S/PV.1798 Security Council

Furthermore, 1 must inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Barbados, Czechoslovakia and India requesting that their delegations also should be invited, under Article 31 of the Charter and the pertinent provisions of the provisional rules of procedure, to participate, without the right to vote, in the Cbuncil’s discussion. In accordance with the customary practice, and with the assent of the Council, I propose. to invite the representatives I have just mentioned to participate, without the right to vote, in the discussion. AI the inl*itation qf’ the President, Mr. Wuldron- Rtrmsey (Utrrbtrdos), Mr. Stnid (Czc~cl~oslo~~~kil~), trnd Mr. Jtriprrl (Inditr) took the pluces reserwd jbr them (it t/w side of‘ the C’cirfiwil c~litii~ihci~. 3. The PRESIDENT firtt(~rprPtrrliotr ,fiwn French): Members will recall that, at its 1796th mesting, the Council decided to extend an invitation, in accordance with rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure, to Mr. David Sibeko, member of the National Executive Committee of the Pan Africanist Congress I 4. Mr. SIBEKO: We have already in other bodies confessed our ignorance of the provisional rules of procedure of the Council, but I am compelled by my compassion and the compassion of my people and the fraternal relationship that they have with the people of Iraq, to request you, Mr. President, to convey the condolences of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian people to the people and Government of Iraq at the sad news we h;we received of the death of their Foreign Minister, ..- 5, It is a matter of tremendous inspiration to us as freedom fighters to participate in this discussion and to address the Security Council for the first time at its headquarters-in New York on the grave situation in our country, at a time when you, Mr. President, a representative of the Government of the United Republic of the Cameroon, are presiding over this meeting. Our inspiration derives from the fact that your country too, not so long ago, was like ours, a dismembered country ir; the community of nations. Your achievement of independent status is an inspiration to our people. We must also note here that this meeting takes place at a time when your country is Chairman of the Co-ordination Committee for the Liberation of Africa of the Organization of African Unity. During the brief time it has been in that position we have witnessed the dramatic events which have led the Portuguese to accede. to the demands of the people of Guinea-Bissau and recognize the State ,that was declared by PAIGC [Pwtido Afii(‘uno da Indep8ndenciu da GAP e Cabo Verde] last year. It is also during your country’s tenure of that office that we have witnessed a further step in decolonization in Africa, namely, the instalment of a transitional Government in Mozambique, a Government which is led by our brother movement, FRELIMO [Frente de Liberta& de Mogambiqrre], In the freedom struggle we have learned not to deal with wishes, But il would be a fitting tribute if at the end of these deliberations y&rcountry, which had to fight twin colonialism, would have presided over a series of Council meetings that became a milestone in the history of United Nations decisionmaking. Such milestones will be referred to in the main part of my statement today. 8. Having said that, ,I should like to state that we have come to the stage where the General Assembly has once more by an overwhelming majority rejected the credentials of the representatives of the white minority regime in South Africa. In different circumstances that overwhelming rejection would have sealed the fate of the minority rkgime in the Organization, but United Nations rules demand that the Security Council make the final recommendation to have the white minority rkgime expelled. The representatives of the people of the world have by their vote given the Council a clear mandate. The whole world is now waiting to see if the Council will respect the principled mt\jority decision of the Member States. 9. The General Assembly’s historic decision to bring the question of reviewing the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa [rcwlrr~io~r 3207 CXX/X)l to the Security Council was preceded by nearly three decades of pleas, exhortations, warnings, protests, denunciations and condemnations, to which the racists in South Africa had responded with arrogance and intransigence. 10. We have now reached thk stage where most of the world’s nations agree with the call of the Azanian national liberation movement and OAU for decisive punitive action against the Pretoria rCgime for its consistent violations of the Charter of the United Nations and its infringements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-the sacred principles upon which the United Nations is built. 6. Before I turn to the main part of my statement, however, I am compelled by the very gravity of the 11. In Dublin last May, Mr. Garret ~~itzGernld. the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, a member of the European Economic Community, declared situation in my country to which 1 have referred, that ~~pw~/wid was an affront to humanity. IHe said: by the dire consequences that that situation could have for our people, by the serious deprivations “Aprrr~lrcitl is in its essence an altack on the which we are suffering as a result of colonial aggression and the installation’ of white domination, very basis of human rights. . . . Such ~1 aItnck “In our time we have witnessed what horrors .~ racism can perpetrate. The supporters or apologists :of apurtlreid should not forget the accomplishments of its terrible twin brother, nazism, which in the -name of racial purity in our time was responsible -‘for the greatest deliberate slaughter in history~,” 12. In eloquent testimony-the best of which we heard yesterday-delegation after delegation has, with feeling, exposed here in the United Nations the atrocities perpetrated by the crpnrfheid rdgime. Representatives of the national liberation movement have supplied substantiated and irrefutable evidence of the violent rule to which the Africans and other oppressed people are subjected by the tyrannical sparllteid regime. international bodies such as the International Labour Organisation, the International Red Cross and agencies of the United Nations family have brought out independent reports which confirm the Irish Foreign Minister’s correct conclusion that ctporrhcGd is indeed an affront to humanity. Within this very building there are miles upon miles of documents cataloguing the reign of terror to which the black majority iscondem@ gn&r upgrtj~ejd. 13. It has become universally accepted Shat crpartheid in South Africa represents the re-emergence of nazism. In case those who aid and abet it want to take refuge behind the “we did not know” excuse of the accused at Niirnberg, we have a duty to highlight what has already been submitted here about the crimin@ practices of the Fascist r6gime in Pretoria, 14. John Balthazar Vorster, the butcher of Pretoria, bluntly stated iti the whites-only Parliament in Cape Town on 24 April 1%8 that - -“It is true that there are blacks working for us. They will continue to work for us for generations -in spite of the ideal that we have to separate them rcompletely. . . . The fact of the matter is this: -we need them because they work for us. .., But the fact that they work for us can never entitle them to claim political rights, not now, nor in the fullIre .,, under no circumstances.” 15. Those are ihe words of the Prime Minister of crptrrf/rcGd South Africa. Vorster’s blunt declaration is backed by the South Africa Act of 1909 and the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1961, both of which institutionalize racism and categorically state that membership in the South African Houses of Parliament is restricted to whites. Even the qualified franchise, under which a tiny section of the black population was once “privileged” to elect three white members to represent them in a Parliament of 1.53 members, has long since been scrapped, “Africans have suffered every conceivable type of disaster: from humiliation to homicide, from -expropriation of land to grinding poverty, from brutal imprisonment to relentless persecution, Family life shattered, careers wrecked, education disrupted, and the body in constant jeopardy, the vast mdority are permanently maimed in one fashion or another.” 17. Repression of this kind invariably breeds resistance. When PAC emerged as the militant vehicle of liberation for the. oppressed African masses, the struggle had passed through many phases-phases of petitions, protests and demonstrations, a great many of which were suppressed with sanguinary police violence and harassment in the whiteeofficered law courts. Choosing to wage a militant struggle against an enemy whose brutality knows no bounds was not easy, but Mangaliso Sobukwe, the national leader of our people and President of PAC, posed the questions: “Are we prepared to be citizens-men and women in a democratic non-racial South Africa?” The response can be found in the well-recorded heroic stand taken by cadres of PAC and their fell-owers~ from 2IMarch l%O.- ~~. 18. It was a sequel to the epoch-making campaign launched by Sobukwe and PAC that the Security Council met on 30 March I%0 to consider the question of crpurrlteid for the first time [Uist , nteetirlgj. Having considered the complaint of 29 Member States, [S/4279 ntzd,Add.l], the Council adopted resolution 134 (1960). In this resolution, the Council stated that it was the racial policies of the South African racist regime which had brought about the large-scale killings of peaceful demonstrators-at Sharpeville, Langa, and so’on. The Council said that the Security Council took into accohnt the strong~feelings among Go.vernments and peoples of the world about what was happening in South Africa and recognized that the situation in South Africa was one that hadled ~to international friction and could endanger international peace and security; the Council called upon the rrpctrfhrid r&ime to bring about racial harmony based on equality and to abandon its policies of ~~tmdtc~icl and racial discrimination. In contemptuous defiance of the call from the Security Council. on that very day the ~rptrrt/witl rCgime declared a nation-wide state of emergency for the first time in our country and carried out mass arrests. 19. The International Defence and Aid I’und for Southern Africa, which is based in Londod, has reported that: “By the end of the emergency in August 1960, 11,503 persons had been detained without trial fol periods of Up to five months: 7?4 persons were The racist regime has sent more than 100 freedom fighters to the=gallows since then. The names of some of them are inscribed in the PAC roll of honour reproduced by the United Nations Unit on Apurtiteid. Scores have died under mysterious circumstances while in detention or serving time. 25. This is a struggle in which there are only two sides-the side of justice and the side of injustice. The uertinent auestion to ask is: on which side will the- Security Council place the United -Nations-on the side of justice or on the side of injustice? There can be no equivocation about this, The political dribbling has come to an end. That is the relevance of the decision of the General Assembly in bringing this matter for final resolution. 20. In 1%3, when over 10,000 of us were held on various charges under the then newly passed General Laws Amendment Act, more notoriously known as the Sabotage Act, Justice Hiemstra of the Transvaal Supreme Court terrified many when he became the first judge to hand down some of the savage sentences provided for under the new law. He sentenced the Benoni branch chairman of PAC, TShabalala, and four others to terms of imprisonment ranging from 15 to 20 years. His credentials as a Fascist judge have been confirmed by a series of similar brutal sentences over the years. 26. The South African racists have trampled underfoot the lofty ideals of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even as the debate on South Africa’s credentials was taking place in the General Assembly, leave for the South African Special Branch police was cancelled and those police were sent on a manhunt for black leaders who mobilized the masses for a demonstration in support of the installation of the FRELIMO-dominated transitional Government in Mozambique. We now learn from the Rmd Duily Muil of 12 October that 12 of those arrested did not appear in court on 11 October for’judgement under the Sabotage Act, as they were scheduled to. They did not appear because they are now being held under the Terrorism Act, and under that Terrorism Act you can be held indefinitely. It is there in the records of the Secretary-General, in the records of the United Nations, that in May 1%8 two of our colleagues, Sidney Mbuyazwe and Marcus Mokgotle, who were captured after fighting Portuguese troops while in transit to Azania were handed over to the South African police. They had been used in political 21. Last week, however, we learned from reports coming from South Africa that even Hiemstra, in his own words, “found shocking and inhuman the treatment of prisoners”. His remarks were made at the end of a murder case In which he was trying five prison warders who killed an African convict. 22. The Government-owned Afrikaans newspaper Die Tr~mv&r ‘commented on 8 October that Hiemstra’s findings were going to “definitely echo far beyond, South Africa’s borders”, as indeed they deserve to. Another Afrikaans paper Die Bee/d said warders were getting away with murder because the Government had legislated for a blindfold to be “applied on the public about happenings in prisons because the press had been gagged”. According to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 9 October, Hiemstra’s momentary flirtation with a human conscience-also led him to say: “There is a spirit ‘in certain sections of society which we cannot stamp out, namely that a particular person can be treated with contempt, especially when he is powerless ,, .-and I am afraid I must say it here with distaste and even shame-just because he is black.” trials to testify against the national liberation movement in Bloemfontein in 1970 and 1971, but they are held to this day under the Terrorism Act and will never be released or tried until the whims and caprices of the particular officer who holds them in detention give way to the insistent demands we have been making here and through other channels. 23. But the sentences Hicmstra handed down prove ttlat this ostensible shock was a mockery. He sentenced two of the five warders’to 18 months each and gave the remaining three suspended sentences. This was 27. As far back as 14 years ago, when the Security Council first considered the question of trprwrhritl, a call was issued to the white minority regime in South Africa asking it to initiate measures aimed at bringing about racial harmony lr~~~.ro/~~~io~~ 134 f IYhO) 1. That solemn call from the Council, like all the calls murder. Tshabalala and his comrades, who appeared before him in 1963, did not murder anyone. They are still doing time on Kobben Island. There is no remission for political prisoners in South Africa. 28. The National Party regime in Pretoria did not dissent when the basic act for the protection of human rights was adopted by the General ‘Assembly on 10 December 1948, The rkgime is therefore bound by the provisions of that basic act, which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As stated in its preamble the Declaration is “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”‘, 29. The International Commission of Jurists has produced a study for the United Nations quarterly magazine Objective: Justice, ‘*Infringements pf the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in ,Southern Africa”. The study proves conclusively that, South Africa’s crpcrrtheid laws on the carving up of the land according to people’s ethnic origins and on the imposition of bantustans, as provided for in the Bantu Homelands Act, No, 26 of 1970, go against the very first article of the Univerqal Declaration of -Human Rights, which states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” 30. The study shows the infringement of human rights by South Africa’s laws concerning detention without trial, including proclamation 400 in the Transkei; the %-day detention law undet the Sabotage Act; the 180.day detention clause und$r the Criminal Procedure Amendment No. % of 1965; the detention of a prisoner after completion of his sentence under the “Sobukwe” clause of the General Law Amendment Act, under which Sobukwe was kept on Robben Island for six years, without even the pretext of a trial, after he had finished his three-year hard-labour term for leading the 1960 campaign against the pass laws; and indefinite detention under the Terrorism &t of 1967, to which 1 have already referred. i = 31, The study goes on to show the infringement of other articles of the Universal. Declaration of Human Rights by the South African apartheid rbgime. These include the righis to freedom of movement, to protection of the family as the fundamental group unit in society, to form and to join trade unions, and to education-all of which &e human rights denied the ma&ity black population in South Africa in one way or another. 32. The South African r6gime is in clear and open violation of the binding obligation on Member States, providcd,under Article 25, “to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. 33. The United Nations has exercised extreme patience with the South African ~xwG~ rCgime, and this has been a costly exercise in many ways. To 34. We have said before that Western countries are insensitive to the suffering of our people under upurtheid for two main reasons: first, upurtheid slavery breeds super-profits for foreign investors,; and, secondly, the victims of ccpwthcid are black. ~. 35. We are waiting to see if, at the end of the review of South Africa’s relationship with the United Nations by the Security Council, we shall be proved wrong in our contention. We shall wait to see if South Africa is going to continue to receive arms from abroad to suppress the black population within Azania and to commit acts of aggression against independent black States outside South Africa’s borders, We shall wait to see what military exchanges will take place between South Africa.and Western countries, We shall also wait to see if record-breaking investments from the West and Japan into upartheid South Africa will continue to accel@$te. ~: ” We say it is rrpurtheid slavery that attracts the fo, ign investments, because all over Africa~Western countries and Japan are trading and doing business with other black Governments. What convinces these investors that a non-racial Government in Azania will not want to do business with Azania’s traditional trading partners? It must simply be because any non-racial Government worthy of the name..wilI not ~.w-the.exploitation~sf~ its-people, ___ _. . . ._____. ,., ~. : 1. 37. The object of this review should be to reinforce United Nations resolutions. It must be to strengthen the hands of all the democratic forces, black and white, in that country. The review must be to help those courageous men and women in their struggle to end Vorster’s despotic rule, and to eliminate the threat to international peace and security posed by South Africa under the neo-Nazi rCgime. That threat is real. In addition to the bombing of innocent civilians in Zambia-there is a report available-and in addition to the statement by Botha. Minister of Defence-what we would call “of aggression” to the effect that Tanzania and Zambia must be aware of the fact that South Africa now has long-range striking weapons in its possession, sited at Natal, conveniently pointed at those two countries, there is the report of the Special Committee on Aptrrrlteitl, issued on 30 September 1974, which states: That is living evidence of the danger the upurtheid rkgime poses for international peace and security in ‘and around that region of Africa, 38. Before 1 conclude, may I refer to what 1 said in-the introduction to my address, namely, that the representatives of the world’s peoples, through their majority vote in the General Assembly, have had their say; they have cast their verdict on aprrrthrid. They now are waiting for you in the Security Council to recommend the sentence. 39. ,Finally, may I refer you to what Mangaliso Sobukwe said at his trial in May 1960, because it still holds true for the people of Azania and their freednm fighters, Sobukwe said: 42. Certain people, either malevolent or misinformed, seem to be trying to create the impression that the 125 countries that voted in favour of the resolution requesting the Security Council to examine the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa, wished thereby to give Africa a chance, if not to expel South Africa from the Organization, at least to drive the whites out of South Africa. Such a misrepresenta_tion of the facts would be an unfortunate distortion. For after all, what are we really dealing with? There is no question of expelling from the Organization; Azania that is, this State situated in the Cape region and composed of an overwhelming maority of blacks, the government of which would be an expression of the will of the entire population bf South Africa, whether of black, of white, or of $ny other origin. Thus it is not a question-at least for the time being-of driving out of Azania whites who have been established there for centuries or i&ho were born there. For, in contradistinction to the situations that can be seen in various places in other continents-situations of which the one that prevails today in South Africa is but the most pathological manifestation, in as much as the blacks not only have no right to enjoy their status as human beings, but, worse still, are considered less than beasts-Africa has no intention of making racism its doctrine. Africa wishes to live on terms of good understanding and co-operation with all races, whatever their origins, provided only that they give the African both the pirice and the consideration he would enjoy in any society of free men. It is a matter, therefore, above all, of raising before the whole world a question of human rights in the light of the relevant principles of the Charter, and of “It will be remembered that when this case began we refused to plead, because we felt no -moral obligation whatsoever to obey laws which are made exclusively by a white minority . . . We believe in one race only-the human race tb which we belong. The history of that race is a long history of struggle against all restrictions, physical, mental and spiritual. We would have betrayed the human , race” -we, the Azanians, would have betrayed the h-mm@n,race--“if--we had-not-done our share.” We appeal, therefore, to the representatives of the human ,race. in,.the. Security Council not to betray us in gw,:. ‘.

The next speaker is the representative of Dahomey, I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.. 41, Mr. ADJIBADE (Dahomey) fbtp~p~c~rcrriori jiom Fww~~): Mr. President, since the problem of relations between the United Nations and South Africa arising out of the policy of trptrrrhid is, above all, an African question, my delegation might have been tempted not to bow to tradition and refrain from congratuiating or thanking you. However, in deciding, on 30 Sep- 43, If we define the problem in this way we can easily see that the Council’s task is to find ways of prevailing upon the crprrrtheid rdgime, which refuses to take into account the resolutions of the Council or those of the General Assembly, no longer to defy the United Nations, The Council must examine the question of whether this rkgime, which refuses to recognize the black as a human being, this minority Idgime, which has usurped power for so many years now and is striving to prevent in Azania the establishment of a democratic government that would be the expression of the will of the whole of the South African population, whether this racist rt?gime still has the right to claim to represent the whole of Azania-and-sit asfhe delegation of a Member State,~ 44. Contrary to what some people have insinuated, our purpose is not to come here and deliver ourselves of dissertations or to weary the Council with platitudes about the nature and manifestations of upartheid. In speaking in this debate we wish simply and humbly to stress certain aspects of the problem which call for immediate and concrete action on the part of the Council. Indeed, the problem of apartheid is not new to the United Nations. It is one of the very first problems which the international Organization had to confront at its very founding. And it was, indeed, after innumerable attempts to find a solution and in the face of the obstinacy of the adherents of this rbgime that on 6 November 1%2 the~General Assembly, by its resolution 1761 (XVII), created a special committee to study constantly and consistently the policy of crpctrt/rJ’id of the white minority Government of the Republic of South Africa, a committee which has been known since 1970.as the Special Committee pdpuh~Jid. 45. In view of the seriousness with which the Organization views this question, one might have thought that the madmen of the Vorster gang would then have felt that the time had come to begin making concessions to the persistent demands of the international community. That would be misunderstanding the motives of the acts and conduct of these benighted adherents of trp(rrlhc~it/, these InOldily handicapped people who have eyes hut do not see, and have cars but do not hear. For 29 years now, how many appeals, how many resolutions and even condemnations of the trptrrtlwid rCgirne have remained dead Ictters. Furthermore, the representatives of the South Afritan rCgime not only flout the resolutions of the Organisation but even have the brazen audacity IO come and address our Assembly. In the face of such out-and-out insolence, our Assembly has since 1970 consistently adopted the decision to reject the 47. At a time when Africa is entering a new ‘era of its history of deco!onization, the Organization Fannot but be concerned at the persistence on African: soil of a manifestation of racism in its basest form. It is enough to take a look at a map of Africa to realize that, after the process of decolonization begun by the new Government of Portugal and in the light of the intentions of the Spanish Government, there are only a few dark patches which remain: Southern Rhodesia, which--I may say in passing-loses nothing by waiting; and South Africa, towing Namibia in its wake, over which country it continues to maintain its domination in spite of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. There is no question that the situation prevailing in South Africa because of the persistence of the apurtheid rt!gime is a very disturbing one and warrants .the-most serious attention of the Council.,,,, 48. What in fact is the foundation. ‘of the political philosophy ofapartheid? Apart from a wish to preserve or conserve-which has prompted some people to think that the only way of maintaining their identity is’ to retreat into their shell-it is not difficult to see that’in pursuing a policy of back-to-front evolution Vorster and his gang-although, of course, not all whites in South Africa espouse this concept-base their political philosophy 0~ .a thesis of L&y-Bruhl today outmoded,, according to which black people have a primitive mentality and consequently do not possess the reasoning capacity of men belonging to civilized society. However conceivable such a theory may have been in 1922-that is to say, at a time when science was still in the rudimentary state-it has for many years been superseded. It would have been easier to understand if those mentally retarded South African racists had since realized the need to amend that philosophy along evolutionary lines and ceased to consider blacks as inferior beings whose only salvation lies in following an evolution ptrallel to that of the whites. One would have thought that those mental defectives would recognize that, apart from the colour of their skin, blacks are men like themselves and, as such, should enjoy the same rights as South African whites. But instead of approaching 49, It is deplorable that, sensing the coming danger this year, the Vorster regime could think of nothing better than to add a touch of colour to its delegation in the form of a black, a mestizo and a yellowskinned person, who did a quick disappearing job once the will of the General Assembly became known. It would be tempting to ask Vorster and his gang whether those whom they have used to suit their own purposes were somehow or other endowed with a “whitened” mentality, to make up for the actual colour of their skin, But that is not my purpose today, 52, Speaking on 14 N(ovember 1973 in the General Assembly, my delegatiQn stated the following: “The impatience of the countries and people:3 of Africa to see this problem solved as early as possible needs no repetition, The great Powers must decide to curb their appetites and to end their unbridled pursuit of imperialist interests, and must lend an attentive ear to the voices that come from the heart of the people of Namibia proclaiming their desire for liberation and independence. It is in their interest to find a rapid solution to that problem, and we are convinced that if they wish it, they can place at the disposal of our Organization the means of repressing that open rebellion and of taking up the challenge.“” 50, .We have to recognize, in getting to the heart of the problem, that the npurrheid regime, which for several days now has been in the unenviable position of occupying the centre of attention of the stage at these meetings, would not have continued to defy the international community and flout its resolutions if it had not’~felt sure of the unconditional support of certain friends and, consequently, become convinced of its impunity because of the strategic interests it is protecting for certain great Powers, and also perhaps because of its wealth. That is why your meetings would not achieve their objectives if Africa did not take advantage of this opportunity to speak its mind to the great Powers; because if our land is to continue to suffer from an international plot, which consists in’ the perpetuation of the gangrene which is the At that time our voice went unheeded. Let us hope that it will be heeded today. 53. My delegation believes it its duty to stress before the Council that, today more than ever, the eyes of the whole world are on these meetings. Thousands of human beings, particularly in Africa, are wondering with some concern whether the great Powers will really be rash enough to agree to maintain the S~H~LY yuo in South Africa, thus flagrantly defying the will of the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly. Thousands of people are wondering with concern whether the great Powers will dare to agree to keep on giving carte Mm-he to the Republic of South Africa by their use of the veto. In any case, if this is to be the outcome ofour deliberations, my delegation would very much hope that no*member of the Council will-because it is convinced that there will be a veto by one of the great Powers-use that as a pretext for casting politically inspired votes. All the great Powers like the other members of the Council must fully and openly assume their responsibilities. upnrtheid rdgime, it is precisely because of then selfish interests of certain great Powers. Consequently, we feel that the great Powers should engage in some self.criticism in this matter and recognize their responsibilities. Possessing as they do the right of veto and, ,consequently, the means of exerting pressure, they must also recognize their duty. They should no longer continue to act as the accomplices of a retrograde r&ime, abut rather do something they should have done long ago and do it most earnestly: call to order the South African Government. Of course, some will r&tort that they do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of a Member State. But does such an alibi hold water in the face of such a deliberate and extreme violation of human rights, the repercussions of which go beyond the territorial limits of the Republic of South Africa? Sl. However that may be, those great Powers which continue to supply arms to South Africa in spite of the many resolutions on the emhargo that have been adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly-those greai Powers which continue to co-operate openly with the trl~r~ht+l regime are surely aware of the inhuman fate which they are helping to visit upon the black people of South Africa and of the threats which their selfish behaviour is posing to the maintenance of international peace and security on the African continent. Instead of discouraging the 54. There is no need to stress here that this is a serious problem of concern to the whole of Africa and to the world community. My delegation accordingly exhorts the Council to display more 55. In the view of my delegation, there can be no doubt that the answer to these questions is a categorical “No”. Political consideratjons and strategic interests aside, no member of the $Jouncil can conscientiously maintain the contrary. Repeated appeals, warnings and condemnations have in no way influenced the policy of ccpcrrtheid. Our duty to eradicate this scourge from the world compels us now to contemplate concrete ac_tion to ,bring the inveterate racists of Africa to see reason. Accordingly, my delegation urges the Council to face up to its responsibilities at this grave hour in the history of the Organization. We must revivify the Charter so that it -can. be applied both in the letter and in the spirit. 56. The South African Government” has left the Council no choice, It could not be more obvious that that Government has no longer any place in the Organization, at least so long as it makes racism the very foundation of its political rkgime. The South African Government has given us enough proof that it has no intention of modifying its policy by one iota, and the Council, therefore, has only one recourse, that of applying Article 6 of the Charter, which states: ~ “A Member of the United Nations which has =. persistently violated the principles contained in the F~present Charter may be expelled from the ---0rganization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” 57. Whatever the consequences*may be, Africa wants a bold decision to be taken because of the importance of the problem and the urgent need to solve it. If by chance a veto were to block such action, Dahomey would very much appreciate it if all those which possessed that right could clearly and sincerely,.express their opinion, instead of casting purely political votes which, instead of being acceptable to Africa, would only further increase that continent% despair, because this is no longer a time for masquerades; it is a time for opcnl!ess and honesly, the only conditions which are likely to promolc understanding and co-operation among the members of our: international community. 59. The hour is grave. The decision of the Security Council is being awaited impatiently, a decision which must be forthcoming, whether it be today or tomorrow; it is bound to be forthcoming in the face of the relentless obstinacy of the adherents of ccpcrrrheid in flouting the Organization. Members of the Council, you must act before it is too late; you will answer before the court of history if your hesitation delays the adoption of the necessary salutary measure, thus encouraging the racist regime of Vorster to perpetuate its inhuman, universally condemned policy. By your hesitation you will be encouraging the minority r&me of South Africa to defv with impunity the it&-national community which we constitute. F&lure to act now will reveal your participation, intentional or otherwise in a plot which is being hatched against the Azanian people for the partition of its country into a white and a black State. I prav God that your deliberations will lead you to a decision which will be in the interests of the Azanian people and the international community as a whole.

The next speaker is the representative, of Algeria. 1 invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement. 61, Mr. RAHAL (Algeria) finterpretation jbm Frerrdt): When, in 1945, the peoples of the United Nations wished to express in a Charter the principles on the. basis of which they would undertake to establish a peaceful and just world, they solemnly declared, in the very first words,, that they were determined “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”. Today, when the Security Council is meeting to consider the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa. how could we fail to recall that pledge, born of thk revolt of peoples against barbarism apd in,justice, which unites us all in the same sacred duty to respect and defend human values? Thus it is an occasion for us to see to what extent this commitment has been honoured, and the responsibilities which weigh not only on South Africa but also on the international community as a whole and on each of its members in particular in regard to the present situation in southern Africa. 63. The relationship between the United Nations and Shout Africa is conditioned by two essential subjects: the problem of ccpccrrlirid and that pf Namibia. Both of these subjects have been the object of sufftcient attention in our institutions, the debates devoted to them have been sufficiently long and detailed, and the resolutions and decisions relating to them are sufficiently numerous for there to be no real need to explain them again, to analyse them or to emphasize the aspects that are contrary to law, to morality or to the simplest precepts of mankind. This is all the more futile since, perhaps with the exception of part of the white minority in Sol;th Africa, the entire world agrees in denouncing the con&t ~of the Pretoria Government, and never has there been such a mdority-such unanimity, I should say-in condemning qwrtheid and its extension to Namibia. This also means that what we expect today from the Security Council is something quite different from a mere repetition of past resolutions, even though they may reject in still more energetic terms the racist policy that the South African Government obstinately pursues. 681’ ,These facts are well known and cannot be refuted by those contradictory and unconvincing denials with which they are sometimes met. In this debate where the only defendant is the South African rkgime, we do not wish to introduce other trials or embark on other arguments. But to those members of -the international community which have so fat remained deaf to our appeals, it is not enough for us to emphasize how regrettable, for their honour and esteem, is this most glaring contradiction between their wards and their deeds. We should also say to them that the time is not far off when they will of necessity have to make an unequivocal choice in their friendships and in their interests, because our devotion to principles that are vital for us and ourunshakable solidarity with all the African peoples will make complacency on our part a kind of complicity that we shall no longer be able to bear and with which 64.” This meeting of the Council is being held at the initiative of the General Assembly, which by an immense: majority requested the Council to be seized of the problem sf South ‘Africa. The deep motives of the Assembly, as well as the circumstances in which it reached its decision, should therefore constitute the very substance of the debate and guide 65.--The General Assembly for several years has not ‘been content with merely reaffirming in its decisions its multiple condemnations of South Africa; it wished to give its denunciation a more incisive character by rejecting the credentials of the South African Jelegation at its various sessions. This gesture, to which some have wished to accord only a procedural significance without any real importance, was at once a disavowal of and a warning addressed to the racist r6gime of Pretoria, which the lattel treated with its customary contempt. WC shall refuse to be burdened further. 69. Today an opportunity is given them precisely to prove their sincerity, not only in their condemnation of the policy of rrptrr.fheicl, bit also in their conunil.. merit, side by side with the other peoples of the ::.xld, to fight it and annihilate it. The General Assex.hl> and the many delegations. that now constitute I.s majority have frequently been reminded that it is c4y the Security Council that is authorized to tnkc enforcement measures because of the responsibilities 66. This year this procedure was complemented by ii recourse to the Security Council. The purpose was naturally to make more effective the position IO -70. We are aware of the hesitations felt by certain States about taking severe measures to deal with Governments that violate international law while not directly jeopardizing their security or their interests. -In extreme cases these States have been able to =Impose -economic sanctions, without unduly concerning themselves about their strict application but even at times openly violating them. In the case of South Africa, the Security Council has not even -gone as far as economic sanctions, but it nevertheless decided on an arms embargo which, as we all know, has been violated by the countries which produce the most armaments-which means that the kmbargo has become totally inoperative, -. 71. We cannot therefore be satisfied today with such measures, which are doomed in advance to ineffectiveness, and the failure of such measures would have no other effect than to discredit the Organization a little more and to encourage the a&oc&sof ap~~rtheXto maintain their position. 72. The Government of Pretoria has heeded none of the General Assembly’s admonitions; it ,has -remained ihsensitive to the pressures of, international opinion and it has received with delision the warnings and condemnations addressed to it. Even the attempt at dialogue initiated with it through the intermediary of the Secretary-General led to no results, thus inflicting on the Organization an unprecedented affrmt. .. _. ,- ~b _._ 7 73..?After all that, who could be so naive was to believe that it I’s still possible to make the South African leaders listen to reason by continuing to exert an influence on them within the framework of the Organization itselMCan anyone sincerely believe that other resolutions,~ on top of the multitude already adopted,. or other condemnations, confirming those already existing, will -be suMcient to shake the obstinacy of a r6gime that seems to tie its existence to the existence of apurthcid? Who can fail to see that, in the senseless prolongation of such an unreasonable situation, what is at stake today is, after all, the very credibility of the Organization and perhaps-why not say it?-even its cohesion and the maintenance of is present structures’? A United Nations that includes a State like the Republic of SoutP ‘frica, whose constant policy is a standing denial of the most fundamental principles of the Charter, is not the Organization that the peoples of the United. Nations in 1945 committed themselves to achieving: it is not the Organization to which OUI peoples have given their support with such faith and enthusiasm. 75. We shall perhaps be told that the universality of the Organlzation must be preserved, since it is ,in universality that it finds its full meaning. In other circumstances we ourselves have argued for that universality, at a time when precisely those who today have suddenly discovered the virtues of universality were opposing its application. We continue to believe that all the peoples on earth should -have a place here and should participate, exactly as all of us do, in the management of *orId affairs. But that presupposes as a prerequisite, respect on the part of everyone for the values which cqnstitute the.common fund of mankind and without which one cannot be qualified to deal with the present or the future of peoples and human beings, The expulsion of. the Republic of South Africa does not run counter to the universality of the Organization; it can only strengthen universality, since that concept -cannot ,bd applied-to the enemi& of mankind, ,,~~~ _ _L. ---A- ILL 76. -From the usual speculation in the press, and from what has been heard in the corridors, it seems that, if the questioq of the expulsion of South Africa were put to the Security Council, it would. be rejected because of the negative vote of at least one of three permanent members, We do not want to put anyone in the dock, aud we hope most sincerely that what we have heard in the corridors and h&e seen in the press is only groundless rumour. Nevertheless, may we’be allowed to say how distressing such an attitude would be on the part of countries to which the Charter has entrusted such lofty responsibilities -the most important of all Derhaps beinn the responsibility ttinsure-respect foi th$;&ry pri$ples ofthe Charter. -. 1 .I 77, 1 do not think it is npcessary to. repeat here what wee think of this institution of the veto ‘in -the Security Council, qr our. opinion that its use should be subject to specific restrictive conditions. We kn& the reasons that prompted the authors of the Charter to introduce that provision into the mechanisms for the functioning of the Council, But it would certainly be an insult to their integrity, and even to theil morality, to think for a single instant that they had in mind that the veto could be used to protect and defend a Member of the international community guilty of a constant and deliberate violation of the most binding provisions of the Charter. 78. To request the expulsion of a Member if the United Nations is no ordinary matter and we are the first to realize the importance of Luch a step and to weigh the consequences. This is not a small responsibility and, because we have felt SW:~ scruples II 83, From the early years of its existence the United Nntions has directed attention to the gross injustices committed by the South African minority rkgime against the overwhelming mi\jority of the people of that country. Let us remember that it was as far back as -I946-that the General Assembly during its first session, considered the@atment of people of Indian and Indo-Pakistdn origin in the Republic of South Africa. Ever since, the Assembly and tlie Council, particularly since 1960 in the aftermath of the Sharpeville tragedy, have recognized that the system of crpwtltaicl is against the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and that its continued application creates conditions leading to a situation which threatens international peace and security. Both the Assembly and the Council have adopted resolutions and taken positions aimed at instituting justice and freedom in South Africa.. Tile white rigime has chosen, however, to ignore each of those resolutions and to disregard every single appeal. -Instead, to the frustration and mounting indignation of the international community, that rhgime has systematically ignored the admonitions and decisions of the United Nations and has persecutedand sought to eliminate every organization within the boundaries of South Africa which has championed the cause of justice and freedom for the mr\jority of South Africans.

The next speaker is the representative of Guyana, whom I now invite to take a place, at the Council tableand to-make a statement. 80, Mr. JACKSON (Guyana): Mr. President, I wish at the outset to join those speakers who have preceded me in this debate in extending the felicitations of my delegation to you on your accession to the presidency of the Security Council for-the month of October. I am confident that under your mature superintendency the Council will reach wise and judicious conclusions on the momentous issue of which it is now seized. May 1 also express my deep gratitude to you and to the other members of the Council for affording me the opportunity to participate in thisdebate_without t-he fight@ vote. ~ 81. In taking the floor I am obliged to speak in two capacities: as the representative of my country, Guyana, and in my individual capacity as the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia. 84. The report of the Special Committee on Aptrrtkit14 is a compelling record of the violations by the minority regime of South Africa of the Charter and of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and it merits careful study by a!l the Members of the Organization. 82. South Africa’s incredible conduct as a iember of the international community--conduct which is -repugnant tci all human sensibilities .and to the concept of ordered collective international behaviour based upon mutual respect-has its roots deep in *the history of that country. Since 1910 South Africa has committed itself to a policy of segregation and racial ‘discrimination, a policy which has consistently been -bitterly opposed by the majority of the people of that Iterritory. Ai the time of the Versailles Conference of Il919; even as-the maJor Powers were gathering to adumbrate plans to make the’ world “safe for democracy”, representatives of the oppressed majority in South Africa attempted to make their cause known to international public .opinion and to secure acknowledgement of the illegitimacy of the then regime of South Africa, which purported to speak on behalf of all the people of South Africa. The victor nations paid them no heed. At the time of the founding of the United Nations the unrepresented in South Africa tried once again to quicken the conscience of the international community with regard to the situation in their territory by drawing attention to the minority character of the South African rt?gime. Once again the victor nations ignored the 85. But the brazen activities of that regime go well beyond the boundaries of South Africa. Its behaviour in relation to the international Territory of Namibia represents one of the greatest indictments against it. During the period of its exergise of the Mandate of the League of Nations, South Africa failed to live up to its responsibilities to the people of Namibia, required by the “sacred trust”, and failed to honour its obligation to preserve the territorial integrity of that country. Instead, it set its mind on a course of conduct designed to deprive the people of Namibia of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms: it exported to that country the evil and criminal system of rrptrr.~/~id; and it has attempted to shatter and destroy the unity of the Namibinn people through the imposition of the policy of’ bantustans. 86. It was as u result of the abject failure of the South African rkgime that the General Assembly, “the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia ~being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its admiristration from Namibia immediately”. 87. As is well known, the South African regime has refused to accept the opinion of the Court. It has treated that judgement with the same contempt with -which it previously flouted the provisions of resolution 2145 (XXI) und concomitant resolutions of the Organization, Far from showing awareness that these m-decisions required positive respbnses, the Fascists in Pretoria have continued to pursue relentlessly their efforts to divide the country into bantustans and to Intensify a reign of terror and oppression of a kind which surpasses the worst excesses of a traditional colonialism. 88. The South African regime is a cancer in the body politic of Africa. It has systemically tra’nsmitted the malignancy of ~~pdwid to Namibla by virtue of illegal occupation; and it has further, through metastasis, openly collaborated with the racist minority in Salisbury and flagrantly breached mandatory sanctions imposed against Southern Rhodesia by the Security Council. The continued acquiescence within the Organization in allowing the South African rbgime to maintain its studied policies constitutes not only an affront to most of us, but a real danger to us all. 89. The inescapable conclusion from such blatant defiance is that the South African regime -has persistently violated the principles of the Charter and has wantonly infringed the Universal Declaration of=Human Rights, and international law as embodied in the Charter. It is curious, not to say ironic, to recall that, at. the United Nation% Conference in San Francisco in 1945, Field Marshal Smuts, then head of the South African rCgime, insisted that “the Charter should contain et its very outset and in its Preamble a declaration of human rights”. He went on to observe: “We hati fought for justice and decency and foi the fundamental freedoms and rights of man I which arc basic to all human advancement and progress ;I ld pexel”5 --- 91, In conducting the review called for in General Assembly resolution 3207 (XXIX), the Council will have to take fully into account the conduct of~South Africa in this Organization over the years, fin this respect, it is important to note that the United Nations has established special machinery to deal with particular aspects of South Africa’s conduct. I refer to the Special Committee on Aputyheid and the United Nations Council for Namibia. But the Security Council should also take account of the voices of the world’s ‘people raised in the debate in the Assembly when this important resolution was adopted, Let us remember that all but 10 Member States voted in favour of the resolution -and that none were opposed to it, except then one -against -which it was expected to operate. It is true that -a small number abstained, but in -no case was there rejection of the proposal that the time had come for a review of the relations between the United Nations. and South Africa, ~~ ~~ --:~I:-_: ~~ . 92. We have had years of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council which have not had the slightest positive effect on the policies of the South African rigime. -We have seen that ,r&gime choose to reject the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice; and we have seen the Assembly, at each of its last four sessions, issue a. vehement condemnation of the policies of the South African rkgirne. The time for this Council to live up to its obligations under the Charter and to adopt measures of a decisive characters appropriate stop the -gravity of @&a.+ now, -:. ;..- ;:I------- _=; -: --==zr;s= :-- ---_I 93. What are the alternative courses of action open to the Council? First, it is inconceivable that the Cotincil can decide to do nothing. To do so would be io abdicate totally from its responsibilities,‘Furthermore, the Council may yet again condemn. the Government of-South Afrisa for pursuing its policies of upar&eid and issue a grave warning-to that-Government, But such action would do no ,.more than rearm the position this-Council took two years ago. Finally, the Council may take action under ‘Article 5 of the Charter, which provides for the suspension from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership of the Organization if preventive or enforcement action has already been taken against the Member State by the Council. Whatever view is held as to whethel or riot preventive action has already been taken by the Council against South Africa--and my delegation believes the Council has-the question arises as to the suitability of suspension in the light of South Africa’s contemptuous behaviour over such a long period. Many will argue against it, for such action may be construed as a continuation of the policy 97. The PRESlDEN~flrtten)Ferolio,l htn b’r~wch): The next speaker is the repre’sentative ;f the German Democratic Renublic. whom I now invite to take a seat at the Coullcil table and to make a statement,. 98. Mr. FLORIN (German Democratic Republic) (I~(lnsl(~tiotr,~ot}~ Rlmicm): 1 should like, first of all, to thank you for giving me this opportunity of speaking in the Security Council, Allow me, Mr. President, to regard the fact that you, the representative of a free.African country, are presiding over the Security Council during the consideration of so important an agenda item, as a symbol of a new era-the era of the elimination of colonialism in all its forms. 99, This is the first time that 1 am speaking in this forum on behalf of the German Democratic Republic. I am doing so out of the conviction that the suppression of the crime of crpctrthid and the elimination of the ensuing threat to peace in southern Africa are of concern to all peoples and States. Ap~~rl/teid is a social plugue. 95. -There have been arguments in the past-and no doubt these will be raised during your deliberationsthat expulsion would so isolate South Africa as to relieve it of its obligations under the Charter, and would cut off all avenues of United Nations influence, thereby diminishing the capacity of the United Nations to bring about the desired changes in that unhappy land, Such arguments, however, can have the effect of urging’ a cautionary approach and of ~being diversionary in their character. Indeed, on this question of whether non-membef States are fully outside the pale of United Nations action, noted authorities have stated that the Charter has assumed the character of-basic law of the international community and that non-members are expected to recognize this law as one of the -facts of international life and to adjust themselves to it. Moreover, provision is made in ihe Charter itself to ensure that non-member States act in accordance with its princibles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. And here I refer to Article 2, paragraph 6. The situation in South Africa is already a threat to international peace and security and has been so recognized by the Council in its resolution 3 I I (1972). And there is the precedent of Southern Rhodesiaforenforcement action by the United Nations against a non-member State. 100. The decision taken by the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth session to have the Security Council review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa may be described as one of historic significance. By that decision the overwhelming mttjority of States are demonstrating their firm determination to put an end to colonialist oppression and to the policies of the Pretoria rbgime that t-beaten peace, 101, At a time when the tren$ towards a relaxation of tension is gaining ground throughout the world, it is more impossible than ever to tolerate domination by a rhgime using methods of Fascist terrorism to suppress the freedom of the peoples of Azania and occupying Namibia. All States have au obligation to help to at.tain the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and to implement the resolutions of the United Nations relating to South Africa. 102. The German Democratic Republic is among those States that scrupulously adhere to United Nations resolutions concerning the elimination of 96. The position of my Government in this matter is unequivocal. In his statement to the General Assembly while participating in the debate on the resolution which brings us together here todziy, my -103. The session of the Special Committee on Apwtltsitl, which was held in May this year in Berlin, -the cupital of the German Democratic Republic, again confirmed that our Organization, in acting against the Ilast bastions of colonialism, can count not only on zthe majority of States but also on a world-wide -:popular movement. The racist rdgime in Pretoria has long been the subject of universal condemnation and -scorn on the part of democratic world public opinion. 104, As is known, the United Nations has been obliged for a few decades to be concerned with the colonialist policy of the racist rdgime of South Africa, a policy constituting a threat to peace. The General :Assembly and the Security Council have adopted a number of resolutions on this question. Measures ‘have been evolved to ensure the application in South ~Africa and Namibia of the principles of the Charter. ~The white minority rkgime in Pretoria has disregarded -all the decisions of the Organization, Instead of ~~ ~complying. with the demands of the United Nations, it has intensified its terror with a view to preserving its power. In this regard, the carefully prepared report of the Special Committee on Apurtlteid, submitted at the tweniy-ninth session of the General Assembly4 and the facts mentioned by previous speakers here leave no room for doubt. The Pretotiia r&ime has had 30 years in which to change its policies. Howe ;ler, the facts show that the Pretoria rt!gime continues with unprecedented insolence to ignore the decisions of the United Nations, constantly violates them and~refuses to recognize that the decisive change in the political balance of forces in tbe worldhas n_ot beeq in its &~~ur. 105. ~~There can be no doubt about this state of affairs. The South African regime constantly and flagrantly violates the principles of the United.Nations, thereby failing to-fulfil its obligations as a Member of this Organization. It continues to pursue the policy of uporthc4d, which has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations as a crime against humanity s and maintains. the peoples of Azania and Namibia under the colonial yoke. This rCgime is pursuing an expansionist policy and is illegally attempting to annex the Territory of Namibia. which is under the mandate of the Uniied Nations. Its criminal relations with lh:: reactionary forces in Southern Rhodesia, Morambique and Angola are expanding. Thus, this rCgrmc threatens the independence and sovereignty of othcl .African States, flagrantly violates the right of peop!cs to self-determination and creates a da~~gcwus hotbed of wur in southern Africa. Such a policy is directed against international dCtente and peitccfut co-operation among States. 106. ‘l’hc decisions adopted by the United Nations so far ‘ire clcerly insufficient to persuade the racist 108. For these reasons, the German Democratic Republic supports the just demands made in this high forum by African States for the adoption of more decisive measures against South Africa. 1 am referring to the sanctions which must be imposed on that State, which has virtually excluded itself from the ranks of those who, ‘in accordance with ,the purposes and principles of the United Nations, stand for ,peace, freedom, the right of peoples to selfdetermination and co:operation among States on an equal footing, 109, I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the following: the decision on the relatiqnship between the United Nations and South Africa ‘is of great importance with regard to this Organization’s role in international life, We are convinced that the adoption of consistent conclusions based on the situation which I have described colild help to strengthen the Fonfidence of peoples in the United Nations. The Organization requires such confidence in order to enhance its effectiveness with a view to ensuring peace th_r_oughQuI t& wl6J 10. the&nxfit .af. alLmankir?_4, Im~ Y? tm i I- - I=: 5. Y:_-?: 110. ‘The PRESItiENT (i~tt~rpretation~~m Fremlr): The last speaker is the representative of Bangladesh, whom I now invite to take a place.at the Cquncil table and 40 make a statement. II 1. -Mr.--KARIM (Bangladesh): May 1, Mr. President, first of all express the pleasure of Bangladesh as well as that .of the Asian Groua. which I represent here, at being able to take part ii this debate on an issue of such vital concern under your presidency. It seems to us only fitting that the Security Council should be presided over by an African representative of your eminence on an issue which concerns the relationship of the United Nations and South Africa. 112. While the issue of South Africa directly concerns the African States, its history in the United Nations shows that Asia has been deeply involved in it from the very beginning. South Africa’s violations ‘of the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations were first brought to the attention of this world forum in 1946 by India’-which then comprised the 113. ‘South Africa is the only State Member of the United Nations where racial discrimination is the basis of society and is supported by formally valid laws. The situation is in ~many ways similar to that of pre-war Nazi Germany, which also sought to give legal sanction to its perverted racist ideology, While it took the Second World War to abolish that racist State in -.Europe, the cult of the master race in an institutionalized form is unashamedly in South Africa. still , being pursued I 118, Furthermore, South Africa continues to give moral and material support to the illegal racist rkgime of Rhodesia. The support that South Africa gives to Rhodesia is one of the important factors in the continuance of the intransigent policies of the illegal rkgime there.~ 114. For centuries South African society has been based on domination of the non-white mdority by the-white minority. This was not a situation unique to South Africa. What is unique is that, whereas in other parts of the world the situation-in respect of racial discrimination has improved, in South Africa it has deteriorated and taken on an increasing& repressive character. -‘YIT Yr-7 TZIIT -T 119. ‘The numerous appeals and resolutions of the United Nations addressed to South Africa to change its course of action have had no effect. South Africa continues to show utter disregard and contempt for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the-Universal Dec!arat/qn of Human Rights, -a- 1.15. The Afrikaner Nationalist Government, which came to power in 1948, did so on a platform which made no bones about maintaining white control and domination in the country. Jn 1955, the Nationalist Prime Minister, Strijdom, stated hi -unequivocal terms that: “Either the white man dominates or’the black man takes over . . . . The--only way the European can maintain supremacy is by ‘domination.” The successive Nationalist Governments in South Africa have not only continued to follow a policy ofapicrtheid t6 maintai! white domination over South Africa but have i-ntroduced refinemeats to make sure-that it becomes a more efficient instrumeni of racial discrimination. From time to time tactical withdrawals have been made, but their aim’has not been to bring about an erosi~~...Qf_._u~art~~~~,-~-.~ely -ta gg~c$@&jJl~~~~ ,I ~. 1;: ~: :: -1 120. The United Nations has shown enormous. patience in the-face of the continuing contempt of it displayed by South Africa. After many appeals to South Africa, which have met with no positive response whatsoever, and after rejection for the fourth consecutive year by the General Assembly of the credentials of the delegation of South Africa, the Assembly this yearfinally decided to bring the question txfcq J& S3urdfy_C!qu~1&!fay Bppcgpria& action, I 121. We feel that the time has now come to examine what further steps must be taken to make South Africa comply with its obligations under the Charter. For a number of years, some States have expressed the hape and belief that pressure on South Africa from within the Organization was the most effective way of making its Government see the light of reason and moderate its policies, Bub the tolerance of the Members of the United Nations seems to have been misunderstood by South Africa as weakness. In the circumstances, the United Nations can no longer continue to overlook South Africa’s continued contempt for the United Nations. If the United Nations fails to take suitable action against a refractory State like South Africa, whose catalogue of violations of the principles of the Charter can be traced back to the very inception of the world Organization, its credibility will be at stake. 1;6, The occasional zigzags of this -policy cannot pbscure the basic thrust of the upurtheid policy, which is to deny the numerically superior non-white peoples of South Africa their elementary human rights. This policy has been pursued and strengthened >y creating a legal system which physically restricts :he movements of over I2 million black Africans and people of Asian origin, by an educational system lvhich limits the educational opportunities and facilities available to non-whites, .by denying social relations >n an equal basis between the races, by denying Ion-whites the acquisition of freehold title to land :xcept in inhospitable reserves, by uprooting .housands of. non-white families from areas where .hey have lived for generations and forcing them to .esettle elsewhere, and by a host of other measures. 122. Consequently, the Uriited Nations cannot defer any longer the action it should take against a Member which has so persistently violated the principles contained in the Charter. The members of the Secuiity I6 organizations within the United Nations family, such is the principal international organization in the as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and political field, should not fail to do the same. Cultural Organization, the Food and Agriculture T/w meetitlg rose ut 6,30 pm, tlOWl'OOllTAINUNlTEDNATIONSPUBIJCATIONS CO- BE PMJCUREB LER PURLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Lee pubkutbnr der Nxtionr Unixa mnt en vrnte dxnr lea llbrxlrler et Iw egencea cld#oait4hu du monde mtler. Inlonuez-veue l upr& de votm llbrrlrs ou rdreeeewoue & :. NeUone Unh, &&ion dee vmbr, New York ou Wve. C0lKO-CONSE4WIRPUBLICACION&S DELASNACIONESUNIDAS Lu publicecioner de lea Nacionea Unidea eaten en venta en librwhe y cease diatribuidoru en Todd pmtes de1 mundo. Conculte a PU librero o dirijaec e: Naciones Uti,Sec&n de Venta Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in Unitei, Nations, Now York 00400 74-82001-May 1983-2,200