S/PV.1944 Security Council

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of Zambia, on whom I now call.

Mr. President, allow me first of all to express the gratitude of my delegation to you and to all the other members of the Security Council for having promptly acceded to our request for this meeting to consider the numerous acts of aggression committed against my country by the racist minority r&me of South Africa. I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your assumption of the high office of President of the Council for the month of July. My delegation looks forward to fruitful co-operation with you, as indeed with the other members of the Security Council, within the spirit of the cordial relations existing between your country and Zambia. Permit me also to convey to you and your colleagues on the Council the greetings and best wishes of my President, Mr. Kenneth David Kaunda. I I. This is a fitting occasion for me to register the deep thanks and appreciation of the Party, the Government and the people of the Republic of Zambia for the commitment and tireless efforts of the Secretary- General, in connexion with the liberation of southern Africa. The Secretary-General has, moreover, shown a deep understanding of the special problems of frontline countries in southern Africa. 12. This is not the first time that we have brought to the attention of the Council the acts of aggression perpetrated against Zambia by South Africa and other racist white minority rCgimes of southern Africa. 13. In July 1969 the Council considered the aggression committed against my country by the former colonialist and Fascist rhgime of Portugal, and, iuter trlirr , strongly censured the Portuguese aggression and called upon Portugal to desist forthwith from violating the territorial integrity of Zambia and carrying out unprovoked raids against it. In January 1973 the Council considered the aggression committed against my country by the 14. With specific regard to South Africa, on 12 October 1971, the Security Council considered South African aggression against Zambia and unanimously adopted resolution 300 (1971), in which the Council called upon South Africa to respect fully the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zambia. Furthermore, the Council declared that “in the event of South Africa violating the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Zambia, the Security Council will meet again to examine the situation further in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter.” 15. This is not the first time this year that the Council has considered the question of South African aggression against a sovereign and independent African country. Only a few months ago the Council considered South African aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola. 16. It is obvious, therefore, that the existence of white minority and racist rCgimes in southern Africa constitutes a grave threat to the peace and security of the independent African countries of the region. Such a situation has implications for Africa in particular and for international peace and security in general. 17. I need not remind the Council that those of us who are constant victims of the acts of aggression perpetrated by the white minority rCgimes have a duty to defend ourselves. We also reserve the right to call upon our friends to assist us. But, because of our abiding faith in the United Nations and the principles and purposes enshrined in its Charter, we have once again come to the Security Council-the organ primarily responsible for the maintenance of imternational peace and security-so that we can togethel determine an appropriate response to the numerous acts of aggression committed against my country by the arrogant, belligerent and intransigent South African white minority racist regime which, like the illegal Ian Smith rkgime in Southern Rhodesia, is bent on perpetuating the status L~IIO and hence rlzfusing to heed the demands of the African people and the international community as a whole for the establishment in the area of a just order and the respect fol human dignity, 18. We view with grave seriousness the recent act of aggression committecl against my country by the racist white minority rkgime of South Africa. This act of aggression was committed on 11 July 1976, 30 kila- 19. The scenario leading to the attack on the camp is that South African military aircraft, flying from the south-east to the north-west, hovered over the area and dropped armed men, who planted land-mines all around the camp. Subsequently, they attacked and shelled the camp. The inhabitants of the camp hollowed out, but some of them were caught in an ambush and killed. Others died of injuries from land-mines which exploded as they ran over them. The preliminary count of casualties of this senseless attack was 22 people dead and 4.5 others injured. The list of those dead has since risen to 24 and could grow as additional bodies are discovered. The area to this day remains infested with live land-mines. 23. As I have already said, South Africa is illegally occupying Namibia in utter defiance of the United Nations. More than in any other case, here you have a direct challenge to the authority of the United Nations by one of its own Members. South Africa cannot escape responsibility for the deteriorating situation in Namibia and in the whole of southern Africa. Moreover, its designs on the independent countries in the region, including all those south of the Sahara, show that the rCgime is also expansionist in nature. 20. This diabolical act of aggression by South Africa demonstrates the lack of consideration and respect for human life on the part of the white minority racist r&gimes of southern Africa. But this act is condemnable for two other specific ‘,reasons. First, it is an act perpetrated in blatant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country. Needless to say, this is a direct contravention of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, the attack was directed at a SWAP0 freedom-fighter camp. I need not remind the Council, in this regard, that South African occupation of Namibia is itself illegal. Therefore, it is cruel and totally without justification for the South African rCgime to attack Namibians fighting to liberate their country from the illegal occupation rCgime, which is flouting with impunity the authority of the United Nations. 24. The central issue, therefore, is black majority rule in Namibia and Zimbabwe, and the destruction of upcrr/heid in South Africa. As long as the white minority racist rCgimes continue to exist in the region, the international community will witness repeated acts of aggression by these rkgimes against independent African countries, such as the one my country was subjected to on 11 July 1976. Indeed, as long as the white minority racist rCgimes continue to exist in the region, peace and security in southern Africa will remain precarious, and internjtional peace and security will be threatened. 25. So the chalIenge before the United Nations-and in particular the Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security-is to take decisive measures to hasten progress towards majority rule in southern Africa. Failure by the international community to act decisively can only lead to intensification of the racial conflagration in the region, which in fact has already started. 21. Indeed, the cruelty of the racist South African rkgime was recently blatantly demonstrated by the savage and shocking massacre of innocent black people, including women and, children, in Soweto and other African townships in South Africa itself. That massacre, which surpasses the horrors of Sharpeville, should, together with the general aggressive and belligerent nature ‘of the South African rkgime, as evidenced by its wanton attacks against my country, serve notice on the international community as to the extent to which racist South Africa and the illegal tninority rCgime in Southern Rhodesia are prepared to go to defend their reign of terror. It is a fact that these racist r&gives have embarked on genocide against the black man in southern Africa in order to preserve the region for themselves. 26. Let me emphasize here that the South African aggression committed against Zambia on 11 July was not an isolated incident, but was part of a series of acts of aggression to which we have been subjected since our independence 12 years ago. Because of our geopolitical position, and because of our principIes and our commitment to the liberation of southern Africa, we have been and remain the target of hostile acts by South Africa. Suffice it to say that this year alone we have been subjected to no less than 14 provocative acts perpetrated by South Africa. These are as follows: 22. Is it any wonder that South Africa, in its determination to perpetuate its evil system of apartheid (3)’ On 11 March, a South African anti-personnel mine went off, injuring several herds of cattle at Likonda Village in Sesheke district; (4) On 12 March, six South African soldiers crossed the border at Katima Mulilo and defaced a border sign by writing and drawing skeletons on it; (5) On 1 May, an innocent Zambian civilian woman at Imusho had her foot blown off by an antipersonnel mine planted by South African agents; (6) On 3 May, a military vehicle was damaged beyond repair when it hit an anti-tank land-mine planted by South African agents at Imusho; (7) On 14 May, houses were damaged when South African troops fired arms and guided antitank missiles from armoured cars at Sesheke Boma; (8) On 28 May, South African troops fired arms at Sesheke Borna, causing serious damage to property; (9) On 14 June, a Zambian Government Roads Branch Office was damaged when South African troops fired mortars and guided missiles. On the same day, a South African aircraft violated our airspace at Sesheke Boma. Again at Sesheke Boma, on the same day, a nine-year-old girl by the name of Nalishebo Ilukela was hit by South African armed forces with a bullet, which went through her leg; (10) On 16 June, a Land Rover hjt a South African land-mine, killing one soldier and seriously injuring three others at Sesheke; (11) On 20 June, South African troops again shelled Katima Mulilo, causing serious damage to property; (12) On 7 July, six persons were seriously injured when a Land Rover in which they were travelling hit a land-mine planted by South African agents at Sinjembela; (13) On 8 July, one Zambian was killed and two severely injured when a Land Rover in which they were travelling was wrecked by a land-mine planted by South African agents at Sinjembela; (14) Then there was the aggression of 11 July, which was the most serious of them all. 27. The Council may wish to know that the white racist rCgime of South Africa, in collaboration with 28. The same situation obtains on the border between Southern Rhodesia and Mozambique. The illegal rCgime of Ian Smith has wantonly bombed certain places in the sister Republic of Moiambique. 29. In addition to the acts of aggression I have just cited, the Council will wish to know that we in Zambia have irrefutable evidence that for a long time South Africa has been interfering in our internal affairs. The racist rCgime of South Africa has, in fact, trained, financed and armed certain dissident elements in Zambia. Among the agents used by South Africa was William Chipango, who together with some of his henchmen, was recently sentenced to (death, having been convicted of treason by our courts of law. Chipango was paid millions of dollars by South Africa, with the express objective of subverting the Zambian Government. To achieve this s.inister objective, Chipango was to recruit-and he did recruit-a number of collaborators VGho subsequently received military training in South Africa, in Namibia, in the then Fascist Portuguese-ruled Angola, and in Southern Rhodesia. These dissidents were trainled by South African racists in sabotage, espionage and subversion. 30. One of William Chipango’s accomplices was Bratson Mushala, a Zambian dissident who was responsible for the recruiting and training of Zambian recruits in the then Fascist Portuguese Angola. Mushala went to South Africa from Angola with 23 men armed with sophisticated weapons to lead an attack on Zambia. He entered Zambia, through the Senanga district in the Western Province, from Namibia near .the end of 1975. Our law-enforcement officers arc currently searching for Mushala and his gang, who are terrorizing our people. They have committed numerous murders and destroyed and stolen property. 31. All these activities by South Africa are designed to change our policy with regard to the liberation of southern Africa. They are intended 10 put an end to our support for the liberation movements, which are waging a heroic struggle for the freedom and independence of their countries. 32. South Africa hopes that, as a result of these acts of aggression and interference in our internal affairs, Zambia w&abandon SWAP0 and other liberation moveme& of southern Africa and sacrifice their just cause at the altar of expediency. 34. I take pride in stating here publicly that Zambia will continue to render every possible form of assistance to the people of Namibia and their national liberation movement, SWAPO. 39. In the specific case before it, the Council vust condemn in the strongest terms South Africa’s wanton aggression against Zambia and the senseless, savage and cold-blooded murder of innocent people. The Council must also demand. that the racist rkgime of South Africa henceforth respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zambia, as well as those of other front-line States. Moreover, the Council should declare in no uncertain terms that South Africa should relinquish forthwith its illegal hold on Namibia, and that peace and security in southern Africa are inextricably linked with the liberation of the region. In this regard, the Council must, therefore, express its unqualified support for SWAP0 and for the other liberation movements in southern Africa. 35. South Africa has demonstrated that it does not want a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem; the so-called constitutional talks being held in Windhoek, Namibia, are being conducted by its handpicked stooges and puppets. These talks are a smokescreen to cover the diabolic intentions of the South African rCgime to legitimize the fragmentation of Namibia on thq basis of its policy of bantustanization. South Africa has blatantly ignored numerous Security Council resolutions on Namibia. Indeed, last January [r’esolufion 385 (1976)], the Council gave South Africa until 31 August 1976 solemnly to declare its intention to withdraw from Namibia and to agree to the convening of a national election in the Territory under United Nations supervision and control. However, instead of complying with this important resolution, South Africa has increased its oppressive rule over Namibia, has conducted wholesale massacres of Namibians, and has also stepped up its tinwarranted and wanton aggression against Zambia, including the violation of its airspace and territorial integrity. In corn F ting these acts of aggression, South Africa hay used the international Territory of Namibia as a ba$e. 40. In making these demands, I wish again to remind the Council of its resolution 300 (1971), to which 1 referred at the beginning of this statement, South Africa has again violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country. In resolution 300 (l971), specifically in pa&graph 3, the Council declared that it would examine any recurrence of such hostile South African acts against Zambia in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter. This is the moment for the Council to honour its pledge. 1 now appeal to the Security Council to take stern and effective measures within its jurisdiction against South Africa. 36. Since South Africa is not prepared to promote genuine independence in Namibia, the rightful owners of the Territory have no alternative but to struggle using all means at their disposal. They have the right to struggle for what is theirs. Those who have fled their country in order to promote the struggle need transit facilities. It would be inhuman of us if we did not assist the victims of such racial cruelty. 41. I trust the Council will live up to its responsibilities. 1 hope to return home with a clear and sound Security Council message of solidarity with the people of Zambia and, indeed, with the people of other front-line States who continue to make tremendous sacrifices in th,e interest of the liberation of southern Africa, a responsibility of the entire international community. The solidarity of the Council, which we hope will be reflected in the unanimous adoption of a resolution containing all our demands, would be a source of great encouragement to us. Everything must be done to isolate South Africa and other forces of evil in southern Africa. Indeed, everything must be done to speed up the liberatibn of Namibia and Zimbabwe as dell as the destruction of the evil policy of trpcrr*thcitl, so ruthlessly practised by the South African white minority rkgime. 37. We in Zambia have an obligation to the oppressed Namibians to offer these facilities. Incidents such as the bombing of a transit camp on our soil on 1 I July and the cold-blooded murder of Namibian patriots will not halt the struggle. The struggle will be stopped only by the total and unconditional withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and the accession of the Territory to independence as a single entity on the basis of miority rule. 43. I’ should now like to fulfil a pleasant duty and respectfully extend a warm welcome to the Foreign Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, Mr. lbrahim Kaduma, who is honouring the deliberations of the Council at this meeting with his presence. 44. 1 wish to inform the Council that 1 have received a letter dated 26 July 1976 from the Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, which reads: “The Security Council is about to consider the complaint by the Republic of Zambia concerning the repeated acts of aggression committed against the Republic of Zambia by South Africa which apparently used for this purpose the territory of Namibia. “I wish to convey to you the desire of the United Nations Council for Namibia to participate in this debate, without right to vote, and to be represented by a delegation headed by myself as Acting President and including the representatives of Botswana and Yugoslavia.” 45. It may be recalled that on previous occasions the Council has extended invitations to representatives of the United Nations Council for Namibia, most recently at its 1902nd meeting, on 29 March. Accordingly, if there is no objection, I propose that the Council extend an invitation, in accordance with rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure, to the Acting President and the other mentioned members of the United Nations Council for Namibia.

The next speaker is the representative of South Africa. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, may 1 congratulate you on your assumption of the important and responsible position of President of the Security Council for the month of July. 49. The representative of Zambia has referred to a number of other incidents. There have indeed been a number of incidents on both sides of the border in the past. The South African Government is fully aware of them, and, for their part, the South African authorities have had occasion to bring a number of infringements by Zambian nationals to the attention of the Zambian Government-for example, incidents which occurred on 19 and 23 June and 3 August 1974; and on 21 April, 14 May and 14 June 1976. Our records show that, in addition, a nuinber of border violations have occurred in respect of which we have not made representations. We did make representations in regard to the incidents I have just listed, as I am sure the Foreign Minister of Zambia would be able to confirm. Incidents in respect of which we have not made representations, which involved violence, occurred on 26 January, 16 and 18 March, 8 and 14 April, 26 June, 18 July, 6 and 9 September 1975 and 3 June 1976. Moreover, violence has been committed by hostile elements which enjoy refuge in Zambia. These elements have crossed the border on numerous occasions, killing innocent inhabitants uf South West Africa, both black and white. 50. Complaints about border violations on both sides have lately been handled by notes exchanged between the two Governments. That is a commendable procedure which enables investigation of alleged incidents to take place and steps to be taken to prevent recurrences. 51. However, in the case of the alleged incident ut Sialola, the South African Government learned of the events that are said to have taken place there h! way of reports in the press. My Government took the initiative of trying to establish the facts. On Sunday, 18 July, the South African Department of Foreign Affairs dispatched a message to the Zambii8n Government seeking particulars of the incident. There was no reply. 52. For its part, South Africa is willing to discuss the situation with Zambia, with a view to establishing the facts and, on that basis, taking any further joint steps which might seem appropriate. South Africa hs.s at all times been willing to do this. 53. During his statement the representative of Zamhiit referred to a group operating, under one Mush& and. if I understood him correctly, he alleged that the 55. On Sunday, 17 November 1974, an aircraft arrived at Rundu in Ravango in the north of South West Africa, with Mushala and 67 of his followers, including women and children, aboard. No prior notification of the aircraft’s arrival had been received. Mushala is a Zambian. He came from the north. He presented his group as refugees and asked for asyIum. The authorities were thus confronted with a difficult situation. After consideration of the alternatives, it was decided to grant asylum to the group for humanitarian reasons, but it was made clear to them that the asylum was conditional-the condition being that in no circumstances would they undertake, nor would they be allowed to undertake, any subversive activities against Zambia. 56, Subsequently, it became doubtful whether Mushala would abide by his undertakings. We doubted his sincerity. Consequently, he was separated from his followers, and both he and they were then restricted to two camps at different locations. Attempts were made to keep them occupied by offering them work. These attempts were unsuccessful. They did not want to work. For example, a number of Mushala’s followers agreed to assist with guard duties at a local road construction project. However, they proved to be so inefficient that we had to return them to the main group within a short space of time. 57. On 29 November 1975, following renewed assurances from Mushala that he would comply with the initial conditions, he was allowed to return to the camp where the rest of his people were confined. During the night of 7 to 8 December, Mushala and a number of his followers absconded, after raiding a storeroom in the vicinity. Efforts to track them down failed, as rain had obliterated their tracks. 58. I wish to state very clearly here today that Mushala is no friend of the South African Government, and neither is the South African Government a friend of Mushala’s. Mushala was granted asylum for humanitarian reasons, He is a disreputable character who became a nuisance and an embarrassment to US. I admit that. He is not welcome, and should he again attempt to cross the border he and his followers would be arrested and banded over to the Zambian authorities. 59. Mushala’s background and his activities are well known to Zambia,indeed, better known to the representative of Zambia than to me. His apparently immutable hostility to the Zambian Government is not of South African origin, Of that I can assure the Council, Far from encouraging Mushala in his activities and hostility towards Zambia, South Africa restrained 60. The thrust of the allegation is that South Africa countenances, and in this case has countenanced, the mounting of a campaign of subversion and terrorism against another African country. The representative of Zambia should know that such activities do not accord with the policies of the South African Government. As is known, there are numerous dissident elements and groups that operate inside and outside Africa for the overthrow of established Governments. I think I must be frank about this today: these dissident groups appeal to other Governments inside and outside Africa for assistance in the subversion of their established Governments. I believe that it is my duty to state here in the Council today-although I am somewhat hesitant about doing so-that we have in the recent past been approached by no less than II dissident African groups from 11 different African countries with requests for assistance to subvert and overthrow the Governments of the countries concerned. Requests of that kind have not been limited, may I add, to the African continent. In not one single case-and I must emphasize this-have we given any consideration to these requests. It is, moreover, firm South African policy not to render assistance of any nature to elements designed to commit subversion against their Governments. 61. Can there be any doubt that South Africa desires peace in Africa, and in particular in southern Africa’? No one can argue this point, really. An escalation of conflict and strife would be catastrophic for all of us. It would hurt all of us badly. 62. There seems to be a predisposition automatically to lay at South Africa’s door responsibility for any and every incident in southern Africa, almost-if I may say so-as if by reflex. This is not a legitimate reflex in regard to a region which has been plagued by turmoil and guerrilla attacks for years; where factions, rival movements, private armies and maurauding bands are rife. South Africa is not the initiator or instigator or supporter of this regional unrest. Zambia also has not been immune to it. Zambia also has been ,compelled by circumstances known to be completely unrelated to South Africa to take emergency action. And quite recently there have been reports of internecine struggles waged by movements which are guests in Zambia, with serious implications for Zambia and other countries of the region. 63. It is the unsettled nature of the situation in southern Africa which itself is to blame for developments such as those that have given rise to this discussion. It is the toleration in the region of armed groups which owe allegiance to no one and which frequently act on their own initiative, without regard 64. We are as concerned as anybody to find a way to eliminate the friction which must inevitably be generated by the sort of situation which I have described. 65. As regards the situation in South West Africa, substantial progress has been made by the Constitutional Conference. The Conference has already achieved agreement on many matters which would have been considered impossible a short while ago. What was anathema yesterday can become acceptable tomorrow-but not in an atmosphere of tension and terror and not under threat. Further progress requires an atmosphere of understanding. 66. ‘On the delicate issue of the composition of the Constitutional Conference, I should like to reiterate what my Prime Minister said recently in the South African Parliament. He stated: “They themselves decided on a certain modus opmrndi. That ~notlus opmdi is theirs. If they want to bring in other people-whether I like it or whether I do not like it-it is their business. I am not going to interfere with that.” On the subject of the status of South West Africa, the South African Prime Minister said: “South West Africa has a particular international character. Whatever our standpoint on the Mandate may be, and however we may differ in regard to it, the fact remains that South West Africa has a particular international character and that one may not ignore this.” He added: “There is one thing I want to make very clear here today. If those leaders have worked out a future for themselves, even if I do not like the-way in which they have done so, I shall accept it, for it is their land and their future.” 67. Too much is at stake for too many people in southern Africa to let an oppdrtunity pass for achieving 68. I appeal to the Council not to mete out condemnations, criticisms and pejoratives to South Africa. The Council would do well to weigh the consequences of such an approach. Perhaps the Council is not sufficiently aware of its counter-productive effect. What is needed how in southern Africa is encouragement for efforts and successes in moving away from old and outmoded attitudes to more constructive conceptions which would result in fruitful co-operation and the dissipation of the fear of domination of one nation or group by another. I urge the Council members to recognize that the problems that have to be solved in southern Africa are of a far greater order than those experienced in many of their own counttries and to consider these problems with tolerance and realism. We need conciliation; we do not need vituperation. We need communication; we do not needexacerbation. 69. Let us not allow our emotions to march us into a war no one can’win. Let us rather allow reason and realism and confidence in each other’s good faith IO win a future for all of us. Peace can be won without conquering anyone. We can ,achieve the peace we seek, but we can achieve it only if all of us once and for all firmly accept that the devastation of war is the one alternative which not one of us can afforcl.

The next, speaker is the representative of Mauritania. I invite him ta1 take a place at the Council ttible and to make his statement. 71. Mr. EL HASSEN (Mauritania) finteupretnrion from French): The problem before the Council has, been presented clearly, precisely and pertinently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Zambia this afternoon. Thus, in speaking in this debate I shall not be putting new facts or new clarifications 79. Under the pretext of the right of “hot pursuit” which some States are trying t,o impose on the rest of the international community, and particularly on Africa, the Pretoria regime is arrogating to itself the right to administer justice by violating the territorial integrity of neighbouring States and by sowing terror, destruction and death in the countries bordering on Namibia. 72. For the Security Council and the international community the month of July has been particularly eventful., Africa, for its part, was unfortunately not sheltered from these dramatic events, which continue to threaten the very existence of its States. 73, The Council’s heated debates on these events bear eloquent testimony to this. Scarcely two weeks ago the Council was seized of a complaint regarding the violation by Israel of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an African State-Uganda. Whatever the motivation for this aggression and the justifications given for it, it is quite obvious that it was an extremely dangerous act which could have dramatic repercussions on international relations, 80. The assistance Zambia gives to SWAP0 and other liberation movements-assistance which South Africa cites to justify its aggression-is nevertheless in accordance with the numerous decisions and recommendations adopted by the United Nations, and particularly by the Security Council. The United Nations decisions are clear on this subject: not ,only have they recognized the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people, .but they have also called upon all States to grant their material and moral support to that people. The Republic of Zambia, an African country which is especially concerned by events and which is a Member of the United Nations’, could not but subscribe to those decisions by giving active support to the liberation movements that are struggling against occupation and against a regime whose inhuman policy is a continued affront to the world’s conscience. 74. The Council adjourned or, rather, suspended its deliberations without any measure being taken to prevent a repetition of such acts of terrorism-a terrorism which is particularly dangerous because it is premeditated and carried out by an organized authority which is a Member of the United Nations. 75. Today the Council has before it a practically identical complaint. This time it has to do with a clear act of aggression committed on 11 July by South Africa against the Republic of Zambia. True, the representative of South Africa has just affirmed before the Council that he had no knowledge of this event. This is a tactic that is fairly well known to the Council, a tactic practised by the supporters of trptrrtheid and by the Tel Aviv authorities, which consists either of purely and simply denying the existence of events, or of diverting the attention of the Council from its immediate and serious responsibilities. 81. By transforming the airports of Katima and Pacha and the Caprivi Strip into permanent bases for aggression against Zambia and neighbouring African countries, South Africa has demonstrated once again the contradictory policies that it pursues. 82. The occupation of Namibia and the segregation that South Africa has established as a State system can only be continued at the price of the annihilation of the liberation movements, and that is what really motivates South Africa’s policy of intimidation and aggression. Such behaviour on its part is contrary not only to international law and morality but also to decisions adopted by the Security Council. We believe that the Council cannot give its endorsement to such action. 76. We all know that a camp sheltering representatives of SWAP0 was attacked by helicopters, that there were dead, that there was rnaterial damage and destruction; we can at least wonder where this phantom which attacked SWAP0 came from, and why it should bear any animosity to SWAP0 when the latter is located in Zambia, an African territory and country which is offering SWAP0 its hospitality. 83. On 12 October 1971, in deciding on the complaint submitted by Zambia, the Council adopted resolution 300 (i971), in which it demanded that South Africa cease all attacks against the Republic of Zambia; the Council also decided to reconvene should another act of aggression be committed by South Africa &jnst Zambia. The I4 acts of violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity commit’ted against Zambia by South Africa bear witness, as if there were any further need, to the lack of interest and respect which South Africa has always had for Council decisions. 77. In any event, on II July the village of Sialola, situated 30 kilometres within Zambian territory, was attacked and bombed by the South African air force. That attack alone led to more than 24 dead and 45 wounded, according to still provisional figures. 78. We should emphasize that this violation Of Zambian territory was preceded, as was recalled by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zambia, by I3 acts of tiggression perpetrated since I January 1976 by the 85. South Africa’s presence in Namibia, the Soweto and Sharpeville massacres, and the many acts of aggression committed against neighbouring States are all acts which lay bare the true nature of the Pretoria regime. Hence it ‘is not surprising that South Africa should commit another act of aggression against Zambia, sowing death and destruction in a country which has done everything to ensure that the spirit and letter of the Lusaka Declaration* should be respected, both by South Africa and by the African States. 86. In this connexion, Zambia has explored all possible peaceful channels to ensure the peaceful settlement of the problems of southern Africa, partictilarly the Namibian problem, without useless bloodshed. But the Pretoria racists and the Tel Aviv Zionists, in order to survive, must constantly resort to racism and the policy of depopulation of the African and Arab territories which they occupy. In the face of this intransigent and obstructive attitude on the part of South Africa, the Security Council must take firm measures concerning the acts of aggression committed by the Pretoria authorities against neighbouring African States. 87. If, as in the case of the Ugandan complaint, Zambia’s complaint were not to culminate in an unequivocal decision of the Council, Africa would rightly wonder whether recourse to violence may not be the only possible way of solving international conflicts. Such an attitude on the part of the Council would, beyond a doubt, be contrary to the most relevant provisions of the Charter, and would eventually, or in the not-too-distant future, threaten the ‘very existence of the United Nations. 88. But we are convinced that the Council cannot and will not adopt such an attitude. Once again, the attention of Africa and the international community is focused on the Council. Peace and security, not only in Africa but elsewhere in the world, would be endangered if the disappointment recorded during the meetings of the Security Council on the Ugandan complaint were once again to manifest itself at the current meetings. 89. We are convinced, however, that the wisdom which has always animated the work of the Council will ultimately prevail, in the interest of the United Nations and in the interests of peace and justice in the world.

The next name in my list of speakers is that of the Acting President of the United 92. The item before the Council today has p;articular relevance to Namibia and its people, since once again the Territory has been used by South Africa as a springboard for a military assault against a ,peaceful village community in Zambia. 93. From what dtrection did these South African forces come? South Africa has no common border with Zambia. But it is well known that South African troops have been sent to Namibia in increasing numbers, in flagrant defiance of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. What are these troops doing in Namibia? The rertolulions of the Assembly and the Council have determined that the South African presence in Namibia is illlegal and have demanded the withdrawal of the South African administration from Namibia. The forces of the Pretoria regime are in Namibia evidently to carry out attacks against the neighbouring African counltries and to intimidate them in pursuance of its policy of racist and colonialist exploitation. 94. The participation n this debate of the Foreign Minister of Zambia u derlines the gravity of the situation. I His eloqueq t statement has profound implications not only for Namibia. Zambia is in the front line of a struggle which reverberates throughout Africa. The threats to the territorial integrity ofZambia cannot but intensify the concern of the international community, because in fact they constitute also wider threats to international peace and security. 95. For some time now the Council for Namibia has been made aware of the increasing militarization of Namibia by South Africa, whose militaristic policies have been the source of ominous developments in that region. In Namibia, the illegal South African administration has increasingly used its troops to perpetuate acts of brutality and oppression against the Namibian people. In southern Africa-first in Angola and now ln Zambia-the forces of the Pretoria regime Irave mounted acts of aggression from the internntiontil Territory of Namibia. 96. The Council for Namibia was established by the General Assembly as the legal administering authority’ of Namibia, and it is fully committed to the goal of independence and self-determination for the Namibian people. The presence of the South African administnttion in Namibia and the militarisation of that Territory are incompatible with the commitments of South Africa as a State Member of the United Nations. 97. The attack against a peaceful rural community, 30 kilometres deep inside Zambian territory, is an alarming intensification of South Africa’s policy of aggression. 105. I want to appeal to the Council not to take this statement seriously and not to let it be used to dissuade the Council from considering what is before it, namely a case of a complaint from the Republic of Zambia, fully documented and with specific dates. 98. The Security Council should not remain indifferent to the disclosures made by the Foreign Minister of Zambia of South African acts of aggression which are in total violation of the Charter and the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. 106. The representative of South Africa has talked about peaceful moves in southern Africa. Zambia should be the one to point out that we have gone all the way, we have left no stone unturned on the road towards a peaceful solution in southern Africa. The Council is fully aware of the Lusaka Manifestoz, which is now a document of the United Nations. And South Africa knows that. We ‘are the ones who have gone all out to try to find a peaceful Solution, not South Africa. 99, In the light of the Pretoria regime’s ruthless repression of the African people of Namibia and of its acts of aggression against Zambia, it is clear to the Council for Namibia that the so-called constitutional talks are nothing but manoeuvres to perpetuate South Africa’s illegal presence in Namibia and its racist exploitation of the people of Namibia. 100. The United Nations Council for Namibia vigorously condemns the aggression of South Africa against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zambia and considers that the Security Council should, among other things, demand the withdrawal of the racist Pretoria rCgime from Namibia without any further delay. 107. South Africa talks again about liberation movements as if they were simply a group of terrorists. They are not terrorists; these are people who are fighting for their inalienable right to self-determination. 108. It is the diabolical system of apartheid in South Africa which is behind all this trouble. Once apnrtheid is removed from South Africa, the whole of southern Africa will be a peaceful haven.

Since the list of speakers has now been exhausted, I now call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zambia to speak in exercise of his right of reply. 109. Finally, I would like again to refer to the statement that the representative of South Africa has made in his reference to Mushala. It is now abundantly clear that South Africa knows about Mushala’s activities. The representative here has admitted that South Africa knows about these people. South Africa received them. South Africa gave them facilities. And he talks about Mushala having absconded. It is quite clear that South Africa has been behind this. We have evidence to that effect.

If my delegation has asked to speak, it is merely to make a few observations. We do have the right, or rather we do ask for the right, to speak at a later stage perhaps, if need be, in detail. However, for the moment, I should like only to make a few observations as follows. 103. First of all, the representative of South Africa in his statement mentioned that there have been border violations by Zambia. I want to make it abundantly clear that this is a gross fabrication. As far as Zambia is concerned, Zambia has not violated any space of South Africa. Technically, Zambia borders on Namibia; technically, the presence of South Africa in Namibia is illegal, which means that the acts of aggression by South Africa emanating from Namibia are themselves illegal and deserving of condemnation. 110. Those are the comments I wished to make. At a later stage, with the indulgence of the Council, if need be, Zambia will exercise the right to speak again in detail. I Declaration of the Third Conference of Heads of State OI Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Lusaka from 8 to 104. The representative of South Africa has denied that South Africa had any knowledge of these attacks, HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PRbCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dam les librairies et les agences dipositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auprbs de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes. New York ou Gentve. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes del mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Section de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in UnitedNations, New' York 00300 83-60801-April 1985-2,2()0