S/PV.2130 Security Council

The Security Council is meeting to&y in response to a request from the Permanent Representative of Angola to the United Nations which is contained in document S/13176. I should also like to draw attention to the following documents which likewise contain letters from the Permanent Representative of Angola, namely,’ documents S/13168 and S/13177. The meeting was called to order at 12.05 p.m. Adoption of the agenda 4. The first speaker is the representative of Angola, on whom I now call. The agenda was adopted. 5. Mr. de FIGUEIREDO (Angola): Allow me to express on behalf of my Government, the privilege and pleasure we feel at the fact that this meeting is being chaired by a brother and comrade from Nigeria, an African country which is to the forefront in promoting the cause of peace and security in our continent, especially in southern Africa. Our own liberation struggle was actively supported by the leaders and people of Nigeria. They have always given unstinting sup port to and shown solidarity with African causes at all times, whether in our region of Africa or elsewhere. We are sure that on this occasion too, as the People’s Republic of Angola faces continuing threats to its sovereignty and territorial integrity from the racist minority regime of South Africa, we can confidently rely on Nigeria for all the support and help we need. Complaint by Angola against South Africa: titter dated 16 March 1979 from the Permanent Representative of Angola to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13176)

I should like to inform members of . the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia in which they ask to be invited to participate in the discussion of the question on the agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. 6. These racist and murderous attacks on the People’s Republic of Angola, these repeated violations of our air space, and the constant bombing and strafing to which Angolan cities, villages and hamlets are being subjected are not aimed only at my country. They are attacks by a white racist minority Fascist junta, unrepresentative of its majority inhabitants, isolated by its apartheid policies from the rest of Africa, insulated by its own racism from the majority inhabitants of this world, an anachronistic, settler-colonialist State, a country in Africa, but not of it; they are racist attacks by a white minoritycontrolled Government against all the liberation forces of southern Africa, indeed against all of Africa, and against those movements and organizations which seek to promote liberation, freedom, and self- At the invitation of the President, Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola) took a place at the Council table and Mr. Bouayad- Agha (Algeria), Mr. Yankov (BuIgariia), Mr. Worku (Ethiopia), Mr. Ha Van Lau (Viet Nam) and Mr. Komatina (Yugoslavia) took the places reservedfor them at the side of the Council chamber.

I should also like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter &ted 19 March from the representatives of Gabon, Nigeria and Zambia [s/13178], which reads as follows: “We, the undersigned members of the Security Council, have the honour to request that, during its meetings 7. In the latest series of attacks, the South Africans have bombed the regions of Melunga, Kahama and Catengue. South African violations of our air space and territorial integrity have unremittingly taken place in the areas of Cahreque, Naulila, Chetequera, Cuamato, Mundejavala, Santa Clara, Namacunde, N’giva, Macunde and Rocadas. In some cases, the air space violations by aircraft and Puma helicopters were coordinated with ground attacks involving South African armoured and infantry units. At certain points, the South African forces penetrated Angolan territory to a depth of 17 kilometres, namely, in the areas of Ndombondola, Oncocua, Holiafia and Maramuma. In their bombing of a South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) refugee centre, the South African racists also used napalm bombs. 8. The Puma helicopters, South Africa’s vast arsenal and its sophisticated arms and other war mat&id have been acquired from the West. We refuse to accept the feeble denials and whitewashing explanations given by the Western military Powers, all of which are responsible for the monster that South Africa has become. 9. It is a mockery of the Charter of the United Nations, of international law and of man’s primary desire for negotiation rather than war that, even as the racist Botha army bombs and strafes Angolans and those whom we have allowed to take refuge on our territory, even as we bring our complaint to the Security Council, even as further talks are being held just across the street, South Africa’s racist, apartheid system, its defence of international law and of political and human rights and its violation of the Charter continue unchecked. 10. The timing of this latest series of attacks is a rude and arrogant gesture aimed at international mediation efforts in Namibia and in southern Africa as a whole and at the Namibian people’s move towards genuine independence. 11. The international community has been aware of every painstaking step in the past two years and of all the efforts that we have put into a peace proposal for Namibia, whereby the Namibian people will have a chance to determine their own future under a United Nations supervised plan. At every stage of that effort, the Government and people of the People’s Republic of Angola, led by President Agostinho Neto and the Central Committee of the MPLA Workers’ Party have played a constructive role and fulfilled their obligations to the principles of our revolution, to the Charter of the United Nations, to the liberation movement of Namibia, SWAPO, which has been recognized by the Organization of African Unity and by the United Nations, to the principles of the non-aligned movement and to any and all obligations accruing from our position as a frontline State of southern Africa. 12. In this connexion, the People’s Republic of Angola has spared no time, effort or energy, especially in the diplomatic and political fields, to participate in the efforts of the Western five, which led to the presentation and adoption of the report of the Secretary-General [S/12827 of 29 August 13. The racist South African r&ime uses the pretext of SWAP0 bases in Angola to attack our territory and our people. Was it these “bases” that South Africa set out to destroy when it staged a massive armed invasion of my country in 19751 No, it was to cripple and ultimately destroy what South Africa sees as a perpetual threat to the cause of racism, colonialism and imperialism in that last bastion of white privilege in our continent, namely, southern Africa. South Africa has never accepted the idea of a progressive people’s republic in its vicinity because the ideas of freedom, revolution, liberation and challenge to white minority authority by an oppressed black majority are dangerous ideas which spread like the plague and, according to the South African way of thinking, should be avoided like the plague. It believes that the only way to contain them is to stamp them out before they can engulf what the racist minority r&imes of South Africa and Rhodesia selfishly seek to preserve-white minority islands of privilege in seas of poverty, exploitation and economic imperialism. 14. That is the danger posed by a progressive, revolutionary Government and nation to the ruling cliques of Pretoria and Salisbury. And that is why, since our independence, we have been the victim of armed South African aggression constantly and, more recently, of racist attacks engineered by Salisbury. 15. However, the People’s Republic of Angola will not waver in its revolutionary duty. We take our responsibilities very seriously, especially those deriving from the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of the Organization of African Unity and the resolutions of the non-aligned summits. In this connexion I should like to quote from resolution number 1 adopted at the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo in 1976, whose paragraph 5 declares: “any aggression by the racist r&ime of South Africa against independent African States is an act of ‘aggression against all non-aligned countries and against the international community as a whole”.’ 16. On that basis-and I shall desist from referring to the Charter of the United Nations, with whose principles and provisions all my colleagues here and very familiar-we appeal not only to the States Members of the United Nations but also to our fraternal States of the Organization of African Unity and the non-aligned movement to support the People’s Republic of Angola not only as the victim of South African aggression but also as the plaintiff bringing charges against the racist Botha r&ime. 17. Had these attacks been perpetrated by a non-white r&me, a r&ime without the close links to Western impe- ’ See A/31/197. annex IV. 18. It is not just cynicism that makes me feel that this Security Council meeting will not deter South Africa from its course of action. Unless there is concerted action by those Powers that support South Africa, thus encouraging it, unless mandatory sanctions are involved against the racist tigime, our repeated condemnations, our myriad resolutions and the endless rounds of talks-none of these will halt the South African plan to safeguard its apartheid system, its plan to install in Namibia a puppet regime subservient to Pretoria, its aid to its fellow racist regime at Salisbury and its ever bolder attacks and incursions against independent African States. In fact, with its developing nuclear capability, the latter do not even have to be neighbouring States. Soon, unless the danger is checked right here and now, no State in Africa will be free from the scourge of nuclear attack by the South Atlantic ally of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, South Africa. 19. It is not only SWAP0 “bases” that are attacked; it is not only schools and hospitals of the Patriotic Front that are destroyed by the bombing and strafing ordered by the racist minority cliques at Pretoria and Salisbury. It is the land of Angola, it is the nation of Angola, it is the carefully nurtured seeds of saplings of revolution and revolutionary zeal-and these we shall not allow to be destroyed. We shall rise again to plant what the racist bombs seek to destroy; we shall nourish them with our blood, we shall shield them with our bodies and corpses. And when this tide truly engulfs the racist enclaves, the racists will have no place to hide. That day is not far off. To quote President Agostinho Neto: “The imperialists can come with their planes, their tanks, their cannons and their warships, but they will not be able to prevent our heroic people from fultilling their sacred internationalist duty towards the peoples of Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, to whom we once again reiterate our militant solidarity. Let them come from where they may, how they may, the racists and their overlords will run into the impenetrable barrier of the determination of an Angolan people ready to defend its liberty and the integrity of its fatherland and socialism.‘* 20. Let that be an epitaph to racism, imperialism and white minority rule in southern Africa. The struggle continues. Victory is certain. 22. Today the Council is meeting to consider the specific case of South African aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola. We are doing so in the wake of an escalation of these acts of aggression, just as we do in the case of the acts of aggression committed by the Smith r&ime. Angola’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are being violated by South Africa almost on a daily basis. Many Angolans and Namibian refugees continue to lose their lives at the hands of the South African Fascists. Indeed, valuable Angolan property continues to be lost. For its part, Angola continues to exercise restraint, as it has done in the case of Southern Rhodesian aggression. 23. This is not the first time that the Council is considering South African aggression against Angola. Systematic acts of aggression against Angola by South Africa date back to the emergence of Angola as a sovereign and independent country. As recently as May 1978, the Council adopted resolution 428 (1978), in which it strongly condemned the Pretoria @ime for its aggression against Angola and warned that, in the event of further aggression, enforcement measures would be taken against it under Chapter VII of the Charter. 24. My brother and colleague the representative of Angola has in eloquent terms given us a detailed account of the latest acts of aggression against his country by South Africa, which prompted his Government to request this meeting. The Council also has before it document S/13168, which contains the communiquC issued by the Ministry of Defence of Angola on 15 March. I can only underline the gravity of the situation and express the strong support of my Government for the legitimate request of Angola that the Council should once again consider wanton South African aggression against it. 25. I have, so far, stated that the racist minority r&imes of both Southern Rhodesia and South Africa have in recent months and weeks escalated rather than ceased their aggression against front-line States. I wish to stress this fact and also point to the collusion between them in intensifying and sustaining these systematic acts of aggression. Given the intensity and senselessness of these acts of aggression, I deem it necessary to recall here that my Government has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the very existence of the racist minority r&imes in southern Africa constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. To avert the inevitable conflagration that their continued exist- 26. The fact that these regimes remain on the rampage must. be seen against the background of their stubborn determination to perist in power and, sad to say, the failure of the Council to take effective enforcement measures against them. The Pretoria and Salisbury regimes have, in any case, drawn encouragement from the fact that some States react mildly to their acts of aggression and even abstain on simple resolutions of mere condemnation of the persistent and sustained acts of aggression against the frontline States. 27. All too often the argument is advanced that the Western countries do not join in the strong condemnation of the racist regimes because, rather than antagonize them, they want to use their abundant and boundless influence over them to bring about peaceful change in southern Africa. Indeed, the major Western countries have not only been perennial and persistant advocates of peaceful change, but have come up with the Anglo-American proposals in respect of Zimbabwe and a five-Power proposal for the settlement of the question of Namibia. The liberation movements, the front-line States, Africa and the United Nations as a whole have embraced those initiatives and extended maximum co-operation in efforts to see them through. 28. It is a truism that those initiatives have not succeeded because of the negative stance of the racist minority regimes in Southern Rhodesia and South Africa. These regimes are seeking to throw overboard the initiatives for peaceful change championed by their traditional allies of the Westem world. Precisely in the midst of negotiations for peaceful change, the world is witnessing an escalation, not a cessation, of acts of aggression against front-line States. The Western countries continue to react in guarded, qualified and ambivalent terms and do not seem to be able to use their influence either to stop the acts of aggression or to change the negative attitude of the racist minority regimes with regard to the initiatives that have been internationally accepted as a basis for peaceful change in Zimbabwe and Namibia. The question is: can guarded, qualified and ambivalent reactions by the Western countries be justified in the circumstances? Would it be far-fetched to conclude that the basis for the audacity and adventurism of the racist minority regimes is the belief that the Western countries will not join with the rest of the international community in censoring them for their repeated acts of aggression against the front-line States and, indeed, in adopting effective measures to bring about majority rule and independence in southern Africa? Could it be that these initiatives are intended as rescue operations for the whites in these territories and not meant as earnest efforts to bring about majority rule and independence in accordance with the ideals of the United Nations and the democratic values upheld and practised in the West? 29. Let there be no doubt that, in their stubborn refusal to yield to genuine majority rule and independence, the racist majority regimes are seeking to distort the purpose of the struggle of the oppressed people for liberation and to internationalize the conflict. Out of this realization and in the full 30. South African acts of aggression against Angola, which have necessitated thii meeting of the Security Council, are particularly significant in timing. They are being launched concurrently with South Africa’s rejection of the report of the Secretary-General of 26 February fS/l3120], intended to give effect to the proposal for a settlement of the Namibian situation endorsed by the Council in its resolution 435 (1978), which South Africa had pretended to accept-1 underline the word “pretended”. In a classical case of arrogance and hypocrisy, South Africa is, on the one hand committing these acts of aggression and, on the other, rushing to New York to attend the proximity talks arranged by the Western countries on the question of Namibia. South Africa cannot be serious. It cannot expect Angola to ignore its acts of aggression, even during the proximity talks, when its people are being bombed, killed and maimed. 31. My Government will participate in the proximity talks on the understanding that their purpose is not to revise the report of the Secretary-General which is strictly in conformity with the proposal for the settlement of the Namibian situation and resolution 435 (1978). As far as we are condemed, the talks would be misdirected if they were aimed at extracting more concessions from SWAP0 and the frontline States. The talks must focus on South Africa’s refusal to accept the report of the Secretary-General. 32. While on the subject of the proximity talks, I wish to emphasize the strong view of my Government that, since South Africa is illegally occupying Namibia and is under obligation to withdraw from the Territory, there can be no legitimate South African daim pertaining to Namibia now or in the future. South Africa is not the custodian of the interests pf the Namibian people and cannot be the voice through which. they will air their aspirations. The interests of the South Africa oppressors are diametrically opposed to those of the Namibian people. 33. Within the context of the foregoing, my delegation is strongly opposed to any attempt to equate South Africa with SWAP0 or, for that matter, to equate the puppets of South Africa in Namibia with SWAPO. It must be remembered that puppet groups such as the Democratic Tumhalle Alliance are creatures of South Africa, conceived precisely in’order to serve as its instruments to frustrate the efforts of SWAP0 to lead Namibia to genuine independence. All those interested in the genuine liberation of Namibia must continue to resist and reject the attempts of South Africa to win recognition for its puppets and place the United Nations in a position to deal with them. 35. ..Qnly last week, in blatant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country, South African troops intruded into the Sinjembela area of the Senanga District in the western province of Zambia, where, for two days, they terrorized and tortured innocent villagers, as well as planted landmines and set up roadblocks. Four Zambian civil servants and five other persons were seriously injured when the truck in which they were travelling hit a landmine planted by the callous South African soldiers. 36. The Council will also wish to know that two weeks ago 11 South African jets and helicopters carried out raids in the same Sinjembela area and bombed villages, including a Zambian National Defence Forces border camp. Nine innocent Zambians were killed during those raids and 14 others seriously wounded. 37. Thus, what we are seeing is a pattern of systematic acts of aggression against front-tine States by South Africa which cannot be dissociated from the international concern over the continued illegal occupation of Namibia. 38. The Council should strongly condemn the racist r&me of South Africa for its aggression against Angola and my country. In light of the fact that the aggression is not only continuing but also escalating, the Council should address an urgent appeal to all States to render generous material and other forms of assistance to the front-line States. Urgent and particular consideration should be given to the need to strengthen the defence capabilities of the front-line States. Moreover, the persistence of South Africa in its refusal to cooperate in the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) must no longer be tolerated. This can no longer be a pretext for any member of the Council to block enforcement measures against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. The Council as a whole cannot abdicate its responsibility to arrest the threat to international peace and security posed by South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its acts of aggression against independent African States. 39. Finally, I wish to reatlirm my Government’s determination to continue its support for the just struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, for their national liberation and genuine independence. The People’s Republic of Angola can also continue to count on firm 2Zambian solidarity and partnership in our effort to assist the Namibian people to liberate themselves as well as to meet the challenge posed by continued South African aggression. 40. Mr. FU’ISCHER PEREIRA (Portugal): Less than two weeks have elapsed since the Security Council was called to consider the situation arising from an attack by Rhodesian armed forces deep into Angolan territory. 41. In speaking at this time I should like to express once again, on behalf of the Government and people of Portugal, our strong condemnation of the most recent armed aggression of South African forces against Angola and the frontline States. These acts constitute a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those countries, and we therefore feel it is important that the Council should take a firm and resolute stand so as to prevent a state of mounting tension in southern Africa. 42. The front-line States have been more and more exposed to South African raids as a result of the principles they uphold. The price they have paid so far has been very high, and so we cannot help sharing the concern of their leaders over the continued loss of lives and damage to property caused by indiscriminate bombing. We sympathize with the plight of the population of those countries and wish to stress once again the sentiments of solidarity of the Portuguese people and Government towards the innocent victims of such attacks. 43. We have reached a crucial stage in the process that will lead the people of Namibia to independence. If South Africa carries on with its policy of attacking neighbouring countries on the pretext of eliminating SWAP0 bases, the prospects of achieving that aim through peaceful means will be more and more remote. 44. Furthermore, we should also like to draw the attention of the South African Government to the uselessness of resorting to delaying tactics, for the international community is deeply committed to the attainment of genuine independence in Namibia. Moreover, it is the duty of the Security Council to see to it that this is achieved through free, fair and genuine democratic elections, in accordance with the plan laid out in resolution 435 (1978). 45. It is therefore our fervent hope that the proximity talks which are now taking place will enable the parties to bridge the last remaining gaps so as to proceed forthwith to the next step-the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia.

The Soviet delegation considers that the extremely serious situation created as a result of the escalation in the recent aggressive provocative actions by the racist regime of Pretoria against the People’s Republic of Angola requires not only careful examination by the Security Council but also the adoption of urgent, effective and immediate measures to avert such actions in the future. 47. As we see from the documents that are before the Council and the statement made by the representative of Angola, recently the territory of Angola has become the object of unceasing aggressive military attacks. To that end, artillery and armoured battalions are used, as well as South Africa’s air force. Angolan towns and Namibian refugee camps have been bombed with napalm. Those aggressive actions by Pretoria have caused new and numerous casualties among Angolan citizens and Namibian refugees and have materially harmed the people of Angola. 49. The Security Council has met several times to examine the question of aggressive actions by South Africa against Angola. The last time was in May last year when it discussed the question of South Africa’s concentrated incursions into the territory of Angola in the Kassinga region. At that time the Council, in its resolution 428 (1978), adopted unanimously, strongly condemned South Africa for its armed incursion into Angola and demanded Pretoria’s scrupulous respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola. But, as events showed, the racist leaders of South Africa completely ignored that demand by the Council. 50. The aggressive actions of South Africa against Angola and other African States are a serious threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those African States and to peace and security in southern Africa. In addition, they are directly aimed at maintaining the last bastions of racism and colonialism in that region. In essence, they are part and parcel of the barbaric policy of the South African authorities. The aim of that policy is to prevent the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe from attaining freedom and independence. This is borne out by the coincidence in time between the aggressive actions by South Africa against Angola and the efforts being made within the United Nations to secure the attainment of freedom and independence by the people of Namibia. 5 1. It is obvious that when, in May last year, the Pretoria leaders perpetrated their criminal attack on Kassingaimmediately after the termination of the ninth special session of the General Assembly, on Namibia-they were showing everyone their contempt for the position of the international community and wanted to remind us of their intention to prevent the implementation of decisions by t+ Security Council and the General Assembly. In the present case also, the aggressive actions against Angola by the Pretoria Fascist racist regime are aimed at giving direct support to that r@me’s insolent demands that the United Nations operation in Namibia should be conducted in conditions that would serve the interests of the ruling clique of South Africa and its puppets, and would not in any way serve the interests of the people of Namibia. 52. Those very points are made in a statement made on 8 March by the Group of African States at the United Nations. In that statement it is emphasized that South Africa’s aggression against Angola is “a further manifestation of its diabolical schemes to keep the people of Namibia under perpetual domination and to use the Territory as a spring-board for continued aggression against neighbouring African States” [S/13154, annex, para.31. 53. It is obvious that the South African authorities are trying to use all measures, including armed force, to wreck 54. The Pretoria r&ime is doing its utmost to turn the United Nations operation in Namibia to its own advantage. To that .end, it does not shrink from falsifying or garbling the facts. For example, the South African authorities have put forward a demand that the SWAP0 bases in neighbouring countries should be placed under United Nations supervision and that SWAP0 units should not be allowed any longer to stay in Namibia. Together with this, the South African authorities have taken further steps to impose their arbitrary interpretation of other questions having to do with the implementation of the United Nations operation in Namibia. 55. Those efforts being made by South Africa should be viewed in the same light as the attempts to involve in talks on a Namibian settlement the representatives of various Namibian groupings which have been a&icially created to please Pretoria. Exactly what are these so-called political groupings? They are the puppet creations of Pretorianothing more than that. 56. As is known, these groupings took part in the illegal, rigged elections held in Namibia in December last year by the South African authorities. In its resolution 439 (1978), the Security Council declared that those elections were null and void. Furthermore, these groupings have taken part in bodies established as a result of the illegal elections. These bodies cannot be, and indeed are not, recognized by the United Nations or by its Member States. Nevertheless, certain Western Member States have said that they intend to support contacts with the above-mentioned groups. That very definitely runs counter to the resolution to which I have just referred. 57. Instead of using the means available to them to exert pressure on South Africa, the Western Powers are virtually pandering to the Pretoria regime; they are trying to reassure that r&ime. They are organizing new rounds of talks to try to exert further pressure on SWAP0 and the front-line States. 58. SWAP0 has been recognized by the United Nations as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. I shall repeat that: SWAP0 has been rccognized by the United Nations as the sole legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. SWAP0 has a very clear-cut position on questions relating to a Namibian settlement in accordance with decisions taken by the Security Council and the General Assembly. 59. Here we consider it necessary to remind members of the Council that it would be absolutely inadmissible to allow any sort of compromise which would involve further concessions by SWAP0 and the front-line States. As may be seen from the statement made on 19 March by the Foreign Minister of the Pretoria racist r&ime [S/l3Z80], the South African authorities view the main aim of the talks as being the attainment of fresh concessions by SWAPO. They do not even draw the line at making direct threats that a puppet r&ime to their liking will be established in Namibia if SWAP0 does not make the concessions demanded. 66. The Soviet delegation fully supports the position of the African States. We are in favour of adopting a resolution that would not merely be another decision that the South African leaders could ignore. Those leaders should not play with tire. They should not further test the patience of the independent young African States, The racists have no future. They must remember that if they have some remnants of reason left.

The next speaker is the representative of Ethiopia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement. 61. In this connexion, I should like to quote the following passage from a communique issued by the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Angola: “The General Staff of the FAPLA [Popular Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola] hereby alerts international public opinion and declines any and all responsibility for the consequences that may ensue from this situation. The patience of the FAPLA is running out, and they cannot remain indifferent to these insolent provocations indefinitely.” [S/l31 77. annex.] That statement that patience is running out was reaffiied today by the representative of Zambia.

Mr. President, let me begin by expressing the satisfaction of the Group of African States at the United Nations with the efficient manner in which you have been conducting the work of the Security Council since your assumption of its presidency at the beginning of this month. Your leading and active role as Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, as well as your country’s firm commitment to the restoration of human dignity in Africa, assures us all of a successful outcome for these important deliberations. 69. Permit me also at the outset to thank all the members of the Council for having promptly responded to the request for this meeting to consider yet another invasion of the People’s Republic of Angola by the military forces of the racist regime of South Africa. 62. The Soviet Union has consistently supported and continues to support the struggle of the peoples of Africa-and not only the peoples of Africa-for national liberation and social progress, for genuine independence and sovereignty. We express real solidarity with the African peoples in their present struggle against colonialism, racism and apartheid We express solidarity with these peoples in their efforts to eliminate from southern Africa this hotbed of international tension and this threat to international peace and security. 70. The history of South African aggression against Angola and all other independent African States is clear and unmistakable to all. Nothing that can be said in these current meetings of the Council can bring to light that which is not already known to the international community. The flagrant aggression by the racist South African regime against the people of Angola predates the historic independence of that country. The recent behaviour of the aparrheid Pretoria regime has merely been the continuing manifestation of its obdurate and arrogant refusal to rccontile itself with the reality of the independence of the People’s Republic of Angola. Racist Pretoria has interfered and continues to interfere with the sovereign rights of the people of Angola to freedom and independence. Parallel to the intensification of its repressive and aggressive policies, South Africa has in the past decades embarked on an equally intensive military build-up and preparation for war. With an incessant escalation of its military build-up, South Africa has established a substantial domestic armaments industry and has acquired sophisticated war machinery of all types from its imperialist and neo-colonialist allies. These efforts are clearly an integral aspect of its desperate attempts not only to perpetuate the colonial occupation of Namibia but also to sustain the abhorrent policy of aparzheid, which stands for the total negation of the most elementary rights and the dignity of man. 63. At this meeting of the Security Council we should like once more to reaffirm the complete support of the Soviet Union for the People’s Republic of Angola in its struggle to strengthen its independence and to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity from the imperialist encroachments. We also support the Namibian people, who, under the guidance of SWAPO, are conducting an heroic struggle for implementation of genuine independence. 64. The Council must not only engage in discussions; it must also take all steps to put an end to South Africa’s aggressive actions against Angola and other neighbouring African States. In its resolution 428 (1978), adopted unanimously on 6 May 1978, the Council commended the People’s Republic of Angola for its continued support of the people of Namibia in their just and legitimate struggle and decided “to meet again in the event of further acts of violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola by the South African racist r&ime in order to consider the adoption of more effective measures, in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof”. 71. Africa is recklessly being driven to the limits of its patience. No initiative for a so-called peaceful settlement of 72. Barely a year ago, on 4 May 1978, and immediately after the ninth special session of the General Assembly, which was devoted to Namibia, from its base in the illegally occupied Territory of Namibia, the South African Air Force invaded the People’s Republic of Angola, penetrating some 250 kilometres to the vicinity of Kassinga, causing the death of hundreds of unarmed Namibian refugees and Angolan civilians. The international community has not yet recovered from the shock of the sight of the mass graves where the bodies of innocent children, women and old men were dumped in the aftermath of the Kassinga massacre. 73. That blatant aggression, which is still continuing so contemptuously, was aimed not only at eliminating SWAP0 and the liberation struggle of the Namibian people but also at destabilizing the whole region in the illusory hope of promoting puppets which were being trained in the illegally occupied Territory of Namibia. In embarking upon that blatant invasion of Angola last year, South Africa was undoubtly encouraged by the posture of its allies, patticularly that of the Western five, during the proceedings of the ninth special session of the General Assembly, which, inzer alia, demanded that South Africa should terminate its occupation of Namibia forthwith. 74. It is to be recalled that in May 1978 the Security Council strongly condemned the armed invasion perpetrated by the South African racist r&me against the People’s Republic of Angola, condemned the utilization of the international Territory of Namibia by South Africa as a spring-board for armed invasions of Angola, reiterated its support for the just and legitimate struggle of the people of Namibia for the attainment of their freedom and independence and for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of their country, and commended the People’s Republic of Angola for its continued support of the people of Namibia in their just and legitimate struggle. Above all, in paragraph 8 of resolution 428 (1978), which the Council adopted unanimously, this body decided “to meet again in the event of further acts of violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola by the South African racist regime in order to consider the adoption of more effective measures, in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof ‘. 75. Further desperate acts of invasion by apartheid South Africa against the people, independence and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola are currently taking place and, in fact, intensifying from day to day. Since the first week of this month, the racist regime of South Africa has been mobilizing its military aircraft and infantry units and, using its illegal military bases in Namibia, has embarked on blatant invasion against Angola, attacking refugee camps and killing civilians. I shall not delve into the details of the latest invasion of Angola by the military forces of the South African racist regime. My brother and col- 76. The Group of African States at the United Nations, on whose behalf I have now the privilege and the high honour of addressing this body, wishes to emphasize and draw the attention of the international community to the fact that this aggression is yet another manifestation of South Africa’s intention to perpetuate its illegal control of Namibia, even at the cost of plunging the region and, indeed, the world into war. The invasion of Angola and the attack against Namibian refugee camps unmistakably indicates that racist South Africa’s objective is to eliminate SWAP0 as a liberation movement leading the Namibian people in their effort to attain genuine selfdetermination and independence in a united Namibia. The African Group reiterates once again its unswerving support for and solidarity with Angola, the victim of this aggression, and all other front-line States, as well as with the struggling people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, its sole and authentic representative. 77. The Group of African States views this most recent and outrageous aggression by racist South Africa with the utmost indignation. No doubt, any act of aggression is deplorable and its consequences ominous. But when aggression is embarked upon habitually as a persistent policy of domination, exploitation and degradation of the peoples of southern Africa, gravely endangering the stability and peace of the region, free and independent African States cannot be expected to restrain themselves indefinitely in the face of these serious provocations. 78. It is no longer sufficient merely to condemn in no uncertain terms the continued aggression by the South African regime. It is no longer adequate to denounce South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its utilization of that Territory as the staging ground for aggression against independent, sovereign African States. These are all actions-if “actions” they can be called-taken by the Security Council and the General Assembly on several occasions, and they have only been paralleled by more repression and more acts of aggression on the part of the arrogantly defiant Pretoria r&me. Time is of the essence and the Security Council must, for once, rise to the heights of the responsibilities entrusted to it. Africa urges the Council-and particularly those who have in the past frustrated all its efforts-to search their consciences and meet the challenge of the day. 79. Africa earnestly calls upon the Security Council to consider, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, the application of all effective and appropriate measures, including mandatory comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa. 80. In this regard, Africa commends the real political will and concern for justice, equality and international peace and security demonstrated by the revolutionary Govemment of Iran in cutting off all exports of oil to the racist r&me of South Africa.

The next sptaker is the representative of Algeria, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

The Security Council has today been requested to respond to the appeal of an African country subjected to armed aggression by the racist South African r&imeregrettably, not the first such aggression. Indeed, on numerous occasions the Council has taken congnizance of similar events in which countries of the African continent were the subject of ferocious and premeditated raids by the racist forces of Salisbury and Pretoria. 84. Thus, Mr. President, it is your heavy responsibility to guide the Council’s work at a time when senseless attacks by South Africa have created an immediate danger for an independent African State, the People’s Republic of Angola. It is symbolic that this debate should be carried out under the direction of a representative of Africa, and here I wish to express our particular satisfaction, fust, because everyone of us knows and appreciates the actions of Nigeria and its leaders on the international scene and secondly, because we know you personally and are familiar with your devotion to the cause of justice and freedom. 88. The deliberate aggression of South Africa against Angola is intended to intimidate the Angolan people, to arouse terror by trying to attack the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State Member of the United Nations. In this respect, the Algerian delegation wishes to express here its total support for the people of Angola in their efforts to protect their sovereignty and guarantee their security. Thus, we believe that the Council should give special consideration to the complaint before it and go beyond the mere allocation of responsibility. Since it is its duty to take measures concerning South Africa’s latest aggression, the Council should consider that aggression in a broader context: that of the racist policy of apartheid and of the illegal occupation of Namibia. Otherwise, any solution found would be totally inoperative because it would not go to the core of the problem. It is in any case urgent for the Council to concern itself seriously with the real danger represented by the brutal and deadly actions of the Pretoria regime against neighbouring countries of which Angola is the main target. It is fitting to put an end once and for all to the obstinate arrogance which South Africa displays towards the international community and to call on the Governments which have imprudently supported it not to forget their obligations in respect of the rest of the intemational community. We might understand the hesitations of some members of the Council to take certain decisions which are nevertheless necessary, but we can no longer understand them when their reticence conceals selfish interests. 85. The Council will scarcely need any evidence to form an opinion on the criminal attacks directed against Angola from illegal military bases established in Namibia. The South African r&ime has long ago given up denying its misdeeds, and even recklessly boasts of them with overbearing cynicism. This is clear proof of its scorn for the intemational community and the United Nations. This arrogant defiance of the Pretoria racists is but the result of the softness still shown by certain Western Powers in respect of South Africa. This well-known complicity, which we have long denounced, constitutes an intolerable encouragement to an outlawed regime, which shamelessly practises its policy of apartheid and which has always refused to recognize the authority of the United Nations over Namibia or to give effect to the right of self-determination and independence of the Namibian people. 86. In the present circumstances the conduct of those Powers becomes even more reprehensible because they can no longer ignore the tragic consequences of that attitude, for which they must bear some portion of the blame. The very grave turn of events occasioned by the latest South African incursions into Angola makes that ambiguity which enables some to utter lofty condemnations of the South African raids while maintaining close relations with Pretoria no longer permissible. It is a grave moment, because the aggression against Angola is felt by all African countries, which manifest their solidarity with peoples which are still under foreign domination and whose countries are subject to foreign exploitation. It is South Africa today which wishes to make Angola pay for that solidarity 89. The solidarity o?the Algerian people with the Angolan people is unwavering, not only because they are an African people but above all because they so courageously face-as they have always done-the attacks engineered by the racist regime of Pretoria. The People’s Republic of Angola must be able to rely on the support of the members of the Council because the situation now being considered represents a very grave threat to peace and security in the entire African continent. The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m. HOW +O OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS Unite 1 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 PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sent en vente dans les librairies et les agences d&ositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aup& de votre libraire ou adressez-vous & : Nations Unies. Section des ventes, New York ou Gen&ve. KAK IIOIIY’IHTb I13flAHZIR OPl-AHB3AQUU OKbEAAHEHHhIX HAUHH l-Ixatwn Ooratinaaumi OCi-benpnHeHxbrx Haunii ~lloxwo rqnH=b e KHHXHL.~X Mara- JHH~X H arewc-raax so BWX pa3oHax wipa. H~BCIAHT~ cnpaeaH 06 WJA~HHIIX a earners KHAXHOM r.rarasmie mu rn.fuxHTe no anpeey: Opranwsau~~ OCizenkixeHtrhrx Haunti. Ce~unn no nponaace HsAaHmA, HLIO-Ffop~ HJW Xeneaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas e&An en venta en librerfas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Secci6n de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations. New York Price: $U.S. 1.50 79-70002-December 1981-2,250