Namibians to selfdetermination and independence, as well as refraining
from undermining the unity and territorial integrity
of Namibia as a nation.

76. But since South Africa refuses to abide by the
demands of the Council, we have no alternative but
to call for the necessary measures to be taken against
it. On our part, we shall continue to support the gallant
freedom fighters of Namibia under the dynamic leadership of SWAPO. For this we make no apologies, for
it is the right of every people everywhere to fight for
freedom. A person ceases to be human if he does not
fight for his freedom. And in'that fight he must demand
support from other -human beings for the sake of
greater freedom for all. For, however much we may
regret the need for war, we can no more refuse that
support than the Allies could have refused support for
the resistance movements of Europe during the 1940s.
In this matter we have no alternative. The ball is
certainly in South Africa's court. The bitterness that
“is caused against the people there as a result of
bloodshed is the responsibility—the sole .responsibility—of the racist régime. It is for South Africa to
choose between peace and war. :

77. Yet, there may still be some who still harbour
illusions about South African intentions with regard to
Namibia. As I have indicated, we in the United
Republic of Tanzania do not have such illusions.
During the current debate, we were once again subjected to the rhetoric of arrogance by the representative
of the racist régime.

78.. In the exercise of my right of reply on 27 January
[see 1881st meeting], 1 remarked on the hollowness
of South Africa’s statement before the Council, and
I need not abuse the patience of members to make a
further exposure of that statement. It is sufficient to
assert that the statement clearly demonstrates South
Africa’s continued defiance of the authority of the
Council and ‘the international community. It is also
sufficient to assert that, from South Africa's point of
view, truth becomes truth only when it is recognized
as such by the South Africans. Mr. Botha’s statement
clearly confirmed that South Africa has still to accept
contemporary realities. : :

BE

79." Nevertheless, we are now throwing out another

_ challenge to that régime to accept a free expression of

the views of the people of Namibia through an election
supervised and controlled by the United Nations. And
for those who still harbour doubts about the intention
of South Africa, we can only say that this is a splendid
opportunity. Let South Africa accept this challenge if
it is to give any semblance of respectability to the
arguments of its international apologists. . :

80. Iti is, however, important to understand that we
do not intend to associate ourselves and the United
Nations with a farcical exercise of elections. It is our
intention that such elections be the result of a real
free expression of views. We see it therefore as an
important part of such exercise that all exiled political
leaders of the people of Namibia be allowed to return
without any restriction, and that they be allowed to
exercise their right to political _expression freely, as
well as to propagate their opinions without let or
hindrance. We see it as a necessary condition that the
South African régime adhere strictly to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the repeal of
all restrictive laws. In short, it is necessary that South
Africa adhere to the demands of the Security Council
as expressed i in resolution 366 (1974), i in all its aspects.

81. We’ in Africa want peace. Yet we cannot’ deny
the right of Namibians to self-determination and
independence. We cannot, therefore, remain indifferent to their plight. Namibia must be free. Whether
that freedom comes through the ballot or the barrel
of a gun is not our choice. That choice belongs to
South Africa. And, on both those choices, the role
and responsibility of the allies of South Africa are
grave indeed.

82. ‘Speaking now as PRESIDENT, 1 would say that
the Council has concluded its discussion, and I take
it that the time has come to take up the draft resolution
submitted yesterday in document $/11950. Does any
member of the Council wish to speak now in connexion
with the draft resolution?

83. Mr. VINCI (Italy): My delegation fully supports
and will vote in favour of draft resolution $/11950,
which has been submitted by eight members of the
Council. I wish to pay a high tribute to you,
Mr. President, and to the original drafters.of the"
working paper who have acted with an outstandingly
constructive spirit-—which is the main quality of statesmanship—in order to accommodate the other delegations represented on the Council.

84. My delegation is particularly grateful to the
sponsors for having produced a final text which fully
reflects our views and recommends a course of action
for Namibia which we feel is the most appropriate at
this stage. We cannot better show our appreciation
than by stating that we have no reservations to express

‘on the provisions contained in the draft resolution.

I will simply recall for the record that Italy abstained
on General Assembly resolutions 3295 (XXIX) and
3399 (XXX), referred to in the third paragraph of the
preamble.

85. As I stressed in my statement yesterday [/884th
meeting], a unanimous decision by the Council on
the subject of Namibia is of paramount importance,
and I hope that will be the result of our vote today.
It is only by acting with one voice that the Council
may produce an impact on the Government and
people of South Africa, thus bringing closer the
elimination of an illegal situation we have been facing
for so long. I therefore warmly welcome today’s draft
resolution and commend it to the positive vote of
our colleagues in the Council.

86. Before concluding, Mr. President, I wish to
express our sincere appreciation for the firm, courteous
and enlightened way in which you have conducted
our deliberations. You have managed to focus the
attention of the Council on the subject which we were
meant to deal with, without dispersing our efforts in
the consideration of matters not strictly pertinent to
the Namibian question. This achievement has certainly
facilitated our work and its final positive outcome.

87. The PRESIDENT: Since no other member wishes
to speak at this stage, I shall now put to the vote the
draft resolution sponsored by Benin, Guyana, the
Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania,
Sweden and the United Republic of Tanzania, which
is before the Security Council in document S/11950.

A vote was taken by show of hands.
The draft resolution was adopted unanimously.

88. The PRESIDENT: 1 shall now call on those
representatives who have asked to be allowed to
explain their votes after the voting.

89. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation
from French): In voting in favour of the resolution on
Namibia which was just adopted unanimously. by the
Council, my delegation wanted to furnish proof that
the French Government unreservedly supports actions
taken whenever they are aimed at enabling the population of Namibia to exercise its right to self-determination and independence. It congratulates the sponsors
of the resolution for the constructive proposals they
have made in having the essence of this text bear on
the organization of general free elections in Namibia.

90. The French delegation would, however, like
to make a few brief comments. The text on which the
Council has just taken a decision refers to certain
resolutions on which we abstained. The reservations
we put forward on them still stand, as well as those of
a strictly legal nature which relate to the advisory

_opinion of the International Court of Justice. These
few comments, however, I should like to stress, in no
way detract from the political position of France on the
problem of Namibia.

12

91. Members of the Council are aware that one of the
main difficulties in this matter is to define the role of
the United Nations in the process of self-determination and, above all, to have it accepted by South
Africa. My delegation deems it necessary to give its
interpretation of the role the Organization should play
in the possible general elections.

92. During the consultations you have undertaken,
Mr. President, we have listened with the utmost attention to the arguments advanced to justify as wide a role
for the United Nations as the sponsors of the resolu-

‘tion would wish. We believe for our part that the role
-of the United Nations should be effective and precise.

It seems to us, however, that supervision should not
result in the creation of a machinery incompatible
with the presence of an administration which will
obviously not have left the Territory before the
elections are held. As we said in our statement [see
1883rd meeting], when the time comes the Council
should determine how to ensure that these elections
are held in conformity with the normal requirements of
genuinely democratic balloting.

93. One last comment seems .necessary to us on
paragraph 3 of the resolution. We are here discussing

-the problem of Namibia, not the situation prevailing

in another country. We condemn any foreign interference in the affairs of an independent country, on
any basis or under any pretext. In this context we do
not believe it is fair unilaterally to condemn certain
military actions carried out in a country which is a
neighbour of Namibia.

94. Mr. President, at the time of the conclusion of
this debate on Namibia, I should like to congratulate
you on the way in which in a particularly heavy month,
you have conducted the work of the Council. We have
appreciated both your authority and your sense of
realism. Our congratulations go also to the to the
United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Sean
MacBride. We are aware of his untiring efforts to
find a solution to the problem of Namibia in keeping
with justice and with the dignity of the population of
that Territory.

95. Mr. SAITO (Japan): My delegation voted in
favour of draft resolution S/11950, which the Council
has just adopted. It is a source of satisfaction to my
delegation that the Council has taken a unanimous
decision on the question of Namibia. It is ‘a most
significant fact of which we are proud.

96. In my statement before the Council two days ago
[see 1882nd meeting], 1 expressed my conviction that
we have to put an end to the present stalemate and
address ourselves to the most pressing action—the
need to hold free and democratic elections under

‘United Nations. supervision—and at the same time

enable the Council to take a unanimous decision,
thus strengthening the Council’s position on the
question of Namibia. The present resolution meets
this requirement, and it is the main reason why my
delegation voted for it.

97. 1 hope that the Government of South Africa will
not fail to respond to the resolution, which reflects the
unanimous and strong will of the Council, and thereby
enable the Council to take further steps to implement
it. For our part, we are fully aware of our unavoidable responsibility for the implementation of the
resolution we adopted unanimously.

98. Before concluding, I wish to express my delegation's .appreciation to the sponsors of the resolution
for their untiring and arduous efforts in formulating
the text in a spirit of accommodation, taking into
account the divergent views, including those of my
delegation.

99. In particular, I wish to take this opportunity to
express my delegation’s gratitude, as well as my own,
to you, Mr. President, for the way you have conducted both the informal and the formal proceedings
of the Council which led to this constructive decision.
I am happy also to see that the Special Committee
re-elected you its Chairman this morning for the fifth
consecutive time, thus demonstrating its confidence
in those high qualities of leadership and personal
integrity from which the Council has benefited during
its consideration of the question of Namibia, in full
co-operation with Mr. Kamana, the President of the
United Nations Council for Namibia, who also greatly
contributed to the settlement of the knotty question
of Namibia. :

100. Mr. LAI Ya-li (China) (translation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation has voted in favour of
draft resolution S$/11950. However, we wish to state
that we have reservations on the relevant contents
about free elections in the draft resolution. We hold
that when the Namibian people are still under the
domination and repression of the South African troops,
police and administration, the holding of the so-called
free elections is completely out of the question. There
is a danger that such a practice may be utilized by
the South African racist régime to continue its occupation and domination of Namibia in a disguised form.
We also hold that it is imperative to maintain vigilance
and guard against the South African authorities’
attempt to capitalize on the so-called ‘‘dialogue’’ to
deceive the world public and delay their withdrawal
from Namibia.

101. Mr. MURRAY (United Kingdom): This has
been a useful, and I believe, important debate which
has revealed a considerable degree of agreement
around this table as to how we should best proceed.

"The intensive consultations which you, Sir, have
held with all Council members and the pains which you
have been at to take account of the points of view of
all members have contributed greatly to this successful conclusion.

13

102. My delegation believes that the positive votes
which all 15 members of the Council have just cast
will give added authority to the resolution before us.
We whole-heartedly endorse the call for United
Nations supervision of free elections throughout the
whole Territory of Namibia, which is the main feature
of this resolution. We do so the more willingly because
of our own commitment to the democratic process.

103. At the same time, my delegation would like to
express its reservations on a number of aspects of the
resolution for which we have just voted. The resolntion recalls, in its preamble, a number of earlier resolutions both of the Security Council and of the General
Assembly for which my delegation did not vote. More
specifically, I must reserve our position on the fifth
and sixth paragraphs of the preamble concerning the
advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
and the legal responsibility of the United Nations for
Namibia. Our views on these matters are well-known.
In brief, it remains our position that General Assembly
resolutions have the status of recommendations and
are not mandatory in effect.

104. As for what the resolution has to say about the
constitutional processes, we believe it to be both
right and proper for the Security Council to call for
elections in Namibia, and to see that they are carefully
supervised. But for the reasons set out in my delegation’s statement in the general debate, we continue to
have reservations about the use of the word *‘control”
in relation to the future task of the United Nations in
Namibia. I need only say that we have been encouraged
in the past few days to find that there seems in fact
to be a broad identity of views among Council members about the way in which the United Nations could
best carry out the supervisory role contemplated for it.
We also take note of the intention in paragraph 8 of
the text before us to have the Security Council revert
to this question in a more detailed way at the appropriate time. There are, as we indicated earlier, a
number of important matters relating to the conduct
of the electoral process which deserve closer
consideration.

105. With reference to paragraph 3, which condemns
the South African military build-up in Namibia and any
utilization of the Territory as a base for attack on
neighbouring countries, I wish to make it clear that my
delegation deplores any utilization not only of the
Territory of Namibia as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries. We deplore the utilization of any
territory, in or outside Africa, as a base for attacks
on African countries. We are, of course, discussing
Namibia and not Angola, but my delegation wishes
to emphasize that it is not prepared to accept any
one-sided condemnation of the use of force. My
Government's position is well known and was reaffirmed by my Foreign Secretary only two days ago.
We are opposed to any external intervention in
Arigola. We continue to call for a cease-fire and for a
political settlement which would enable the people of
Angola to determine its own future freely. In this
context ‘we do not think that the reference to South
-Africa’s aggressive military build-up in the area, in the
eighth preambular paragraph, reflects the facts of the
situation fully and fairly.

106. Finally, in supporting the demands in paragraphs 11 (b) and 11 (d) for the release of all Namibian
political prisoners and for the return of all Namibians
currently in exile for political reasons, we have in mind
those Namibians who have not been convicted of or
charged with criminal offences. :

107. Mr. MOYNIHAN (United States of America):
Mr. President, in response to your appeal and to the
superb example of leadership and constructive
development which you have shown throughout this
debate, my delegation limited our statement yesterday
to a discussion of developments in Namibia and South
African policies there. I want to make clear that it is
in the context of Namibia, and in that context alone,
-that the United States has decided to vote affirmatively
-on the resolution which the Council has just adopted.

108. In precisely the spirit of the statement just made
by my colleague, the representative of the United
Kingdom, let me say that it goes without saying that
had we been discussing Angola, as some of our
colleagues have sought to do in spite of your discouragement, Mr. President, it would have been
incumbent upon the Council to examine all foreign
intervention, including the non-African forces which
are currently fighting there.

109. The resolution we have adopted reflects the
view long held by my Government regarding South
African presence in Namibia and the view that the
Namibian people, under United Nations supervision,
must promptly be allowed to exercise their right to
self-determination. The United States believes that
the correct interpretation of paragraphs 7, 8-and 9,
concerning the means of ‘‘United Nations supervision
and control’ of the free elections in Namibia, must
be based on a reading of those three paragraphs
together, as would be proper.

110. 1t is clear that the Council is leaving open the
exact form of United Nations supervision of these
elections, leaving it to be worked out subsequently
by the United Nations. We believe that in this way the
Council wisely avoids prejudging the exact nature of
the United Nations role until this matter can be
specifically considered.

111. In conclusion, as I am evidently to be the last
speaker, I should like to join all my predecessors and
what I cannot but assume to be all my colleagues on
the Council in congratulating you, Mr. President, for
_ having brought us to a unanimous conclusion—a
rare event in many of the proceedings of the Council,
rarer yet with respect to this subject—a unanimous
conclusion concerning what the responsibilities of the

14

112.

world community are to the people of Namibia. 1
would like to congratulate you, Sir, for the rare
patience with which you have endured our drafting
and our other antics over the last month. It has been an
example which I shall hope to emulate to the extent of
my abilities, as any of us would. wish to do.

Finally, I wish to express once again the admiration of my Government for the superb moral leadership
and executive direction which we have had, which the
United Nations has had, from the United Nations

Commissioner for Namibia, Mr.. Sean  MacBride.

13. The PRESIDENT: 1 shall now call on the
President of the United Nations Council for Namibia.

114. Mr. KAMANA (President of the United Nations
Council for Namibia): I 'do not wish to impose on
members of the Security Council any longer than is
necessary. I merely asked to speak to’say, on behalf
of the United Nations Council for Namibia, how much
we appreciate the very skilful and enlightened manner
in which you, Mr. President, have conducted these
deliberations. We wish to pay a tribute to you, Sir.

115. We also wish to thank the sponsors of the resolution which has just been adopted unanimously for the
work, they put into its preparation as well as. into the
necessary consultations that have culminated in the
significant result we have just witnessed this afternoon.

116." We also wish to commend all members of the
Security Council for the realistic manner in which they
have discussed this all-important question of Namibia.
We are grateful to them for allowing us, as representatives of the United Nations Council for Namibia, to
participate in the debate. ch Co

117. It is our hope that South Africa will heed its
isolation and take immediate steps to relinquish its
illegal occupation of Namibia. We trust, too, that the
resolution just adopted will not be just another resolution, but that, as is our ‘hope, it will be implemented.

118. The PRESIDENT: The last speaker is
Mr. Moses Garoeb, Administrative Secretary for
the South West Africa People’s Organization . of
Namibia. I invite him, accordingly, to take a place at
the Council table and to make his statement.

119. Mr. GAROEB: The only reason my delegation
takes the floor at this time is to express our profound
thanks to the members of the Security Council for the
unanimous vote they have just cast which ensured the
adoption of draft resolution Sf11950. For us this is an
indication that, in spite of the differences of opinion,
in spite of the reservations on the resolution, the Council is at least unanimous on oné thing, and that is that
South Africa is illegally present in Namibia and must
withdraw and that the people of Namibia must exercise
their right to independence. And for this we are indeed
very thankful to the members of the Council.
120. Secondly, we should like to take this opportunity
to express similar thanks to the President of the
United Nations Council for Namibia, our good brother,
Mr. Kamana, and to Mr. MacBride, the Commissioner
for Namibia, for they are, as it were, the ones
immediately associated with us in the day-to-day
and direct prosecution of the liberation struggle of
our country.

121. We believe that the vote that has been cast
here today puts the Security Council firmly on the road
to asserting its authority to ensure that South Africa
withdraws from Namibia. We believe also that it is an
endorsement of our right to self-determination and
independence but, most importantly, for us it is an
indication that the Council is our partner in the
exercise of the liberation of our country. We should
like also to thank all those Members of the United
Nations that are not members of the Council but that
have taken up their precious time to participate in this
debate.

122. Last but not least, Mr. President, I should like
to thank you personally and the Government of the
United Republic of Tanzania for the work you have
done to ensure the unanimous passage of the resolution. I have seen the efforts you have put in, the time
you have spent and the energy you have dispensed in
seeing to it that the Security Council should come to
a unanimous agreement on this resolution. If I may
say so, on behalf of my delegation, I have always had
confidence in you personally. I have seen you preside
over very important conferences and I have never
doubted that you have always worked for consensus
and a constructive approach. In your work, young as
you are, you have gained the respect of persons of all
ages.

123. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity
to thank the Security Council on behalf of SWAPO,
and indeed on behalf of the people of Namibia, for
the vote it has just cast. It is our sincere hope that
the Council will ensure that the resolution will be
implemented. Co .

124, The PRESIDENT: We have now concluded the
present stage of the discussion of the item on our
agenda.

Statement by the President concerning a telegram from
Mr. Ali Soihili, head of State of the Comores

125. The PRESIDENT: Before we ‘adjourn, I wish
to inform members that I have received the following
telegram from Mr. Ali Soilihi, head of bcaivk of the
Comoros:

‘I have the honour to inform you of anew , develop-
“ment in the French aggression against the territory
of the Comoros. Flouting international law and

- morality, the French Government’ intends to
organize a referendum in Mayotte on 8 February

15

1976. Mayotte is an integral part of Comorian
territory under the French laws which have recog-
‘nized the de facto and de jure unity of the archipelago
ever since 1912. On 12 November 1975, the United
Nations admitted the Comorian State consisting of
“the four islands of Anjouan, Mayotte, Mohéli and
Grande-Comore. In view of this flagrant aggression,
I have the honour to request you to.convene the
“Security Council urgently in order to maintain peace
in the ‘archipelago and to take all necessary action
* to safeguard the integrity of our country. Ali Soihili,
head of the Comorian State.” 18/11953.1

126. ‘In accordance with the ‘usual practice, the
President of the Security Council—which means both
myself and my. successor—will approach members
of the Council in order to enable the President to
decide what appropriate further steps should be taken.

127. Mr. KIKHIA (Libyan ‘Arab Republic): The
problem of the Comoros is not new. In fact, since the
Comoros acceded to independence on 6 July 1975
it has had a problem with the former colonial Power.

The former colonial Power, France, tried and is still
trying to maintain under its authority Mayotte, an
integral part of the Comoros. It undertook retaliatory
measures which had the effect of paralysing the
functioning of the technical services of the administration in the new Republic. These measures, whose
consequences are very serious for the Comorian
people, are all the more condemnable and injustifiable
since the difficulties of every nature faced by the
Comorian Republic are the consequences of a long
colonial administration.

128. Mayotteis an integral part of Comorian territory,
under French law itself-—as the telegram tells
us—which has recognized the de facto and de jure

* unity of the archipelago ever since 1912. On 12 Novem-

ber 1975 the United Nations admitted the Comorian
State consisting - of the four islands of Anjouan,
Mayotte, Mohéli and Grande-Comore. The General
Assembly i in its resolution—

129. The PRESIDENT: Iapologize to the representative of the Libyan Arab Republic, but I should like
to make an appeal to him. Since the item is not yet
on the agenda of the Council, perhaps it would not be
appropriate for him to go into the details of the
question.

130. Mr. KIKHIA (Libyan Arab Republic): I am
not going into the details of the problem. I have a
demand, but I have to explain why. I want to ask for
action from the Council, I have to say why it is urgent
to take action. I am not going into the details of the
problem. I know that we have not yet decided to put
it on the agenda of the Council, but, since this
telegram has been distributed to all the members and
since also a press communiqué has been distributed
by the French delegation, I think I have to explain
why I am asking that the Council take urgent action.
131. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative
of France on a point of order.

132. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation

Jrom French): I'm raising a point of order. It is not the
practice of the Council to discuss a text or a question
before deciding to put the text or the question on its
agenda. Mr. President, you stated a moment ago that
you had received a telegram. You indicated that the
President of the Council, yourself or your successor,
would organize consultations to determine what
should be done about the telegram. I request that the
usual procedure be followed. I should like to raise a
formal objection to the statement by the representative
of the Libyan Arab Republic on this subject. He may
request a meeting of the Council, but before the
question is put on the Council’s agenda he cannot
start discusing it. When it is put on the agenda of
the Council, 1 am prepared to speak on the question,
even if it is put on the agenda today. My purpose is
not to delay the debate, but I cannot accept the discussion of a subject which is not on the agenda.

133. The PRESIDENT: 1 must say that the representative of France is right in this connexion. If the
representative of the Libyan Arab Republic wishes
only to make a proposal, then he can make that
proposal. But to go into the discussion of the merits
of the proposal would not be fair to the Council,
particularly since the item is not on the Council’s
agenda.

134. Mr. KIKHIA (Libyan Arab Republic): I should
like to ask the Council to take urgent action and to
convene a meeting to discuss this matter, and I think
it is appropriate to explain why it is urgent. General
Assembly resolution 3385 (XXX)...

135. The PRESIDENT: I should like to appeal to
my colleague from the Libyan Arab Republic, because
I can see that we may have a proliferation of points
of order. 1 think he has made his point that he wants
a meeting of the Council to be convened urgently.
Certainly I, as President of the Council, will take into
account the fact that at least one member of the
Council desires that this matter should be considered
urgently. In the conduct of the consultations, either
by me or by my successor, that particular request will
be taken into account. I therefore appeal to him not to
continue with a substantive discussion.

136. Mr. KIKHIA (Libyan Arab Republic): Sir,
I am not saying anything substantive, I am saying that
the problem is urgent, because there is to be a
referendum on 8 February...

16

137. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative
of France on a point of order.

138. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation

from French): Mr. President, the question which is on
the Council's agenda is worded as follows: ‘‘The
situation in Namibia’. There is no other item on the
agenda.

139. Mr. KIKHIA (Libyan Arab Republic): The
Libyan delegation requests that this problem be placed
on the agenda of the Council...

140. The PRESIDENT: With all due respect to. my
Libyan colleague, I should like to state that his request
will be taken into account. But I do not think that, as
the representative of France has correctly said, we
can discuss the item now. The representative of the
Libyan Arab Republic has already made his request
and that request will be taken into account. The
President of the Council will certainly take into
account the specific proposal made by our colleague
from the Libyan Arab Republic that in view of the
urgency of the matter this question should be considered as soon as possible. I would therefore appeal
to him and to all the members of the Council to agree
that there is no point in holding a procedural discussion
now on whether or not a delegation can speak on this
item.

141. Mr. KIKHIA (Libyan Arab Republic): I am
not speaking on the item. I wanted to say that the
question was urgent and to propose that a meeting
be held. I do want to finish my statement. I wanted
to suggest that we hold a meeting tomorrow or Monday.
That is all. That is my precise suggestion.

142. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative
of the Libyan Arab Republic. Again, as I said at the
beginning of this discussion, in the normal consultations that will be undertaken by the President of the
Council the specific suggestion made by our colleague
from the Libyan Arab Republic will be taken into
account.

The meeting rose at 6.05 p.m.

Notes

! See General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI).

2 See General Assembly resolution 2248 (S-V) of 19 May 1967.

3 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of
South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding
Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1.C.J.
Reports 1971, p. 16.

4 See resolution 385 (1976).
dancdl (V1 Shoyiie lod pan us
Ge Jolaz at GK (pn Liar glazed + JU oli] gor oP a 292s IVC OU JPY PECK JOY) RCA PYCERRS TIN POS [FX 99
SPR | Py an uy PECK ON IE INE SO
nf REX & EH RR
SEBRMTE 2 RAEN SENSE LHS RE, An BE RBR SEE HREAINRGRINE HE,

HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS

United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the
world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva.

COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES

Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les libraries et les agences dépositaires du
monde entier. Informez-vous auprés de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section
des ventes, New York ou Genéve.

KAK INOJAYYHUTH U3TAHUA OPTAHH 3ANHMN OG’ BbEAHHEHHBIX HAILUNA

Hizpanus OpranuszanuH O6beanHeHHbIX Hani MOXHO KYNHTb B KHHXXHBIX Mara-3MHAX H ACeHTCTEAX BO BCeX palioHax Mmupa. HamoAHuTe cnpaBKH 00 H3J4HHUAX B
BallleM KHIDKHOM MarasfiHe HJM NHIIHTe MO aapecy: OpraHusauua O6beHHeHHbIX
Hanu#t, Cexuua no npoaaxe usfnanuii, Hero-Hopk unu Henesa.

COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

~ Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en
todas partes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccion de Ventas,
Nueva York o Ginebra.

Litho in United Nations, New York 00400 83-60801—May 1984—2,200

Voting Summary
Yes: 015 | No: | Abstentions: | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership:
Y BENIN
Y CHINA
Y FRANCE
Y GUYANA
Y ITALY
Y JAPAN
Y LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Y PAKISTAN
Y PANAMA
Y ROMANIA
Y SWEDEN
Y USSR
Y UNITED KINGDOM
Y UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Y UNITED STATES