S/PV.2297 Security Council

Allow me, Sir, to congratulate you once again on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. It gives us all great confidence to know that our work is being conducted by an eminent Latin American diplomat, Mr. Jorge Enrique Illueca. May 1 also express the respect of Mexico for the dignified and independent foreign policy of the Government of Panama, which shares with us similar problems and hopes. Complaint by Angola against South Africa: Letter sated 26 August 1981 from the Charg6 d’affakes a.1. of the Permanent Mission of Angola to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary- General (S/14647) I. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): In accordance with decisions taken at the 22%th meeting, 1 invite the representative of Angola to take a place at the Council table and the representatives of Brazil, Cuba, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. 5. Let me, as well, reiterate the appreciation of my delegation for the intelligent and skilful performance of Mr. Id6 Oumarou, of Niger, as President of the Council during the month of July. At the invitation qf the Prrsidwrt, Mr. de Figwiredo (AmwlaJ took a nlaw at the Council tab/c: Mr. Uaerro iBr&l),’ Mr. Roa Korrri (Cuba), hlr. Ha Vati Lart (Viet Nom) tmd Mr. Mashbwaidx (Zimbabwr~ took he places ;.eserwd for them ot the side of the &rmcil chamber. 6. We are gathered here today because of a serious event: the South African regime has once again committed an act of aggression against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a neighbouring State, which calls for an energetic condemnation and immediatc action by the Council. 2. The PRESIDENT fi/r/c,rprc’ttrrio,r from Stwi.sh): I should like to inform members if the Security Council that 1 have rcccivctl lelters from the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany. India. Kenya, the Libyan Arab J;tn~ahiriya. South Africa and Yugoslavia. in which the\, rcqueT1 to bc invited to 7. Yesterday we heard the dramatic description of the onslaughts of which Angola has been a victim and which constitute flagrant violations of international law. Those acts did not take place by chance nor were they gratuitous. They are tactical expressions of a 8, The impunity of South Africa is in large measure the result of our ambiguous conduct. We have not reacted with sufficient decisiveness when faced with an obvious fact. The South African regime is a concentrated expression of colonialist hegemony which the Charter of the United Nations intended to banish, 9. Every country in the developing world, through the South African acts of aggression, once again exneriences the offences, ill-treatment and interventidns which its people suffered or are still suffering. Therefore, because of that similarity, this is a question of principle and perhaps, like no other case, will define the international attitude of States. IO. The circumstances in which the attacks we are considering occurred and the arguments invoked by their authors call for more careful thinking. It would appear that an attempt is being made to legitimize the theory of preventive attack and to justify the use of force against other States for ideological reasons or strategic interests. Such a trend could lead us to accept as normal any sort of crusade against movements of national independence and the efforts at social and economic transformation which many countries in all continents are attempting. I I. The events we are commenting on compel us to recall the chain of acts of aggression which the Council has been dealing with throughout this year, all of which have remained unpunished, in spite of the fact that in all cases the required conditions existed for us to proceed to the application of sanctions, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter. 12. -In no case have we spared verbal condemnations of the continued violations of international law which South Africa has committed, but we have lacked the necessary consistency to carry out effective decisions. .l3. Though we have established an arms embargo, the sale of technology and military equipment is growing. Though we have promoted the isolation of South Africa, its economic and political links with some countries have become stronger. Though we have instituted the legal authority of the United Nations over Namibia and have set up a negotiating framework for its independence, that Territory is still occupied and our resolutions are therefore mocked. 14. Those undeniable facts form the mandatory frame of reference of our debate and of the decision we shall have to adopt. The Mexican delegation has agreed that it is urgent for the Councii to take action, bit we have insisted with even greater emphasis on the adoption of a resolution that would go io the core of 15. As can be inferred from the consultations held among Council members and the energetic tone in which delegations have publicly expressed themselves, the Council should be prepared to take a firm step to contain the aggression. 16. Out of respect for ourselves, the decision which we shall take should be consistent with the ones we have previously adopted and, in particular, with resolution 475 (1980). which, as the President of the Council so rightly said, is still in force. 17. Besides the paragraphs of that resolution which were read out yesterday, I think we should also recall paragraph 7 on the basis of which we de_cided to meet --“in the event of further acts of violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola by the South African racist regime, in order to consider the adoption of more effective measures in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Charter of the United, Nations, including Chapter VII thereof;“. 18. 1 think that respect for the Council would be seriously impaired if, given the grave events we are considering, we were not to adopt the decisions we were committed to previously by the legitimate sovereign decision of our Governments. 19. South Africa’s intention in perpetrating these acts of aggression is clear. It is to prolong its illegal domination of Namibia through the annihilation of the forces that are struggling for that Territory’s independence. Our reply should be equally unequivocal. We should express the firm decision of the international community to restore legality to southern Africa and ensure the full exercise of national rights by the Namibian people. 20. Mexico, like many other States Members of the United Nations, is profoundly concerned at the succession of acts of aggression that are taking place in various parts of the world and that seem designed to entrench the use of force as a new norm of international life. It is concerned because once again ideological persecution and racial hatred are being imposed as State policy and as valid reasons systematically to undermine the peace that we have so painfully been building up. It is concerned at the dangerous trend towards the establishment of highly militarized regional sub-Powers, which sow terror among weaker countries zrtd are upheld in a network of unavowed alliances. It is concerned that our weaknesses and cornplacencies might lead us to a moral abandrnment similar to that which gave rise to the Second World War. 27. I would further point out the fact that for the last several weeks attention has been focused on prepnrations for another important session which the General Assembly has decided to devote to Namibia. Has it not been one of the tactics of South Africa to foment a crisis in the area every time the international community decides to raise the problem of Namibia7 There can be no doubt that Pretoria thereby wishes once again to irritate international opinion in order to divert its attention, to create confusion by pushing urgent matters into the background and to revive the cold war which it has always used and abused to consolidate its illegal presence in Namibia and to continue with impunity its shameful policy of apartheld. At all events, that regime is not above such cynicism. Did not “Pik” Botha just inform the SecretaryGeneral furthermore that he is opposed to the forthcoming emergency special session of the General Assembly?’ 22. On this basis, my delegation will firmly support any draft resolution which is consistent with our pr&ious decisions and which will honestly promote the independence of Namibia. the abolition of the uparthei$ rkgime and an end to. the excesses of South African policy.

The events which are now taking place in Angola leave us perplexed because they are occurring after numerous warnings addressed to South Africa by the Council, the latest of which dates back to the month of June 1980 [resolution 475 (19&I)]. At that time we not only condemned the racist regime of South Africa for having utilized the international Territory of Namibia to launch “premeditated, persistent and sustained armed invasions against the People’s Republic of Angola”, but we also contemplated meeting again “in the event of further acts of violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of that country to consider the adoption against it of measures in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, “including Chapter VII thereof ‘. 28. However that may be, we have as our job the exalted and delicate task of maintaining peace and security in the world, as it is our duty to preserve the authority and prestige of the United Nations. So we have no right to tolerate, on whatever pretext, the acts of war that South Africa has just perpetrated against a State Member of the Organization. We have no right to accept the establishment of the law of the jungle in any part of the world or to allow one of the States which has adhered to the Charter to settle its internal problems or problems of internaticqal conduct at the expense of its neighbours. 29. South Africa must be condemned and chastised for its acts today: it must be called tmon urgently to withdraw all its droops from Angolan t&ritorf, unionditionally and forthwith: finally. it must be compelled to pay io the People’s Repubiic of Angola complete and adequate compensation for the loss in human lives and the material damage resulting from its unprovoked acts of aggression. 24. Now the Pretoria authorities, disregarding once again our warnings and resolutions, are repeating in that same territory of Angola precisely the same crimes that we have denounced, condemned and forbidden. 25. I am not going to recall the facts. They have been amply and exhaustively set forth by the Government of Luanda in the relevant documents addressed to you, Mr. President, to the Secretary-General and to the Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Just yesterday, in opening the present debate, we had yet further revelations from the very mouth of our brother de Figueiredo, representative of the People’s Republic c<f Angola. 30. But, for my delegation’s part, we are convinced that it is of the greatest urgency to prevent the repetition of these acts and to implement speedily and toially resolution 435 (1978) on ihe indep&de&e of Namibia. The Council could contribute further bv offering all its assistance and support to the work i;l preparation for the forthcoming emergency special session of the General Assembly devoted to the situation in the territory illegally occupied by the racist South African Government. 26. 1 would simply note that the conduct of the operations, the tin&i and the objective all rule out the possibility of improvisation or chance in this affair. What is i;lvolved; indeed, are outright acts of aggression, carefully prepared and backed up with sufficient means, as witness the succession of events: reconnaissance flights, concentration of war /~a/~++/, concen- 31. In conclusion, please allow me to express Niger’s solidarity with the freedom fighters of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) and our brothers of Angola, whom 1 beg here to accept our deep and 32. Mr. TEKAIA (Tunisia) ~ktwarrtation .fim French): Yesterday i2296th . meeting] our brother Mr. Elisio de Figueiredo, the representative of Angola, gave us a v&y clear and most-moving account of the matter which gave rise to this meeting of the Security Council. Once again his country is thi victim of deliberate aggressian by the military forces of the racist South African rdgime. The innocent victims of this massive and brutal deployment of the blind forces of the South African army are many. As for the material damage caused, time will be needed to assess that. 33. This tragedy cannot fail to bring to mind that of the Palestinian people and the Israeli acts of aggression. The alliance between the neo-Nazi regime of South Africa and the Zionist regime of Israel. their common policy of oppression and repression and their repeated and deliberate attacks against their respective neighbours have caused the Council to be permanently seized of the question of the Middle East and that of southern Africa and regularly to debate those items which have succeeded each other in a most disconcerting manner. 34. In each debate and in every case, the Council deplores the casualties, expresses its indignation cr its disapproval, declares that it is aware of the gravity of the events of one or the other inveterate and impenitent aggressor and calls urgently for a peaceful solution in the area of tension. Efforts are announced. New praiseworthy initiatives are envisaged. But time passes, any chance for peace is missed and the situation in both regions-southern Africa and the Middle East-deteriorates daily, creating a grave threat to international peace and security. 35. The indescribable aggression of which the Angoian people are victims is an illustration, if one were needed, of the deterioration of the situation in southern Africa. It is a flagrant and manifest violation of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of a State Member of the United Nations by the forces of a rtgime reviled and shunned by the international community. Corning on the very eve of an emergency special Lession of the General .4ssembly on the question of Namibia. the Sor!th African aggression against Angola acquires another dimension and clearly reveals intentions that the Pretoria r& gime is ashamed to confess. Thus it is imperative fol the Council to act and, in accordance with the Charter, urgently to adopt the necessary measures and sanctions. 36. The statement that you, Sir, made at the end of yesterday’s meeting [ibid.] as President by way of an initial injunction against South Africa--a statement which, while energetically condemnmg South Africa, 37. For we believe that this ne’v aggression on the very eve of the convening of the emergency special session of the General Assembly to debate the question of Namibia leaves no room for hope that South Africa intends to put an end to its illegal occupation of Namibia, no matter what resolution may be adopted, unless it is accompanied by machinery for mandatory sanctions. !nternational peace and security, as well as the authority and the credibility of the Security Council, would thereby be reinforced.

Once again, the Security Council is meeting to consider the complaint of an Afric_ap State against the Republic of South Africa. 39. There have been many South African armed attacks against Angola since 1975. But the operation launched on 23 August 1981 by South African armed forces is exceptionally grave because of the scope, duratiou and depth of the incursions. The facts presemed by the representative of Angola are undeniable. since the South African authorities have themselves recognized them. 40. My delegation listened with great attention to the particularly impressive and moving statement made by Mr. de Figueiredo. We should like to assure him of our total sympathy and to request him to transmit to the families of the victims the condolences of the Government and people of my country. 41. France maintains relations of friendship and growing co-operation with the People’s Republic of Angola. Because of the gravity of the situation created by the Government of South Africa, the Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa in Paris was called to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 26 August, where he was informed of the strong reaction of the French Government. 42. My Government condemns in the strongest possible way the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Angola by South Africa. That attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of that country. WC call for the immediate withdrawal of South African troops and for that country to respect the territorial integrity of Angola. 43. South Africa’s conduct is inadmissible. The arguments advanced bv Pretoria according to which the attaclrs were allegedly made in self-defence against incursions bv SWAP0 fighters are not at all valid. The territory of-the Republk of South Africa is not in danger. 45. My country, which, together with its four partners in the contact group, originated the proposal for the settlement adopted by the United Nations, is convinced that a lasting solution to the tension now prevailing in southern Africa requires the speediest possible implementation of Council resolution 435 (1978). We s’hould like to express our hope that South Africa will finally come to understand the importance of what is at stake and that, before it is too late, it will choose to adopt an attitude that conforms with jnt~~ational=law~ and its~own real interests, 52. The question is as unnecessary as it is superfluous and 1 mrlst, in clear and unambiguous t.erms that leave no room for misinterpretation, assert that in the position we adopted in 1980 we remain as firm and as unwavering as ever. We should stronnlv condemn South Afrka for its repeated invasions bf Angolan territory. We should demand the immediate and unconditional cessation of the hostile activities by the armed forces of South Africa in Angola. We should demand the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of those forces from Angolan territory. We should demand that the destruction caused by the invasion be repaired or compensated for, including not only the material damage, but also the human suffering and loss of lives inflicted by South Africa. In our view, these could be some df the basic elements of a draft resolution that the Council should consider and adopt at the conclusion of our deliberations, 46. For the time being, however, one can unfortunately only take note that by its behaviour towards its neighbours and its claims, South Africa is but further complicating the actions of those who would like to bring about the peaceful accession of Namibia to an internationally accepted independence. 47. In conclusion, my delegation would like to associate itself with any Security Council initiative that would strongly condemn South Africa’s intervention in Angola and call for the immediate withdrawal of its troops. The text should be drafted in terms that would make it possible to keep options open for the future.and to attract the broadest possible support. 53. This latest act of aggression by South Africa appears to tell us that that country has no intention of cbmplying with the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia which at one time it had accepted. This should be borne in mind in the light of the impending emergency special session of the aenerai Assembly ori thk Namibian situation. This arrogant challenge by South Africa should be squarely met. The broader dimension of this act of invasion by South Africa of Angolan lerritory lies in the context of the efforts of the -United Nations to bring independence to Namibia in an orderly and peaceful fashion. One cannot escape the impression that these latest irresponsible and reprehensible acts of the racist rdgitie of South Africa are part and parcel of its sinister scheme to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia and 10 thwart the implementation of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). If it was the intention of South Africa to create an impact and confuse the issues in the coming emergency special session, it is the view of my delegation that South Africa has committed a gross miscalculation and that all those who support the United Nations plan fol Namibian independence will persist in their support and be reinforced in their convictions. 48, Mr. YANG0 (Philippines): Yesterday we heard from the lips of the representative of Angola a heartrending description of the destruction caused in Angola and the repressive atrocities visited upon the unfortunate civilian population attendant to this latest invasion and violation by South African military forces @Angolan territory. 49, We were deeply moved by the statement of hlr. de Figueiredo. He portrayed vivid images of what has happened to women and young girls who have suffered abuse and indignity, the callous disregard for human lives and, most of all, the devastation and havoc created by aerial attacks and bombardments unleashed by the South African military columns. It was an account that repeated in dimension and graphic illustration the horrors that were visited upon the Angolan people by another South African invasion in the summer of 1980. SO, WC all know how the members of the Security Council felt and acted on that occasion. The President of the Council, the Minister for External Relations of Panama, Mr. Jorge Illueca, recalled to us, in his terse statement of last night, the basic elements of the resolution adopted by the Council at that time, resolution 475 (1980). The President’s statement was very timely at this stage of our debate. 54. It is therefore the duty of the Council to act on the matter before it with the greatest dispatch and with a determination to pursue what in conscience it believes should be the right path to take to bolster the move for the independence of Namibia and to put an 55. In conclusion, I must say that, as we are meeting here today, the rape, plunder and destruction of Angola continue. The people and Government of Angola cry out and yearn for the succour of the community of nations, in the face of South Africa’s armed aggression. It is our duty to act without any further delay and to adopt an appropriate resolution, if poseible, before the end of the dgy.

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

Mr. President. first of all 1 want most sincerely to thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this important debate of the Security Council. Panama and Libya enjoy good relations of friendship and co-operation. All of us are convinced that you, Mr. Jorge Enrique Illueca, Minister for External Relations of Panama, with your excellent ability and experience, will direct the work of the Council with great competence. 58. Once again, the Council is meeting to discuss a very serious matter-the aggression of the racist r6gime of South Africa against the People’s Republic of Aggola. 59. The people of Angola struggled for many years and sacrificed countless lives and resources to achieve their independence. When they finally succeeded, the racist regime of South Africa planned successive acts of aggression against that country in order to prevent it from achieving its social an-+economic development. 60. The question under discussion today is very clear and the facts have been the subject of several communications brought to tbe attention of the Council. This is not the first act of aggression committed by South Africa against the peoples and States of Africa: we remember the death sentences passed by the racist regime on freedom fighters of South Africa and some of that matter is still fresh in our minds shlce the Council dealt with it only the day before yesterday. We have in mind also the divers aggressions committed against other front-line States, especially Zambia and Mozambique. We are also aware that Namibia is still illegally occupied by the South African racist regime and that the majority in South Africa is suffering from apartheid. 61, The minority regime of South Africa continues in its defiance of United Nations resolutions as well as of international opinion. The imperialist Powers. especially the United States of America, continue to support that regime in order to protect their imperialist strategic and economic interests. It is clear that the and, seventhly, require South Africa to pay full compensation for the damage inflicted on Angola as a result of the aggression. 65. 1 should not like to conclude without reaffirming the total support of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the brother people of Angola, the liberation movements in southern Africa and the frontline States against the racist rdgime of South Africa, 67. Mr, LAZAREVIC (Yugoslavia): Sir, 1 wish, on behalf of the Yugoslav delegation, to congratldate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month, as well as on your recent appointment as Minister for External Relations of your country. I am convinced that your experience and -diplomatic skill will contribute significantly to the adoption of a decision by the Council which will lead the world away from yet another crisis brought by the brazen policy of the racist regime in Pretoria. 6% We have received the news of the unprovoked and ruthless aggression of the South African racist regime against independent, peace-loving and nonaligned Angola with embitterment and serious con- -cem. This is not the first time that South Africa has committed acts of aggression and used State terrorism against neighbouring sovereign and independent African countries. This time, however, it is an action which, in its scope and potential implications, constitutes a most serious endangering of peace and security in southern Africa, a direct threat to world peace and a most direct challenge to the world oiganization and the Security Council. This act of aggression is a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of all norms on which international relations are based and may result in a wider conflict with unforeseen consequences. 72. The attack against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola was met with understandable concern and condemnation by the international community, which is calling for urgent and immediate action by the Council to stop the aggression and secure the withdrawal of the invading forces. 73. The non-aligned countries, which from the very beginning have assigned priority to the elimination of colonialism and racism, have, since their first Summit Conference held at Belgrade 20 years ago, always actively confirmed their solidarity with the peoples of southern Africa and the front-line States, as well as with all peoples subjected to foreign aggression and occupation. Angola particularly deserves such support because of its contribution to the elimination of colonialism and because of its solkiarity with the liberation struggle of the-peoples of southern Africa. 69. The attack on Angola represents the culmination of a series of acts aimed at the destabilisation of neiahbourina countries in the whole renion of southern Af&a, with-the objective of prolongiig the existence of the racist r&me and its nolicv of racial discrimhmlion, crpartheliand colonial exploitation. 74. The nonaligned countries had long ago pointed out the danger posed by the very existence of the racist r&dme. as well as the serious encroachments on peace &d security by South Africa, qualifying them as flagrant violations of the Charter. Thev have demanded that the Council adopt a decision &posing sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. That demand has become ever more acute and more universal. Countries which maintain and develop relations wih South Africa and from which the South African r4glme draws strength and encouragement for its policy of permanent aggression are in danger of becoming accomplices and captives of its aggressive policy. 70. South Africa’s most recent aggression has produced a finher deterioration of an already corn. plex and tense atmosphere in international relations, threatening the foundations of peace and security, This latest act of aggression, which comes on the eve of the emergency special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, shows South Africa’s complete disregard for all previous decisions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly directed towards the termination of its policy of violence and its illegal occupation of Namibia. South Africa has once again used the Territory of Namibia for launching war operations against front-line States. It therefore becomes more imperative than ever for the international community to rake urgent measures in order to bring about the complete independence of Namibia. The South African action, calculated to delay the process of the decolonization of Namibia and secure South Africa’s permanent presence there and the further exploitation of the people and natural resources of Namibia, must be prevented. 75. As a member of the, Movement of Non-Aligned countries, Yugoslavia shares the concern of the interlldtional community and feels great compassion for the Government and people of Angola in these grave moments. In this connection, let me read the statement by the Federal Executive Council of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerning this most recent act of aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola: “The Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia most strongly condemns the “The Government of Yugoslavia requests the world organization to condemn, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, this act of aggression which represents a serious threat to -peace and security, not only in that region, but in the world at large, and to undertake urgent and most energetic measures for an immediate withdrawal of the aggressor from the People’s Republic of Angola. “The aggressive policy of the racist regime of South Africa, which, by ruthless and blatant violation of the norms of conduct of international life, threatens the independence and development of Angola and other neighbouring countries, is directed towards the annihilation of the liberation struggle of the people of Namibia under the leadership of their sole legitimate representative, the liberation movement of the South West Africa People’s Organization, and towards preventing the decolonization of Namibia. “Expressing its profound concern, the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on this occasion once again points out the necessity of undertaking concrete measures for partraining the aggressive policy of the South African r6gime and the indispensability of an urgent solution to the question of Namibia, in accordance with resolutions and decisions adopted by the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity and the conferences of the non-aligncJ countries.” 76. In conclusion, I should like to point out that the Security Council, the principal organ charged with the maintenance of peace and security, is facing a particular responsibility in this extremely serious situation. It is imperative that it should undertake urgent and immediate measures to halt the aggression, condemn the aggressor, secure the unconditional withdrawal of all racist military forces from Angolan territory and. by the application of measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. put an end to the racist rigime’s aggressive policy against neighbouring countries and pcoplcs in southern Africa. 77. At this time of trial, it is indispensable for all nonaligned countries, as well as for the entire international community. lo express their active solidarity with the people of Angola. Yugoslavia. which is developing relations of all-round co-operation and friendship with Angola, relations which were strengthened during the liberation struggle of the Angolan people. will support every measure undertaken by the Council that is directed towards the tcrminalion of aggression and the

The next speaker is the representative of India. 1 invite him to be seated at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I am grateful to you and to the other members of the Council for affording my delegation this opportunitv to make a statement -onthe grave situatjdn affeciing international peace and security arising out of the latest round of acts of aggression an4 terrorism committed by the racist rdgime of South Africa against the People’s Republic of Angola, which amount to a massive invasion. The Council is singularly fortunate to have the Minister for External Relations of Panama presiding over its deliberations. While congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of this onerous responsibility for the month of August, we are confident that your stature, wisdom and diplomatic skill will serve to guide the Council towards meaningful and resolute action when it is seized of such a serious matter. I should also like to pay a tribute to the representative of Niger for his contribution during his presidency last month. 80. The Council is meeting today at the request of the People’s Republic of Angola in order to consider the situation resulting from South Africa’s latest and most serious acts of aggression against a neighbouring frontline State in southern Africa. In unleashing aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola, the Pretoria rdgime has not only ignored the previous dictates of the Council, but has in fact given further proof of its total and callous disregard for world opinion. The representative of the People’s Republic of Angola has, in his moving statement yesterday, given details of the escalation of events culminating in the present situation. The brutality indulged in by the South African army and its mercenaries and the wanton destruction of life and property perpetrated by them are clearly contrary to all norms of civilized behaviour. 81. The ostensible pretext for the latest series of deliberate attacks by the apurfheid ligime has once again been that of the hot pursuit of SWAP0 freedom fighters. In fact, South Africa has brazenly utilized the Territory of Namibia. still held under its illegal occupation, as a spring-board to launch a -.unpaign of terrorism, intimidation and destabilizdtion against Namibia’s neighbours in a vain effort to strengthen its hold over Namibia and its csploitntion of Ihe people and resources of that Territory. South Afrcc:l d& not seem to have realized even now that the strupalc fog the independence of Namibia, led by the s;ie and authentic reoresentative of its pcoole, SWAPO. cannot be coniained any longer.‘So;th Afriz;t.L withdrawal from Namibia is inevit:lhlc and c ‘ntlot bi prevented or delayed by these desperare attempts. 84. It was not very long ago, last year, that in the face of a similar grave situation the Security Council issued such a condemnation and demand for comaliance bv South Africa Iresolution 47.5 (198O)I. NOW ihat Souih Africa, in defiance of the Council, has engaged in an action far greater in dimension and brutality, can the Council afford to do less? This is no time for vacillation, equivocation or prevarication. We urge the members of the Council to live up to their responsibility under the terms of the Charter and call on them to take appropriate and resolute action, including the application of provisions under Chap ter VII. There is no other way by which South Africa’s compliance can be secured. 83. The world may little note nor long remember what we say here, but it will not forget what the Security Council does here and now. The Council should forthwith condemn South Africa in the strongest terms for its acts of aggression against Angola and the violation of that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It should demand the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all South African troops, auxiliaries and surrogates from the territory of Angola.. The Council should also take serious note of this latest action in the context of South Africa’s plan to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia and to sabotage the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia contained in Council resolution 435 (1978). It is the policy of apartheid and ’ A1361461 The meeting rose at 1.15 p-m, NOTE