S/PV.2511 Security Council

I should like to express the greetings of my delegation to the new members of the Council-Egypt, India, Peru, the Upper Volta and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic-and to wish all members of the Council every success in performing the responsible duty of maintaining international peace and security at a time fraught with crises which are deeply disturbing the world. 6. The Council met 98 times last year, and a good number of those meetings were related to the aggression and occupation being perpetrated and the death and terror being sown by the South African armed forces in the region of southern Africa. The independence and sovereignty of the neighbours of South Africa are at stake, and the lives of thousands of human beings are being devoured by the army of apartheid and expansion. 7. Now the Council enters the new year with another complaint by Angola about a new escalation of South African aggression against Angola. But it was hardly two weeks ago that the Council demanded, inter alia, that South Africa withdraw unconditionally all its occupation forces from the territory of Angola [resolution 545 (2983)]. Regrettably the Council’s decision is being ignored by South Africa. 8. The list contained in the annex to the letter dated 3 1 December 1983 from the representative of Angola to the Secretary-General [S/16245] indicates numerous examples of escalation of aggression by the racist armed forces of Pretoria in the territory of Angola in the period between 16 and 28 December. With reference to these latest developments the Government of Yugoslavia issued the following statement on 30 December 1983: “This time again Yugoslavia calls attention to the grave situation in that part of Africa as well as to the situation facing Angola as the victim of the aggressive policy of South Africa. Yugoslavia expresses its full support and solidarity with the people of Angola in defense of its national independence and sovereignty, as well as with other countries and movements threatened by the South African racist r& gime. Expressing its deep concern, the Government of Yugoslavia on this occasion as well wishes to point to the need to undertake concrete measures aimed at restraining the aggressive policy of the South African regime and the necessity of an immediate solution of the question of Namibia in accordance with resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity, as well as of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.” 9. The solution to the problem of southern Africa cannot remain forever hostage to the political inanoeuvres and tactical delays by South Africa nor to its transparent proposals aimed at procrastination and the postponement of the solution. 10. The President of Angola has informed the Secretary-General [ibid.] about a reasonable and cogent proposal by Angola on how to establish an early, peaceful and durable solution. This time, again, it is’ the victim that is submitting a constructive proposal based on reason and dignity; hence the proposal deserves careful consideration by all concerned. 11. We have repeatedly demanded that the Council should enforce the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all racist military forces from Angolan territory and all territories outside its borders. De’mands for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal by South Africa are not and must not remain mere rhetoric. The withdrawal of the aggressor and occupier must be unconditional if we, as independent and sovereign States, are not to be blackmailed into an endless discussion of what should be done to satisfy the aggressor and induce it to withdraw. Independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity are the most essential requirements for world order on the basis of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. To make 12. The Charter contains principles which are to be respectedby all Member States; it also contains the enforcement measures to be used in drastic cases of the violation of the most elementary norms of international behaviour, which the acts of aggression by South Africa against Angola and against its neighbours certainly are. 13. It is our hope that the Council will adopt urgent and most energetic measures and will act unanimously in the face of the grave situation in that region, and that the Council will shoulder its responsibilities by adopting an effective. decision to be implemented by South Africa without any delay. 14. Mr. LOUET (France) [interpretation from French]: Allow me at the outset, Sir, to congratulate you on behalf of my delegation on your accession to the presidency of the Council. 15. I should also like to congratulate the five new members of the Council, the representatives of Egypt, India, Peru, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Upper Volta. : 16. I should also like you to convey my delegation’s thanks to Mr.-van der Steel; the President for the month of December, for the outstanding way in which he performed the tasks of his offtce during that month, as well as to the colleagues who have left us, having made an active contribution to the work of the Council during the past two years-the representatives of Guyana, Jordan, Poland, Togo and Zaire. 17. For the second time in two weeks the Council is meeting to examine the complaint of Angola against South Africa. That fact alone testifies to the aggravation of the situation in the region. 18. Owing to its magnitude, its duration and the depth of its penetration, the operation that has been launched by the South African armed forces in southern Angola is of exceptional gravity. The facts presentend by the representative of Angola are undeniable, and the representative of South Africa himself, for that matter, has acknowledged them at this table [2509th meeting]. 19. My Government vigorously condemns this unprovoked and totally unjustified invasion. We call upon South Africa to withdraw all its troops from that territory without delay and to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Angola. 20. The arguments advanced by Pretoria to the effect that those attacks are essentially an act of self-defence against the fighters of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) are unacceptable. The territory of the South African Republic is not threatened in any 21. The immediate cause of the escalation of military operations is the unjustified continuance of the South African presence in Namibia and the refusal of the Government of Pretoria to implement resolution 435 (1978) without pre-conditions. Two weeks ago [2506th meeting] my delegation bitterly deplored the fact that the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information, in a letter dated 15 December addressed to the Secretary-General [S/16229, annex r], reiterated his country’s position with regard to the “linkage” between the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan for Namibia and a matter which falls completely within the exclusive sovereignty of Angola. 22. Nevertheless, my delegation still felt that the letter in question deserved careful scrutiny. We can therefore only endorse -the positive action that was taken immediately by the Secretary-General. We deplore the fact that the operation which was launched by South African armed forces in the southern part of Angola is so manifestly at variance with the intentions stated in the above-mentioned letter. But we are.gratified that President DOS Santos, overcoming the natural reaction to which that aggression might well have given rise, in turn addressed a letter dated 3 1 December to the Secretary-General (SIZ62&] which, in my delegation’s opinion, contains an offer that could well reverse the escalation of operations and lead to peace. 23. France gives its full support to the Angolan proposal. We request South Africa not to miss a possible decisive opportunity to reach a peaceful settlement in southern Africa. To make.possible the peace initiative to which I referred two weeks ago, Pretoria should immediately halt its military operation-one which, I repeat, France vigorously condemns. 24. Mr. van der STOEL (Netherlands): First, I should like warmly to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for the month of January. Your experienced guidance will no doubt be of great importance for our work. 25. I join other members of the Council in wtilcoming the new members-Egypt, India, Peru, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Upper Volta. I express the hope that during their term of membership the Council will be able to make major progress towards the aim of ensuring international peace and security in all parts of the world. 26. Finally, my delegation expresses its gratitude for the contribution made to our work by those States whose membership of the Council has now ended. 27. Once again we ,are meeting here to discuss South Africa’s aggression against Angola and the continuing occupation of parts of that country by South African 28. My Government strongly condemns South Africa’s most recent military actions against Angola and deeply deplores the suffering and damage it has brought. There exists no justification for South Africa’s use of military force against Angola. As I stated in the Council’s debate on this issue in December [250&h meeting], the .dangerous conditions now prevailing in southern Africa are a direct result of South Africa’s stubborn refusal to terminate its unlawful occupation of Namibia and to implement the United Nations settlement plan for Namibia. Namibia is not part of the Republic of South Africa and South Africa can derive no valid legal claim for the violation of Angola’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from its continued illegal presence in Namibia. South Africa’s actions can lead only to further deterioration of the security-situation in southern Africa and complicate the search for a solution of the problems of that region. 29. It is hard to escape thk conclusion that South Africa’s military actions make a mockery of the disengagement of forces, proposed by that country’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information in a letter dated 15 December 1983 to the Secretary-General [S/Z6219, annex I]. My Government hopes that the truce proposed by the President of Angola in his letter of 3 1 De: cember to the Secretary-General [S/Z62451 meets with more success. I would again express my hope that the Government df South Africa will at long last show a. willingness to promote the political settlements without which it andits neighbours will know no enduring peace and prosperity. 30. In view of the gravity of South Africa’s aggression against Angola, the Netherlands will vote in favour of the revised draft resolutioq before the Council. This does not mean, however, that my Government is considering taking any measures for the implementation of its operative paragraph 6.

To make a formal statement in the Council for the first time at the’ beginning of the month and of a new year entails a number of special duties and responsibilities. I want to discharge them before addressing the subject of this meeting. Fortunately, however, these duties and re-. sponsibilities are pleasant. 32. First, on behalf of the Zimbabwe delegation, I welcome thiS opptirtunity to express our warmest and 33. M,y second pleasant duty is to pay a very richly deserved tribute to your predecessor, the representative of the Netherlands, Mr. van der Stoel, for the excellent and truly distinguished way in which he presided overthe Council in December. We warmly and most sincerely congratulate him. 34. Our third, equally pleasant, duty is to extend a warm welcome to the new members of the Council -Egypt, India, Peru, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Upper Volta. We congratulate them on their election and wish to assure them that we very much look forward to working and co-operating with them in the Council during the next 12 months. 35. Finally in this list of duties, we wish also to add our voice to those which have paid tribute to the representatives and delegations of Guyana, Jordan, Poland, Togo and Zaire for their splendid contribution to the work of the Council during their term. All of us around this table are certainly in their great debt. 36. I now turn to the subject of the current meeting of the Council. As we all know, this is the second time in a fortnight that the Government and people of Angola have been compelled to come to the Council in search of a solution to the serious and tragic situation facing their country. Pretoria’s naked aggression against and intimidation and blackmail of Angola not only‘ have continued since our last meeting but have escalated and are now posing a ‘grave threat to international peace and security. The’ Council, charged with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, must discharge this responsibility in order to avert the disaster that must certainly follow 37. Angola is a sovereign Member of the United Nations and its Government has a very deep faith and trust in the United Nations, especially the Security Council, as an instrument of peaceful settlement of disputes. This faith and trust are clearly demonstrated by the fact that, despite repeated disappointments at the Council’s failure to ensure South Africa’s compliance with its decisions and resolutions, Angola continues to knock at the door of the Council for redress. Since March 1976, the Council has held no fewer than seven debates to discuss South Africa’s unprovoked acts of aggression against Angola. The current debate is the eighth one, and yet Pretoria persists in its stubborn defiance of the demands of the Council. 38. South Africa justifies its unprovoked aggression against Angola and its continued military occupation of southern Angola in terms of the need to protect the people of Namibia against the SWAP0 freedom fighters. This so-called justification has already been rejected by the Council in several resolutions, the latest of which, resolution 545 (1983), has not only rejected that claim, but has also condemned the apartheid rCgime’s aggression against and continued occupation of parts of Angolan territory as a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. The resolution also demands that South Africa unconditionally withdraw its occupation forces from Angola, cease all violations against that State and henceforth scrupulously respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. 39. As the racist Government of South Africa has not only contemptuously ignored these just demands by the Council but has also massively increased and stepped up its campaign of aggression against Angola, it is imperative that the Council make an appropriate response. The message to Pretoria from the’ Council should be unanimous, loud and very clear. 40. The delegations of Angola, Egypt, India, Malta, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Upper Volta, Zambia and Zimbabwe have presented for the Council’s consideration a draft resolution contained in document S/16247/Rev.l of 6 January 1984. The draft resolution requests the Council to strongly condemn South Africa for its renewed, intensified, premeditated and unprovoked bombing, as well as the continuing occupation of parts of Angola, which constitute a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country and poses a serious threat to international peace and security. The Council is being requested also to demand that South Africa cease immediately all bombing and other acts of unprovoked aggression and unconditionally withdraw its military forces from Angola, as well as undertake to scrupulously respect the sovereignty, air- 41. Finally, on behalf of all the sponsors of the draft resolution,-I wish to express our-gratitude to all the members of the Council for their co-operation and useful contributions during the formative stages of the draft resolution, and we strongly commend the draft resolution to all members. 48. The authorities of the racist regime of South Africa have stated that their.most recent savage military offensive is designed to prevent and avoid alleged future attacks which, according to Pretoria, SWAP0 was preparing to carry out in Namibia from Angolan territory. Under the guise of false arguments and pretexts, the South -African invasion forces have penetrated Angolan territory to a depth of 200 kilometres north of the Namibian border. 42. The PRESIDENT [interpretationfrom Spanish]: I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of NICARAGUA. 43. On behalf of the delegation of Nicaragua, I should like to wish all Members of the Organization, in general, and of the Security Council, in particular, a 1984 year filled with considerable achievements in the ongoing struggle to build peace in this troubled world, Nicaragua believes that a climate of tranquillity, relaxation of tensions and mutual respect is a pressing and indispensable requirement for the achievement of the loftiest goals of mankind. We express the hope that the powerful will dedicate their efforts and resources to building a more just and better balanced world and that an end will be.put to the danger of the raging fire of the arms race, which has on several occasions placed all mankind on the brink of extinction. 49. The truth is absolutely different: the counterrevolutionary forces, financed, encouraged and trained by the racists themselves and their allies, have suffered successive set-backs at the hands of the forces of the People’s Republic of Angola. The counter-revolutionary groups have failed in their attempt to establish .control in the central and northern provinces of the country, and successive defeats ,have been inflicted upon these mercenary ,groups. Pretoria’s latest offensive is thus aimed at giving renewed backing and support to the counter-revolutionary groups, which are facing the danger of complete elimination as a result of the successful counter-offensive by the Angolan Government. It is by now public knowledge, both in Africa and throughout the world, that the leadership of the Angolan counter-revolution is based not in Angola but in South Africa and that its operations depend, both militarily and materially, on Pretoria and the Central Intelligence .Agency of a great Power. 44. At the same time, I wish most fraternally to welcome the Member States joining the Council: Egypt, India, Peru, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Upper Volta. We humbly offer them our cooperation, convinced as we are that they will be able to make valued contributions to the Council’s work. We cannot fail to express our gratitude to the retiring members: Guyana, Jordan, Poland, Togo and Zaire, with, which we had the privilege of working actively and whose efforts have shaped all the Council’s work of the last two years. 50. A curious coincidence, obviously because of identical inspiration and origin, is the fact that the ringleaders of the Nicaraguan counter-revolution find a safe refuge and provisioning in countries’ that have been turned into headquarters for aggression against our country. This latest act of aggression by South Africa, part. of its overall policy of destabilization of neighbouring States, is an answer to those who have knowingly let themselves be fooled by South Africa’s diversionary manoeuvres and used them to defend the racists in the recently concluded debate in December 1983. 45. Finally, our congratulations go to Mr. Max van der Stoel, the representative of the Netherlands, who, as we had expected, -performed his work as President for the last month of 1983 with great skill and brilliance, a recent example that will facilitate our action. 46. Once again we are considering the situation created in Angola as a result of the illegal and continued occupation of part of that country’s territory by South African armed forces and the alarming escalation of the military aggression that the South African war machine has been carrying out in recent weeks against that fraternal country. 51. Angola, exercising its rights and with right clearly on its side, is once again coming to this body in which it has demonstrated consistent confidence and solid hope, even though, in fact, the Council has not lived up to its responsibilities. Angola deserves the support of this supreme body entrusted with the maintenance of 47. Only 21 days have elapsed and the ink has not even dried on the letter sent by the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information, in which 52. The Council must act with determination in such situations. Its inability to resolve conflicts where reason and justice are clearly defined undoubtedly affects its credibility and prestige, but, more importantly, it compromises international peace and security. We cannot ignore the fact that this body constitutes the last resort among international bodies available to States seeking solutions to situations such as the one facing us today and that the absence of.solutions leads to frustration and lends legitimacy to other means that the peoples inevitably resort to. South Africa, its odious upartheid regime and its repugnant neo-colonialist and expansionist policies must be stopped soon. Entire peoples are victimized on a daily basis. We must put an end to South Africa’s crimes or run the risk of sharing with others the verdict of complicity that history will inexorably hand down. 53. The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the South African invading forces from Angolan territory, the recognition of the right of the sister Republic of Angola to just compensation for the barbarous devastation resulting from the occupation, the clear and unambiguous condemnation of South Africa for its mockery and flouting of every international rule and principle are all elements contained in the revised draft resolution and they deserve the support of all its members. Our position is unequivocal: we are on the side of Angola; we are in favour of the implementation of Council resolutions: we are on the side of international legal principles, on the side of international conscience, on the side of history and against those who vainly attempt to take us back to a past of slavery and infamy through plunder, death and repression. 54. I now resume my functions as PRESIDENT. 55. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the revised draft resolution submitted by Angola, Egypt, India, Malta, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Upper Volta, Zambia and Zimbabwe and which is contained in document S/16247/Rev.l. Unless anyone wishes to explain his vote before the voting, I shall now put the draft resolution to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: China, Egypt, France, India, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Upper Volta, Zimbabwe. The draft resolution was adopted by I3 votes to none, with 2 abstentions [resolution 546 (1984)]. 56. The PRESIDENT [interpretation from Spanish]: I shall now call upon those members of the Council who wish to make statements following the voting.

May I join my voice to others who have congratulated you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency, and may I also add my thanks to the representative of the Netherlands for his very distinguished presidency last month. 58. I should like to ‘congratulate and welcome most warmly the new members of the Council: Egypt, India, Peru, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Upper Volta. Perhaps I might be permitted to welcome particularly warmly a fellow member of the Commonwealth, India. I should also like to thank the retiring members of the Council with which we had the great pleasure of working in 1983. 59. My delegation abstained on the resolution, and I should like to take this opportunity to explain our reasons for doing so. ’ 60. On 20 December 1983, the Council adopted a resolution on the subject of the military presence of South Africa in Angola [resolution 545 (2983)]. Since then there have been important developments. South Africa appears to have taken no notice whatever of the resolution and has continued to take offensive military action within Angola leading to loss of life. 61. In the face of this the Council has once more moved to condemn South Africa. In the circumstances, the resolution has been drafted in stronger language which goes far beyond the terms ‘of resolution 545 (1983). We join members of the Council in condemning South African military action in Angola, which is a flagrant violation of international law and the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. We greatly regret the loss of life. We believe that the withdrawal of South African troops, and indeed of all foreign troops, from Angola would improve the prospects for peace in the region. At the same time, my country could not accept the extreme language in which the resolution was couched. We understand and sympathize with the emotions which have given rise to such language; but we question seriously whether such language serves any useful purpose. My Government would have preferred a dignified reiteration of the Council’s position last month and would indeed have joined our partners in the Council in voting for such a resolution. 66. The present hostilities in southern Angola underscore the importance of moving towards peace in that region., My Government has always and repeatedly urged restraint on all the parties. We consider diplomatic rather than military means to be the only acceptable path to the goal ,we all share. The comments made by Mrs.. Kirkpatrick on 20 December 1983, when the Council last considered Angola’s complaint, remain valid. Indeed, events since then only underscore the validity of our statement on that occasion, from which I now take leave to quote: “The position of my Government is . . . clear. We are deeply concerned with the escalating cycle of violence in southern Africa. We are particularly disturbed by the problem of cross-border violence. We have urged and will continue to urge military restraint and respect for national boundaries. We do not be- .’ lieve there’ are military solutions to the conflicts in southern Africa. 63. We have been faced with a resolution drafted in extreme language on which the authors were not prepared to make more than minor changes, even to meet the major concerns of other members of the Council. For example, my delegation could not accept, and does not accept, the overtones of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations which still remain in the last preambular paragraph and in paragraph 5.. Equally we. could not and cannot support paragraph 6, which might even be taken as an invitation to widen the conflict and exacerbate the problems of finding peace in the region. Our reservations on these aspects remain as stated on 20 December last [250&h meeting] in relation to resolution 545 (1983). Other parts of the resolution, too, are unacceptable in substance, ~such as the third preambular paragraph and paragraph 8, or are inappropriate. In our view, a resolution containing such elements risks taking the Council down another blind alley. I believe that the energies of the Council would be best occupied in discerning where the path of progress may lie and in lending our weight and our wisdom in encouraging all parties to follow it as rapidly as possible. “The policies of the United States are grounded in the belief that negotiated solutions are both possible and essential. Cross-border violence cannot be condoned; whether it be in the form of terrorist attack by externally based organizations or violation of the territorial integrity of Angola by South African forces. Neither contributes to the process of building “a structure of peace . :. in the region.” [Ibid., paras. 61 and 62.1 67. ,,Let me repeat and emphasize that we remain deeply concerned at the cycle of violence in southern Africa and especially deplore all forms of cross-border violence. There are no military solutions to the problems of the region. Negotiated solutions are both possible and essential. The United States seeks to promote conditions of peace, security and prosperity in the region. We seek the end of all foreign intervention. -We seek independence for Namibia in accordance with resolution 435 (1978). We have no hidden agenda, no desire for national gain.

Mr. President, I wish, first of all, warmly to welcome you to the important office of President for this month. We fully anticipate that you will discharge your functions with dispassionate professionalism, such as has been exemplified most recently by your predecessor,. the representative of the Netherlands. I might add, in that particular connection, that considering the past history of this island on which we are today all .seated, and considering the fact that his forebears, whatever the value of the dollar might have been in those days,.had the shrewdness and perspicacity to get it all for only $24, we could have expected, and should have expected no less from Mr. van der Stoel. 68. In our 20 December statement we welcomed the South African commitment of 15 December to begin on 31 January 1984 a 30-day disengagement of its forces from Angola [see S/26229, annex 4. We called this a significant new development; we called it a hopeful and encouraging first step. 69. In this regard, the Angolan letter from President dos Santos [S/26245], now before us, also represents a new and welcome development which could be an important additional step towards reducing tension in the area. The South African offer and the Angolan acceptance together provide a hopeful basis for moving towards a disengagement of forces and a cease-fire. We would hope that, once begun, this process would extend well beyond the initial 30-day period proposed. 65. At the turn of this year, it is also appropriate to express the sentiment of “hail and farewell”. The United States hails its five new colleagues. We bid a fond farewell, somewhat tinged with sadness, to the five colleagues with which we have shared the work of 71. We deplore the South African military activity in Angola this day. Such action, and any escalation of hostilities, not only endangers the prospects of a settlement but also poisons South Africa’s relations with its neighbours and, indeed, with the international community. We have urged restraint on South Africa. We expect them to respond. Once again we call on South Africa to desist from these attacks. Once again we urge all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to seize the opportunity for peace now before us. 72. As I have said, the resolution just adopted seemed to us to have the central thrust of focusing on polemics, on conflict, on recrimination and on condemnation rather than on the exploration and exploitation of every opportunity for peaceful reconciliation. 73. For all of these reasons, we have abstained in the vote. 74. The PRESIDENT [inferpretationfrom Spanish]: The representative of Angola has asked to speak. I invite him to make his statement. 75. Mr. de FIGUEIREDO (Angola): Mr. President, I should like to express my Government’s appreciation for the skilful manner in which you have handled Angola’s complaint against yet another instance of South African aggression against Angola. The people of Angola bear the warmest fraternal regard for the people of Nicaragua; at present day they both face threats from the same source. 76. I also wish to thank all those who have once again spoken out in support of the position of the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola, those of our nonaligned friends who sponsored the revised draft resolution just adopted and those who voted for it. 77. After all these years and after numerous confrontations with the South African regime’s intransigence, duplicity and hypocrisy, I still confess to amazement at how blatantly, blandly, shamelessly the representative of the racist regime obfuscated the truth and misrepresented reality. 78. All that the racist regime has ever admitted to is what it calls security operations against SWAP0 freedom fighters, and it alleges that it has no quarrel with Angola as such. The facts are very different. 80. What about South African sponsoring of its puppets inside Angola before and after Angolan independence and its continuing massive assistance to those ’ bandits? Without bases in Namibia to retreat to, without the racist regime’s rescue operations, those bandits would long since have been liquidated. 81. What about South Africa’s aggression against other sovereign southern African States? 82. It is hypocrisy for the racist regime to come to the Council and state that it has but a single objective: to protect the inhabitants of Namibia. The inhabitants of Namibia need protection from South Africa! 83. It is in absolute amazement that I have listened to the representative of the racist regime referring to Angola’s “effrontery” in complaining about armed aggression. Since when has it been effrontery for a victim of aggression to bring its case to the Security Council and to seek redress? Since when has it been effrontery to appeal for justice, for peace and security? 84. The representative of the racist regime also denied that the racist armed forces commit atrocities against the civilian population of Angola. We have documented proof dating back to 1976 to the contrary. 85. And the only ideology completely foreign to Africa is that of apartheid, introduced into southern Africa by the minority regime in Pretoria, perpetuated by them, institutionalized by them, constitutionalized by them and exported by them across the borders of South Africa. It is apartheid which is indeed a threat to peace and security in our region and is leading it to disastrous consequences, because the people of southem Africa refuse to succumb to the tyranny which has been imposed on them by the minority regime with the assistance of its imperialist friends. The international community will not be taken in by this pathetic and transparent racist attempt at deception and whitewash. 86. -Finally, I wish to reiterate categorically that Angola has never refused to meet, listen, discuss or negotiate even with our professed enemies. We have never rejected any genuine offer which might bring peace to southern Africa. In fact, the Government and leaders of Angola have often been the ones to break many an impasse. All the Governments and peoples of southern Africa will have to comply with the conditions for peace: the racist regime is not exempt from this undertaking, which the representative of South Africa appeared to imply two days ago. 87. The Angolan Government’s offer contained in the letter of the President of my country of 31 December 1983 to the Secretary-General [ibid.] still stands. ‘, The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m. .’ 6.: , /. _’ <._)!I , : , . .( , : . , I . , , ; ,’ . : ! I . : . . . ,,.z , . HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLJCATJONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations. Sales Section. New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous aupresde votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes. New York ou Get-&e. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLJCACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas pattes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas. Seccibn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York _-..- -- 00300 90-61313-January 1993-2.050