The measures we propose (on South West Africa) relate to very simple and absolutely fundamental points:
First, we want this Assembly to declare that South Africa, by its actions and by its own admission, has forfeited its right to administer the mandated territory of South West Africa. Is there a single delegation here that would deny this fact? If there is one, we should like to hear from it.
Second, we want this Assembly also to declare that the people of South West Africa have the right to self-determination and independence. This cannot be contested by any delegation, for resolution 1514 (XV) was adopted by the whole Assembly, with the exception, of course, of Portugal and South Africa, and of certain other friends in disguise that chose to abstain. This right to self-determination as stipulated in resolution 1514 (XV) is an inalienable right and depends in no way upon the state of the British pound sterling or on the dilemmas which sometimes seem to confront the United States whenever the liberty of an African people is at stake.
Thirdly, we wish this General Assembly to declare that the United Nations, under the terms of the Charter and of the "sacred mandate" of the international community, has the authority and the obligation to see to it that the rights of the people of South West Africa are restored. This has been accepted by the General Assembly and recognized by the Opinions of the International Court of Justice.
Once we accept these three propositions, there is only one possible solution to the problem, namely that of the United Nations taking over the administration of the Territory and assisting the people of South West Africa to recover its independence.
This is the very substance of this draft resolution. To be sure, we can examine and discuss the various procedures and ways and means and the form of the new administration that we are proposing, but it must never be a question of the United Nations agreeing to accept any compromise of its own principles. We can no longer avoid the obligations laid down in the Charter by referring new documents to new committees and asking for new legal opinions. We have already evinced enormous patience, but patience ceases to be a virtue when it is exercised at the expense of an entire people's dignity.
The people of South West Africa have the right to expect and to demand liberation from the colonialist yoke imposed upon them by the South African racists in the name of the "sacred mandate". The United Nations Organization, on its part, is in duty bound to fulfil their hopes.
Is there a single person who honestly expects that South Africa - the South Africa of Mr. Verwoerd and Mr. Vorster - will be persuaded to fulfil its obligations and discharge its responsibilities? If there is such a person, I would invite him to read the statement made yesterday by the spokesman for apartheid.
We ask that the United Nations take over the administration of the mandated Territory, by peaceful means if possible but by force if necessary, because the Government of South Africa has violated its obligations and is now incapable of carrying them out by reason of its attachment to the inhuman doctrine of apartheid.
The spokesman of apartheid has once again repeated in this Assembly that his Government is practising and will continue to practice the policy of apartheid, which means that half of the Territory will continue being reserved for the white settlers while the rest is divided up into tribal reservations, the whole, of course, under a regime of terror aimed at those who believe in a multiracial society.
May I remind you that this policy has been condemned by the General Assembly as "a crime against humanity".
We know that some delegations have reservations concerning the very clear and simple proposals which we put forward. Those delegations claim that our proposals are, as they say, not realistic, since the South African regime will oppose them since it is strong enough to do so and since it is militarily powerful. That argument, put forward particularly by countries that furnish arms and money to South Africa - that have given South Africa weapons, ammunition, planes, warships, tanks - countries such as France, the United Kingdom and the United States, the last two of which say they have imposed an embargo - that argument is, to say the least, dumbfounding in its dishonesty. These great Powers may of course go on doing business with their customer, if they cannot bear to give it up, but they should put the principles they profess ahead of their profits.
We are fully aware of the tragedy in which certain of these great Powers are involved in the problem of southern Africa. For six long years, while the International Court took its time considering the complaint of the two African countries, these Powers poured into South Africa and South West Africa great quantities of arms and money. This was clearly demonstrated in the report of the Special Committee on Apartheid and the report of the Committee of Twenty-four.
Only last month the South African Finance Minister and the governor of the Bank of South Africa took pleasure in announcing that $178 million were invested in South Africa during the preceding eighteen months in the form of private long-term investments. Apparently the Judgement of the International Court was the starting-point for a rush of investments aimed at exploiting the Africans even further.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Theo Gerdener, administrator of the province of Natal, stated that South Africa could become an ideal place for foreign investments because of the very fact of the Judgement - which he called favourable - of the International Court on the question of South West Africa. He expects £100 million, that is to say $280 million, to be invested in South Africa.
The first part was already granted only a few days after the decision of the Court. It consisted of the sum of $20 million which was loaned to South Africa by the International Bank. That loan would not have been approved if it had not been supported by the United States and the United Kingdom, which control the operations of the Bank. When the time comes, this Assembly must condemn the attitude of the Bank and of the Powers responsible for the granting of this loan - a shameless attitude filled with contempt for the resolutions of the General Assembly.
We are also fully conscious of the fact that this game played by the great Powers is on a par with the role of the United Kingdom and its allies in the Southern Rhodesia affair and the various intrigues aimed at keeping certain African Territories under Portugal's yoke.
It is not only South West Africa which concerns us today: it is the future of all of Southern Africa and, without doubt, the survival of the United Nations which are in the balance.
We no longer have any illusions about the attitude of those Powers which, with their weapons and their money, support racism and colonialism in Southern Africa. The people of South West Africa have none either, for it is resigned to the only way open to it: armed struggle.
A month ago, two freedom-fighters were killed in Ovamboland. We do not mourn them because it is a signal honour to die for one's homeland. We are fully at one with them.
This Assembly cannot take decisions tailor-made only for countries like the United Kingdom or any other country which believes in the same values as the United Kingdom with regard to Southern Africa. This Assembly must fulfil the principles of the Charter without the slightest compromise.
Footnotes