27 April 19811
Mr. President, I thank you and all the other members of the Council for affording me the opportunity to express the views of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) on this burning issue before the Council.
I should like at the outset to join the several Ministers and representatives who have preceded me and extend to you, Mr. President, the warmest felicitations on your assumption of the lofty position of President of the Council during the month of April.2 The able manner in which you are conducting this important debate convinces us that, under your guidance and given the co-operation of all the other members, the Council can indeed achieve the sacred objective so ardently expected by the oppressed and struggling peoples of Namibia and South Africa. I hasten to add that our hopes are further reinforced by the Irish people's well-known traditional support for the international fight against apartheid.
I should like also to congratulate your eminent predecessor, Ambassador Peter Florin, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the German Democratic Republic, on the able manner in which he conducted the affairs of the Council last month.
The importance attached to this debate by the peoples of Africa and the world that love freedom, justice and peace cannot be overemphasized. It is being clearly shown by the unprecedented participation of so many Ministers for Foreign Affairs and others of leading cabinet rank. Africa, Asia, Latin America and part of Europe have, through spokesmen given a mandate by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the non-aligned countries, with unparalleled vigour and unity of purpose articulated the position of more than two-thirds of humanity on the decolonization of Namibia. Adopted at New Delhi and reinforced at Addis Ababa, Luanda and Algiers, that position is an unequivocal expression of the grave concern and indignation of the so-called third world over the continued illegal occupation of Namibia. This criminal situation which in itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security is further aggravated by the attendant crimes being perpetrated daily by the apartheidregime with ferocious brutality not only against the Namibian people but also against the People's Republic of Angola, the Republic of Zambia and other front-line States.
Our interest and participation in this debate is not only motivated by our conviction that the struggle being waged by the oppressed peoples of Namibia and South Africa is one and indivisible. It is also a manifestation of the profound admiration and solidarity our people feels towards the valiant Namibian people who, under the leadership of SWAPO, their sole and authentic representative, are today spearheading our common struggle against the common enemy, and who have in the past two years registered important political, diplomatic and military victories, which we share. It is also to declare for the world to know that we for our part intend to spare no effort towards the intensification of the ongoing political and armed struggle in South Africa and to help hasten the inevitable vindication of General Malan's panic-motivated observation that "no nation can simultaneously fight an insurgency on its borders and fight insurgency at home".
In the wake of the combined victories registered by the brotherly peoples of Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, which drastically changed the balance of forces in our favour, the impact of the heroic struggle being waged by the Namibian people has further heightened the determination of our people to play and conclude their long-awaited role in the total liberation of our continent.
We consider every procrastination or prevarication aimed at buying time for the apartheidregime in Namibia as directed against our struggle and as part of the imperialist global strategy to ensure the bolstering and spread of the hated regime's hegemonistic tentacles, which are totally inimical not only to the aspirations of our people but also to those of the entire continent and progressive mankind.
As stated in the past few days by most of the speakers, including Mr. Picho Owiny, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Uganda, the history of Namibia is one of continued betrayal of trust. Throughout the long history of colonialism, four forces have combined to thwart in Namibia the outcome long achieved in other former German Territories like Togo, part of Cameroon and erstwhile Tanganyika. These have been and continue to be the giant transnational corporations operating in Namibia, the white minority racists who enjoy paradise and power in Namibia, the armed forces of the apartheid regime which occupy Namibia and some Powers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which are bent on the perpetuation of the status quo in Namibia.
We do not intend to dwell at length on the historical details which have been so eloquently articulated by a number of honourable Ministers and representatives. Suffice it to stress that the problem of Namibia stems from South Africa’s expansionist and colonial ambitions. That has in turn been facilitated by some permanent members of the Council that have hitherto impeded the implementation of the Council's own pertinent decisions, including resolution 301 (1971), which upheld the decision of the International Court of Justice that South Africa's Mandate was validly terminated, that continued occupation was illegal and that South Africa was under obligation to withdraw immediately from Namibia. It is now not only in the interest of restoring the badly eroded credibility of the United Nations in general and the Council in particular that effective collective measures for the prevention of threats to the peace and for the suppression of aggression and breaches of the peace must be taken immediately, but also in order to avert a situation whose explosion may be too far-reaching for the survival of mankind. The ANC joins the preponderant majority in calling for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions, including an oil embargo, against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
From the time when the South African regime challenged the credentials of the United Nations to deal with the question of Namibia as the legal successor to the League of Nations and when it requested - unsuccessfully - that Namibia be incorporated as its fifth province, right up to its intransigence at the Geneva pre-implementation meeting, that regime has clearly demonstrated its irreversible rejection of a negotiated settlement which would conform to the previous decisions of the Council. It is against that background that the application to have the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) address the Council and the statement made by the representative of the Pretoria regime must be examined.
South Africa's inability unilaterally to defy world opinion on the question of Namibia has been demonstrated by its constantly changing strategies. When assured of full support by powerful allies, it adopts an openly defiant attitude; when convinced that the international pressure is too strong to resist, South Africa and the same allies opt for a neo-colonialist solution. The roots of such a current neo-colonialist strategy designed to impose a fictitious solution in Namibia can be traced to South Africa's invasion of Angola and the subsequent defeat it suffered. Much that has happened since then - like the recent resounding victory of the patriotic forces in Zimbabwe under the leadership of Comrade Robert Mugabe and the SWAPO-ANC heightened level of mass and armed confrontation in Namibia and South Africa itself has led to renewed and frantic attempts at imposing a neo-colonialist solution. In this the imperialist Powers have played a significant role.
In January 1976 the Council adopted resolution 385 (1976), providing for free and fair elections. South Africa refused to comply and instead announced its own sham elections in Namibia. In a quest for its own Muzorewa, the regime created DTA, which it recognized as the representative of the Namibian people’s aspirations. In April 1977 it accepted the alleged DTA proposals to set up the so-called National Assembly and announced its own elections for December 1978.
Alarmed by the persistent call for mandatory economic sanctions, Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America urged the United Nations to allow them an opportunity of negotiating with South Africa to accept United Nations supervised and controlled elections. In April 1978 the regime announced its acceptance of the plan. At the same time, it mounted the most savage repression against SWAPO and its followers. Cassinga in Angola was attacked and more than 800 unarmed men, women and children, refugees, were killed. That point was most effectively conveyed last week by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United Republic of Tanzania.
In December 1978 the regime forced gun-point elections in Namibia. Not surprisingly, DTA won the so-called elections, which flew in the face of Council resolution 435 (1978). Then came one "reason" after another for not complying with the United Nations plan for the implementation of resolution 439 (1978). What has happened since then convinces us that the main objective was to provide South Africa with a breathing period within which to consolidate its aggressive position in Namibia and launch a murderous onslaught against the people of Namibia, SWAPO and the front-line States, especially Angola and Zambia.
Today, the DTA-dominated "National Assembly" has been transformed into the so-called Council of Ministers with full executive powers, thereby reaching the last stage before the proclamation of a unilateral declaration of independence. The attempt to have DTA, that illegal puppet entity created by the illegal occupant of Namibia, address the Council was therefore a public relations exercise intended to earn it international recognition, in keeping with the strategy of unilateral declaration of independence.
A flurry of appeals has been made also to the Council members and the non-aligned spokesmen not to allow the so-called understandable frustration to gain the upper hand. The Council is being exhorted to abandon the idea envisaged in the Charter for the solution of such cases. We are being told not to resort to confrontation but to allow for continued persuasion. We are of course not told why the contact group's promised collective leverage over South Africa has not been used.
These appeals, which come after so gross a breach of promise, are tantamount to asking SWAPO, the OAU and the non-aligned countries to endorse the rapidly unfolding plot aimed at thwarting the liberation of Namibia and facilitating the destabilization of and aggression against the front-line States, whose legal Governments must be overthrown and replaced by puppet regimes. They come in the wake of the arrogant and threat-riddled statement by the racist representative [2268th meeting), whose claim to support the wishes of the people of Namibia for an early internationally recognized independence is as false as his rejection of the United Nations plan for that objective is true. As the shameless representative of a regime that excels in euphemism - that talks of holding general elections when in South Africa over 23 million of the inhabitants are permanently denied the right to vote and are being made foreigners in the country of their birth, that talks of internationally recognized independence in Namibia when it is planning a bantustan-type independence - Mr. Fourie has fooled no one.
The Federal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia made an extremely important point when he said:
"The attempt to portray [the problem of Namibia] as part of East-West confrontation constitutes a manoeuvre by South Africa aimed at making use of current international tensions in order to prolong its occupation of Namibia and its domination in southern Africa" [2270th meeting, para. 131].
While it is true that this is not new, that this manoeuvre is in fact in keeping with the regime's oppressive legislation, which defines any activity designed to bring about social, political or economic change in South Africa as furtherance of communism, there are two additional elements which are cause for concern.
South Africa's use of this age-old tactic, universally rejected as a vain attempt at isolating the national liberation movement by projecting the legitimate struggle against apartheidas being engineered by some external and generally unknown force, has hitherto posed no serious problem. After all, all oppressive regimes - be they Fascist, colonialist, racist or imperialist - have, at different times in isolation and with equal dismal failure, resorted to it in a vain attempt to halt the national upsurge of the anti-colonial and antiracist struggle. That was the case in Algeria, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other Territories. It has always been the case in Namibia and South Africa, to the degree that an impression is created that blacks are considered inherently incapable of determining on their own that, having been robbed of their land and denied their inalienable basic human rights by an alien Power, they must follow in the footsteps of the American people and scores of others to fight, gun in hand, for their independence and liberty.
A number of the Ministers participating in this debate no doubt recall that only yesterday they shared with SWAPO and the ANC the terrorist and Marxist label. George Washington would have dismissed such propaganda with the same attitude as Comrade Robert Mugabe did only a year ago.
But our concern today stems from the fact that we are now witnessing what I choose to call the unfolding convergence of positions adopted by Pretoria and Washington, in which the former projects itself as the guardian of Persian Gulf minerals and an indispensable bulwark in the fight against the alleged spread of communism in Africa, while the latter talks of a strategic consensus against the wars of the "so-called liberation movements" or terrorists or Soviet proxies. This growing convergence between Pretoria and Washington was recently articulated by President Ronald Reagan when he implied that the United States could not abandon South Africa, a country that had fought beside America in all major wars.
On this question the Johannesburg Weekly Star of 15 April observes that:
"Without question, Mr. Reagan means to have better relations with South Africa. He has a nostalgic view of South Africa as a staunch ally of the past… and a keen sense of South Africa's importance as supplier of defence-related minerals. .
"South Africa's anti-communist rhetoric also attracts Mr. Alexander Haig, the Secretary of State, who tends to see southern Africa through the same East-West lens as his one-time patron, Dr. Kissinger, did".
Recalling the notorious secret memorandum 39 drawn up by the National Security Council during Nixon's Administration, which argued that there was no realistic or supportable alternative for the Americans except to side with the whites in southern Africa, the New Statesman of 4 April declares:
"Twelve years later, the Reagan Administration is torn between two impulses. One urges the building of American power on African territory to reverse the political and military failures of the past, topple the Angola and Mozambique regimes, annihilate the SWAPO movement in Namibia, and destroy the African National Congress and other movements for liberation in South Africa. The second impulse would avoid open United States moves toward these objectives, but it differs from the first only in the willingness to let South Africa pull the trigger.
"Walvis Bay… is described by Reagan officials as 'unquestionably South African territory'.
"Washington has told both the South Africans and Dirk Mudge, the leader of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance in Namibia, who was in Washington immediately after the intelligence officers, that they should stall on negotiations for as long as will be necessary to build the DTA into a credible election force against SWAPO”.
The second element which is cause for serious concern is the growing Pretoria-Washington convergence of positions in pursuit of the campaign for the integration of South Africa into the NATO framework. General Magnus Malan, the Pretoria regime’s Defence Minister, former Commander-in-Chief, and graduate of the United States Army's Command General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, recently made a public statement expressing satisfaction that the United States and some Western Powers were now taking a realistic position on this matter. It is most disturbing to note that Malan's statement came shortly after the meeting in Europe between Pik Botha, the Pretoria regime's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Luns, the Secretary-General of NATO.
But even more disturbing is a report published by a South African newspaper that usually reflects the regime's thinking. That report says:
"NATO countries are becoming steadily more alarmed and strategists feel that if NATO itself cannot move into the critical area because of South Africa's position as a pariah State, the individual countries with interests in this zone must accept the responsibility".
It is for that reason that we wish to sound the alarm and warn against the dangers entailed in the highly orchestrated campaign to project the Namibian struggle for the decolonization of that illegally occupied Territory as falling within the East-West conflict. The same goes for the campaign to characterize the liberation movement of southern Africa, SWAPO and the ANC, as terrorists or Soviet proxies. The intentions are particularly sinister when one remembers that only two years ago the General Assembly unanimously adopted a Declaration on South Africa [resolution 34/930], expressing solidarity with the struggling people of South Africa, in which all the Member States committed themselves against overt or covert military intervention in support or defence of the apartheid regime. While apologizing to those who argue that resolutions and declarations do not solve problems, we most humbly suggest that Council resolution 435 (1978), the Declaration on South Africa and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)] will for the overwhelming majority of mankind always remain important instruments to govern international relations and impede the reign of the law of the jungle. The American Declaration of Independence, which helped to arouse world-wide support for the American people's legitimate war of independence, falls into this category.
In the light of all that, I must say that we are very suspicious of the reports that the most colonial of all colonial problems, the question of Namibia, is to be the subject of discussion at the forthcoming NATO meeting in Rome on 4 May.
That is why we call on the Council to prevent any attempt at taking the problem of Namibia out of the framework of the United Nations. That is why we call for affirmation of resolution 435 (1978) without any strengthening or independent amendment. That is why we call for the immediate imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter.
A luta continua. Power to the people!
1. United Nations document S/PV.2274