S/PV.2596 Security Council

The Security Council is meeting today in response to the request contained in a letter dated 13 June 1985 from the representative of Angola to the President of the Security Council [S/17264. Members of the Council have before them document S/17286. which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago. Prov&IouaI ageda (S/AgendaIW6/Rev.l) . 1. . , 2. Adoption of the agenda 3. 1 should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to document S/17263, which contains the text of a letter dated 12 June 1985 from the representative of Angola to the President of the Council. Complaint by Angola against South Africa: Letter &ted 13 June 1985 from the Permanent Representative of Angola to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/17267) 4. The first speaker is my distinguished brother the Minister for Foreign AlTairs of Angola, Mr. Afonso Van Dunem. I welcome him and invite him to make his statement. The meedng was called to or&r at II.30 a.m. Adoptiard@Peends

This is the second time within a few days that my delegation has spoken in the Council on a matter that concerns regional peace and security and threatens international peace and security. Thp agen& was a&pted Complalat by Angola agabtti !3outb Afries: 6, The records of the Council are swollen because of the countless times the People’s Republic of Angola has brought before it the anguish and suITering of the Angolan people caused by the racist ap7rrheid r@ime of PRtoria. the death and destruction wrought by the racist troops, the numerous attempts at destabilisation of the legitimate Government of Angola by the minority non-representative r&gime in Pretoria, the constant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. To this day, despite all efforts, neither the United Nations nor its supreme peace-keeping organ, the Security Council, has been able to do anything to stem South Africa’s designs, policies and actions, which have caused so much instability in southern Africa. It appears that the Council is as helpless hefore South Africa’s racist and brutal might as the innocent civ-

I should like to inform the Council that I have recclved letters from the re~esentatives of Angola, Argentina, the Bahamas, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Liberia, Pakistan, Sao Tome and Prlncipe, South Africa. the Sudan, the United Republic of Tanzania and Yugoslavia, in which they request to IX invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s a@. In conformity with the usual practice. I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those rqresentatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules -A- --_..-.a_.-- “1 puxuurc. iliama Am HA* *r- --***A **A IUS*L*I . ..Y*** . ..- .YI..I. .‘Y”pI pr-ru.. Y.,” ““UIBC.. 7. My Government has brought our case to the Security Council on a number of occasions: in March 1976, when the Council adopted resolution 387 (I976), demanding that South Africa scrupu1ously respect the independcnop. sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country and Calling upon the racist r&me to pay full compensation; in At rhe invitation of the Reskient. Mr. Van L&em (Angola), took ,a p&e al rhe Council table: Mr. Muliz (Argentina), Mr. Hepburn @hamas), Mr. Oramas Oliva (Cub@, Mr. Schkgel (German fimocrattc ReJ-wblk), Mr. Kofa (L&e&), Mr. shah Nawaz (Pakistan), Mr. Branco (&IO Tome ami R&cipt$ Mr. van Schimding (South I 8. In August 1981, when my Government and the people of Angola made an anguished appeal to the Security Council after a massive invasion of my country and the military occupation of parts of southern Angola, the draft resolution before the Council (s/1466d/Rev..l strongly condemned the racist r&ime for its premeditated, unprovoked and persistent armed invasion of Angola, &elated that the armed invasion was a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola and constituted a danger to international peace and security, demanded the immediate and tmumditional with&awsl of all South African troops from Angolan tektoty. @rongly condemned the we of ntercenake bySouthAftkaagainst the Government and people of Angola, condemned the aggressive campaign and other hestile iidivb .3imed at dcstabilizing the People’s Republic of Angola and called for implementation of the arms embargo imporcd in 1977 against South Africa and for full and adaqua@ comv tion by South Africa to Angola. That draft resolution was vetoed by a permanent member of the Security Council, although I3 members voted in favour and one other permanent member abstained in the vote. 9. In December 1983, the Council adopted resolution 545 (1983). demanding that South Africa should cease all .1-L.L-- --i--. .---Ifl”IIO”,,J P&a’,OL rr,qvko aiif j--r-+ --.-.I ---- a-. ,+s,Ius,“, k 8 -8 “pw”us~, respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country. IO. Finally. in January 19% the Council adopted raolution 546 (1984). which strongly condemned South Africa for its renewed, intensified, premeditated and unprovoked bombing, as well as its continuing utilisation of the inter- 12. To recapitulate brielly recent events for the Council, on 21 May 1985 a patrol of FAPLA armed forces caught a South African armed forces special commando group that was ready to launch an attack on one of the oil installations in our Cabinda Gulf Oil compound-l repeat. Gulf Oil-at Malongo, in the province of Cabinda, more than 2,tXtO kilometres from Namibian territory and even further away from South Africa itself. The code name for this operation was Argon. 13, If the operation had succeeded, the toll would have been dozens dead, some of them American nationals. Damage would have amounted to at least $I billion--l repeat, $1 billion-United States dollars, including a $216 million reconstruction of the onshore installation. It would have taken over a year to rebuild the Malongo oil installations. and the halt in production would have caused a less of at least $770 million, in addition to stock worth $30 million. 14. The objectives of the aborted Operation Argon were obvious: first, to try to damage the credibility of the legitimate Government of the People’s Republic of Angola with the governments of the Western countries with which Angola has excellent economic relations, for example, the United States; second, to destabilize Angola’s economy and cream misery for the Angolan people; third, to give credit for the aggression, as has always been done, to the UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) puppet group, which exists solely because of strategic and operational assistance from South Africa. IS. My delegation wishes to state once again. firmly and categorically. that the South African Government is attempting blatantly to mislead and misinform the international community by pretending that the goal of Operation Argon was to detect bases of SWAP0 (South West Africa People’s Organisation) and the ANC (Afriwn National Congress of Souih Africaj. i am sure ihe members of ihe Council will agree when my &legation states that probably never before has the Council heard so ridiculous a version of recent, documented. facts as that presented just a few weeks ago by the South African representative on IO June. I am sorry: allow me to correct my& I was mistaken, The Council has heard such ludicrous assertions before from various representatives of the South African 20. However, the resumption of destabilizing actions by the Pretoria racist forces did not stop with that attempted sabotage. In the months of March and April, South African Hercules C-130 military transport planes crossed our country eight times, parachuting a total of 80 tons of military equipment destined to its surrogate army, the puppet UNITA group, in Lunda and Malange provinces. 16. Furthermore, the South African lies are revealed to be just that by the statements of the commando captured alive, Captain Du Toit, who has revealed all the details of the plan. In addition, the arms seized in the operation explosives, incendiary bombs. land-mines, and so forthclearly show the inconsistency and the sheer absurdity of South Africa’s claimed justitication for the attempted sabotage. 21. The unloading of military equipment in the province of Malange was aimed, on one hand, at frustrating the economic development of the province, where the Ango- Ian Government is in the process of implementing a farming and cattle-raising pilot programme, and, on the other hand, at alfecting the coffee production-the third source of foreign exchange for the People’s Repubhc of Angolain the coffee provinces of Rengo, Cttanza Norte and Uige. 17. How can anyone, even South Africa’s friends, accept Pretoria’s word? The contradiction in the statements of the racist South African leaders is clear evidence of the ignoble lies with which the South African Government intends to mislead world opinion. May we recall that when the Ango- Ian Government announced the neutmlization of the racist commando squad in Cabinda, the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs started out by denying the facts. A few hours later, General Viljoen, head of the South African General Staff, reportedly soon to retire to devote himself to agriculture, after the aborted aggressive action, and in flagrant contradiction to the declarations of his Minister for Foreign Affairs, claimed that the South African armed forces had a few surveillance groups in the areas north and south of Luanda, with the alleged objective of detecting SWAP0 and ANC bases there, and that one of those groups had lost contact with the South African General Staff. At that point, this became the version of the racist Government, which nevertheless continued to acknowledge the presence of the neutmlixed commando unit in the region of the Malongo oil installations in Cabinda. Tltrae weeks later, on 10 June, in the face of the then admitted presence and neutralization of the said commando unit in Cabinda, the South African representative, to the stupefar+ tiondtheCouncil,OaveaMwwrsionofthef~~ ing to which a small South African army unit had recently clashed with Angoian military elements. The unit was on a surveillance mission to a supposed ANC training camp, near the well-guarded Malongo oil installations, cloee to the town of Cabinda. 22. Considering that the province of Lunda Norte is essentially a diamond area, it is easily presumable that the military qttipment parachuted into that province was designed to supply tha UNITA puppet groups with enough matetial to carry out operations with the objective of destroying the main diamond mines, thus interrupting the prodttetion of this precious stone, which is the second sottzc of fotzigtt exchange for our country. 23. If we add to this the attempted incursion in the Midongo oil ama4il being the first source of foreign exchange for our country-we can infer that all these acts of aggmsion on the part of the Pretoria racist r&ime have as their sofa objective the suffocation of the economic develo)mtattt of our young Peopk’s Republic in o&r to f&tar Pretoria% plan to cm&a so-called constellation of southern African Statea in which the countries of the region would be &pendant on the economic and military powerofsouthAfrica. 18. As we can see, the racist South African Government is little by little coming to terms with reality, However, due to its megalomania and complex of racial superiority, the abominable regime is unwilling to bow, even when confronted with the bare facts, which were freely presented by one of its own army offkers, the captain taken p&oner by A.._ r-as4 I-- L. rlu -- r-L-,.& LA.4 -. I *-^- A- ““. Y)II.cy .“.-I* Y. ..a. y.ccN .“,,Ib.b‘IH I,..” a, LuaINQ for the international media and also attended by the diplomatic corps accredited to Angola. 19. Still worse, this new act of aggression shows the extent of the racist South African Government’s bad faith and hypocrisy: some weeks ago. at the very time that an Angolan delegation and a South African dekgation were 24, lMorit$lr strategy to stffocate our economy having ~rf~~ae$k, the racist Government resumed the m it had used earlier against Angola. Specifiily, since the beginning of June there has beenautddenincnere in South African air reconnaissattee operations against the Angolan troops deployed in the southem part of our country, deep inside the territory of Angola, Jo0 kilometres away from our border with Namibia, which Territory is ilkgally occupied by South Africa as well. 25. From 31 May to 10 June alone. 22 violations of our pimpncc irpve l m cccoT(i#i, iriWl&jg p i0tZl Of 2f ai:- planes. ln addition to those violations. there has bee.1 an unusual movement of South Attican forces, unseen since the last big invasion of our country in December 1983. 26. The South African racist army at present has a contingent of troop deployed along our border. estimated at 4 motorized brig&s and I5 battalions, making a total of 27. The international community is also aware of the deep embarrassment of South Africa’s friends and allies over the attempted destruction of the Malongo oil installation. We can, at least, be thankful for all the voices that have been raised against that aborted action. 28.. On our part, despite the losses and destruction suffered by Angola over the past IO years, we rernain committed to the re-establishment of peace and coexistence in southern Africa. Angola will not stop giving its support to SWAP0 and the freedom fighters of the people of Namibia and South Africa. We consider ourselves in duty bound to do so, since Angola is part of the United Nations. The official Angolan position on all outstanding issues is contained in the global platform presented to the United Nations by the Head of State of my country, Comrade Jose Eduardo dos Santos. in November I984 [S/16838). The People’s Republic of Angola is prepared to implement that part of the negotiated plan that concerns us as soon as the four points referred to already here in the Council are fulftlled. 29. Despite South Afrisa’s publicity campaign about its troop withdrawal. its presence in Angola is still very much alive, not only through its defence forces and surveillance groups, as General Viljoen himself admitted, but also through forces of its notorious Buffalo Battalion, operating in the province of Cunene in close connection with UNITA’s puppet group in the southern part of Angola. 30. This means that while South African troops have attacked Angola repeatedly since August 1975. prior to the proclamation of Angolan independence, they have been in continuous occupation of parts of Angolan territory since 1981 for reasons that are backed not by facts but by fition-a f&on produced in the warped minds of the men who rule South Africa as a slave State in which the Z-million majority inbabhants are disenfranchised and have no protection from the violation of udr human. civil, political and economic rights. In this connection, the people of Angola would like to express their appreciation to all those who have been engaged in the recent moves for disinvestment in South Africa. However, we all hope that what is legally taken away through one channel will not then be replaced illegally through another. 31. Finally, 1 would like to thank all those friends and allies who have always supported Angola in its search for a just peace in southern Africa. a peace which would allow all to live in dignity and mutual respect, based on the non-violability of international borders. on the nonviolability of the sovereignty of independent States and on the non-violability of the inalienable rights of peoples, based on all the rights, duties and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, to whose implementation we are all committed as Members of the Organization. A lula conlinua? 33. Until last evening. the Council was seized of the question of Namibia. involving the unrelenting travail of the people of Namibia struggling against the illrgal and oppressive racist regime of South Africa. Now, we turn our attention to the renewed aggression by the same regime against the P~npte’s Republic of Angola. Tomorrow, we shall be confronted with !he complaint that Botswana has brought before the Council, Yet again against South Africa. It would indeed be an interesting study to find out how much of the Court-4’s time and energy have, since its inception, been spent in dealing with iustances of South African aggression and belligerence and its persistent defiance of the will of the international community. 34. We take comfort in the thought. Mr. President, that, as we deal with these new, urgent and grave issues we will continue to benetit from your own personal diplomatic skills, impartiality and wisdom, as indeed we have benetited from the infmite patience, quiet dignity and great wisdom your Foreign Minister has demonstrated over the last long days in presiding over the Council as it struggled with the question of Namibia, 35. The Council was last seized of an Angolan complaint against South Africa in January 1984, in the wake of another massive South African invasion of its territory. It will be recalled that the new escalation of South African aggression against Angola in the dawn of that new year came, in characteristic fashion, even before the ink was dry on Security Council resolution 545 (1983) adopted only days before, on 20 December. That resolution had strongly condemned South Africa’s continued military occupation of parts of southern Angola and demanded that South Africa unconditionally withdraw forthwith all its oceupation forces from the territory of Angola and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country. South Mica, with its customary arrogance, responded with a ful)-scak otTeMive. 36. On 6 January 1984, the Council adopted rpdolution 546 (1984). which ona again strongly condemned South Africa for its renewed, intensified. premeditated and unprovoked bombing, as well as for the continued occupation of parts of the territory of Angola, as a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country and a serious endangemtent of international peace and security. The resolution again demanded that Pmoria immediately cease all acts of aggression and unconditionally withdraw forthwith all its military forces occupying Angolan territory. It reaflirmed Angola’s right. in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Article 51. to take all measures necessary to defend itself. and it renewed its request to Member States to extend all necessary assistana to Angola in order to enable it to defend itself against South Africa’s escalating military attacks and its continuing OCEUpation of parts of Angola. 38. Last week [2586rI1 atee&rgJ, when the Minister for Foreign Affair of Angola addressed the Council, he gave us full details of the continuing instances of infringement upon Angolan territory and airspace, the latest of which is the dastardly military attack against the Malongo oil complex in Cabinda Province. In his address to the Council today. he further elaborated on those details and presented us with all the facts telatrrg to the latest military action. After South Africa’s claim to have withdrawn totally from Angola, the discovery of a South African commando unit engaged in a criminal act of sabotage in Cabinda, about 2,ooO kilometres deep inside Angolan territory, has only provided further evidence of Retoria’s duplicity. These acts of aggression, in clear violation of the Charter and the resolutions of the Council, cannot but cause profound concern, and they call for the strongest possible condemnation by the Council. 39. The Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983. had “strongly condemned the contintied military occupation of part of Angolan territory by the South African racist troopa in violation of the national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the People’s RepubIii of Angola” [S/i5675 and Cm. I ad 2, amex, WI. I, pma 62.1 andhad “considered the occupation of Angolan territory as an act of aggression against the Movement ofNon-Aligned Countw [Ibid]. We strongly condemn the continuing aggression against Angola, the &test instance of which is the military attack in Cabinda. We radfirm Angola’s right to take all necessary measures to protect and preberve its sovere@ty, indepe&nce and territorial integrity, and we reiterate the _ - __ pled* of solidarity and tutl support of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries towards that end. We firmly endorse Angola’s right to adequate redress and compmsation for the enormous economicandothertiithas rufff:red on account of South Africa’s aggression. 40, If so much of the Council’s time and etfort is taken up in dealing with the recakitrant and arrogant regime in 41. We continue to hope-and we have said this times without number-that the Council will act before it is too late and take tirm measures against South Africa as provided for by the Charter.

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

Speaking before the Council last week [2383rd meerlng], Sir, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country stated how happy our delegation was to see you presiding over the Council at a time when it was considering issues of such importance to our continent. Allow me to reiterate those sentiments now and to express our highest appreciation for the exemplary manner in which you handled the debate which was recently concluded. 44. Once again the People’s Republic of Angola finds itself compelled to bring to the attention of the Council the question of the continuing aggression against it and the occupation of parts of its territory by the murderous forces of the racist Pretoria r&gime. Resolution 546 (1984). which demanded that South Africa should cease immediately all bombing and other acts of aggression and unconditionally withdmw forthwith all its military forces occupying Angolan territory as well as undertake scn~pttlously to respect the sovereignty, airspace, territorial integrity and independence of Angola, remains unimplemented. Aggression continues, and there are reports that the r&ime is massing its troops along Angola’s southern botder in preparation for a fourth fuilgcale invasion. 45. The Council, therefore, is called upon to consider aggression4n illegal act which contravenes international law and violates the Charter of the United Nations. Atticle 2 paragraph 4. of the Charter requires all States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political i&pendence of any State and from acting in any mamter incomistent with the purpoees of the United Nations. As a corollary to this, the Council is also called to consider the implications for international peace and security of the mcist r&gime*s nompliince with its resolutions. 46. SouthAfricahasimposedawaronAngolaandother neighbouring States. Generally in its aggressive schemes the up7rtkid r6gime ttas sought to achieve its grand design against its neighbours through a combination of political manipulation and military force. It has embarked on acts of destabilisation, sabotage and assassination, It has set up dissident groups and trained, fManced and armed their 47. The objectives that the regime intends to achieve through this combination of tactics are clear. First, as a primary objective, it s&ks to topple the legitimate Govemments of its neighbours and replace them with bantustans in which the regime can establish political structures less hostile to uportlreid, if not sympathetic to it. This the regime has failed to achieve, and will fail to achieve. As a second objective, in the event of failure to topple those Governments-as has been the case-the r&Lime intends to intimidate, sabotage and destabilixe those countries into silent compliance with or submission to unequal treaty or political arrangements which only seek to minimize the opposition to u~urrk~idand, in the worst circumstances, to bolster it. 48. In the case of the aggressive designs against the People’s Republic of Angola, Namibia adds another dimension to the ambitions of the racist r&gime. Through the unabating aggression against Angola, the upartkti r6gime intends to prevent Namibia’s independence as long as possible. In sum, therefore, whether in Angola or any other neighour of ~Ihetd South Africa, the objective of the Pretoria r&gime has been the same, namely, to neutralize opposition to upmrhefd. It follows therefore, as has indeed been adequately demonstrated, that any so-called overtures of peace by that r@ne are nothing more than orchestrated campaigns calculated to hoodwink the world. 49. The announcement of a false witbdrawaf from Angola only to result in other military incursions deep into Angolan territory serves to illustrate the duplicity and bad faith of the upmtMd r&time. Equally, the unprovoked murderous attack against the Republic of Botswana on the morning of I4 June, resulting in the death of 12 inncnzent South African refugees and Botrwana citixcns, as well as many hounded, further points to the fact that, irrespective of that regime’s pronouncement, its objectives remain unchanged. It is equally clear that the Maseru raid and the incessant acta of aggre&on against the People’s Republic of Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Swaziland are all intended to achieve the same objective. 50. That the qt#tkbf r@hne has attacked and will conrinw to attack and generally seek to destabilize and aggress neighbouring i-t States because of their opposition to uprrk&i is not unexpected. But it is unexpected that, in its campaign to commit those senseless and dastardly acts, the regime shoukl find solace and support from some States Members of the Organisation. Angola has been aggres@ but in its desire to seek peace it has been prepared to concede to unwarranted demands. Thus 51. The familiar ridiculous assettions of the aparrkid regime that its occupation of pa* of Angolan territory is for the protection of Namibian citizens from SWAP0 are totally unacceptable and extremely offensive to Africa. The Council must reject any attempt to justify those criminal acts against Angola. They constitute a violation of the Charter and of international law. Besides, Angola, which shares no common border with South Africa, poses no threat to that regime. Cabinda is 2.5% kilometres from the South AfricanDJamibian borderand 1,3!JOkilometresfrom the Cunene River. the AngolatVNamibian border. How can it be explained that oil installations that far removed from upartheid South Africa pose a threat to its security? Moreover, it is a fact that, while th,e racist forces have been carrying out countless air and ground attacks against Angola, maiming and killing innocent defenceless civilians and committing acts of sabotage against vital economic installations and infrastructure, Angolan soldiers have been concerned only with the defence of their motherland. The racist r&ime has sought to claim that its criminal attacks against Angola were undertaken in hot pursuit of SWAP0 freedom lighters operating from Angola’s southern border. Unacceptable as that assertion tit was the military operation in Cabinda also in hot pursuit of SWAP0 combatants? 52. It is a matter of profound regret that Angola should be asked to make concessions to an vr. Even more regrettable is that a responsible member of the Council should be participating in squeezing concessions out of the victim of aggression instead of upholding the principles of the charter and opposing -ion. This latest manifestation of duplicity and bad faith on the part of that r@jme has served to illustrate its now quite familiar double-track strategy of falsely talking about peace and inftltratingarmy unite and preparing inaeased -ion. 53. llte qpmkidr&in+s w anno lmement ofdiscnpgment of its murderous form should deceive no one. Accordingly, we join the L%o~le’s Rep&Iii of Angola in demandingthcCoundl’sotrongcondtmnationofchc~- krifr&imeandtbatitrequinitunconditkmallytocease hostile acts forthwith. Moreover, in view of the massive losses of human lives and prm caused by the incessant acts of aggression. the Council must require the opmrheld r&time to pay full txmpmation to Angola. 54. But it is no coineidenee that the current spate of rerud a-t. nf POmuuiAn hu rkr n9mlt*rU*A cir . . . . ..-- --- -- ----.Y.. -, ..,- “y”‘.*w- .-e..*. WV...” II. the wake of frantic efY&ts by tbe proponents of “constructive engagement” to pamper and masmge the ego of the racist regime. For how can it be explained that, despite being a party to the Lusaka understanding on the with dnwal of the qpatrlrrldaccupation fo ~nunderstanding which the regime has violated-those proponents of “constructive engagement” still find it appropriate to seek repeal of the Clark amendment? 56. In a letter addressed to the Secretary-General on 17 November 1984 [S/l~sJsl, the President of the People’s Republic of Angola outlined the elements of a political platform presented by his Government. The platform embodies a political commitment by Angola to!heelaboration of a comprehensive political framework which would bring about the requisite conditions for assurances. As pointed out in that letter, the proposal is proof of Angola’s willingness to seek peace. The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) h.as firmly supported Angola’s position not to accept an arrangement which is inconsistent with elements of that political platform or which does not respond to all the issues related to the apeedy implementation of resolution 435 (1978). to the cessation of aggression by the apurrheld r@ime and to the cessation of support by the Qpurfheid regime of th? UNITA puppets. Consistent with that position, the OAU has repeatedly reaffirmed its full support for the measures taken by the Angolan Govemment in accordance with Article 51 of the charter to gnarantee and safeguard its territorial integrity and national sovereignty. 57. It is a sad commentary on history that this year, when most of the world is commemorating the defeat of fascism in Europe, racist supremacy of the utmost Fascist kind is running roughshod over southern Africa and the African is asked to be patient, to be tolerant and to wait while most of tlte very Powers that bravely fought fascism inEuropearefee&ngandstm@eningtbeeconomicand political machinery of -heid South Africa. Hundreds of tbousa~ of Africans and other third-world peoples paid heavily for the defeat of fascism in Europe and other areas. The price paid notwitbsmndin~ the African demands that nascent fascism and crponlrrld be dealt with directly, forcefully and universally, as was done in Europe. Munich must not be repeated. Appea~men t can only light the Ilames of a holocaust. 58. Angola has come before the Council to seek jnstice. We ask the Councrl to act lirmly to put an end to South African aggression against its neigbboun. Procrastination or vacillation by the Council in acting in the interest of peace and security would be a tragic abdication of its responsibility. 59. Finally, I take this opportunity to express our appreciation to all those States wttich have taken step to expre%s indignation and to deplore the acts of aggression committed by the o~f~tiregime. We hope, as I have stated, that more molutc and decisive measurea will be adopted.

I have already had the opportunity during this month, Sir. to express my delegation’s congratulations concerning your assumption of the presidency of the Council and our confidence in your ability to conduct the affairs of the Council. I simply cannot fail at this time to register my appreciation to you and to the other members of the Council for allowing me to make a statement in my capacity as Chairman of the Group of African States on the matter now before this body. 62. The Council is obliged to meet again to consider the latest military operation by the racist South African regime, which occurred last month when notorious individuals, who were members of South African commando units, were discovered by the Angolan People’s Army in the province of Cabin& as they were preparing to destroy an oil complex in that province. Along with that abortive raid, we have witnessed in recent months an escalation of South Africa’s aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola. A South African cargo aircraft penetrated into Angolan territory, in violation of its airspace, and unloaded 80 tons of military mur&ie/ intended for use by its puppet group, UNITA, to which tlte operation would have been attributed had it had been successful. Since then, there has been an increase in reconnaissance flights by the South African Air Force inside Angolan territory. 63. The commando units failed to accomplish their vicious and criminal plan, which would have not only caused heavy material damage but also resulted in the loss of human lives. The ptnpose of that clandestine operation ~8s to discredit the legitimate Government of the People’s Republic of Angola and to have the international community perceive UNIT.$ as a viable party in the search for peace in southern Africa. 64. Angola discovered that the purported withdrawal of South African troops from southern Angola was a cynical diversionary tactic designed to dupe Angola into believing that there were no longer South African troops in its territory. But, to no one’s surprise, South African commando units were, in fact, still in Angola with the intention of d&roying that country’s economic inft?S?JNCtUrc. 65. The lack of sincerity on tbe part of the racist regime of Pretoria regarding the search for a genuine peace in the region is increasingly manifest. South Africa continues to use the Territory of Namibia as a military base from which to launch armed aggression against neighbouring States in order to force them to desist from supporting the campaign against qwrrheid and the legitimate struggle of the Namibian pcoplc for freedom and independence. 66. The member States of the African Group view the present deteriorating situation in southern Africa as a gross violation of the territorial integrity of Angola and 67. In this respect, we request the Council to take strong action in response to South Africa’s act of aggression, which exposes Pretoria’s duplicity and bad faith. The Council should also cdl1 upon the international community to give, as a matter of urgency, maximum political and moral support. including economic and military assistance. to the front-line States to enable them to exercise their tight to self-defence against South Africa and to sup pan the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference with a view to reducing the economic dependence of those countries on the racist r@me. 68. The time has come for the Council to take decisions that will reflect, through the application of Chapter VII of the Charrer, its resolve to exert maximum pressure on the South African regime and to compel it to comply with the principles of international law. The Council has a duty to contribute to a peaceful resolution of the worsening situation in southern Africa so that the peoples of Angola, Namibia and the front-line States can live in peace and build their future on the basis of their own options.

Having just finished iv consideration of the question of Namibia, the Cotuteil is now beginning its consideration of the situation in Angola and Botswana, which once again proves that the South African r&time remains the mot of the trouble in southem Africa. 70. While cartying out a battxarous policy ofumhetdat home, the South African authorities continue their illegal oecupatia of Namibia and rrpcatedly perpetntte frenzied armed provazatiorts and invasions against Angola, Botswana and Mozambique, upeetting the tranquillity of the whole of southern Africa and seriously threatening international peace and security. The atrocities of the South African authorities cannot fail to arouse the strong indignation and unanimous condemnation of world public opinion. 71. A short time ago we heard the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola, in which he exposed with irrefutable facts the acts of aggression committed by the South African authorities. He repudiated the lies concocted by South Africa and pointed out the danger to peace and security in southern Africa and the world as a whole posed by the actions of the South African authorities. 73. In February last year, faced with resolute opposition by the Angolan Government, and under strong pressure from the world community, the South African authorities were forced to sign the Lusaka understanding with Angola, promising a total troop withdrawal from Angola within months. However, it was not until April this year that they formally announced the troop withdrawal, and in fact they have not completely pulled their troops out of Angola. 74. Furthermore, less than a month after that announcement the South African authorities again dispatched commandos, who penetrated into Cabinda, northern Angola, to carry out harassment and sabotage. South Africa has recently been massing troops on the Namibian border in preparation for a new invasion of Angola. 75. All the above facts make it clear that not only have the South African authorities gone back on their commitment but they have accelerated their intensitied acts of aggression, displaying no good will at all in favour of a negotiated solution to the issue of southern Africa. 76. The international community has repeatedly condemned South Africa’s flagrant criminal acts of aggression against Angola, which constitute a gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. The Council has adopted a number of resolutions to that e&et, calling on South Africa immediately to put an end to its acts of aggression. However, the South African authorities have turned a deaf ear to the just voice of the worki community and have totally ignored Council resolutions. On the contrary, they have intensified their acts of aggression against Angola-something about which the Council cannot fail to express its grave concern. 77. The Chinese delegation considers that the Council is duty-bound once again sternly to condemn the repeated acts of aggression. subversion and sabotage carried out by the South African authorities against Angola; solemnly to warn South Africa that it should immediately and unconditionally withdraw all its troops from Angolan territory and immediately cease all its acts of aggression and sabotage against An&a; and to appeal to the world community to give the Angolan Government and pcode moral and material support. 78. If the South African authorities continue to refuse to implement the Security Council’s resolutions, the Council should, in keeping with the relevant provisions of the Charter, adopt effective measures to force the South African authorities to change their intransigent attitude and stop their acts of aggression.

Since Dealmark has already commented on the events in Cabinda during the Council’s debate on the situation in Namibia, I shall be very brief. However, I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate the Danish position and to make it quite clear to South Africa. 81. There is no excuse for South Africa’s action in Cabinda, and the South African explanation totally lacks credibility. Even the captured South African captain from the Special Forces openly admitted that his mission in Cabinda was one of sabotage and of continued destabilization of Angola. Thus the international community has witnessed yet another blatant and arrogant violation of Angola’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 82. Not least in this perspective, the reports about a renewed concentration of a considerable number of South African troops in northern Namibia along Angola’s southem border must give rise to the most serious concern. All of us remember all too vividly South Africa’s earlier attacks on Angola and the delayed withdrawal of South African troops in spite of a firm commitment to th3t end. 83. ‘Hte Council must in no uncertain terms condemn South Africa’s continued aggression against Angoh and do its utmost to diiurage any future violation by South Africa of Angola’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. 84. Even South Africa must by now find it increasingly diflicult to dispute titat its conduct not rutty threatens stability in the region but has wider implications for interttatiomtl peace and rccurity.

The next speaker .ne repr=ntatk of Pakistan, who wishes to make a sta: men1 in his capacity~111innandthcOloupofAsien~ta,for~ month of June. I invite him to take a place at the Count4 table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I have had the privilege of addressing the Council on an eariier occasion under the presidency of your distinguished Minister for Foreign Affairs. I wish to thank you and the other memhen of the Councii ior this opportunity to address the Council once again. 87. May I expras deep appreciation of the manner in which the Minister for For&n Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago has guided the work of the Council this month, making available to it his dynamic leadership and rich experience as a diplomat and statesman and enabling it to 88. According to direct evidence offered by a captured South African commando leader, the South African Special Forces began planning the raid in the northern province of Cabinda in January of this year in order to cause what he called a considerable economic setback to the Angolan Government. His men, he said, had been sent to plao= mines at the American Gulf Oil depot, with the aim of destroying the storage tank. His statement belies the offtcial South African claim that its soldiers were looking for members of SWAP0 and the ANC-as if that version, if true, could lend legality to its illegal aggressive action. 89. These developments, which are closely linked with South Africa’s aggressive actions in Botswana and its political games in Namibia, fully justify the present complaint by the Government of Angola, which has a clear percep tion of the thmat to regional and international peace and security from the continuous acts of aggression and violence by the !3outJt African armed forces and the resulting violation of the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of the PeopIe’s Republic of Angola. fndeed, the reptesetttative of Botswana has already sought an urgent meeting of the Council to consider the serious situation resulting from South Africa’s military attacks of I4 June on the capital of his country (s/17279) 90. It is a matter of profound concern to the Security Council and the international community at large that South Africa can continue to indulge with impunity in illegal acts inside South Africa and wanton aggression against its sovereign neighbours, thmatetting both regional and in-1 peace and security. 91. Only a week ago [2Jg&h ate&tgJ, the Minister for Foreign Main of AttgoR apprised the Council of the escalation of aggressive acts against his country by the South African r@htte. In a detailed exposition of South Africa% acts of aggmsion against Angola, he described how, since January 1985, the South African military machine had been planning Operation Argon, aimed at destroying the Malongo oil complex in Cabin&t Province. ‘Ilw CIutncil heard, in th’ connection, the horrifying details of the use by South Africa of its Speciil Forces to carry out a deliberate act of sabotage deep inside Angolan territory. The Minister also cited incidents of violation of Angolan airspace by South Afrkzan aircraft, stating that after the Cabinda sabotage attempt, the South African dgime had increased its reconnaissance flights over Ango- ).an territory, penetrating more than 200 kilometres inside that country. 92. In a statement befon the Council today, the Minister for Foreign Atfain of Angola drew the attention of the 93. Two days before the Minister for Foreign Atlairs ot Angola made his first statement, the Council heard a statement made by the representative of the South African rkgime casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the Angolan Government and calling for exercise of the right of selfdetermination by the Angolan people. The South African representative then proceeded to justify the abonive Cabinda raid as being necessitated by the need ‘*to gather intelligence on the activities of the ANC and SWAP0 terrorists in Angola and to consider appropriate counteractions” [258Jfd meeling, pore. 2J0l. 94. The South African r&me stands condemned before the Council by its own revealing statements, which flout the important and invio! principle of international law and conduct embodied in Article 2 of Chapter I of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 2, paragraph 4, states that: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integfity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” 95. The Council has been s&cl of the question of South Africa’s aggression against the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Angola since the very independence of that country in 1975. l?te Council has adopted several resolutions that have condemned South Africa for its premeditated, persistent and sustained acts of aggression against Angola. It has repeatedly called upon South Africa immediately to cease these hortile activities against its neighbour. The only responoc from South Afrka has beenoneoftotaldeBranccatKlnjoctionofthedeciaiorJsd the C4Xmcil. 96. The South African r&e must not k allowed to destroy the credibility of the Council by its dcfiint actions and lawless behaviour inside and outside its territory. South Africa must be made to refrain from pursuing policies and objectives that strike at the very root ofthe principles and objectives enshrined in the Charter. 97. The overwhelming majority of Ihe deprived citiz.eRs of South Africa itself, as well as the people of the neighbounng States which arc victims of South African aggression, are entitled to conditions of peace and stability in the region and the opportunity to achieve peaceful progress, which immunity from -South African interference and freedom from fear of South African aggression can provide. 98. It is the Council’s responsibility to adopt the necessary measures to ensure conditions in which the States of

It is a damning indictment of the Government of South Africa that the Council has been called into session to deal consecutivelv with South Africa’s unacceptable policies and actions in Namibia, Angola and Botswana. 100. We have jr;st had an exhaustive debate on the situation in Namibia, arising out of South Africa’s tifusal to implement the United Nations plan for Namibia’s independence and its determination to proceed with the installation of a socalled interim government. During that debate, many delegations, including my own, condemned South Africa’s policies of regional destabilization, its actions in southern Angola, its linkage of Namibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban tro.)ps from Angola and its most recent raid into Cabinda. 101. We heard also in the statement of the South African representative on 10 June an apologia for South Africa’s policies. This amounted to an arrogation by South Africa of the right to intervene at will, through the exercise of military superiority. in the affairs of neighbouting States, presumably in an attempt to force them to pursue policies acceptable to South Africa. 102. Such policies are indefensible in international law. They are also futile, because they are likely to be unproductive in the long term. ‘IlIe disregard shown by South Africa for the independence of its neighbours is, sadly, all too consistent with the attitude its has displayed since 1978 tow&s the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, 103. Many of the iseues which are relevant to our prclrent debate have been extensively discussed over the last IO dayp, and I shall not dwell on them at length. But brevity should not k interpreted as a lack of concern for the gravity of South Africa’s actions. We listened with close attention and sympathy to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola this morning. We share his concerns. We consider South Africa’s actions pose grave and unacceptable risks to peace in the region. Let there be no doubt about Australia’s attitude to these actions. We condemn them unreservedly. 104. My delegation welcomed the negotiations involving Angola, South Africa and the United States aimed at seeuring the withdrawal of South African troops from southern Angola. We believed that this co&l contribute to the improvement of regional relations. restore stability to the hard-pressed civilian Population of southern Angola and contribute 10 a climate of confidence in which the negotiations for the implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia could proceed. 106. We have never accepted that South African forces had a right to te in southern Angola, and we welcomed their reported withdrawal. We certainly do not accept that South Afrir;l has a right to dispatch or station forces anywhere e!se on Angolan territory without the consent of the Angoran Gowmment. 107. In addressing this matter before the Council today there is, it seems to us, only one correct and just conclusion: South Africa’s actions in Cabinda were illegal, in violation of the Charter and in violation of international law. They deserve the condemnation of the international community.

The Council once again-and indeed for the umpteenth time-is considering the question of aggressive actions by the racist regime of South Africa against a sovereign independent State, the People’s Republic of Angola. Now the Council is discussing another act of aggression by the Pretoria regime against Angola, namely, the sending in May of this year of a commando group from the South African Army into the Angolan province of Cabinda to destroy the oil installations there. ‘This bold-faced act of sabotage is far from being a chance occurrence or an isolated act by the regime in Pret0ria. On the contrary, it is part of the policy 0f aggression that racist *me has constantly been pursuing against the People% Republic of Ang0la. beginning from the time when that country won its independrnce in 1975. 109. Ten years of independence for Angola have meant IO years 0f repelling S0uth African aggmssi0rt. These aggressive acts by the Pretoria regime have taken various forms, but they have not halted for a single minute. There was the invasion and the occupation of the territory, the bambing of towns, the dropping of military commando parachutist units, the use of the terrorist bands of UNITA-the henchmen af the racist r&gime of Pretoriaand. finally, the sending out of the military commando grow. 110. If anybody in the West recently tried to create the impmsion that the racist regime of South ARti had stopped being an aggressor because it supposedly had withdrawn its troops from Angola and started negotiations, then these recent actions by Pretoria-the continuing occupation of Angolan territory and the invasion of northern Angola and Botswana-have completely unmasked this falsehood and once again exposed the aggres- II 112. The provocative conduct of the South African regime, which took the form of attacks against neighbouring countries at a time when the question of Namibia was being taken up in thr- Security Council, and the challenging statements made by the South African representative at Council meetings are the result of the support and patronage given the South African racists by individual Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. They are the result of the alliance between the South African racists and the authors of the policy of soallIed constructive engagement. Statements by those Western Powers of purp0rted regret at South Africa’s aggressive actions do not mislead anyone, because them is absolutely no proof, no proof whatsoever, of the willingness of those Western Powers to take effective action to curb the aggressor or to halt it1 &&it-like raids into neighbouring independent countries. 113. Members of the Council saw this in action just two days ago when the non-aligned countries members of the Council submitted proposals calling for the application of sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII 0f the Charter. Not only did the Western Powers not support those prop0sals, they even threatened to vet0 them and were thus able to make the provisions for sanctions in the Rsolution as weak as possible. In 80 doing, they were coming out in defence of the racist aggrass0r. fhat is the true policy of the Western Powers with mpeet to the Pmtoria regime. on the one hand, and to the other African States, on the other, 114. On many 0ecaaions in the past few years-indeed, on no leas than five uzasi0ns-tbe Cmutcil has cztndemned South Africa fos its 0eeupation of Angerlan territory and for its premed&cd and repeated acts 0f aggresskm against the people’s Republii of Ang0la. The Council has described thoee actions by Pretoria as a serious thnat t0 internatkmal peace and security. It has ealled upon South Africa to respect the rover&my and territorial integrity of Ang0la and has warned South Africa that in the event of further attacks on Angola the Council would once again prepare to e0mider the question of taking more effective measures, including those provided under Chapter VII OF the Charter. ::5. lx- 0,..,A, :, ..w, CL.+&4 ..*.* l hB rm.4 nf Pn.-dw. 11&c -cu,*I* u .rvn .-I-Y “.,a. Y.. .YW. “I . . ..“I.._. violation by South Africa of the sovtrcigrtty and territorial integrity of Angola, another act of aggression by South Aftica against that country, 116. !n uur view, the Covncil should, in extihncly strong terms, condemn South Africa and, at last, adopt measures that would force the racist &time to halt its outrages llte meeting rose at 1.03 p.m. --