S/PV.2299 Security Council

I should like to inform members of the Security Council that I received a letter dated 29 August 1981 from the representative of Tunisia [S/146661, which reads as follows: President: M. Jorge E. ILLUECA (Panama), Present:The representatives of the following States: , China, France, German Democratic Republic, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Niger, Panama, Philippines, Spain, Tunisia, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Provisional agenda WAgendaI2299) I. Adoption of the agenda 2. Complaint by Angola against South Africa: Letter dated 26 August 1981 from the Charge d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Angola to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (S/14647) 3. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council decides to comply with this request.

Members of the Council have received the text of the draft resolution sponsored by the delegations of Mexico, Niger, Panama, the Philippines, Tunisia and Uganda, distributed in document S/14664. The meeting was called to order at 12.00 noon. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. 5. I should also like to draw the attention of members to the other new documents related to this question: S/14661, letter dated 29 August 1981 addressed to the President of the Council by the representative of Cuba: S/14662, letter dated 29 August addressed to the Secretary-General by the representative of Mongolia and 5114663, letter dated 29 August addressed to the Secretary-General by the representative of Kenya. Complaint by Angola agahwt louth Africa: Letter dated 26 August 1981 from the Char& dkffaires a-i. of the Permanent Mlssion of Angola to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary- General (8114647)

In accordance with decisions taken at the 22%th to 2298th meetings, I invite the representative of Angola to take a place at the Council table and the representatives of Brazil, Canada, Cuba, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Kenya, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, South Africa, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola), fook a place at the Council table; Mr. Bueno (Brazil), Mr. Morden (Canada), Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba), Mr. van Well 1 Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Krishnan (India), Mr. Muina (Kenya), Mr. Burwin (Libyan Arab Jamahiriyu), Mr. Eksteen (South Africa), Mr. Ha Van Lau (Viet Nam), Mr. Lazarevid (Yugoslavia) and Mr. Mashingaidze (Zimbabwe) rook the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. “I have the honour to request the Security Council to invite Mr. Clovis Maksoud, Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States, to participate in the consideration of the question entitled ‘Complaint by Angola against South Africa’, in accordance with rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure.” It was so decided. 6. The first speaker is Mr. Maksoud, whom the Council has agreed to invite under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to be seated at the Council table and to make his statement. 7. Mr. MAKSOUD: First of all, I want to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the statesmanlike manner in which you have been conducting the proceedings of this series of important Security Council meetings. 1 should like also to take this opportunity to offer the condolences of the League of Arab States on the death of president Torrijos and to congratulate the new leadership of the friendly country of Panama. 8. The Council is meeting today because it is seized of the aggression by the racist rdgime of South Africa against Angola. The reasons that motivate the League 9. We should therefore like to affirm our total solidarity with the Republic of Angola and to condemn in no uncertain terms the aggression by South Africa. And although solidarity constitutes a determining factor moving us to share in this Council’s deliberations, perhaps more relevant-inasmuch as our solidarity is assumed, our identity of purpose is reaffirmed, our community of objectives is well known and established-more important and vital is that our input into these deliberations is also motivated by the similarity of our experience: the similarity of the Arabs’ experience with Israel-another lingering racist entityto that of the people of Namibia, Angola and the rest of Africa with the lingering racist regime of South Africa. IO. During the deliberations of the Council, there has been an almost universal consensus condemning the attack by South Africa against Angola. This universality of condemnation, emphatic, unequivocal and inevitably shared by the member States of the Arab League. ooints to a situation that is becoming ever more dangerous, inasmuch as racist rCgimes-whether in Western Asia, like Israel, or in southern Africa. like apurtheid South Africa-behave towards the world community as though they were totally unaccountable to the resolutions of the United Nations, to the imperatives of international consensus and to the m&al guidelines that determine international relations and civilized behaviour. It is that total lack of accountability which leads those two remaining racist entities in the world to arrogate to themselves the right to allow their racism to be transplanted, to work at will, to strike at will, whenever and wherever they want. I I, We have seen how Israel has done that in the attack on Baghdad, in its attacks on Beirut and in its repeated ongoing attacks on southern Lebanon. We have seen how the massi\ L acts of aggression by South Africa emerge from its exclusivist idea that it holds within itself the right to violate the independence and territorial integrity of other countries, such as Angola, in the name of hot pursuit and pre-emptive strikes against freedom fighters. WC see an amazing correlation in the unfolding behaviour of Israel in Lebanon-in a way, the Angola of the Middle Eastand of South Africa in Angola. So we have a situation that is very familiar to the Arab League. 17. Because of the difficulty of enabling the Security Council to become the credible machkery that wk want it to be, instead of the United Nations being the anchor of the freedom fighters and a framework fo;. the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of the world who can then resort to the Council to redress their grievances in order to avoid the violence that is the rnescapab!e outcome of the racist regimes’ violations of territorial integrity, we find that the credibility of the United Nations is being seriously questioned-and at times undermined by the position that the United St; es takes in order to provide those lingering racist and colonial regimes, whether in South Africa or in Israel, with the encouragement that international law and consensus have denied them. It is that encouragement which we must seek to prevent because, although 18, This is not, as Assistant Secretary of State Cracker said in his speech on Saturday, a struggle between whites and blacks. That is a misnomer and in fact a distortion. This is a struggle between the peoples of Africa, the people of Namibia and a racist rkgime, just as the struggle of the Palestinian people and the Arabs is not against the Jews but against the Zionist racist structure in Palestine. So much for equidistance between what is wrong and what is right. 19. And it is insulting to state that it involves whites versus blacks. It is the white racists versus the moral resilience of the white people within Africa and outside Africa. It is a challenge to the basic foundations of human equality that many whites have championed and that blacks seek to achieve. 20. It is in that context-of the familiarity that we have had in Lebanon and in other places and of the fact that the Palestinians have been targeted, that today SWAP0 is being targeted and that Angola is being targeted-that all this constitutes a challenge to the moral, diplomatic and political authority of the Security Council. That is why we plead with all members of the Council to seek to bring about not only universality of condemnation but the measures necessary to inhibit the aggressor, to prevent it from repeating this aggression and to make it respect and become answerable to the higher authority that the United Nations consti’utes.

It has been suggested that the Security Council should view the issue before us in its full context. I am in agreement with that approatih. 1 too believe that the Council must examine South Africa’s aggression against Angola in all the aspects that make up a full context. What, then, is the full context of the case before the Council? 22. The first thing to appreciate in the full context is South Africa’s objectives in committing aggression against Angola. III his book Sartl~ AjZcu in @k-u, Sam Nolutshungu notes simply and clearly that South Africa’s aggressive policy is “little more than the extension of its internal conflict-the struggle to make the world safe for nparGt&‘. 23. 1 need hardly remind the Council that less than a decade ago neither South Africa nor its friends 24, The victories of the patriotic forces in Angola and Mozambique took South Africa and its friends somewhat by surprise, Instead of a region safe for apartheid, wi no& have next door to South Africa the most powerful symbols of dignity and freedom. South Africa and-its friends have never reconciled themselves to the new reality created by the triumph of the liberation movements in Angola and Mozambique. 25. The second priniary objective of South Africa concerns Namibia. By seeking to elhninate all patriotic elements both within and outside Namibia, South Africa is trying desperately to consolidate its illegal hold on the Territory and thereby to frustrate the process of genuine self-determination, It was not by coincidencethat South Africa announced its intention to increase the powers of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance traitors just as the invasion of Angola was in progress. 26. Clearly, South Africa is taking advantage of the climate of uncertainty created by the equivocation of the Western contact five with regard to the plan for Namibian independence. 27. The third objective of South Africa is to intimidate all the front-line States with the aim of inhibiting their expression of solidarity with the liberation movements and with the refugees who are fleeing from the forces of oppression and occupation. 28. The fourth objective of South Africa’s massive invasion of Angola is to impose its grand design of weakening the economies of the neighbouring States in order to make them dependent on South Africa, thereby creating the so-called constellation of States. It is therefore not surprising that, during this invasion as on previous occasions, economic infrastructure and installations have been the mJor targets for the South African invaders. 29. The second aspect of the full context is that of the reasons for South Africa’s feeling free to pursue its objectives with complete impunity. 30. The Security Council must bear a heavy responsibility for this state of affairs. Since its independence on I I November 1975, Angola has lived as the victim of constant acts of aggression from South Africa. The tiles of the Council are replete with reports of these incidents. 3 I. This is the fifth time since 1978 that the Council has considered a formal complaint by Angola against South Africa for an act of aggression. As recently as 23 April 1981, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola reminded the Council of the agony and suffering of his country in the face of constant acts of aggression by South Africa. Referring only to the three years covering the period 1978 to 1980, he stated: “South African armed forces have carried out 1,400 reconnaissance flights, 290 air raids, 56 debarkations of helicopter-borne troops, 72 land attacks, causing the death of more than 1,800 persons and the wounding cf about a thousand persons and material damage estimated at $7 billion.” (2271~1 meaiing, pm. 161 In spite of the magnitude of these atrocities and of the suffering. the support that South Africa enjoys from some permanent members of the Council has always ensured that everything except the most perfunctory pronouncements is blocked. 32. The reactions of the Council to recent acts of aggression elsewhere have also served to encourage South Africa’s aggressive designs. When Israel, barely a few weeks ago, got away with the invasion of southern Lebanon and the carnage in west Beirut, the message to South Africa was clear, namely, that it too could do the same with equal impunity. 33. We seem to be developing two international legal rCgimes: one that is all permissive, under which South Africa and Israel operate, and another regulated by the usual rights and obligations. which the rest of the international community observes. 34. The most elementary aspect of the present case is the simple fact that there has been an act of aggression, an act of aggression committed by South Africa aeainst Angola. A clearer example of premeditated aid unprovoked aggression would be impossible to find. So clear, indeed, is the situation that South Africa itself, far from denying the action in question, has in fact loudly proclaimed its invasion of Angola. 35. It is surelv curious that, in spite of this elementary fact, some-members of the Co&c& and especially those who have sooken of the full context of this case, have not even been able to bring themselves to pronounce the word “aggression”. 36. It was very sad to listen lo the statement by a pcrmancnt member of the Council. From tnat statcmcnt. WC would conclude that it is Angola, and not South Africa, which has committed an act of aggression. How can we expect the international community to take the Security Council scriousty when a perma- 11e11l member Icts South Africa, the aggressor, go scotfree and instead places Angola, the victim, in the dock’? 37. Much has been made of the fact that there is some foreign military equipment and personnel in Angola. What I should like to know is the relevance of this fact to the act of aggression that has given rise to the complaint before the COUnCil. 38, In any case, what is so unique about having foreign military equipment7 The fact is that many of US in the third world depend on external sources for the supply of any military hardware, for the simple reason that we have not yet developed the technology for manufacturing these deadly items. This fact is so basic that the economies of many industrialized nations boom precisely because of their supply of military hardware to ,he third world. 39. There ia nr arms embargo against Angola, nor has Angola used its military equipment to commit any aggression, On the other hand, there has been an arms embargo against South Africa since November 1977. 40. It is clear from the details provided by the representative of Angola that the military equipment used by South Africa to launch the invasion against Angola was supplied by Western countries, in clear violation of the arms embargo regime. Instead of focusing on the illegal supply network to South Africa, instead of bringing to book those which are part of that enterprise and instead of condemning the mercenaries in the employ of South Africa, we are being asked to divert our attention to Angola’s military equipment. If the mere possession of foreign military equipment by a country or the presence of foreign military personnel on the soil of a country were to constitute sufficient grounds for invasion by another country, the result would not only be absurd but it would also place most countries in the world today under immediate and permanent threat of aggression. 41. Even as the Angolans are mourning their dead and counting their losses, we heard words of comfort and encouragement flowing in the direction of South Africa. 42. It has been said by some Powers that it is not their task to choose between blacks and whites in South Africa. I am afraid that the problem in South Africa is not about choosing between two racial groups. The choice is between the forces of apurtheid which have brutatized and dehumanized the vast majority of South Africans, on the one hand, and the forces that seek to set them free on the other hand. 43. How can a country that professes democracy remain neutral between an oppressive system that has deprived 80 per cent of the citizens of their basic rights and a movement of the people that seeks to restore those democratic rights? In the full context of South Africa, any notion of neutrality can only mean support for the SIUIUS y~o which means support for the system of upurtheid. 44. Those who view Africa through the prism of bie Power rivalry are so busy looking for foreign presence in Africa that they seem unable to notice that the 45. How long will the friends of South Africa protect the aggressor7 How many lives must be lost and how much destruction must be caused before the Council is able to take concrete and effective measures against South Africa? 46. The deep sense of frustration felt by the people of Angola was expressed before the Council in April by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of that country when he said, “in the face of the criminal acts of aggression committed against the front-line countries, which constitute a serious threat to international ueace and security, we should like to know how many new acts of violation of the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of our country we must bear before the Security Council finally shoulders its resnonsibilities,- by imposing comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions, because, unless that is done, the very credibility of the Council will be called into question, along with its own resolutions” [2271st meeting, para. 191. 47. The same sentiments were given a powerful echo last Friday in the moving plea by the representative of Angola who said: “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.” [22%th meeting, para. 231 II . . to meet anain in the event of further acts of vioiation of the iovereignty and territorial integrity of the Peoole’s Reaublic of Angola bv the South African racist regcme, in orde; 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’. South Africa’s repeated invasions of Angola constitute acts of aggression, breaches of the peace and a grave threat to international peace and security, all within the context of Article 39 of the Charter. The Council is therefore under a clear obligation to apply Article 41 of the Charter and impose comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. 49. The people of Angola are making a supreme sacrifice for the sake of freedom and dignity in southern Africa. 1 take this opportunity to reaffirm the total solidarity of the Government and people of Uganda with the Government and people of Angola. We salute their indomitable spirit. That spirit is best expressed in the words of the great leader, the late Agostinho Neto, who wrote in his poem commemora;a;g the start of the Angolan revolution of 4 February “It was then that in our eyes, fired Now with blood, now with life, now with death, We buried our dead victoriously And on the graves made recognition Of the reason men were sacrificed For love, For peace . . .‘* And so, the struggle must continue. The meeting rose at 12.40 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UMTED NATIONS PUBLICAllONS United Notions publications may be oblamed from bookstores and distribulors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations. Sales Section. New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LBS PUBLICATIONS DES NAllONS UNIES Lcs publications drs Nations Units soot en vente dam les librairies et lcs agences dfpwtairer do monde emier. Informer-vous aup& de votre libraire ou adressekvous A : Nations Unies. Section des venter. New York ou Genbve.