S/PV.1549 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions previously adopted by the Council, and with the consent of the Council, I intend to invite the representatives of Mauritius, Somalia, India, Ghana and Pakistan to participate in the debate without the right to vote. &se~~t: The representatives of the followiig States: Burundi, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Nepal, Nicaragua, Poland, Sierra Leone, Spain, Syria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Zambia. 2. As the number of seats available at the Council table is limited, and in accordance with the practice followed in the past in similar cases, I invite the aforementioned representatives to take the seats reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be invited to sit at the table when the time comes for them to address the Council. Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/l549) 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. The question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa: Letter dated 15 July 1970 addressed to the President of the Security Council by the representatives of Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco,Niger,Nigeria, Pakistan, People’s Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and Zambia (S/98$7). At the invitation of the President, Mr. R. K. Rarnph~d (Mauritius), Mr. H. N. Elrni (Somalia), Mr. C. U. Rnnganathan (India), Mr. B. G. Godwyll (Ghana) and Mr. A. Shahi {Pakistan), took the places resewedfor them.

The Security Council will now resume consideration of the item on its agenda. 4. Before calling on the first speaker, I wish to draw the attention of representatives to the fact that a revised text of the joint draft resolution co-sponsored by Burundi, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Syria and Zambia has been distributed as document S/9882/Rev.2. Adoption of the agenda 5. It has been pointed out to me that in the French version, in the last sentence of the seventh paragraph of the preamble, the original wording of the English text “constitutes a potential threat” is errotieously rendered as “constitutes a serious threat”. Consequently, I have arranged to have the necessary correction made. The age& IWS aciopted. The question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South AfWa: -_ Letter dated 15 July 1970 addressed to the President of the Security Council by the representatives of Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Dahomey, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, People’s Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and Zambia (S/9867)

Before the Council proceeds with this debate I feel that I should offer some brief explanations on behalf of the sponsors of draft resolution S/9882/Rev.2 in order to clarify some of the amendments which have been made to the text. I stated yesterday that the sponsors of this draft resolution were ready to enter into immediate discussions with all members of the Security Council with a view to arriving at an acceptable formula. The sponsors have had discussions with all the members of the Security Council, and in the course of those discussions certain suggestions were put forward which made it necessary for us to make an amendment to the seventh paragraph of the preamble. We have replaced the words “constitutes a serious threat to international peace 7. On behalf of the sponsors of this draft resolution, I should like to thank all members of the Security Council for the co-operation which they gave us throughout this most difficult task of trying to arrive at an acceptable formula. We have accepted these minor changes in the belief that they do not in any way alter the substance of our draft resolution. 8. There were other suggestions made by members of the Security Council in the course of our negotiations which would have had the effect of altering the very substance of the draft resolution, For quite understandable reasons we were unable to accept those changes and we feel that we have gone as far as possible in accommodating the reservations of member delegations. 9. We do hope, therefore, that members of the Security Council will join us in condemning crpa,t/wid and also in stopping this proliferation of arms trafficking to the uprrrtlzcid r&gime of South Africa. 10. With these few very brief remarks it is the hope of the co-sponsors that a vote on this matter can be taken as soon as possible. 1 I. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): I shall now make a statement as representative of the Republic of NICARAGUA. It will be a very brief statement, but a very clear one I trust. 12. Nicaragua will be very pleased to vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document Sl9882lRev.2. 13. Now, as PRESIDENT of the Council, I shall call on those representatives who have expressed a wish to explain their votes before the vote.

I should like, first and foremost, to emphasize that the United States abhors and totally rejects the doctrine of npm~heid. The United States considers that npcrrtheid and the repressive measures adopted in South Africa for its implementation are in violation of South Africa’s undertakings under the United Nations Charter. Moreover, we oppose npartheid also since it is the antithesis of a cardinal principle of our basic belief that all men are created equal. 15. We are at the moment struggling to make this deep conviction of ours a reality, both at home and abroad. We are determined to eliminate racial discrimination within our own borders. We are equally resolved to oppose vigorously all forms of racial discrimination elsewhere. President Nixon categorically affirmed this point in discussing the whole area of southern Africa in his 18 February 1970 report. to our Congress on United States foreign policy for the 1970’s. He said: 16. Accordingly, the United States has strongly and repeatedly urged the Government of South Africa to change its racial policies, and we have warned thal Government of the dangers we consider are inherent in the continued pursuit of its policies. 17. The United States in this connexion does not believe that it is in the interests of a long-term solution in this area to send arms and lethal equipment to South Africa. My own Government scrupulously avoided any contribution of lethal weapons to South Africa and believes that it is in the interests of the total international community to do likewise. 18. As early as 1962-in fact, even before there was a Security Council embargo-the United States voluntarily prohibited the sale to South Africa of arms which might be used to enforce apartheid. In August 1963-again on our own initiative and before there was a Security Council embargo-we informed the Security Council that, effective as of the end of that calendar year, the United States would not sell any military equipment to South Africa, subject only to honouring our existing contracts and our right to interpret our policy in the future in the light of requirements for assuring the maintenance of international peace and security. The United States solemnly and formally affirmed these obligations which we had freely undertaken in voting in favour of the Security Council resolutions of 1963 and 1964 which established an arms embargo against South Africa. 19. My Government has carried out these obIigations fully and faithfully. We intend to continue to carry them out. Our own embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa was reaffirmed as late as March of this year, and just yesterday an official spokesman of the Department of State reaffirmed publicly that the United States continues to support the Council’s resolutions on the sale of arms to South Africa and indicated thal our Government would not be able to associate itself with any measures which might result in an increase in the flow of arms to South Africa. 20. Some of the preceding. speakers have referred to arms supplied to South Africa by the United States over the last few years, and I wish here again to affirm that deliveries currently being made consist entirely of those spare parts which stem from contracts entered into prior to the effective date of the United States embargo-specifically, 3 1 December 1963. And to this I should like to add that deliveries of major items of military equipment under these contracts have lOI% since been completed. In this regard I must point out that it is a fundamental tenet of United States trade policy that valid contracts should be honoured. 1 The Lkprrt~~~ent of owe Bdleti~ (Washington, United SkM Government Printing Office, 1970), vol. LXII, No. 1602, PP. 306-307. 22. However, while the present text is in some very important respects a welcome improvement over the draft originally circulated, we cannot support it in its entirety. It is quite clear that the more sweeping provisions contained in this draft resolution-provisions which 60 beyond the limits to which my Government can commit itself-cannot command the wide support in the Council that would make them effective. On the contrary, we must in all seriousness ask whether they may not carry with them the danger of weakening rather than strengthening the measure of compliance required to give practical effect to the recommendations of this Council. We are therefore concerned that their embodiment in this resolution may serve only to divide the Council and may therefore fail to fulfil their intended purpose. 26. Operative paragraph p of the draft resolution calls upon all States to implement the embargo as redefined in that paragraph, unconditionally and without reservation whatsoever. We have to bear in mind that the wide-ranging nature of these provisions would conflict with existing commitments. Furthermore, in the statement that I made on 20 July 11546th meeting] I drew attention to certain considerations which my Government has in mind in considering this, and which arise from the way in which the situation is developing around the Cape sea lanes. These considerations were dismissed by some speakers as outmoded concepts of naval warfare. One wishes the concepts of naval warfare would become thoroughly outmoded. Nothing would give greater pleasure to my government than to know that this was so and that we could all agree that submarines and naval ships were no longer needed so that their presence in the world sea lanes would no longer be there to cause us all anxiety. Meanwhile the fact that some of the world’s largest Powers have not yet accepted the concept as being outmoded can be a cause of worry to those of us who depend entirely on our sea communications. My own country has been nearly strangled to death twice already in this century by the presence of intruders into the world sea lanes, and we naturally examine the problem rather carefully. 23. Accordingly, my delegation will therefore abstain on this text. I wish to say that we particularly regret the necessity for this decision in view of our own record of long-standing support for and observance of earliel Council resolutions dealing with an arms embargo against South Africa. We would indeed have been happy to support a resolution which had unanimous support in the Council, and we think that such a conclusion to our current debate would have contributed effectively to the achievement of what I am sure is indeed a common objective at this table. In that regard, may I conclude by emphasizing that we have been and remain eager to assure that there is no misunderstanding, particularly in South Africa, that this Council remains unanimous in its condemnation of the policies of apartheid.

The draft r*eso!ution before us [S/9882IRev.2] presents some difficulties to my delegation. I should mention first of all that the earlier drafts of the draft resolution gave US concern because the language employed in the seventh preambular paragraph appeared to be taken from Chapter VII ofthe Charter. However, the ameudment of which we have been informed this afternoon makes it clear that this is not so. We are certainly not opposed to the mention of a potential threat, and in view of the very real and understandable fears of South Africa’s neighbours about that country’s intentions towards them we accept the language of this Passage as it now stands. 27. Finally, I should like just once again to put on record the present position of my Government as explained in the statement I made. on 20 July. It is that my Government has no intention of abandoning the embargo; that it has no intention of supplying arms for the wide category implied by the words “external defence’ ’ ; that it has had under consideration certain more Jimited exceptions which it considers related to its own essential interests; but that it has not yet reached any decision on these and that it is continuing consuItation on the matter with a number of other Governments. 28. For thereasons I have explained, my Government will abstain on this draft resolution. I should just add, 25. Then there is preambular paragraph 5, with its reference to violations. It does not seem to my delegation that “violations” is a suitable word to use in respect of the carrying out of recommendations of the Security Council. Furthermore, at the time those ’ Document A/AC. I15/L.276 of 18 June 1970. R Special Committee on the Policies of Aporthd of the Covernment of the Republic of South Africa.

I have no more speakers on my list. If no representatives wish to take the floor at the present time, I shall put the draft resolution sponsored by Burundi, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Syria and Zambia [S/9882/Rev.2] to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Burundi, China, Colombia, Finland, Nepal, Nicaragua, Poland, Sierra Leone, Spain, Syria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Zambia. Against: None. Abstaining: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The draft resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 nbstentions.J

I shall now call on those representatives who have expressed the desire to explain their votes. 3 1, Mr. PASTINEN (Finland): In the statement I made on behalf of the Finnish delegation at the beginning of this debate I outlined the position of my Government on the question of the. policies of r/partlteid of South Africa. The remarks which I made at that time on the specific subject of the arms embargo, with which the present resolution .deals, can be summarized as follows. 32. The Finnish delegation considers that the essence of the arms embargo in South Africa lies in its political importance. The arms embargo has become a test of the resolve of the international community to carry out the pledge it has undertaken under Article 56 of the Charter. In the view of my delegation it is natural, therefore, that the Security Council has considered this time ways and means by which the arms embargo could be made more effective. Further, I expressed the hope that every effort would be made in response to the request of the African States to arrive at conclusions which will be based on the broadest possible support in the Council. 33. In the view of my delegation these aims have been achieved in the resolution which the Council has just adopted with the positive votes of an overwhelming majority and without any member objecting to it. In voting for the resolution the Finnish delegation for its part has been guided by its wish to make the Security Council arms embargo against South Africa more kffective and meaningful, 4 See resolution 282 (1970).

The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics supported the draft resolution submitted by the delegations of Burundi, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Syria and Zambia [S/98821Rev.2], because it reproduces in essence the proposals which were put forward by the majority of the members of the Security Council in their statements and which are aimed at strengthening the embargo on arms deliveries to the Republic of South Africa and closing the loop-holes being used by Western States to circumvent the Council’s ban on arms deliveries to South Africa. 36. Although the Soviet delegation considers that the explosive situation prevailing in southern Africa would justify more decisive and more effective action by the Council, it voted in favour of this draft resolution because scrupulous implementation of the measures called for in this resolution could help to further the cause of those fighting the criminal policy of apartheirl pursued by the Government of the Republic of South Africa. 37. During the consideration of this item in the Council, the Soviet delegation stated-and we shoufd like to stress this point again-that the Soviet Union has abided and is abiding strictly by the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly on South Africa and does not maintain political, economic or other relations with the Republic of South Africa. 38. Many other States, like the Soviet Union, do not maintain any ties with South Africa. In the opinion of the USSR delegation, the Security Council should ensure that this is true of all States without exception, In statements made here in the Council during the discussion of this question the States, including even some members of the Security Council, which maintain close political, economic and military ties with the Republic of South Africa and supply it with arms in violation of the resolution of the Security Council imposing the embargo, have been referred to by name. The resolution just adopted by the Security Council is primarily directed precisely at those States. 39. The fact that the delegation of the three Western Powers abstained in the vote on this resolution, which describes the very least the Council must do in the existing circumstances, can hardly fail to arouse alarm. In a situation in which the racist regime of the Republic of South Africa is intensifying its cruel 'policy of apartheid and defying the United Nations, interns tional public opinion has a right to expect from the Western Powers not evasive and ambiguous state

Since no other member of the Council wishes to speak at this time, I now invite the representative of Mauritius to take a place at the Security Council table in order to make a statement. 4 1. Mr, RAMPHUL (Mauritius) (interpretntionfr’om French): Now that the Council has concluded its consideration of the item before it I should like to thank YOU, Mr. President, on behalf of the African group for the courtesy you have shown to us both during the consultations before the debate as well as during the meetings of the Council. We are also grateful to You for all the assistance you have given us. 42. I should like also to express our thanks to all the Council members for their co-operation, particularly the delegations of Burundi, Nepal, Sierra Leone, Syria and Zambia. I wish too to thank their distinguished representatives for having jointly sponsored the resolution that has just been adopted. 43, The thanks of the African Group also go to all those delegations which, by their affirmative votes, SUPported the draft which was finally submitted to the Council. We regret to note that the delegations Of 44. In conclusion, I should.like to express our sincere thanks to members of the Secretariat, particularly those in the Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, for their co-operation and for the work they have done to facilitate these meetings of the Council.

I wish to thank you for the co-operation you have given me and to the Council during the consideration of the question which has led to the resolution we havejust adopted, It is aresolution ofgreat importance. Beyond doubt it will represent an important new page in the history of the Council, which is the supreme body of the United Nations. 46. Each one has stated his views. We have all debated and discussed these matters freely and broadly and we have all taken note of our decisions. This is the procedure followed in all world parliaments, a procedure which will lead us slowly but surely to international peace and security. It has been a great honour for me to preside over the deliberations of the Council on this occasion. The meeting rose at 4.50 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Notions publicationr may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write lo: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Let publieotions des Nations Unier sent en vente dons les libroiries et la agences dCpositaires du monde entier. Informer.vous oupr&r de votre libroirie ou adrerrez-vous b: Nations Unies, Section des venler, New York ou Gen&ve. KAK /‘IO/lY~MTb H3AAHMH OPrAHM3A~IlM OEibEAMHEHHblX HALUlil COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicociones de 10s Nocioner Unidas erlbn en venlo en librerios y coso~ dirlribuidorar en todos parles del mundo. Conrulte o su librero o dirijase CI: Nociones Unidar, Secci6n dc Ventor, Nuevo York o Ginebro,