General Assembly's Agenda for Many Years but South Africa Had Impeded All Efferts to Reach a Conclusion and Had Rejected All the Solutions Proposed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United Nations UN LIBRARY-f!J~ FOURTH COMMITTEE GENERAL ~ ~ 32nd meeting DEC 7 1976~ i/ held on ASSEMBLY ""'""?~ Thursday, 25 November 1976 THIRTY-FIRST SESSION LIJNLSA COLLECiiON at 10.30 a.m. Official Records* . New York SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 32nd MEETING Chairman : Mr. VRAALSEN (Norway) CONTENTS AGENDA ITEM 85: QUESTION OF NAMIBIA (continued) AGENDA ITEM 25: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES (continued) • This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be inco~or~ted in a copy_ ot Distr. GENERAL the record and should be sent within one week of the date of publrcanon to the Chief, Official Records Editing Section, room I..X-2332. A/C.4/31/SR.32 2 December 1976 Corrections will be i~sued shortly after the end of the session, in a separate fascicle for ENGLISH each Committee. ORIGINAL: FRENCH r6-91343 / ... A/C.4/31/SR.32 English Page 2 The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. AGENDA TIME 35: QUESTION OF NAMIBIA (A/31/23/Add.l, A/31/23/Add.3, A/31/24 (vol. I and II), A/31/45, A/31/92, A/31/155, A/31/181, A/31/190 and Corr.l, A/31/197, A/31/213, A/31/237; A/C.4/31/L.29) (continued) 1. Mr. GIGNAC (Canada) noted with regret that the situation in Namibia had evolved little in substantive terms since the Fourth Committee's last debate on the question. It had been ten years since the United Nations terminated the South African mandate over Namibia and five years since the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion on that matter. Moreover, 13 resolutions to that effect had been adopted by the Security Council. Aside from those resolutions, the Security Council had repeatedly deplored the militarization of Namibia, had enjoined the Repvbli c of South Africa to withdraw its illegal administration from Namibia and had declared itself in support of a reasonable means of enabling the people of Namibia freely to determine their own future. 2. Canada had whole-heartedly supported the various resolutions and initiatives. It had advised the Government of South Africa of its position and had taken measures to ensure that no recognition was given by it to the illegal South African administration of Namibia. Canada maintained no diplomatic or consular representation in Namibia and warned any Canadian company or citizen proposing to invest or travel there that they did so at their own risk. It had also prohibited Canadians travelling on diplomatic or official passports from going to the Territory and, in addition, had placed an embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. While recognizing that the efforts undertaken so far had not succeeded, it was essential to continue supporting all action taken by the Security Council to promote a peaceful solution and, in particular, Security Council resolutions 366 (1976) and 385 (1976). 3. With respect to the Constitutional Conference being held in Windhoek, he noted that it was being conducted by representatives of various ethnic groups in Namibia but that no provision had been made to ensure the presence of all political representatives of the Territory or of organizations such as SWAPO which, it was clear, had popular support. Bearing those factors in mind, as well as the fact that the discussions were being held without reference to the United Nations, his Government considered that the discussions could not lead to measures that would ensure the development of an independent and united Namibia through a fully democratic process and was convinced that the Turnhalle discussions would ultimately fail. 4. His Government had watched with deep concern the growing number of violent incidents provoked by the continuing South African presence in Namibia. As a result of those incidents four Namibians had been sentenced to death. Canada believed that those sentences were invalid in law in view of the illegality of the South African presence in Namibia and that they could only have a negative effect on the prospects for a peaceful resolution; it therefore urged that the sentences not be carried out. I . .. A/C. 4/31/SR. 32 English Page 3 (Mr. Cignac, Canada) 5. In a move made in Pretoria on 29 August 1976, the Canadian Government had set forth those views before the South African Government and appealed to it to reach an accommodation as soon as possible with the United Nations on the future of Namibia, pointing out that otherwise, the situation might deteriorate so far as to become a threat to international peace and security. The response of the South African Government had been disappointing to say the least and had demonstrated that the latter's position remained unchanged. 6. However, in recent months developments in southern Africa and the intense political and diplomatic activity going on in both Rhodesia and South Africa gave rise to some hope. Although progress was very slow, his Government was convinced that the situation in Namibia could be resolved provided the international community made the necessary effort. 7. In the meantime, the United Nations should continue to pursue its efforts in favour of Namibian independence, in particular, by making concrete arrangements such as elaborating programmes designed to prepare Namibians for independence. Of particular importance in that sense were the United Nations Educational and Training Programme for Southern Africa and the Institute for Namibia. His delegation had already had occasion to draw attention to its support for UNETPSA and its intention of supporting the Institute because of the role which the latter would play during the difficult period that would follow independence. 8. Even before the budget of the Institute had been finalized Canada had announced its intention of contributing $100,000 to the Institute. In March, during the Pledging Conference for all programmes for southern Africa, Canada had indicated that a further contribution to the Institute for Namibia would be subject to assessment of the operations and programmes of the Institute, its over-all budget, financial prospects and the support it received. Unfortunately, the constant efforts it had made since March 1976 to obtain details of the Institute's budget and operations had met with little success and it had therefore been unable, so far, to commit further funds. While his delegation understood that the budget had to be considered by various bodies and that that was a lengthy process which was no doubt justified, it hoped that the process could be speeded up for, in the absence of an authoritative document explaining the programmes and financing of the Institute, it was not surprising that voluntary contributions for 1976 had not reached the original target. None the less, the Institute was now in operation and he hoped that the budget estimates and supporting documents concerning programme development would be revised in a pragmatic form to show progressive development from year to year. His delegation also hoped that, as in the case of the Trust Fund for South Africa and UNETPSA, there would continue to be an ad hoc Committee for the Fund composed of seven or eight diplomats who would maintain a keen interest in the Institute's development. I . .. A/C.4/31/SR.32 English Page 4 (Mr. Cignac, Canada) 9. In respect to the organization of United Nations activities relating to Namibia, his delegation had noticed that within the Secretariat there were many competent officials working on such questions but that, unfortunately, their activities often overlapped; it asked the Secretary-General to examine the matter and remedy it. 10. In conclusion, he noted that the present Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. MacBride, did not plan to seek reappointment for a further term, and therefore warmly thanked him for the commitment, energy and great determination he had displayed in the performance of his important functions. 11. Mr. ABDALLA (United Arab Emirates) expressed satisfaction at the participation of SWAPO in the Committee's work on Namibia and said that SWAPO had provided very useful information. 12. The question of Namibia had been on the General Assembly's agenda for many years but South Africa had impeded all efferts to reach a conclusion and had rejected all the solutions proposed. 13. His Government attached very great importance to the question of Namibia for it considered that the presence of South Africa in the Territery was a threat to Africa and to the rest of the world. 14. In defiance of the decisions of the United Nations and of world public opinion, South Africa continued to consolidate its presen·:~e in Namibia by fragmenting its territory through its policy of bantustar:-i :z,r+-ion. It thought to delude the world by convening a so-called Constitutional Conference in which representatives chosen by it participated, while the true representatives of the Namibian people (SWAPO) were kept outside. In addition, the Pretoria regime continued to oppress the Namibian people, whom it brutally repressed. The United Nations had repeatedly found that the South African policy in Namibia ~as a crime against mankind. In addition, the illegality of South Africa's administration of Namibia had been confirmed in an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. 15. His delegation believed, therefore, that the only acceptable solution was one that would enable the Namibian people to exercise its right to self-determination and independence in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). The United Nations Council for Namibia should be able to meet in the Territory in order better to carry out its mandate and help the population of the Territory to prepare for independence.