S/PV.2211 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at the 2209th and 2210th meetings, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Cuba, Guyana, Liberia, Mauritius, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia and Zaire to participate in the discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Bedjaoui (Algeria), Mr. de F’igueiredo (Angola), Mr. Roa- Kouri (Cuba), Mr. Sinclair (Guyana), Mr. Tubman (Liberia), Mr. Ramphul (Mauritius), Mr. Clark (Nigeria), Mr. Humaidan (United Arab Emirates), Mr. Komatina (Yugoslavia), and Mr. Buketi Bukayi (Zaire) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

I wish to inform the members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative Of India in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, At the invitation of the President, Mr. B. C. Mishra (India) took the place reservedfor him at the side of the Council chamber.

The members of the Council have before them document S/13887, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of consultations which have just been held.

The alternation of our debates can teach us a great deal, if we wish to learn. The series of acts of aggression against Zambia by the racist rtgime of South Africa is but an illustration of the conditions imposed on neighbouring areas by the last two countries of the world to claim the attributes of statehood while, at the same time, they base their rkgimes upon the principle of racial superiority and the practice of military supremacy. This lethal combination implies secret connivance at violence and war. 5. The Council is now familiar with these practices, this blackmail, these military excursions, which are a routine part of the policies followed by South Africa and Israel. Both derive from their blatant disregard of international obligations, an astonishing freedom of movement, a truly unbelievable immunity that permits them to carry out, without many scruples, threats of death and destruction and a new kind of State terrorism. This opens the way to a form of colonialism which the United Nations must now identify, contain and repress, before the permanent threat it poses to peace and the security of nations leads to confrontation and bloodshed, which both Pretoria and Tel Aviv are not far from hoping for, or even fanning with suspicious zeal. 6. The frequency of our debates, which cannot even claim to equal the frequency of the acts of aggression, has indeed led to the isolation of those two rkgimes and clear embarrassment for their very few allies. But it is quite clear that the Council is not shouldering its responsibilities simply by taking note of the situation or by the repetition of its injunctions and condemna- 7. If it is true that we must have the facts before we can determine blame, we can say that the Council is amply provided with the facts because it has been regularly seized of the many violations committed by South Africa over recent years, with or without the complicity of the erstwhile Rhodesian troops, against the front-line countries. Those acts are continuing, and they follow the same logical pattern. 8. Accordingly, we are not really surprised at these new outrages committed against Zambia over the last three months, but we are saddened by the apparent casualness of the international press agencies, so eager to comment and expand upon minor unpleasantnesses in one part of the world and so negligent in reporting on the acts of barbarity that daily shatter the national security of an African country. South Africa certainly gains from this freedom and protection in keeping with its own cynicism. 9. The escalation of the acts of aggression beginning last March is not fortuitous; it lifts the veil from a broader and more fundamental strategy. It shows, first of all, that the collusion of the South African regime with that of racist Rhodesia was but a secondary matter and that its designs were not confined to the defence of the Rhodesian set-up, In intensifying its prolonged raids and lengthy stays in the territory of Zambia and in establishing permanent military camps, South Africa is crossing a legal and political threshold, the significance of which does not relate only to Zambia. In isolating parts of Zambian territory from the control of the central authority, it is proceeding to break up, divide and destabilize Zambia. This is the forerunner of a broader programme whose scope we can infer simply by looking at the usual range of the military acts of aggression committed. 10. This is the strategic outline that we can see from the series of acts of aggression of a new kind which the racist regime of South Africa has brought us with the tragic example of Zambia. 11. The United Nations, from the very outset, became aware of the bitter truth that being a neighbour of a racist country does not bring peace: far from it. Zambia’s complaint brings this experience to us afresh. 12. Every country in the region is faced with the same unavoidable and implacable adversary, and the confrmtation is even more tragic for Zambia, which has lived through four wars of liberation in the neighbouring areas and must now undertake efforts for Namibia and for the liberation of the people of South Africa itself. No doubt the European countries that were subjected to Nazi blackmail and crushed by the Nazi armies could offer an illustration of the dis- 13. Like nazism in Europe, today’s tragedy tran. scends Africa. And SO, havmg recourse to the United Nations has for US a fundamental significance, The Security Counctl thus bears an even heavier responsi. bility: to US each word, each gesture, each vote is significant. 14. If the members of the Council all agree that South Africa has indeed carried out a new series ol acts of aggression against the same Member State what will they decide to do? It will not be enough Sin& to repeat the condemnations of principle, which will Certainly not compensate for the losses Suffered and the devastation wreaked on the Republic of Zambia and will not guarantee the cessation of such acts of aggression in the future. To call for the withdrawal op the South African troops will not guarantee that they will be withdrawn, nor will it protect Zambia against future invasions. It will not be enough simply to recall our past resolutions to guarantee the conditions for peaceful development in security of all the neigh. bouring countries, in particular of Zimbabwe, which is just now emerging from a long war and still fears, as we can see, further bloodshed precisely because of this South African strategy of military destabilization, 15. The experience of the United Nations in its rela. tions with the racist regime of South Africa has shown the futility of any decision that is based on the pure fiction that that regime possesses the attributes of a responsible State in the international community, The constant violation of international law in Namibia, which, in addition, South Africa uses as a base for aggression against Angola and Zambia, the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the front-line States, the violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the maintenance of the apartheid regime-a crime against humanityare all instructive examples of its policy. 16. The South African regime cannot be expectedto comply with any measure decided upon by the United Nations if that measure is based on the same premises that have so far given South Africa its own immunit! and have protected its freedom, enabling it to continue indefinitely to perpetrate the same crimes and thesame violations of law. It is clear that the economic vialW and military security of the South African regime are inseparable from the political support of the Western Powers. There is, therefore, no hope of any effective measures being imposed on that r6gime unless thereis a clearly expressed agreement among all members Of the Council to include in any decision some machinery for binding sanctions under Chapter VII oftheCFter, 17. In the hope of finding at least the beginniigsof some settlement that would ensure the Peace “lnd security of the peoples of southern Africa and of Africa lg. In addition to expressing their unanimity in principle on a formal resolution, as a first gesture, we would expect the allies of South Africa to contribute to an immediate withdrawal of the troops now stationed in Zambia. The Council will be meeting again and again to discuss acts of aggression committed by South Africa. We shall be able to weigh the impact of our unanimity all the more objectively if our efforts do indeed reflect to the full our respective convictions. the international community. The facts are as follows: there were some 20 consecutive acts by South Africa on the territory of Zambia alone between January and March of this year; there have been provocative concentrations of terrorist troops in the territory, and flagrant violations of Zambian air space; many armed attacks against travellers and villagers; dozens of men, women and children killed or seriously wounded; and incalculable destruction from which it will take a long time for the Zambian economy to recover. That sufficiently describes the tribulations of that people, not to mention the moral harm they have sustained and the insecurity skillfully maintained in the area, not the least consequence of which is the loss of workers to the economy. 19. The Tunisian delegation cannot do less than express to the fraternal people of Zambia and to its representative in the Council, Mr. Kamanga, our feelings of solidarity with them in their long ordeal. In their resistance and their calm determination, they can count on the constant and unwavering support of all just men. They must have faith that justice and right will indeed triumph.

Please allow me, first of all, to express my admiration for the outstanding way in which you, Mr. President, represent the valiant country of Mexico in the United Nations. Your qualities as a statesman and a seasoned diplomat are sufficiently well known for me not to have to dwell on the fact that, under ,your presidency, our Council is in good hands. Please accept our congratulations and be assured that my delegation will continue to work steadfastly and with zeal to provide you its full and positive co-operation. 25. Niger therefore feels that there is an urgent need to put an end to the destruction; there is an urgent need to impose on South Africa unbending law, the verdict of the world, and the force of legality. There is an urgent need to free Namibia, cost what it may, because the facts demonstrate that only such a measure can restore peace to the region. But it is also extremely urgent to comfort the courageous people of Zambia and sustain it in its course of helping Namibia, the Namibian people and its political organization, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), Zambia is holding high the torch of dignity and freedom-the watchwords, in the last analysis, of the United Nations Charter. 21. But since I have at last been given an opportunity to do so, I should like to say how much we appreciated the tact and wisdom of Ambassador Mills of the sister Republic of’ Jamaica during his presidency for the month of March. May he accept the gratitude and compliments of my delegation for his exemplary dedication and his great contribution to the vitality of the Council. 26. Guardians as we are of world stability and peace among nations, we have no right to allow South Africa to work so openly to achieve the destabilization of the region, to continue to defy the Charter and to disturb its neighbours which are working for their development while fighting for the triumph of the sacred ideals that unite men. 22. In view of the grave situation prevailing today on the front line in southern Africa, my country wishes to express its profound indignation at and energetic condemnation of the repeated and murderous actions so often inflicted on the sister Republic of Zambia during the past several months by reason of the deliberate policy of destruction and destabilization that South Africa practises almost daily at Zambia’s expense. 27. Niger is therefore asking the Council to demand the immediate withdrawal of all South African troops operating illegally on Zambian territory, the cessation of all violations of Zambia’s territorial integrity by the racist Pretoria regime, and scrupulous respect from that regime for Zambian sovereignty, The Council should firmly condemn these provocations from South Africa and solemnly warn that country that, if those acts continue, they will be considered additional defiance of our Organization and will incur sanctions from the international community, including the application of Chapter VII of the Charter, 23. The facts have been set forth here 12209th meeting] by Mr. Kamanga, Chairman of the Political and Legal Committee of the Central Committee of the United National Independence Party of the Republic of Zambia, whom my delegation is pleased to welcome. The facts provided by him are instructive;

The Security Council is once again seized of the question of South African aggression against Zambia, a State with which the Soviet Union has relations of friendship and mutual understanding. The facts set forth in a very convincing statement by the representative of Zambia, Mr. Kamanga, a member of the Central Committee of the United National Independence Party of the Republic of Zambia and Chairman of the Political and Legal Committee of that Committee, whose participation in the work of the Council we welcome, and the statements made by the representatives of other countries are irrefutable proof of the fact that once again we are faced with overt aggression by the racist rbgime of Pretoria against an independent African State. This provides confirmation of the gravity of the threat to neighbouring States and to peace and security in southern Africa, a threat that exists because of the presence of the aggressive, racist Pretoria rkgime. 30. In their acts of aggression against Zambia, the South African racists have constantly violated the Zambian frontier; they have bombed populated areas, destroyed bridges, plundered the property of Zambian citizens and destroyed Zambia’s material resources. As a result of the armed intervention there have been victims among the peaceful civilian population, including children. South African aircraft daily violate the air space of that peaceful and independent State. For several months, the troops of the racists have been occupying various areas of the country, as a result of which those parts have been cut off from the rest of Zambia, and it has no longer been possible to get food supplies to the people in those regions. The scope of those acts of aggression by South Africa shows that they have been elevated to the level of an official policy towards Zambia by the racists of South Africa. 3 1. The acts of aggression of the South African racists against Zambia are one of the links in the whole chain of actions undertaken by Pretoria with the support of its Western protectors to halt or at least slow down the process of national liberation of the peoples of southern Africa; indeed, they are trying to reverse that process and turn it in a neo-colonialist direction. I 32. The Council has been seized almost constantly of the acts of aggression by the Pretoria rkgime against one or another independent African country. Last year it twice considered complaints by the People’s Republic of Angola against South Africa and strongly condemned the South African racists for their premeditated, deliberate and constant armed intervention 33. However, the facts show that South Africa’s policy of aggression against Zambia, Angola and other neighbouring States is continuing. Not only is that policy continuing, but the attacks on neighbouring African States are being organized with increasing frequency and they are more and more violent. 34. In its acts of aggression the Pretoria regime attaches great importance to manauvres designed to hamper the attainment of true freedom and independence by the people of Namibia under the leadership of SWAPO, its political vanguard. The South African racists are illegally using the Territory of Namibia, which they occupy although it is under the direct responsibility of the United Nations, to launch raids against neighbouring States. They have established bridgeheads for attacks against Angola, Zambia, Botswana and other independent African countries. There is no doubt at all that the South African authorities intend to consolidate their position in Namibia so that, from there, they can continue their criminal actions aimed at destabilizing the situation in those neighbouring countries and forcing them to abandon their progress towards development and social progress and their support for the national liberation movement. 35. Up until very recently, South Africa provided active assistance and support to the illegal racist regime in Southern Rhodesia, doing everything it could to prevent the victory of the patriotic forces in Zimbabwe. Having failed in that endeavour, the racist r6gime of Pretoria has nevertheless not abandoned its plans of direct armed intervention in the affairs of Zimbabwe. Twenty-two thousand South African soldiers are massed on the frontier with that young State. As was stated by the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr. Mugabe, not all South African troops have yet left the territory of that country. Open threats are heard in Pretoria about the use of force if the South African authorities consider that Zimbabwe’s policy is, as they say, “undermining the security” of South Africa. Hence it was not by chance that the Organization of African Unity, welcoming the victory of the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe, drew attention to the continuing threat to the independence of Zimbabwe and very firmly warned that African countries “would not suffer any intervention on the part of any circles whatsoever in the affairs of the young State. Africa“ -it was said-“ would support the people of Zimbabwe with all its power if there was any threat to its independence”. 36. Continuing an aggressive policy towards the neighbouring independent States, South Africa is 41. We share the view expressed by the representatives of African States that the continuing and, indeed, increasingly frequent acts of aggression perpetrated by South Africa against Zambia constitute a serious threat to peace and security. 37. To maintain their domination, the racists are willing to go to any extreme. We have learned that work is being carried on in South Africa to establish nuclear facilities. The former South African Minister of Information has said, and this is particularly ominous: 42. The Soviet delegation strongly condemns the acts of aggression committed by the South African racists against Zambia and proceeds from the premise that the Council must not only very severely condemn South African aggression against Zambia but also take action to force South Africa immediately to halt its acts of aggression against Zambia and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country and of other African States. To that end, the Council must consider the adoption in respect of South Africa of coercive measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. “In the event of an attack on us, if our survival is in jeopardy, then there will be no rules at all in effect. We shall use all the resources that are available to us, whatever they may be.” It is well known that the idea of national and social liberation is considered by the South African racists to be a “threat to their existence” or, rather, to the criminal system of apartheid in South Africa. 43. Mr. R. RAHMAN (Bangladesh): We have listened with close attention to the statement of the representative of Zambia, Mr. Kamanga. His presence here in New York only underscores the urgency and gravity of the matter now before the Council. 38. There is no doubt at all that, without the support of the West, primarily the United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the South African racists would not have been able to continue attacking independent African States for so long and with such impunity or to disregard so many decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Overt and covert support by the imperialist Powers to the racist regime is not really surprising, because this is based on very deep-seated common interests. Southern Africa is still one of the main sources of raw materials; it is the main source of gold for the West. Certain non-ferrous metals, uranium and diamonds all provide fabulous profits because of the inhuman exploitation of indigenous African labour. In 1978 alone, raw materials in the amount of 2 billion dollars were supplied by South Africa to the United States. 44, The spate of provocations and depredations unleashed by the racist regime of South Africa against Zambia is a matter of the deepest concern to my delegation, not least because they form part of a longestablished pattern of premeditated violations and acts of aggression against Zambia and indeed the other front-line States. Thus evidence and records have accumulated over the past several years of air and ground movements of South African armed forces across Zambian frontiers; of the killing of innocent civilians and of the abduction, torture, detention and harassment of others; of the establishment of camps, road blocks and other mechanisms of surveillance; and of the wanton destruction of property, with a singular focus on infrastructural damage, aimed at disrupting communication lines and paralysing all normal life. 39. The imperialist forces are doing everything they can to preserve their political and economic position in that part of the world, using the South African racist leaders for that purpose. On that basis, Sauth Africa is provided with all kinds of assistance, even in the United Nations, where the Western Powers constantly prevent the adoption of resolutions containing effective measures to halt its aggressive policy. 45. What we are witnessing today, however, is an increasing intensification of those acts of aggression, including a large-scale military build-up inside Namibia and the continuing presence of South African forces inside Zambian territory itself. The reality of the events here presented, the dangers they pose and the aims to which they are directed can hardly be doubted. 40. Throughout its activity in the United Nations, the Soviet Union has, together with the other socialist and progressive countries, pursued and is still pursuing a consistent policy based on the principle of struggle for the complete elimination of any remnants of 46. At issue today, therefore, are not only the indiscriminate violation of the territorial unity and integrity of a sovereign State, or the undisguised 47. There can be no doubt that South Africa’s actions against Zambia, Angola and the front-line States represent the last entrenched stand of the racist regime to preserve the anachronistic status quo of white supremacy and the universally condemned practice of apartheid, 48. As we prepare to celebrate the independence of Zimbabwe and rejoice with the people of that country in its emergence to sovereign statehood after years of bitter turmoil, travail, heroic struggle and sacrifice, all eyes are now increasingly focused on the completion of the liberation process in Namibia. South Africa’s illegal stranglehold on Namibia, its prevarication over all attempts to find a peaceful solution and the consolidation of its military grip and racist control of that international Territory have the inevitable fall-out of continued aggression against Namibia’s neighbours, despite the remarkable restraint and concessions of the latter. 49. My delegation takes this opportunity to pay a particular tribute to the Government and people of Zambia, as well as to other front-line States, for their singular contribution to furthering the process of liberation in southern Africa through the immense sacrifice and self-deprivation of their own people. In the face of the determined and sustained demonstration of support and solidarity by the international community, the regime in Pretoria is now engaged in desperate attempts to preserve its last bastions and remaining strongholds. 50. The Council must assume its responsibilities in the face of the patent threat to peace and security posed by South Africa’s persistent acts of aggression. We believe that the Council must unequivocally pronounce its condemnation of these unprovoked and intensified acts against the Republic of Zambia and demand that South Africa cease such violations and withdraw forthwith all military forces from inside Zambian territory. This Council should make it clear that the continuation of these aggressive acts can result only in its taking the necessary effective measures laid down in the Charter.

Mr. President, I should like to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council. I am pleased to see you, as the representative of Mexico, a country with which Norway has the friendliest of relations, presiding over our proceedings this month. 52. I should also like to pay a tribute to Ambassador Mills of Jamaica for his, as always, most able handling of the business of the Council during the month of March. 54. South Africa’s encroachments on Zambian territory and air space constitute clear violations of that country’s territorial integrity and political independence. Furthermore the continued South African presence inside Zambia constitutes interference in the internal affairs of Zambia, in contravention of international law, including the Charter. The Norwegian Government condemns the actions of South Africa in this regard and calls upon it to withdraw forthwith from Zambian territory and to desist from further violations of that country’s sovereignty. 55. Genuine independence and self-determination for the peoples remaining under minority rule in southern Africa would be greatly accelerated if South Africa would agree without further delay to the United Nations plan for Namibia. The implementation of that plan would guarantee free and fair elections in Namibia and increased stability and security in the region as a whole. 56. The Norwegian delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution before us [S/13887]. We shall do so because the situation so clearly documented for the Council on 10 April by the representative of Zambia remains intolerable not only to Zambia but also to the Council. 57. As Zimbabwe nears its well-deserved and longfought-for independence, it is proper that the frontline States themselves, including Zambia, also be enabled to enjoy the fruits of peace. Zimbabwe represents a victory for peaceful solutions and negotiated settlements of international conflicts. From this, South Africa should also learn the lesson that continued acts of aggression against neighbouring countries will seriously complicate the present situation in the region. This is the time to solve, through renewed determination by all the parties concerned, the remaining problems in southern Africa by peaceful means.

We should like, first of all, to address our warm greetings to you, Mr. President, on the occasion of your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of April. It is particularly gratifying for us to see you in the Chair 59. A tribute is also due to Ambassador Mills of Jamaica, who presided over our deliberations during the month of March with all the wisdom, knowledge and experience we all recognize in him. 60. The report that has been presented to us by Mr. Kamanga, member of the Central Committee of the United National Independence Party of Zambia and Chairman of the Political and Legal Committee of the Central Committee on the situation in the Western Province of his country is indeed very disturbing. Once again, a front-line State has seen its boundaries and air space violated and has suffered human and material losses. The international community cannot remain indifferent to these recent acts of aggression by South Africa or to the sufferings of the Zambian people, to whom we should like to express our deepest sympathy on this occasion. 61. We associate ourselves with all those who have spoken before the Council in expressing our concern and our distress at the flagrant violation of the soveieignty and territorial integrity of a Member State of this Organization, a violation which constitutes a most serious breach of the elementary principles of international law, 62. With the settlement of the Rhodesian question and the holding of free and fair elections in that country, the international community formed great hopes of seeing a quick end to at least some of the problems still facing the people of southern Africa. Those expectations have, unfortunately, not yet been entirely fulfilled, as this debate has shown. We therefore urge the South African Government not to persist in creating situations like the one we are dealing with today, but to abide by the resolutions of the Council. We feel that it is in its best interests fully to co-operate with the overwhelming view of the international community, as expressed once again in the draft resolution upon which we are about to vote.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of this Council for this month. We warmly welcome your presidency because Mexico and the Philippines are linked by fraternal ties that date back to the seventeenth century, when the galleohs of our common colonial ruler crossed the vast distance that separate Acapulco from Manila and gave us a common historical and cultural legacy, on which we have built our present close and intimate relations. On this basis we have always co-operated splendidly in every endeavour, international and bilateral, for the attainment of the common &pirations Of our two peoples. This Council is fortunate in having YOU in [The speaker continued in English.] 64. Your predecessor, Ambassador Mills of Jamaica, is to be warmly congratulated for steering us with ease and aplomb through the crises that came before US last month. Ambassador Mills comes from an island country like the Philippines, but his handling of his tasks last month bespeaks a universal outlook which has stood him and the Council in good stead. 65. The matter before us today is one of the vexing issues before the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is an issue that remains unresolved, not because the United Nations has lacked decisiveness, but because the party in question, the racist rkgime of South Africa, has ignored the decisions of the world body. As a result, we are saddled with a grave problem in southern Africa; the international community continues to reap the bitter fruits of a rampant racist policy that is unchecked, and the process of liberation and decolonization of subject peoples is still incomplete in Africa. 66. My delegation believes that at the root of the present problem lies the anachronistic policy of upartheid, a particularly vicious institutionalized type of racism. In the particular case before us, it is obvious that racism breeds recidivism. Unless and until this manifestation of racism in southern Africa is eliminated, until racism in general is eradicated, we can expect the illegal occupation of Namibia to continue, and we can expect the neighbouring countries-the front-line States of Zambia, Angola, Botswana, Mozambique and Tanzania-continually to suffer from actions by the apartheid rCgime designed to destabilize them and to derail United Nations efforts to enable the Namibian people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination. 67. It is an outrage that Zambia should have had to experience these wanton acts of aggression so soon after it had suffered ravishment at the hands of the illegal ri$gime in Southern Rhodesia, with South African collusion. While Zambia and the other front-line States no longer have to suffer depradations from Southern Rhodesia, it is deplorable that Zambia should have to bear again the brunt of a new series of incursions and aggression, this time from South Africa, through Namibia, which itself is the victim of an unjust, illegal occupation by the minority rkgime in Pretoria. As with all the developing States of southern Africa, it is time that Zambia was given the opportunity to develop in peace, free from external interference and aggression. 68. The South African occupation of Namibia has been declared illegal by the International Court of 69. This matter is of great importance not only to Zambia but also to the international community because of the threat it poses to international peace and security. Its importance is underscored by the appearance before us of Mr. Kamanga, Chairman of the Political and Legal Committee of the Central Committee of the United National Independence Party of Zambia. He has documented the destructions, injuries and deaths caused by South African aggression against the Western Province of Zambia. This catalogue of crimes perpetrated against the people of Zambia parallels those committed by the illegal rbgime of Southern Rhodesia against Zambia last year. As a result, the Council adopted resolution 455 (1979), which created a committee under the chairmanship of the representative of Norway, Mr. Per Aasen. The report of that committee [S/13774 of 3f January 29801 has shown us the extent of the destructions and injuries caused by the act of aggression. We have also heard statements of the Organization of African Unity and the non-aligned movement underscoring the gravity of the ,present crimes. From the front-line States and from SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of Namibia, we have also received reports of the criminal acts of South African forces in their territories and in Namibia. As a result of these acts, those countries have suffered grievous harm; their economies have been shattered and the daily lives of their peoples have been dislocated. In their honest efforts to comply with the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, they have had to undergo much sacrifice. 70. Answering the appeal of the Secretary-General, the Philippines has unhesitatingly responded to United Nations and non-aligned calls for assistance to alleviate the plight of the peoples of Zambia and the other front-line States on various occasions. By the same token, we have fully supported the struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of SWAPO, to attain their national heritage as a free and independent nation. As an earnest of the firm commitment of the Philippines to the independence of Namibia, the Philippines received, in March 1979, a delegation from the United Nations Council for Namibia, the Administering Authority for Namibia, as a result of which a joint communiquhl was issued expressing support for the cause of the Namibian people. Towards the same end, my Government has consistently contributed annually to all the various United Nations funds for Namibia, including the fund for the Institute in Lusaka. 72. For these reasons, the Philippines firmly supports the recommendations and courses of action submitted to the Council by the Government of Zambia, In particular, we demand that all South African forces withdraw immediately from Zambian territory and that South Africa henceforth cease all violations of Zambia’s air space and scrupulously respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Zambia. We believe that such demands for South Africa to desist from its actions must also apply in relation to the other front-line States. South Africa should be warned that persisting in these acts will make it subject to enforcement measures by the Council, including those provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. 73. This is an urgent matter that cannot brook delay, Every moment that passes without forthright action by the Council poses a peril to the people of Zambia and a threat to international peace and security. Let us seize this opportunity to put a stop once and for all to South African aggression committed in total violation of the sacred principles of the Charter and against the people of the Republic of Zambia and its neighbours.

The next speaker is the representative of India, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 75. Mr. B. C. MISHRA (India): Mr. President, I wish first of all, on behalf of the delegation of India, to thank you, and through you the other members of the Council, for affording me an opportunity to address the Council on the serious situation arising out of the acts of aggression committed by the South African racist rkgime against the Republic of Zambia, 76. The Council has, on a number of occasions during the past few years, been seized of the question of South African atrocities against Zambia, Angola and other sovereign African States. It has adopted resolutions condemning such aggressive attacks as flagrant violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those independent States and as a serious threat to international peace and security. 77. The most recent provocative military actions undertaken by South African troops and aircraft in the 82. The Security Council has a solemn responsibility to put a stop to South Africa’s acts of aggression and attempts at destabilization of independent African front-line States. The Charter is unambiguous on the method of handling such a situation. For its aggression against neighbouring States, for its apartheid Policy, for its usurpation of the resources of Namibia and for its violation of the basic human dignities of the African people, South Africa deserves the censure of the Council, as it has already deserved that of the international community. In condemning the aggressive acts of the racist rkgime we strongly support the demand of the overwhelming majority of Member States that the Council should, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter, do everything necessary to eliminate the threat to international peace and security which the continuing unlawful occupation of Namibia by South Africa and its aggressive actions directed against independent African States represent. 78. Mr. Kamanga, member of the Central Committee of the United National Independence Party of Zambia and Chairman of the Political and Legal Committee of that Committee, presented us with a detailed picture of the sanguinary misdeeds of the racists against innocent Zambian civilians, including children, who are victims of cynical manceuvres on the part of South Africa’s apartheid military and political strategists. The successive and sustained nature of these actions against the front-line States of southern Africa cannot be viewed in isolation as individual acts of State terrorism. They are part of a larger design. 79. While the political developments in neighbouring Zimbabwe should have given the present regime in Pretoria sufficient cause for circumspection and for a thorough reassessment of the advisability of continuing its outdated policies and tactics, South Africa’s recent actions have given proof of little understanding and less wisdom. Not only have its actions in Namibia, typified by its continued obfuscation on the plan for a political solution to the question of Namibia, left no doubt of South Africa’s true intentions-namely, to continue by all possible means its illegal occupation of that Territory and to perpetuate the colonial exploitation of the people and resources of Namibia-but it would seem that the rkgime in Pretoria has not given up its attempts to revive the concept ofa “constellation of States” in the area hinged on Pretoria and aimed at offering security for the racist minority Rump in the region. Its present actions should be viewed in such a context. 83. The Council should act urgently in the current situation and condemn in the strongest possible terms South Africa’s aggression against the Republic of Zambia. It should demand that the Government of South Africa immediately cease all acts of aggression and provocation against Zambia and withdraw forthwith all its armed forces from sovereign Zambian territory. South Africa should scrupulously respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the neighbouring independent African States and desist from the utilization of Namibia, a Territory occupied by it illegally, to launch acts of aggression against Zambia or other neighbouring States. The Pretoria rhgime should be placed on notice that, in the event of any further aggressive action on its part, the Council will promptly take up the question of enforcement action against it under Chapter VII of the Charter, All Member States should be requested by the Council urgently to extend necessary assistance to the Government and people of Zambia as well as to the other front-line States in order to strengthen their defence capabilities against the repetition of such insolent provocations by South Africa. 80. If all these are not sufficient indicators of South Africa’s cynical intentions, its stepped-up activities in the direction of acquiring nuclear weapons must give the international community cause for grave concern. South Africa’s aim, obviously, is to use its military prowess, including its nuclear capability, as a lever to blackmail and intimidate Africa into abandoning sup port for the oppressed people of the region. In this context, my delegation firmly supports the decisions concerning the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa contained in General Assembly resolution 34/93, as well as those on the question of Namibia contained in General Assembly resolution 34192. 84. The people of Zambia have long endured the provocations from Pretoria. The daily sacrifice in terms of economic hardships and the threat they face from across the border is the price they have been called upon to pay in their persistence in supporting the cause of the Namibian people, It is for the Council to undertake thorough and comprehensive consideration Of this grave threat to the peace and stability of that region, and we hope that the Council will be able to live up to the expectations of the people of Zambia and justify the confidence they have placed in it. 81. As is clear to everyone, it is the continuing economic, financial and other support enjoyed bY the Pretoria regime in various quarters that has assisted

The next speaker is the representative of Nigeria. 87. The timing of the current acts of aggression committed by the racist regime in South Africa against Zambia could not have been more clumsily contrived. Occurring on the eve of the accession to freedom and independence of Zimbabwe, where South Africa’s policies have suffered their most shameful defeat to date-a triumph brought about by the heroic sacrifices of the people of Zimbabwe and the people of Zambia alike-these acts are an unmitigated outrage. But when linked to a spurious pretext, as the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information has sought to link them in his letter of 10 April [S/13886], they are reminiscent of the futile efforts of that regime in the past to stem the tide of history in southern Africa, to arrest the expansion of the frontiers of freedom in Africa and to defy the United Nations. 88. Zambia’s complaints against South Africa of aggression, intimidation and harassment have been proved beyond any doubt. In his competently documented presentation yesterday, the representative of Zambia, Mr. Kamanga, a member of the Central Committee of the United National Independence Party of the Republic of Zambia, showed how his country had been a constant victim of South African aggression over the years. Nigeria strongly condemns those acts of aggression against Zambia, a sister State of Nigeria’s. In this connection, I recall Council resolution 455 (1979), in which the Council not only strongly condemned the illegal regime then in power in Southern Rhodesia, as well as South Africa, for their brazen acts of aggression against Zambia, but also called for the payment of full and adequate compensation to make good Zambia’s losses resulting from those acts of aggression. The recent acts have further aggravated the situation. 89. Even the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information of South Africa, Mr. Botha, has admitted that his regime has committed, and will continue to commit, acts of aggression against Zambia. The Council cannot overlook the serious challenge to its authority flowing from that threat. In his letter to you to which I referred earlier, the South African Minister said: “[South Africa] therefore has no alternative but to take protective action against aggression committed from Zambian soil. South Africa’s actions are in 90. As if this admission of premeditated acts of aggression in flagrant violation of the Charter, of adherence to the criminal doctrine of “hot pursuit” and of the arrogation to itself of the right to protect the Namibian people, whose Territory South Africa has continued to usurp and occupy illegally, were not provocative enough, the Minister went on to challenge the competence of the Council to implement its own resolutions on Namibia with an implied threat, by saying: “It is clear that the Zambian request for a meeting of the Security Council was timed to pre-empt South Africa’s reply to the Secretary-General’s report of 31 March 1980 on the South West Africa negotiations.” [Ibid.] 91. The triumph of the democratic process in Zimbabwe has completely unsettled the complacency of South Africa. It has destroyed its fig-leaf image of being a strong military Power capable of dealing with the liberation struggle within its own borders and of playing a role in deciding the destiny of the front-line States, among which Zimbabwe is now a vanguard member. It has damaged the concept of the so-called Western security and defence system, which includes South Africa to the total exclusion of the entire continent of Africa. It has buried all dreams of the survival of racist minority regimes in Africa. 92. I would therefore venture to suggest that three aspects of the root of the problem should be addressed. 93. First there is incontrovertible evidence that South Africa’s actions under consideration constitute a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace and an act of aggression within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter. The Council should therefore act swiftly and decisively to prevent aggravation of the situation. It should strongly condemn South Africa for its aggression. It should call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South African troops from Zambian soil. It should adopt effective measures to prevent a recurrence of acts of aggression by South Africaagainst Zambia. It should call upon South Africa to compensate Zambia substantially for its losses. After all, South Africa has accepted responsibility for its actions. It must be made to pay for them. South Africa cannot escape its criminal responsibility. Nigeria therefore strongly supports Zambia in its present plight and will do everything in its power to help it to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. 94. Secondly, the Council should assume its full responsibility under the Charter by facing up to the 98. The Special Committee against Apartheid and the anti-clpartheid international community have lately been drawing attention to the fact that South Africa now poses an even greater threat to international peace and security than it did in 1963 when the arms embargo was called for. Indeed, today as we meet here, there are reports that South African military forces have been mobilized and are deployed along the borders of Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola. We have also been able to ascertain that the South African armed forces rely on aircraft and heavy equipment to be able to move quickly and cover enormous distances with a relatively small force and to deal with strategically over-stretched positions, and that their capacity to flex their military muscles depends on the supply of oil. 95. But more important is the Council’s perception of its own powers and its determination to implement its own resolutions. The Council has adopted several resolutions with respect to the United Nations legal responsibility for Namibia, the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence, the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, and the implementation of the mandate of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group, so as to ensure the early independence of Namibia. South Africa’s allegation that Zambia’s complaint would complicate the Secretary-General’s current efforts to implement the Council’s resolutions must be rejected as grossly impertinent and totally unacceptable. In fact, in the view of Nigeria, these talks with South Africa over Namibia have gone on for too long. South Africa is making a mockery of the whole exercise. Those who say that South Africa should be given more time to pursue the talks, particularly in the aftermath of its Zimbabwe ddbgcle, are merely playing Devil’s advocate. South Africa’s policy of occupation and exploitation of Namibia will not change. It can be defeated only by the combined will of the Council and the armed struggle by SWAPO. 99. Those facts became very clear to us during the recent International Seminar on an Oil Embargo against South Africa, which was organized by the Holland Committee on Southern Africa and the Working Group Kairos in co-operation with the Special Committee against Apartheid and held in Amsterdam from 14 to 16 March. The Seminar therefore declared that, since South Africa was able to continue its heinous system of upnrtheid and its policies of aggression against the neighbouring States because of its ability to fuel its machinery of repression and war, an oil embargo against South Africa was both necessary and urgent. 96. Thirdly, the Council should take into account the fact that the consequences of the uparfheid policies of the racist rhgime in South Africa for the peace and stability of Africa, particularly of the front-line States, are not an overnight development. Since the adoption of its resolution 134 (1960) the Council has been considering the fact that apartheid is a threat to international peace; it has recognized that South Africa’s increasing arms build-up and its recent acquisition of a nuclear-weapon capability are to be used in furtherance of its racist policies; it has constantly reiterated its total opposition to the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa; and it has condemned, time and again, South Africa’s armed incursions into and acts of aggression against Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and other States of the region. 100. I should therefore like to submit for the Council’s immediate consideration-partly as a modest contribution to its effort to redress Zambia’s present grievances and partly as a positive component of an overdue international action for the elimination Of apartheid and of support for the struggle of the OPpressed people of South Africa and Namibia for liberation-a proposal for the Council to impose a total embargo on the supply of crude oil and oil products to South Africa. That would reinforce the already existing arms embargo. Such a decision would be most popular, not only in Africa but also throughout the world. It would restore and enhance the prestige and credibility of this Council as the primary organ for the maintenance of international peace and security. And it would not be impossible to implement, because all the major producers of oil, including all the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and your own great country, Mr. President, have already prohibited the sale of their oil to South Africa. 97. The only significant practical measure taken So far by the Council to ensure the implementation of its resolutions against the apartheid regime has been its adoption of a resolution on an arms embargo against South Africa [181 (196311. But that was in 1963, some 17 years ago. Since then South Africa, through collusion with some important Member States of the United Nations, even of the Council, and through the exploita- 101. The objective of such a decision as I am recommending would be to encourage all States imme-

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

Mr. President, I wish to thank you and, through you, the other members of the Council for having granted my delegation the right to speak on the matter of which it is now seized. 104. When I assure you, Mr. President, of the particular pride and satisfaction that Guyana feels as it addresses the Council under your presidency, I am not merely observing tradition. You represent a sister Latin American country of whose history and continuing contribution to Latin America’s political and economic emancipation our region is justly proud, a country with which Guyana maintains the most cordial relations. Your own experience and diplomatic skills, which we all know so well, are our assurance of a positive outcome for the deliberations of the Council during the month of April. 105. You have assumed the presidency of the Council following that of Ambassador Mills of Jamaica, a country also from our own region and one with which Guyana is bound by close ties, historical and cultural. It therefore gives me special pleasure to pay a tribute to Ambassador Mills for the efficiency and skill with which he conducted the business of the Council during the month of March. 106. You are presiding over the Council in a month when the international community is rejoicing at the birth of the independent State of Zimbabwe. The Council itself has watched and toiled for numerous hours as the forces of reaction in both Pretoria and Salisbury fought tooth and nail to prevent that birth and to forestall the march to freedom of the people of Zimbabwe. It is an irony of the most cruel sort that, even as we rejoice, the Council should be convened to hear a complaint against South Africa advanced by Zambia, a front-line State which has paid so dearly in human and material resources in order that Zimbabwe might at last be free. 107. Guyana has long admired the courage, fortitude and steadfastness of the Government and the people of 108. Ironical though it may be, it does not surprise anyone that the present situation should have come about. There once was a time when the defence perimeter of apartheid, as perceived by the racists of Pretoria, rested on the twin bases of the continuance of Portuguese colonialism in Africa and the involvement on South Africa’s side of powerful and influential countries desirous of maintaining their national interests in the area and willing to subordinate principle to profit and the freedom of the oppressed peoples to their perceived economic advantage and their own global military requirements. The victories of the peoples of Mozambique and Angola, the more recent victory of the people of Zimbabwe, the strengthening of the forces of liberation in Namibia, the heightened political resistance of the oppressed people of South Africa itself-all those factors have helped to upset the calculations of the Pretoria game theorists. 109. It is clear for all to see that the victory of the people of Zimbabwe has brought the winds of freedom that much closer to South Africa. Justice, which for so long had been trampled upon by the forces of oppression of Salisbury, has finally conquered and now stands menacingly even on the banks of the Limpopo. It is that vision which has produced the reaction of desperation which we see manifested in the series of attacks by South Africa against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent, non-aligned Zambia which the representative of that country chronicled before this Council yesterday afternoon. Those actions are intended to neutralize Zambia’s role in the continuing liberation of southern Africa, to strike fear into the hearts of Zambians; they are only an external manifestation of the politics of fear which the racists of Pretoria have chosen to practise to ensure their survival. Fear, intimidation and aggression are all vital parts of the machinery of what passes for government in South Africa; they are the foundation on which white economic superiority in South Africa is based. Such fear, intimidation and aggression are part of the daily life of black South Africans and of Namibians. 110. Such continuing and unprovoked attacks against the people and the territory of Zambia must outrage the fraternal States and peoples of Africa and the progressive forces throughout the world. My delegation is profoundly concerned by these acts and joins all those that have raised their voices in condemnation of them. 111. But there is another aspect of South Africa’s aggression against Zambia to which my delegation would like to refer. That is the blatant, callous manner in which a Territory legally the responsibility of the United Nations has been misused by South Africa as B 118. South Africa, which just recently considered itself to be protected by a belt of countries dominated by minority or openly colonial rigimes, today is the neighbour of free peoples. This triumph, first of insurgency and then of reason, in Zimbabwe, traumatized the racist minority of South Africa and has heightened the insecurity of a system based on exploitation and injustice, At the same time, the political awareness and resistance of the segregated majority in South Africa have increased, and that has undermined the Pretoria Government’s capacity to act and its very legitimacy. 119. For that reason, to defend the sovereign rights of the front-line States is to increase the isolation of the South African rkgime and compel it substantially to modify the policies and practices which the intemational community has repeatedly condemned. Internal resistance and regional isolation are making the South African system more intractable. That can place us in unexpected situations which the Council must now begin to anticipate with energetic and determined action. 113. Guyana reaffirms its solidarity with the Government and the people of Zambia in their efforts to rid themselves once and for all of the wrath of the racists in Pretoria. This is for us only a natural response. The peoples of Zambia and Guyana are united by strong links of empathy and understanding, links forged by ancestry and a shared history of suffering through colonialist and imperialist domination. These links have been made even closer in the continuing struggle of our peoples for their full development. 120. The attack against Zambia is one which can be condemned on two accounts: it constitutes an act of armed aggression and it confirms the fact that the r&gime of South Africa is determined, with the aid of its allies, to resist any change and to maintain an unacceptable structure of privilege. 121. The example of equality, freedom and selfdetermination given to the world by the other nations of southern Africa, as well as their deep-rooted political solidarity, clearly encourages the oppressed people of South Africa to claim their rights. Thus the international community must stand unequivocally side by side with one of the two parties in this confrontation: namely, with the one that fearlessly defends the fundamental values which underly our Organization. 114. We sincerely hope that the peace-loving people of Zambia will, with their abiding commitment to the liberation of southern Africa, very soon be able once again to devote themselves to the business of their own internal development, free from the fear of outside aggression and intervention and with their territorial integrity intact.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of MEXICO. 122. The long list of acts of aggression mentioned yesterday by the representative of Zambia are SUfficient proof of the fact that in its desire to check the process of change in the region, the Pretoria rkgime is determined to continue to increase its military power and the support available to it, in order to oppose neighbouring countries. 116. Once again the Council is compelled to consider a serious threat to international peace and security caused by South Africa. However, there are notable differences between the circumstances which have produced these attacks and those surrounding previous acts of aggression. The belt of white supremacy surrounding South Africa has disappeared. Independent Africa has won nearly all the battles against the last bastion of racism on that continent, 123. In that regard, it is necessary to act with the greatest sense of historical responsibility. It is obvious that such acts of aggression could not occur if South Africa could not count on substantial aid from abroad, 125. Despite the fact that Council resolution 418 (1977) placed a compulsory embargo on the provision of weapons and related matPrieL to the South African regime, that rhgime none the less continues to receive the supplies which enable its armed forces to bomb and invade defenceless countries like Zambia. 126. The members of the Council are aware of numerous instances in which the embargo has been violated, to the peril of international peace and security and, as we now know, at the cost of human lives. My delegation considers that all States, simply because they are Members of the United Nations, and particularly those which have voted in favour of the relevant Council resolutions, must ensure that this embargo is observed and must avoid any complicity in the violation of it. 127, We are convinced that respect for the text on which we shall shortly be voting-and my delegation will support it-cannot be dissociated from the commitment incumbent on all States strictly to respect the embargo on the supply of arms to South Africa or from the necessity of blocking all channels, whether open or clandestine, by which aggressors are supplied. 128. The more violations of the Charter there are and the more the resolutions of the Council are ignored, the greater the grounds for questioning the effectiveness of our action. Cases such as the one now under consideration call for a unanimity that would authentically reflect the political will of the members of this body. Thus would the age-old struggles and hopes of all the peoples of the world merge and become a reality. 129. I: shall now resume my capacity of PRESIDENT of the Council. 130. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to vote on the draft resolution before it [S/138871. If I hear no objection, I shall put it to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands. The draft resolution was adopted UnanimouslY (resolutiort 466 (l98Q.l). 131. Mr, MANSFIELD (United Kingdom): I take pleasure, Mr. President, in congratulating YOU on the position you now hold. Your qualities and expertise clearly match your difficult task. 133. I also wish to take this opportunity to welcome most warmly to the Council Mr. Reuben Kamanga, whose important statement we heard yesterday, 134. The United Kingdom’s firm attachment to peacefully negotiated solutions to the problems of southern Africa is well known. The arduous and delicate process which started at the Commonwealth Conference in Lusaka and will end next week at the independence celebrations in Zimbabwe showed that those solutions can be achieved with patience and determination on the part of all the parties involved, We sympathised deeply with the long suffering of the Zambian people through the years of illegality in Rhodesia. That particular suffering was finally ended at the conference table, We shall make every effort, in company with our partners of the Five, to ensure that the outstanding problem of Namibia is also resolved through peaceful negotiation. My Government rejects the criticism that it is ambivalent and lacking in determination in these efforts. The outcome of the Rhodesian problem should be sufficient to refute this charge. 135. Zambia’s geographical position has drawn it inexorably into the past conflict of Rhodesia and the continuing conflict over Namibia. The suffering of the Zambian people must stop. We deplore attacks and violence, from whatever quarter they come. Military operations against Zambia cannot be justified and we condemn them. We call upon South Africa to withdraw immediately any of its forces now in Zambia and to respect in future the territorial integrity of Zambia. But the cycle of violence must be ended and we believe that the best way to achieve that lies in the early implementation of Couticil resolution 435 (1978), 136. We support Zambia in its plight. Armed incursions by South Africa have caused the death of innocent Zambians and the destruction of property in clear violation of Zambian sovereignty. They must not recur. However, we deplore any escalation of violence in relation to Namibia, either there or in neighbouring countries, We call upon all parties to exercise maximum restraint and we reconfirm our support for the appeal for restraint issued by the Secretary- General earlier this year. 137. I turn now to the resolution that has just been adopted. I wish to reiterate the words of the United Kingdom representative in his explanation of vote on resolution 454 (1979), on 2 November 1979. He said: “ . . . the Council is only effective when it acts on a basis of full consensus. Resolutions which divide the Council, even if they are adopted, seldom if 139. Mr. McHENRY (United States of America): Mr. President, as this is the first opportunity that I have had to address the Council since your taking office, 1 take this opportunity to express my congratulations to you and to your predecessor on the manner in which you have conducted the Council’s business. 140. Today we are considering a serious situation. No principle enshrined in the Charter is more fundamental to the maintenance of good relations between States than mutual respect for the territorial integrity of all nations. The Government of Zambia has informed the Council that that fundamental principle has been violated repeatedly and continues to be violated by South African military incursions into Zambia’s Western Province. 141. My Government’s position on this issue can be simply stated. South African military operations in Zambia are unjustifiable. They violate the rules of law and comity that should govern relations between States. The United States therefore supported the draft resolution just voted on. We call upon South Africa to withdraw its forces from Zambia immediately and to respect Zambia’s territorial integrity in the future. 142, All of us should recognize that in a practical sense South Africa’s actions are part of an everspiralling cycle of violence rooted in South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia and in the continued failure to reach an internationally acceptable solution to the Namibian question. We must redouble our efforts towards that end. South Africa could contribute towards a solution by providing an early and unequivocally affirmative response to the latest report of the Secretary-General [S/13862]. That would facilitate the earliest possible deployment of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group in Namibia. SWAPC, too, can play a constructive role by exercising restraint at this critical time in our effort, thereby doing its Part to end the cycle of violence. 143. Zambia has borne too long the burden of regional unrest in Southern Africa. With the coming of independence to Zimbabwe, Zambia looks forward to Years of peace and prosperity, free from the hazards and sacrifices of its past. That is Zambia’s right, as it is the right of every nation.

Mr. President, as this is the first time that I have spoken this month, I should first of all like to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council. Your country took its seat in the Council only three months ago, None the less, we have already had the opportunity several times during this particularly sensitive and burdensome period, to recognize your professional and human qualities. Being aware of your natural diplomatic skills, we are convinced that you will be able firmly to steer the debates of the Council during the coming weeks. 146. I should like also to pay a tribute to your predecessor as President, Mr. Mills, the representative of Jamaica, who guided with talent and competence our proceedings during the month of March, He had already demonstrated his skill during an earlier term of office: several among us still recall those moments of great intensity. 147. The debate which began yesterday enabled us to hear Mr. Reuben Kamanga, Head of the delegation that came specially from Lusaka to submit Zambia’s complaint against South Africa. I should first like to welcome him to New York and to assure him of our understanding. His testimony, which the French delegation listened to with the greatest attention, has demonstrated that South African troops have engaged in armed incursions into Zambian territory which have resulted in loss of life and considerable destruction, 148. France condemns such acts of force and calls for their immediate cessation. The French delegation wishes on this occasion to reiterate its sympathy to the Government and the people of Zambia. That country has already paid a heavy price in the combat provoked by the Rhodesian conflict, It is high time that its sorely tried people was able to live in peace and build its future. 149. It should be clear that France condemns the attacks directed by a State against its neighbours, whatever the pretext, as well as the use of ViOknCe -armed violence, in particular-as an instrument in international relations. Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity is, for us, one of the abiding principles in the life of States. 1st). Moreover, in the present case it is obvious that the South African attacks have seriously COm- 151. With regard to the draft resolution which was submitted to us, the French delegation concurs in its spirit and inspiration; we associate ourselves with the concerns it reflects and with the aims it sets, particularly the need to put an end, once and for all, to attacks against Zambia. Thus we voted in favour of that text. 152. Need one repeat on this occasion that the resolutions of the Council have all the more meaning and authority when they are adopted unanimously? The French delegation wishes, in conclusion, to pay a tribute to the care taken by the Zambian delegation to consult its partners on the Council, and to the attention it has given to their views.

I have asked to be allowed to speak at this stage merely in order to express the sincere gratitude of my delegation to you, Mr. President, and to all members of the Council for the unanimous adoption of the resolution on our country’s complaint against South Africa. 154. My delegation is encouraged by the Council’s positive action because it is an expression of support for my country based on understanding of the difficulties and problems we are experiencing as a result 155. Failure by South Africa to comply will only contribute to the escalation of tension in the area. In this regard, we take seriously the warning to South Africa contained in paragraph 3 of the resolution, that in the event of any further armed incursions against the Republic of Zambia, the Council will meet to consider further appropriate action under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof. 156. It is not my intention to take a lot of the Council’s time, but allow me in conclusion once again to express my delegation’s appreciation to the Council, not only for urgently responding to my country’s request for an immediate meeting of the Council, but also for acting positively on our request.

The Council has concluded this stage of its consideration of this item. The meeting rose at 9 pm. NOTE ’ See OfJcial Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fourth Session, Suppletnent No. 24, vol. II, partl. 53. 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 PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sent en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Genbve. COMO CONSECUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de Ias Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Seccibn de Yentas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York 00400 83-61462-At@ust 1X%--2,425