S/PV.2296 Security Council

The Council is meeting today in response to the request contained in a letter dated 26 August 19&I addressed to the Secretary-General by the Chargd d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Angola to the United Nations [S/f4&17l. 3. 1 should also like to draw the attention of members of the Council to :he following documents which are related to this question: S/14643, letter dated 25 August addressed to the Secretary-General from the representative of Angola; S/14646, letter dated 26 August addressed to the Secretary-General from the representative of Angola; S/14650, letter dated 27 August addressed to the President of the Council from the representative of Spain; S/14652, letter dated 27 August addr,essed to the Secretary-General from the representative of South Africa; and S/14654, letter dated 27 August addressed to the President of the Council from the representative of Angola. 4. The first speaker is the representative of Angola, on whom I now call. 5. Mr. de FIGUEIREDO (Angola): Sir, on behalf of the delegation of the People’s Republic of Angola, please accept our best wishes on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. We are gratified to see an erstwhile colleague, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs of an esteemed country, presiding over a mitter of such vital concern to us. dn behalf of my Government, I should also like to extend our deepest sympathy for the tragic loss to your country in the death of General Torriios. And, finally, I shouid like to convey through you,-Sir, my Government’s greetings to the new leadership of the country of Panama. 6. May I also take this opportunity to express my Government’s appreciation to the Secretary-General for having cut short his hard-earned vacation to rush back to New York. We acknowledge his constant concern over issues which affect us so deeply. 7. On certain occasions 1 have mourned my lack of eloquence; 1 have grieved over the inadequacy of language; 1 have regretted the impotence of words. Never have 1 felt this combined lack more acutely than when I have tried to plead my country’s case iu this chamber. As on those previous occasions, 1 come here in anger and iu sorrow, 1 speak with disgust of the disgusting; 1 speak with grief of the painful; and 1 speak with courage of the just aud the inevitable. 1 wish 1 had the facility of a Cicero or a Homer. I wish 8. There is a stench in soutt.:rn Africa. It comes -from the rotting corpse of colonialism. There are savage cries in the air-those of a still triumphant -racism. There are heart-rending screams, those of the victims of colonialism and of racism, There is blood -again on the sacred soil of Africa, from a massacre not too far from genocide. The world can congratulate itself: here is yet another war to feed the greedy appetites of those for whom war is an extension of their domestic and foreign policies-the imperialists, the neo-colonialists and the racists, Theirs are the cries of victory today. But in the distance we already hear their death knell. 9, However, that is in the future-the near future I hone. But today the skies over Angola are rent with the screams of the dying; the ground h littered with the corpses of the dead. And let me move from metaphor to hard fact: three days ago, the racist apartheld regime in Pretoria sent its murderous armed forces into the southern part of Angola, 100 to 115 miles deep, in the .form of an armed invasion of massive proportions. The racists are accompanied by 135 tanks, 140 armoured vehicles, 38 helicopters and 3 artillery units. The aircraft being used for reconnalssance, bombing and strafing are of the following types: Mirage, Impala MKA, Buccaneer, Alouette and Puma. They are also-deployig anti-radar missilesof 2O+lometre range, IO. The South African invaders, who are still in military occupation of narts of southern Annola. include gangs-of mercenaries, those “dogs of war” who have been involved in the rape of Africa. The racists have occupied a number of towns and totally or partially destroyed others. The provinces of Cunene, Hula and Mogamedes are being bombed from the air. The towns of Mongua and Tchimbembe have been bombed. Parts of Ngiva, the capital of our Cunene province, and the town of Cahama have been destroyed, and-Xangongo has been totally devastated. This invasion in particular is being accompanied and accomplished by means of terrible brutalities. In many areas women -have been raped ins front of their husbands. When the racist troops face &stance, the people are shot or buried alive. Young girls scarcely over 12 years of age have been brutalized and raoed. In the town of Xindu, a large group of mouriters returning from a burial were all strafed to death. The poor people living in the border areas have been robbed of their livestock and domestic animals and are being forcibly pressed into service for the South African racists. 11. To quote the nineteenth-century dispatch from Charles Adams to Earl Russell: “It would be supcr- 12. Peace is indivisible, Each war is the creation of a preceding war and the generator of new, present and future. wars. South Africa’s racist regime has been at war with the People’s Republic of An8ola since 1975. But we have not won the war against colonialism and imperialism only to lose it to the racist bullies, Even if every Angolan has to die in the defence of his country to maintain Angola’s freedom and integrity, then that is the price every Angolan man, woman and child will gladly pay. 13, Comrade President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, the President of the Workers’ Party of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA-PT) and President of the People’s Republic of Angola, has been ably leading the revolution and the country since his assumption of the presidency in September 1979. Guided bv our Comrade President and the Central Committee of the MPLA-PT, the Angolan nation stands as one before any enemy. Our task may be infinite, but so is our duty and our faith in ourselves. The Angolans are hardened workers and warriors and tried revolutionaries. Even our pioneers, boys and girls in their pre-teen years, are mobilized against those who threaten the stability and security of Angola. 14. The apartheid minority regime of Pretoria is not content with enslaving the majority of its inhabitants in their own country and denying-them their human, civil, political and economic rights. It is not content with illegally occupying another country in defiance of international law and countless United Nations resolutions. To maintain its hegemony in the region and its position as a bastion of minority rule and privilege it has, since 1975, carried its racist and imperialist wars across its borders into the territory of neighbouring sovereign States. The sovereign State that has borne the brunt of those attacks in terms of intensity, violence, brutality and frequency has been the People’s Republic of Angola. 15, South Africa has been aided wliticallv. economically, militarily and diplomaticaily by its’ alhes, the Western patrons of imperialism and neo-colonialis& This year we have seen a resurgence of such support for the racist regime. South Africa’s language when it speaks to Africa and the third world has bv now become so familiar that we are able to decipher the reasons for this present and continuing act of aggression: South Africa wants to send another hostile message to the international community in general and to the friends of liberation aud the enemies of racism and neo-colonialism in particular-that Pretoria has ‘never been so strong, that it has regained its formet level of support and patronage and that the rest of the world can go hang. 17. Past crimes against Africa and the Africans are appearing again in the form of present follies. Those who support the racist r6gime and its puppets should know that the Angolan people are on guard not only against enemies from without, but also against enemies and subversion from within. They should remember that what is morally wrong cannot be politically right. 18. I wish to offend no one, but I must point out that the countless times 1 have spoken here on the subject of South Africa’s attacks on Angola and its massacres of Angolans point to obstacles set up by certain Powers which make the Council’s action ineffective and indecisive. For me, this also points to the importance of the United Nations and the Security Council because, as things stand, they are the only recourse we have and the one to which we all turn again and again. 19. I have spoken at length, but in my heart and in my mind I know that 1 cannoi possibly have succeeded in conveying to the international community the full extent of the devastation and brutality being inflicted on the courageous people of Angola. I only wish there were some way of transporting the Council to the battlefield or of bringing the battlefield to this chamber. Words are no substitute for the actuality of war, with~its-plunder, rape and murder. 20. We are a proud people and Justly so, but we are not ashamed to ask for help, es@cially from an organization of which we are an equal Member and which was set up to safeguard international peace, security and co-operation. What is happening in southern Africa today is so serious and its escalation is so imminent that in&national peace and security are in danger. If the situation is not brought under immediate control it could easily provoke a widespread conflagration, and the mistakes of South Africa and its friends could indeed turn into a catastrophe for others. 21. South Africa’s acts of murder, kidnapping, bombing, strafing, massacring of civilians and wanton destruction of life and property are nothing short of State terrorism. By any criteria whatsoever, the racist rkgime stands indicted for terrorism. Its policies, 22. My Government and people demand redress. We demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the racist troops from the territory of Angola. We also request valid assistance to enable us to strengthen our defence capability in the face of South Africa’s military and nuclear might, In fact, all of Africa needs to be irotected from South Africa’s terrorism and, if the friends of racism and imperialism cannot bring Pretoria into line, then the enemies of racism and imperialism must book the criminal under Chapter VII of-theCharter of-theunited Nations. 23. I should like to quote Hannah Arendt, who wrote so brilliantly on evil and the banality of evil: : “In a constellation that poses the threat of total annihilation through war against the hope for the emancipation of all mankind through revolution . . . no cause is lefi but the most ancient of all, the one, -in fact, that from the beginning of our history has -determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny.” Let me not take back to my people another paper resolution. Let me take back to them a cause for hope and action to end the tyranny by which Pretoria seeks to subjugate southern Africa. In war there is no second prize for the runner-up. That is why, in this unequal war, we must fight for our liberty and our sovereignty. And we shall not perish, because each generation must discover its mission.and either fulfil it or betray it. We Angolans know our mission and we shall be true to it. As our late beloved leader, Agostinho Neto, wrote a long time ago: “Our dreams crumble Against a wall of bayonets A new wave rises from the struggle And still another a@ another.” 24. The People’s Republic of Angola has once more brought its cause and its case to the Security Council. We are asking for long-lasting solutions to the problems that plague southern Africa. But these solutions must be based on justice and the precepts of international law. Temporary measures and compromises will only make matters worse, for those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither their liberty nor safety. The Angolan nation has proved its right to both. 25. Until final victory, a lura corflinua.

My delegation has opted to speak early on the disturbing events 27. While we do not have access to precise detahs of the fighting, tt is evident that military activities had escalated in the earlier part of this week and that there has been a substantial South African incursion into Angola. My Government has repeatedly condemned violence in the region, from whichever quarter it has come, My Government spoke to the South African Ambassador in London as far back as 7 August 1981 and expressed our concern at the escalation of military activities in the area. The Ambassador was summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office again two days ago, and in a public statement following that call my Government declared: “We wholly deplore the latest South African action, the consequences of which could be highly ~dangerous for the stability of southern Africa. We trust that the current action will be terminated and Scnuita/$rican troops withdrawn immediately from 28. Statements by the South African authorities seek to justify that incursion, apparently on the grounds of pre-empting potential aggressors. Speaking in another debate in the Council last month, on 21 July, the representative of the United Kingdom said the followjng; “Surely 110 one can claim that the policy of ‘preemptive strikes’, with its horrible trail of human destruction, can conceivably advance the cause of peace . . . All that it can . . . do is :o lead to ‘retalkuory acts’, which mean more death and more destruction, That is ‘he so-called cycle of violence; it can be broken only if restraint is exercised on ah -sides and if the temptation to retaliate is resisted. Otherwise, the sole result will be a prolongation of human suffering and the evauoration of houes of a just peace and the achievement of legitimate rights for all peoples in the area.” i2293rd nteetlna. p&a. SO.] - - -- Those statements’ in fact referred to the situation in Lebanon, but they apply with similar and tragic force to the present situation in the Namibia-Angola border region, 29. My Government remains fully committed to achieving independence for Namibia on *In internationally acceptable basis as set out in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We are continuing to work with our partners in the contact group to bring this about. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the five met together in Ottawa last month and will do so again in the margins of the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly here next month. But meanwhile military action such as that now being carried out by South 30. In the view of my Government, the Council should, in these grave circumstances, strive to agree urgently on an appeal in simple and direct terms to the South African Government to terminate its military action in Angola and to withdraw its troops immediately. The time for action by the Council is now. 31. Mr. de PINIES (Spain) (intepretutionfrom Spunis/t): My delegation has listened with special attention to the statement made by the representative of Angola and we have taken due note of it. 32. We had already heard reports of the events that had occurred in his tormented country and that is why my Government, deeply concerned at the latest act of aggression by South Africa against Angola, yesterday issued the following public statement: “The Spanish Government, on learning of the latest incursions which the South African army has made into the territory of the People’s Republic of Angola, expresses its repudiation and condemnation of this aggression against a sovereign country, together with its deep concern over the disturbing consequences for peace and stability in southern Africa. “The Spanish Government hopes that there will be an immediate end to such acts of force, which constitute a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a threat to world peace and security.” [S/14650. ] 33. On other occasions before the Council, my delegation has rejected the intensification of the South African military presence in an area which it occupies illegally and its continued acts of aggression against the neighbouring African countries. 34. In my Government’s view, that flagrant act of aggrossion must he condomnod immediately because of tho danger it roprosonts for the peace and stability of the entire area, and the Council must, in exercise of the attributes conferred on it under the Charter, call on the South African forces immediately to withdraw from the territory of a sovereign country which they have penetrated in violation of all the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. In itself that is reprehensible, but the fact that it is not the first time that this has happened but only the latest in a long list of acts of aggres-,ion makes it even more reprehensible. “The continued occupation by South Africa of the Territory of Namibia, contrary to the resolutions of the United Nations, is a persistent element of conflict in the entire region”.’ This latest violation simply reaffirms the truth of those words and the tragic consequences of such a violation. Nobody can convipco us in the present circumstances that, as has been alleged by the South African Qovernment on other occasions, it is a preventive action or Iegtdmate defence of its territory. In the first place, we have to bear in mind that that reprehensible action did not even start from the territory of South Africa itself and it would be difficult for that Government to justify the presence of such large contingents in a place so far removed from its country, a place, furthermore, that is legally subject to United Nations authority. I am, of course, referring to Namibia. 36. The Charter of the United Nations contains the clear principle of the non-use or threat.of force and perhaps less in this case than in any other can one justify an action that once again endangers peace and stability throughout southern Africa. ,37. My Government would be pleased to see either a resolution or, because of the urgency of the case and given the circumstances, a statement by the President of the Council condemning the growing armed activities in the territory of Angola and the consequent loss of life and material damage, that we deplore, and expressing grave concern at the continued hostilities, which seriously jeopardize international peace and security. At the same time we should require the Government of South Africa to put an end to the armed activities in Angoian territory to which I have referred and urge it forthwith and unconditionally to withdraw all its forces from the territory of Angola and strictly to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country. 38. That will, of course, not prevent the Security Council from continuing to work on the matter and studying it in order to draft a resolution of wider scope. 39. -Mr. FLORIN (German Democratic Republic) finterpretarion from Russian): At the outset, Mr. President, please allow me once again to say that it is an honour to address the Security Council under your presidency. 40. The Council has once again been compelled to take up the question of aggression by South Africa against independent Angola. We have been and are again witnesses to the constant expansion of acts of aggression by the apartheid regime. The representative of the People’s Republic of Angola has very 41. As early as 30 July 1981, the representative of Angola addressed to the President of the Security Council a letter [S/f46231 in which he dealt with a number of serious, large-&ale acts of military aggression committed by the racist minority regime of South Africa against the sovereignty, stability and territorial integrity of Angola As early as then, the racist troops of South Africa had penetrated deep into Angolan territory and had occupied a number ‘of populated areas, As a result, incalculable damage was done to the regions occupied. In that same letter, the representative of Angola indicated that near the Angolan border, in illegally occupied Namibian territory, South Africa had stationed troops numbering 40,000 men. That letter drew attention to the fact that for a number of years the Government of Angola had been reporting unceasing acts of military aggression, armed incursions, raids, plunder, the slaughter of people, the destruction of property and other flagrant violations of the norms and principles of international law by the racist Pretoria regime against the People’s Republic of Angola since the very first hours of Angoian independence. 42. Savage mass murders have been perpetrated against the civilian population. In that connexion, the Council has repeatedly adopted resolutions condemning bets of aggression carried out by South Africa. The representatives of many States, including the German Democratic Republic, have repeatedly called upon the Council to adopt serious measures against South Africa to compel Pretoria to abandon its policy of force, to abandon its acts of aggression against sovereign States and to guarantee the peaceful development of southern Africa. Even so, nothing has been undertaken, because those who feel linked with South Africa prevented the Council from carrying out the duties_eqtrueted .!o it un&&e Charter, 43. Now the Council has before it the letter dated 25 August 1981 from the President of Angola ad. dressed to the Secretary-General [see S//4643 ] which speaks of a grave situation, which could develop into war with unpredictable consequences. That assessment is justified because this time large divisions of the South African army with dozens of tanks and supported by aircraft have made a new incursion into the territory of the People’s Republic of Angola. South African armed forces stationed in the illegally occupied Territory of Namibia have been strengthened still further, and the depth of the invasion into Angolan territory, together with the air attacks, demonstrates South Africa’s intent to occupy large portions of the southern arca of the People’s Republic of Angola. 45. At the present time, the Council must shoulder its responsibi!ity. The Security Council must come out decisively against the aggression emanating from South Africa and take up the defence of peace and security in southern Africa as well. The Council must assist Angola, which has been the victim of aggression. 46, Through eloquent statements, many States have already condemned this new act of aggression by South Africa. The German Democratic Republic also strongly denounces this attack against the People’s Re.public of Angola as a base crime of the racist Mime against a sovereign African State whose people are labouring to pu_t_ @tq pm&se their own concepts of a .ner?r_society. 47. There is therefore no doubt as to the fact that the attack of armed forces of South Africa against Angola constitutes aggression, violating peace and security. The aggressor itself does not dispute the fact that its troops are stationed on Angolan territory. Yet, I must with some perplexity note that some Western officials are fearfully tryicg, as it were, to avoid calling things by their true names. A question comes to mind: Are they not continuing to view South Africa as their pro#g&, one that Jhey do not wish to offend? 48. As will be gathered from the text of an official statement read by Mr. Dean Fischer, spokesman of the’ State Department, which was published in an article of The New York Thes of 27 Aunust and which used the pretext that the over-all situatbn in that area must be taken into account, the South African aggression is in fact being justified; in other words, that aggression is being encouraged. Probably the conclusion is conzct that there is a convergence of views based on the idea that aggression against an ittdependont African countii that does not bend to the will of imptialism as the latter pursues its gunboat policy is desirable. 49. Clearly, South Africa must bear the main responsibility for its actions which jeopardize peace and for their conseauences. Even resorting to the most refined contortions; it is impossible to see here any threat by Angola against South Africa. The truth is well known. Beginning with the emergence of an independent Angola, the leaders of South Africa, pursuing a policy of destabilizing neighbouring countries, have tried to stand in the way of independent, progressive develop- 50. The delegation of the German Democratic Re- ‘public shares the view expressed in the United Nations by many representatives that South Africa would not have bken in a position to pursue this policy of threatening the oeace and security of other States wore it not fo? the diversified co-operation, assistance and support given it by the ruling circles in the West. The economic ties of some Western States with South Africa are becomina closer than ever, while their common political gime becomes ever clearer. The facts thereof are a matter of oublic knowledge. The time has come for those circledalso, those ros$nsible for premeditated or inadvertent support for the aggressive plans of the South African racists, to begin roalizing the danger of such a policy, 5 I. Furthermore, 1 should like to emphasize that that WIICY has no future whatsoever any more than has the -&icb of whipping up internationai tension-a policy oursued orimarilv bv imperialist circles in the United states. The United state; encourages forces of aggrossion, such as those of Pretoria, to undertake fresh adventures, but it is unable to resolve any problem. It only digs deeper the abyss of a murderous war. 52. We prefer peace and that is why today, once again, we must categorically speak out against the danger threatonina southern Africa. One cannot turn a blind eye to the-real state of affairs. The People’s Republic of Angola is not alone. It has friends which help it. Africa is not the only one standing behind it. The German Democratic Reoublic affirms its total solidarity with the long-sufferjng people of Angola, a people to whom we are bound clnsoly by a treaty of friendship and co-operation. The escalation of acts of aggression by the racist regime of South Africa once aeain demonstrates how necessary it is to ensure the protection of the borders of neighbouring States from attacks of this kind. I am stating this today as well, since, as is common knowledge, ruling circles in the United States have been making demands of the Pooplo’s Republic of Angola that are aimed at disarming that State and handing it over to a South Africa that icarmod to the tooth. - 53, Security Council rosolution 428 (1978) states as follows: “The Security Council, . . . . * * “Strongly condemns the latest armed invasion perpetrated by the South African racist regime against the People’s Republic of Angola, which constitutes a llagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola; 54. Two years later, the Security Council in an identical paragraph in resolution 475 (1980) once again considered the adoption of effective measures in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter, in the event of further acts of aggression by South Africa, 55. This time it is our firm oonviction that the Security Council must take measures. Chapter VII of the Charter tells us what must be done. Apart from a firm condemnation of South Africa with regard to these new acts of aggression against the sovereignty, stability and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola, which constitute a serious violation of international peace and security, the Security Council must, in the proper form, demand that South Africa cease its aggression forthwith and withdraw its troops from the territory of the People’s Republic of Angola. South Africa must undertake to provide compensation for the damage caused the Angolan people and State. 56. We have on the agenda the item of sanctions against South Africa. All States Members of the United Nations must be appealed to to provide the People’s Republic of Angola with all necessary assistance in order to bring South African acts of aggression to an immediate end.

The next speaker is the representative of Zimbabwe, who wishes to make a statement as Chairman of the Grou R of African St&es at the United Nations for the mont of August. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

The delegation of Zimbabwe, in its capacity as Chairman of the Group of African States at the United Nations for the month of August, has asked to be allowed to speak at this meeting of the Security Council to express on behalf of Africa our concern at the developments taking place in southern Africa. 59. This emergency meeting of the Council has been occasioned by the serious and very grave situation created by the unprovoked invasion and occupation of the Pcopie’s Republic of Angola by the murderous forces of the upartheid r&dme of racist South Africa. It is importaiii to note that, just as this meeting is taking place here, the invading forces of the racist r8gime are deep inside Angolan territory murdering the innocent civilian population of that peace-loving 61, We further wish to make it abundantly clear that the current aggression by the apartheid regime against the People’s Republic of Angola cannot be viewed within any other context, as is being suggested by some spokesmen of the Government in Washington, than that of a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola. 62. Accordingly, we call upon the Council, the custodian of international peace and security, to take appropriate steps and measures with the moral courage, sense of urgency and responsibility expected of it by those victims of aggression, the people of Angola, by the people of Africa in their revulsion and by the shocked international community, to ensure the withdrawal of the invading forces of the apartheid rbgime from Angolan territory, without conditions and forthwith. Wti further call upon the Council to treat this matter with the urgency demanded by the gravity of the situation. 63. Finally, we of the Group of African States at the United Nations should like to state clearly that we stand solidly behind the Government and people of Angola in this their hour of crisis, of suffering and need. We wish to convey through you, Mr. President, and through the representative of Angola the sincere condolences of the Group to the Government and people of Angola for this senseless loss of human life and property. We should like to join with our brothers from Angola in singing the song: a I! i continua.

This is not the first time tha: the Security Council has had to convene to consider acts of aggression by the racist rbglme of South Africa against the People’s Republic of Angola. But YOW the Council is facing a qualitatively new stage in that aggression--!South Africa has determined to throw off its nrask and proceed to large-scale acts of aggression. 65. This new stage in the aggression perpetrated by the South African racists has clearly come to maturity in recent times. A clear prologue to it could be seen in South Africa’s provocative refusal to accept a settlement of the problem of Namibia. That was followed by intensive preparation by South Africa for utilizing 66. Now wherein lies the special danger of the acts of aggression undertaken recently by the South African racists ag&M &g@a? 67. First, it is in the unprecedented depth of the invasion perpetrated by the racists into Acqoian territory. Armoured columns from South Africa, as is common knowledge. have uenetrated Annolan territory to a depth & between‘ 100 and 150 kjometres, while the South African air force has strafed and bombed targets situated 200 and even 300 kilometres from Ang@a’s national frontier. 68. Secondly, the South African racists are trying at the same time to effect a virtual occupation of part of the territory of a sovereign African State, the State of Angola. For that purpose more than 45,000 South African soldiers have been stationed on the border between Angola and Namibia. Thus, generally speaking, this is an attempt by South Africa to carry out in southern Angola the same policy as the one pursued by Israel in southern Lebanon. Racism and zionism-are;once again showing their similarity. 69, The true purposes of Pretoria’s action. whatever hypocritical oi fallacious pretext is resortbd to, -are crystal clear. Those actions are directed towards undermining the revolutionary achievements of the Ai@%i people. They are directed towards destabiiizing the progressive rtgime set up in that country, They are directed at turning back the course of history in southern Africa. 70. It is an open secret why the leaders in Pretoria dared to launch such an outright military adventure, The answer lies in the fact that they were relying on support for their aggressive plans from imperialist and racist forces. 71. We have more than sufficient evidence of a responsive attitude in certain circles in the West. Here “The friendship of Gabon or Burundi will not help the West in the slightest , . . On the coh!trary, we should seek to co-operate with Pretoria . . . We need a new realism in our foreign policy to replace our post-Vietnam timidity”. Such statements have not remained on paper alone, Many of the authors of that study now &&py highlevel economic. ooliticai and military posts in Washington.. * 72. Further, at the very beginning of 1981, an article was published in the magazine Fore&w Affairs entitled “South Africa: Strategy for Change”. The article recommended that one of the corner-stones of United States policy on southern Africa should be “the clear Western refusal to resort to trade or investment sanctions against Pretoria”. The new United States Adminlstration, the article emphasizes, would have to “meet publicly with South Africa’s top leadership”. Finally, in the view of the author of that article, it would be “unwise” to take a negative position on the military machine of South Africa as an “instrument of domestic brutality” in that country or as something “wrecking Western interests” outside South Africa itself. Those considerations have once again become part of policy. The author of that article was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. 73. Finally, we know of the assessment recently proclaimed in this country that South Africa is “a country that, strategically, is essential to the free world”. Surely, the racists of South Africa must have drawn the logical conclusions from that-and they did so-seeing it ail as direct encouragement for their brutalpplicy with respect to African countries. 74. Confirmation of that encouragement of the South African racists by the United States is also provided in statements made yesterday and today in Washington. Thoso statements cannot be explained as anything other than the logic of connivance with the racists in South Africa-and badly distorted logic at that. That position of Washington has aroused deep indignation on the part of the entire international community. In particular, the final communiqu6 of the Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinatinp. Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries on the Questi& of Namibia, held at Algiers from 16 to 18 April 1981, states: “The Bureau denounces the steps taken by the Rtagan Administration aimed at destabilizing 75. The acts of aggression undertaken by the racists and neo-colonialists constitute a serious threat to international oeace and securitv. not only in Angola but in all independent African &untries.?‘%is reient raid bv South Africa, if not repulsed. may become vet another link in a ch& of f&her l&ge&ale acts-of aggresslon against independent African States. 76. The Soviet Union’s position on that score is c!lear and understandable, Our sympathies are on the side of free and independent Africa; our sympathies are on the side of the African peoples still struggling for their freedom and independence-and we are proud of that. 77. The following appeared in a TASS statement dated 26 August 1981: -~ .~ b‘ the Soviet Union resolutely condemns the &e&a racist regime’s armed Invasion of the People‘s Republic of Angola, to which the Soviet Union is bound by a treaty of friendship and cooperation, , . . rearms its solidarity with Angola and . . . demands an immediate end to the aggreesion and the withdrawal of the interventionist troops from Aqgolan territory” [see S/14658, annex], 78. The Security Council must do its duty in this situation as well. The course of action in this respect is clear. The delegation of the Soviet Union speaks out in support of Angola’s demand, as clearly stated by the representative of Angola, Mr. de Figueiredo, that the Couricil firmly condemn the racist @ime of South Africa, call for the immediate cessation of its acts of aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola and the withdrawal of its troops from Angolan territorv forthwith. and that it compel the South African racists to .respect the sovereigpty and territorial integrity of Angola. 79. The members of the Council are well aware of the fact that front the moment of the attainment of independence by the Angolan people, opening the way to progressive social transformations in that country, Angola has been a target for constant acts of aggression by South Africa. The Council has repeatedly -five times-firmly and vigorously condemned the racist regime of South Africa for its deliberate and continued armed incursions into the People’s Republic of Angola, describing them as a serious threat to international peace and security [resolutiorts 387 (1976, I ‘28 (I978), 447 (I979), 454 (1979) and 475 (1980)]. The time has now come for the Security Council to adopt such measures. We support the demands of Angola in this regard also. 81. Angola and the other African countries Members of the United Nations are entitled to expect the Security Council to halt the aggressor, and Africa as a whole is entitled to expect an end to the aggression carried out by the racist r6gime of South Africa which constitutes a threat -to. the security of all African countries, 82. Mr. LlNC3 Qing (China) (Interpretation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation has listened attentively to the statements made by the representatives of Angola and other countries. We support Security Council consideration of the situation created by the inversion of Angola by-Scmth African troops. 83. On 23 August 1981, the South African authorities brazenly sent contingents of mechanized armed units to invade and occupy large tracts of Angolan territory, sacking cities and townships as far as IS0 kilometres from the border and causing heavy losses of life and property. The Angolan people are fighting heroically to throw out the invaders in extremely difficult conditions. This invasion is an act of aggression seriously violating Angola’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is a new crime committed by the Pretoria rCgime against the African nations. It is also a deliberate act of trampling on the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international relations, International peace and secur!ty are gravely thre@lred as a result. 84. South Africa’s aggression against Angola demonstrates once again that the South African racist regime is the root cause of instability in southern Africa, For a long time Pretoria has pursued an inhuman policy of apurtheid and stubbornly persisted in its colonial rule over Namibia. It has made frequent incursions into front-line States such as Mozambique, Zambia and Angola. And now, on the eve of an emergency special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, this racist regime has Egain invaded Angola with massive armed forces. All this is by no means accidental. It is -85. The Chinese delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Chinese Government and people resolutely -support the heroic struggle of the Angolan people wainst the aggressors. We support the just struggle of the peoples of Azania and Namibia and strongly condemn the racist Pretoria regime for its criminal aggression against Angola. We denounce the same regime for its barbarous and reactionary policies of apartheid and racial oppression. We support the just demand and reasonable proposals made by the rep resentatives of African States in this regard. In the .view of the Chinese delegation, the Council must strongly condemn the racist regime of South Africa for its armed aggression and take effective measures to secure the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all South_African aggressors from Angola.

My delegation has listened with keen attention and deep sympathy to the representative of Angola, who has described in a moving manner the tragic situation his country is now faced with. 87. As Mr. de Figueiredo has so elo the case before the Security Council t oil uently stated, ay is certainly not without precedent. None of us here could fail to be moved by his statement describing the bloodshed, destruction and misery which his countrymen have et@ered in the latest South African action. 88, We profoundly regret the loss of life and property in Angola. My delegation cannot in any way condone the action of South AMcan armed forces invading the tetitory of Angola in violation of the Charter of the United -Nations and in defiance of the relevant m.$utioas adopted in the past by the Council, 89. My delegation shares the feeling of indignation which has been expressed by previous speakers regarding attacks upon the independent State of Angola. Japan totally disapproves of the military’ actions undertaken by South Africa against its neighbour. In particular, as representatives of a country which upholds the firm and steadfast foreign policy of settling ali international disputes by peaceful means only and of refraining from any use or threat of force in international relations, we cannot help deploring most deeply the military action the Republic of South 90. My delegation joins those other delegations which have condemned the abominable action of South Africa in Angola and urges South Africa to withdraw its troops immediately and unconditionally. 91. Needless to say, the use or threat of force never leads to the solution of a problem but merely aggra. vales an already explosive situation. The States Members of the United Nations have long been striving towards a settlement of the Namibian problem which would bring that Territory to independence and peace. The military actions taken by South Africa in Angola go against all of those efforts and further exacerbate the problem. The leaders of South Africa should understand the grave concern of the international community in this regard and comply with the Council’s call to,cease hostilities and refrain from using armed force against its neighbour. 92. The PRESIDENT finterpretationfrotn Spanish): The next speaker is the representative of Brazil. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, it is especially gratifying for me to address a Security Council presided over by the Minister for External Relations of Panama, a sister American nation with which Brazil has the closest relations. Your talent and welLknown expertise are the best guarantees for the success of the Council’s deliberations in the month of August. 94. The question before the Council derives from an illegal act committed in defence of an illeaalitv. It coIicerns an act of aggression perpetratedzsd the aggressors themselves say-to defend their illegal occupation of Namibia. With the information available at present, we cannot say whether this second invasion of Angola will reveal itself as a large-scale raid or develop into a mJor war. Whatever its purpose, it constitutes a clear violation of Angolan sovereignty and territorial integrity, a negation of the Charter, an act of war that not only has effects for the victim but endangers the peace and security of the region with repercussions that may become much wider and which cannot at present be easily foreseen. It is also typical of South Africa’s attitude: its disregard for human beings of races other than the dominant one in Pretoria, its indifference to world opinion, its disrespect for the General Assembly and its resolutions. its defiance of the International Court of Justice and its contempt for the Council over which you, Sir, now preside. YS. The victims of this aggression arc, first and foremost. the people of Angola. They deserve, and arc %. However, one should not forget, even when condemning this armoured invasion which reminds us of the blitzkriegs of the past, that this is a question of one evil leading to another. As I stated at the outset, Namibia and its freedom lie at the very root of this conflict. South Africa has been given every opportunity to solve this problem, It has been given time, that most precious of commodities, time that could be bought only at the expense of the freedom of the inhabitants of Namibia. All the opportunities offered to South Africa were used for one purpose only: to find excuses for delay. 97. In January of this year, having used all the time and chances given to it and facing proposals that represented a-position of considerable re&aint and moderation on the part of the South West Africa People’s Organixation (SWAPO), South Africa turned its back on previous understandings, scuttled the negotiations and created a new set of pretexts to delay the inevitable. 98. Striking now against Angola, the Pretoria Oovernment is again trying to transfer the cost of its occupation of Namibia to other people and to make the Angolans pay, as the Namibians have been paying, for the illegal occupation of what was once called South West Africa. Nor should we forget that, between the two invasions, Angola knew no real peace, security or respect for its territorial integrity or the inviolability of its borders. Between independence and the present day, there was never a time when the people of that country were free from air strikes, commando-style raids, helicopter forays and so4led punitive expe. d&lly5 99. I must of necessity be brief. Other countries. through their representatives, want to give voice ~td their indignant repudiation of these acts. When I spoke of solidarity and political support, I had in mlnd not only this almost unanimous world desire to sea justice dotio to Angola and peace restored to its land, but also the f\lnctjons with which tho Council ia invested. It is our view that tho least that the Council can do is to condemn South Africa for its aggression, demand the immediate withdrawal of all its forces from Angolan territory and ensure that it will pay full compensation for the human and material losses caused by th,e present invasion. If these conditions are not promptly met, the Council will have no other resort but to enforce the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Charter. 100. These immediate steps would help in the solution of the crisis we face, even if they do not give back to Angola the lives of its sons. They would not, however, remove or even touch upon the problems

The next speaker is the representative of Viet Nam, whom 1 invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, on behalf of the delegation of the Socialist Renublic of Viet Nam, I wish to thank the Security Cot&it for having authorized me to participate~in this debate. 1 should like to congratulate you, Sir, most warmly on your accession to the presidency of the Council for the month of August in your exalted capacity as Minister for External Relations of Panama, a country with which Viet Nam maintains friendly relations. I should like to express my conviction that you will guide the work of the Council towards a just and effective decision on a burning issue, namely, the odious war of aggression unleashed by the racist South African regime against the People’s Republic of Angola. My delegation also wishes to pay a well.deserved tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Id6 Oumarou of Niger, for his competence and political skill in guiding the work of the Council during the month of July. 103. Together with the whole international cornmu. nity, my country, the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, is profoundly concerned over the disquieting situation, which has been deteriorating for months, in southern Angola, a situation that is as well known to all Council members. 104. More specifically, for four and a half years since the first days of its independence, the People’s Republic of Angola has constantly been reporting to the Council countless acts of military aggression, armed invasions, kidnappings, massacres and destruction carried out by the minority fascist regime of Pretoria against its people and territory in flagrant violation of the rules and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. Y puiated villages, 50 aerial attacks and 70 infantry nvasion operations in border areas of Angola. Those -operations cost the lives of thousands of lnnoccnt Angolans and caused immense mater&l damage csti- .mated at more than SUS 7 billion, -106. In his letter of 25 August 1981 addressed to the Socretary-Oeneral [see S/14643], the President of the People’s Republic of Angola, Mr, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, pointed out that moro than 45,000 South African troops, together with mercenaries and troops from puppet rCglmes, wore concentrated on the Angolan.Namibian border for the purpose of occumpying part of the sovereign territory of Angola. The President of Angola emphasized that the situation was grave and could develop into a war with unpredictable consequences-which is what did happen in southern Angola on 23 and 24 August. A true war of aggression unleashed by the racist South African rCglme from the territory of Namibia, which it continues to occupy illegally, Is now sowing death and destruction in the People’s Republic of Angola, in several localities and areareo,undreds of ldiomotrcs away from the Namiblan 107. Those crlmlnai acts of undeclared war by the Pretoria racists have been unanimously and most severely condemned by world public opinion and by ail Governments that love peace and justice throughout the world. 10% For several years, international opinion of all political persuasions and on all continents has vigorously condemned the colonialist and aggressive policy of the racist Pretoria r&lime, which is an incarnation of the inhuman and diabolical system of apartheld designed to perpetuate the illegal occupation of-Namibia, bring about an explosive situation and destabilizo the front.lino Statos-in particular, the People’s Republic of Angola, It has also been con. firmed that tho minority South African rCgimo could not implement such a policy of colonialism, aggression and-dostabilization against the Namibian people and indopendont and sovereign neighbouring Statos unless it had strottg support and active collaboration from the Utiited States 6f America and other Western Powora, mctibers, furthermore, of the Sccurlty Council. Quito recently, the United Nations Council for Namibia, at its extraordinary plenary meetings held at Panama City from 2 to 5 June 1981, quite rightly expressed: 1. grave concern at the reported attempts by the Gbiernment of the United States to destabilk the legitimate Government of Angola by, inter oh, providing assistance to Angolan traitor groups in the service of the Pretoria regime”.* 109. The delegation of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam vigorously condemns this flagrant act of armed 110. At this time, when large-scale armed aggression is raging on Angolan soil, we find further confirmation of tlie f&t that the Pretoria regime is preparing not only to carry out a destabilizing incursion, but also to occupy a part of the territory of Angola so as to make it a spring-board for attacks against and constant harassment of the People’s Republic of Angola, as well as against the national indeuendencc movement in soutficm Africa in general-aid this in order to serve the avowedly hostile policy of the United States towards free-Africa. - - 111, In this conncxion, my delegation expresses its profound concern over the declared intent of the United States Administration to have Congress rescind the Clark amendment so as to give direct military assistance to traitor Angolan groups in the pay of the racist Pretoria X&gime . 112. My delegation considers that this new phase of aggression by the racist South African forces against the People’s Republic of Angola constitutes not only a grave violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country, but also flagrant defiance of and provocation to the entire African continent and the whole international community; it shows insolent scorn for Security Council resolutions condemning earlier armed attacks against Angola by the Pretoria rCglmo. lt also constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. 113. The delegation of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam most sincerely hopes that the Council will take prompt and decisive action, including energetic sanctions against the South African aggressors, fkdiy exercising its responsibilities under the Charter to put an immediate end to the deliberate acts of aggression by the racist Pretoria rtgime. 114. In that spirit, my delegation firmly supports the urgent roquost of the People’s Republic of Angola, made through its representative in the Council, Mr. de Flgueiredo, for a severe condemnation of these new acts of aggression by the racist Pretoria regime sgainst the People’s Republic of Angola, for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all South African forces of aggression from the territory of Angola, and for the payment of compensation for the damages caused to the people of Angola. 1 IS. The people and Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam reaffirm their unreserved support for and their complete militant solidarity with the indomitable and eventually victorious struggle of 116. In the opinion of my delegation, all forces, all States and all Covemments that stdve for peace and selfadetermination of peoples have a solemn duty to seek appropriate means to assist the struggle of the Angolan people and the peoples of southern Africa, 117. My country firmly supports the right of the People’s Republic of Angola to invoke, if need be, Article 51 of the Charter to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this regard, we are pleased with the Political Declaration of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries held at Havana from 3 to 9 September 1979’ and with the resolutions adopted at the thirty-seventh session of the Council of Ministers of the Organisation of African Unity held at Nairobi from 15 to 26 June 1981.4 which. in substance. express the solemn comm!tment of the heads of State or Clovemment of nonaligned countries and of the Ministers of the Organization of African Unity to assist the front-line States to increase their defensive capacity so as to repel the acts of armed aggression of the Pretoria racist regime and to create propitious conditions for promoting their social and economic development in an atmosphere of peace and stability. 118. In conclusion, my delegation ventures to hope that all the members of the Council will take due account of the exceptional gravity of the events in Angola and of the demand of the international community, expressed through the indignant and unequivocal voices of the representatives who have spoken at this meeting, that peace be restored immediately to the territory of the People’s Republic of Angola so as to enable those valiant people to build a new life for themselves in complete security along their-own freely chosen course. 119, The PRESIDENT (interpreration from ~Spanis/r): The next speaker on my list is the representative of Cuba. I invite him to take a seat at the Cout&iltablc and-to make his statement. 120.-Mr. ROA KOURl (Cuba) (inferpretaflon jlvm Spanish): Mr. President, I am most grateful to you and to the members of the Security Council for giving me an opportunity to participate in the consideration of the complaint of the People’s Republic of Angola regarding the military aggression perpetrated against it on 23 August IY81 by the armed forces of the South African racist regime. Likewise, may I say that my delegation feels -confident at seeing this meeting presided over by the Minister for External Relations of the sister Republic of Panama. Mr. Jorge Illueca, whose recognized talents and diplomatic acumen will 121. It is not the first time that this body, whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security, is meeting to consider a complaint by the People’s Republic of Angola about further acts of military aggression by the racist South Africans against its territory, In June 1980, the Council already expressed its grave concern at the escalation of unprovoked hostile acts and at the repeated aaaressions and armed invasions of the Pretoria f&ists in violation of the sovereignty, airspace and territorial integrity of that country [resolurion 475 (/9&l)]. On previous occasions, we have heard similar complalnts from the Republic of Zambia and from the People’s Republic of Mozambique. 122. Actually what is at issue is a persistent policy of the opprobrious apartheid regime to undermine the independence of the neighbouring States and promote its own hegemony in that region of southern Africa, in connivance with the most bastard imperialist interests. That policy has been firmly condemned by the nonaligned countrlas. 123. On 25 August 1981, the President of the People’s Republic of Angola, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, reported to the Secretary-General that “once more the People’s Republic of Angola is a victim of military attacks and violations of airspace and land territory by the racist military forces of Pretoria”, and that “Concentrated in the border of Angola with Namibia are more than 45,000 South African soldiers, between mercenaries and puppets, whose objective is the occupation of part of the sovereign territory of Angola” [see S/14643]. 124. In a letter addressed to the Cuban President, Comrade Fidel Castro, in his capacity as Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the head of State of Angola stated: “On 23 August 1981, around 1445 hours, the racist South African air force made seVeral reconnaissance flights over the areas of Ondjiva and Port0 Alexandre. Simultaneously, six Mirage-type aircraft and two Buccaneer-type aircraft attacked and destroyed the city hall of Cahama, more than 200 kilometres inside our borders, and the village of Tchibemba, which is situated more than 300 kilometres also inside our national territory. Yesterday, 24 August, around 1000 hours, there were new violations of our national airspace, as well as the infiltration of South African forces distributed into two mobile columns, one of which was made up of 32 tanks and 82 armoured cars supported by their ah 126. There is no doubt, therefore, about the large scale of this new military aggression by the Pretoria fascists and the grave threat that it represents for peace in the region and for international security. The President of Angola has already warned of the unpredictable consequences which may follow a broadening of the conflict and of his decision to have recourse to what is provided for in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, should that prove necessary, in defence of national sovereignty and independence Wd.1, 127. ;The racist attack on Angola has been unanimously condemned by world public opinion and States Members of the Organization, including the members of the Council, with the exception of the Government of the United States. The timid attitude of “depiorina” such a flagrant violation of the Charter becomes suspect since that attitude is made conditional on a strange “consideration of the situation in its context” by those who have proclaimed themselves to be allied with a regime whose leaders were imprisoned during the Second World War because of their declared sympathy for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi ideology, Today, they brazenly encourage the band of Angolan traitors who are operating from Namibia, which is occupied by South Africa. 128.- Above all, we recall that the imperialist strategy, since 1974, has been to prevent&t, the~victory of the patriotic forces of Angola, headed by the MPLA, and then to promote the destabiliqtion of its legitimate Government later by sponsoring the criminal activities and banditry of its pu close ‘collusion with the Pretoria pet I$ Savimbi, in gime, That was bwnly cotifesaed by John Stockwell, former head of the Yn@d~ States Central Intelligence Agency in Angola, ‘in. his book published in 1978 entitled In Seat& of Enemies, in which he explained the plans of sinister Yankee dependants to establish a beach-head in southern Angola to assist their prot0g6, the traitol Savimbi. 129. Indetd, the Council does have to consider the true context in which the present act of aggression by South Africa is being perpetrated against the People’s Republic of Angola. In this respect, it is fitting to recall that United States leaders gave red-carpet trp?tmo*n+ not long ago to their friend, the Nazi Roelof Botha, 130, That undeniable fact has to be linked with the repeated refusal of the United States Government to allow the imposition of mandatory sanctions, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter, against the South African racist aggressors, through the exercise of Its right of veto in the Security Council. Does not this refusal on the part of the United States mean a manifest decision to protect the aggressors, to prevent action by the international community against those who are guilty of a crime against mankind, not to mention their being common international criminals, as t&y uphold the odious regime of apartheid? 131. Whatever the objectives of the Pretoria r&me in committing an aggression against the Republic of Angola-and one could not seriously accept its unbelievable explanation that these were punitive raids against SWAP0 patriots, without thereby admitting the right of the South African racists to occupy Namibia illegally, in violation of resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council-their barbarous and cri&nal acts must bk condemned unreservedly, 132. The South African fascists seek to belittle the importance of the military oppression perpetrated against Angola so as to accustom public opinion to their attacks on SWAP0 patriots and to conceal their design to establish their troops permanently on the territory of Angola. Angola is a free and sovereign country which has the right to live in peace and whose territorial integrity and independence must b&strictly respected. ~. .= 133. In the statement made by the Revolutionary Oovernment of Cuba on this subject, it is stated: *‘NO one can doubt that these deeds must be seen in the context of United States plans to destabilize Angola and other front-line States and to support internal counter-revolutionary bands.-The Oovamment of the United States is the mastermind and the only begetter of the cowardly aggression against &gola. “The brutality of these criminal South African acts has as a precedent the daily practices against the oppressed South African people who suffer at first hand the pitiless and inhuman policy of apartheid, and the anachronistic domination of the Territory of Namibia, whose people, under the IcTdership of SWAPO, their sole legitimate representative, are striving to put an end to the colonial “The world observes with admiration that the people of Angola and FAPLA, headed by the MPLA-PT and by President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, are defending with extraordinary bravery the borders of their country against South African aggression. The racist in<ad&s must halt their aggression and withdraw from the territory of Angola. Their cowardly actions are already reaching an extreme beyond which they cannot go. If the invading South African columns come close to the lines being defended by the Cuban internationalist combatants, our troops, in tWdment of the duty of solidarity nf ?ur country with the sister Republic of Angola, wnl~3 into action with all their means, “The Government and people of Cuba, with absolutely no hesitation, will once again stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Angola to counter the racist and fascist aggression and in defence of Angola’s independence and national integrity.” 134, My delegation, together with all the non-allgned countries and the progressive and peace-loving forces of the world, expects the Council unequivocally to condemn South African aggression, to demand that it be brought to an end and to call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the racist troops from the territory of Angola. It is our hope that the members of the Security Council will act firmly and without delay. 135, Mr. O’CONNOR (Ireland): In his statement before the Security Council today, the representative of the People’s Republic of Angola presented to us an account of the details of the invasion of his country by units of the Sollth African army. My delegation was moved by his report of the latest aggression by South Africa against his country, as indeed we were by the information which he has provided in written form in recent days. His remarks and the gravity of the situation have prompted me to speak briefly at this early stage of the debate. 136, First of all, 1 wish to extend to the representative of Angola the deepest sympathy of my Govemment on the suffering which South Africa’s attacks have caused to so many of his countrymen. 137. My Government has been gravely concerned by the reports of South Africa’s violation and infringement of the territorial integrity of Angola and its military actions in that country. We consider it entirely appropriate, therefore, for the Angolan Government to approach the Council with a request that the necessary steps be taken to avoid a confrontation of even greater IS 138. As members of the Council are aware, this is not the first occasion in which Angola has suffered at the hands of South Africa. Indeed, the records of the Security Council provide many reminders of violations of Angoolan sovereignty and territorial integrity, the loss o? many innocent Angolan lives and de havoc wrought upon the economic infrastructure of a young, independent developing country. 139. The Government of Ireland condemns without reservation the actions which have been aemetrated against Angola in recent days. It condeinni South Africa’s violation of the sovereignty of an independent country. It condemns this blatant violation by South Africa of the Charter of the United Nations. Not least. it condemns the tragic loss of innocent lives and thi extensive material damage caused bv South Africa. All of these are serious con&equences df the recent action bv South Africa. action which South Africa has c&ously attempted to excuse as a pre-emptive strike, 140. More generally, we are deeply disturbed by the implications which the latest South African aggression will have for the efforts which have been made and continue to be made to bring Namibia wacefullv to early independence, in accordance iith- Se&ity Council resolutions 385 (19761 and 435 11978). Mv delegation had an opportunity io set out iis &ws L detail on this issue in the course of the consideration by the Council of the question of Namibia in April of this year. As the representative of Ireland &id on that occasion, fkn%her delay in bringing freedom and independence to Namibia would be intolerable 12275th meerlng, para. 991. However, instead of witnessing progress towards Namibian independence, what we see is South Africa utilizing its illegal occupation of Namibia to launch attacks against Angola on the pretext of a pre-emptive strike. This, in our view, does not do anything to allay our suspicions as to South Africa’s ultimate intentions for Namibia, 141. Furthermore. we fully share the concern expressed by the Piesident of ihe People’s Republic of Arlgola in his letter of 25 Aueust 1981 to the Secretary- General in which he pointedlout that the South African attacks launched against his country seriously jeopardized peace in the region [ibid.]. Indeed, my delegation wonders whether these and other similar South African actions may not have as their ultimate objective the promotion of instability in the whole region of southern Africa. If that is so, then such 142, ” The Council must now uraentiy respond to the grave situation. In our view, the response from the Council, in the form of either a resolution or a presidential statement, should be a unanimous one and should include a condemnation of the South African aggression against Angola, a demand for the immediate cessation of South African military activities within Angola and a demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawsI of all South African military personnel from Angoian territory, together with a demand that South Africa show respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of-the People’8 Republic of Angola. 143. My delegation would hope that such a statement by the Security Council would be heeded without delay, If that hope remain8 unfulfilled, my delegation will be ready to give the most serious consideration to how, best this Council can discharge it8 obligations.

The representative of Cuba is quite right. My Government doe8 deplore violence, It deplore8 violence and the use of force from any quarter in settling affairs among sovereign nations. It deplore8 the escalation of violence, which is presently a fact in southern Africa. We deplore violence and the u8e of force and the escalation thereof in mJor part because they make more difticult the peace proce88, which is the great and overriding objective of our effort8 and the effort8 of many nation8 with which we are working to facilitate the search for early independence for Namibia on the basis of Security Council resolution $35 (19781, ‘145. The current eituation is, in our view, made the more difficult by the surrounding context of that situation, 1 note, for example, the fact that in Angola, fully six years after that nation achieved independence, there remain large contingent8 of foreign military adVi8et’fJ. I note as Weti that 8Ub8tallti~ supplies of foreign arm8 have been shipped into Angola to supply and rosuppiy oiomonts of SWAP0 that have-engaged iu ViOlOnCO acro88 the Angoian f$Jl¶uer,=- *--~ .I,~ 146. ‘: I must make noto as woh of the long statement that has been made this evoning by the reprosontativo of the Soviet Union, a statement of views that he alleges to be influential in the policy councils of the administration of the United State8 Government. Prom hi8 description I scarcely recognized the article “Constructive Engagement” by Dr. Chester Cracker. That article is an exposition of Dr. Cracker’s recommended constructive policy changes that he then felt and still feels may lead more effectively to peace and preservation of independence and racial justice 147. During the cour8e of hi8 remarks, the Soviet representative also referred to what he alleged to be the support of my Government for violence and the use of force. 1 find that ironic and worse than ironic, coming a8 it doe8 from the spokesman of a country that ha8 invaded and continues to occupy Afghanistan and Whose arm& advisers and client8 presently plague the continent of Africa. 148. My Government believe8 firmly and strongly that the Security Council can and should make a constructive contribution to the resolution of the situation we now find in 8outheriI Africa. We believe that the Council should call urgently and immediately for the cessation of recourse to violence from all and every quarter and by all parties and that it should demand the immediate withdrawal of South African forces from the territory of Angola,

The rep rosentative~of the United States who .iust Spoke and other high officials of the United States, for 8ome reason, have in recent day8 begun to present a8 8ome kind of novelty the assistance provided by the Soviet Union to Angola, the assistance provided by the Soviet Union to SWAP0 and the assistance provided bv the Soviet Union to a number of African countries. This~is no novelty; it is well known to everyone that indeed we do hela them. If the United State8 has begun to talk abouithat a8 a novelty, it mean8 that it is trying to cover up something, it is trying to conceal it8 own action8 in thqt area of the world. 150. Confrontation in southern Africa does not follow the line8 indicated by the United State8 representative. Confrontation occur8 along entirely different lines in Africa. Confrontation is indeed taking place in 8OUthet’tt Africa. For eXampi0, there i8 COnfrOntatiOn between South Africa and an independent African country. Angola. a confrontation in which the South Africati~raci~t r&me is trying to destabilixe Angola ‘and undermine that CoUntry’8 system in its intention to recoiohizo Angola. In that confrontation, our sympathies are on the side of indopendont Angola, on the aid0 Of that Afkhn COunl whereas the eympathiee of the United State8 lie on t X’ e side of the racist r6gime. Why doe8 not the United States representative say this openly? 151. In Africa, another confrontation is taking place, a confrontation between the people of Namibia and South Africa. There, our sympathies lie with the people of Namibia who, under the leadership of SWAPO, are fighting for their independence, whereas the representative of the United States calls fighters 152. I think that the intention of the exercise undertaken today by the United Slates representative in the Security Council was to divert the attention of the Council and of the world from the real confrontation that is being created in South Africa by the South African racist regime, and the United States is thereby helping the South African racists.

I should simply like to reiterate that the sympathies and support of the United States are given to all the people of Africa and that 1 have specifically characterized the policy of my Government as being one which makes every conceivable effort to achieve the objective of a genuine, universally recognized and accepted independence for all the people of Namibia, on the basis of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). 154. I would also note that, alas, we do not find the levels and types of involvement of the Soviet Union in any way novel. They have been going on for far too long,

I should like -adhering strictly to the agenda before us today-to pose one very short question to the representative of the United States that will show the essence of his country’s policy on the issue we are discussing. The question is: Is the representative of the United States prepared to vote for a strong condemnation of the acts of aggression committed by the racist regime of South Africa against the People’s Republic of Angola? There are other questions 1 could ask him. but I will only ask him this one-whether he is prepared to support such a condemnation or not.

1 reiterate what 1 said before: my Government is prepared, at the proper time and in the proper framework, to support the call-indeed, the demand-for the prompt withdrawal of the forces of South Africa from the territory of Angola. 158, The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): Before 1 adjourn the meeting, may 1 place the following on record, As President of the Council and having heard the statements made in today’s debate, all of which concur on the gravity of the situation, I believe it fitting to recall that in resolution 475 (1980) the Security Council decided to remain seized of the matter of the armed invasion of the People’s Republic of Angola by the South African armed forces, 159. Accordingly, I note that in the present case the following provisions of that resolution are in force: **T/it Sacrtrity Council, “I. Strongly condemns the racist regime of South Africa for its premeditated, persistent and sustained armed invasions of the People’s Republic of Angola, which constitute a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country as well as a serious threat to international peace and security; “2. Strongly condemns also South Afric?‘s utilization of the international Territory of Namibia as a spring-board for armed invasions and destabilizp tion of the People’s Republic of Angola; “3. Demands that South Africa should with. draw forthwith all its military forces from the territory of the People’s Republic of Angola, cease all violations of Angola’s airspace and, henceforth, scrupulously respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola.” The meeting rose at 8.30 p.m. NOTES ’ O~flclrrl Records of r/w Gerwrul Assembly, Thlr~y@?lt Serrl,un. Phurry Mwrlnys. 4th meeting, para. 133. ’ lb/d., Thlrfy-slxrk Stsslon, Supplement No. 14. para. 222. ’ See A/34/542, Politlc~l Declaration. para. 93. ‘See A/36/534, annex I. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world, Conrul~ 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 librairieset Icsagancesdepositairesdu monde entier. Inrormez-vous aupr&de votre libraire ou adresset-vour a : Nations Unies. Section &es ventes, New York ou Get&e. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicacioncs de Ias Nacioner Unidas cstan en venta an librcrlas y casa6 distribuidoras an rodas parted del mundo. Cons&e a IU librcro o dirljasa a: Nacionas Unidaa, Scccidn de Vcntaa. Nttcva York o Ginabra. Litho in United Nations, New York on400 tifFhI I03-seplelnLw IY8x4.050