S/PV.2598 Security Council

I shouM like to inform the Council that I have received a ktter dated 19 June 1ffS from the Acting Chairman of the Special Committee against Apthe/d. which reads as follows: I “1 have the honour to request the Security Council to permit Mr. Uddhav Deo Bhatt, Vice-Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, to participate under the provisions of rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure in the consideration of the item ‘Letter dated I7 June 1985 from the Permanent Representative of Botswana to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council”‘. On previous occasions the Council has extended invitations to representatives of other United Nations bodies in connection with the consideration of matters on its agenda. In accordance with past practice in this matter, I propose that the Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to the Vice- Chairman of the Special Committee against Aparrheid. II Ms so ikci&li

The Security Council is meeting today in response to the request contained in a letter dated I7 June 1985 from the representative of Botswana addressed to the President of the Council [S/17279). Members of the Council also have before them document S/ 17291, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago. 4. I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to the following documents: Wl7274, letter dated I4 Jtme 1985 from the repmsentative of Botswana to the Resident of the Council; s/17278. letter dated 14 Jum from the repmsentative of Zimbabwe to the President of the Council; S/17282, letter dated I7 June from the representative of South Africa to the Secretary-General: S/17283, ktter dated 18 June from the representative of Democratic Kampuchea to the President of the Council; S/17288. letter dated 29 June from the representative of Spain to the Secretary-General; s/17289. letter dated 20 June from the representative of Italy to the Secretary- General; and S/17290, letter dated 20 June from the repmsentative of Liberia to the President of the Council. 5. The first speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of p-ly-arG ..L, c...,:..., Y T m:A.w , ~,C~ L , ,.,,. v “*“*,I,~. 4,. 1. h.r.ep. . “...“..I. ..-. and invite her to make her statement, 6. Miss CHIEPE (Botswana): Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging the satisfaction that derives from S&tgyWhthCCbk.S repmemtive of Trinidad and Tobago, a country with which Botswana enjoys the most cordial relations. I must also express to you most sincerely 7. Your predecessor performed brilliantly in the dir charge of his onerous responsibilities as President of the Council for the month of May. We extend to him our sincere congratulations. 8. Thr case we have brought to the Council is a simple one. though tragic. The world already knows that on Friday, 14 June 1985, at 0140 hours, the peaceful capital of my country, Botswana, wzs invaded by South African commandos who murdered in cold blood, in their sleep. six South African refugees, two residents, two visitors, one of whom was a six-year-old child from Lesotho, and two Botswana nationals. The invasion was unprovoked and unwarranted. It was the culminarion of a progressively aggressive South African attitude towards my country, an attitude that has deteriorated as the agitation for change has intensitied inside Sottsh Africa. 9. Botswana and South Africa have always coexisted in peace, despite their conflicting philosophies of lie. My people abhor without reservation the evil policy of uparrheid and the rabid racism that feeds and sustains it, but they are realistic enough to appreciate that they and the people of South Africa have been thrown together by fate to share space in the part of the African subcontinent they presently occupy. and will always occupy. They have to live together in peace, or they will perish together in conflict. That is why my country has never allowed its very determined opposition to umheid to tmdermine itscommitment to the principle of peaceful cacxistencc. Ottr Fidelity to this principle is unquestionable. our determination to uphold it sacrosanct. IO. This is so despite the fact that south Africa has. in the past two years. continuously insisted that we sign with it a non-aggression pact, as if our country is capable of committing an act or acts of aggression agahtst so deadly powerhI a neighbour. My country has commtly refused to sign such a pact. We would be mad even to imagine that we could attack South Africa. Botswana i, a peace-loving country wh;ase only desire is to develop -ically and coexist peacefully with all its neighbours. I I. We have repeatedly argued tkt the signing of a socalled non-aggr&on pact with South Africa would, in addition to compromising our sovereignty. serve no w&l purpose. since a mere signature cannot cnhan~~ our capacity to be more vigilant than we are now against guerrilla inftltration into South Africa. if &uth Africa itself, with all the overwhelming murca~ at its command, is incapable-as is obviously the case-of scaling its borders dwa,nai iniiiirarion, how much more so oi our small country. with meagre resource? 12. Our country has always been punctilio&y scrupulous in honouring its word, The truth is that we have never alhwd. can never allow and will never allow our vulncrable country to be used as a base for guerrilla operations against South Africa. That is why the South African corn- 13. However, in fulfilment of our statutory obligations as a State party to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees signed at Geneva in 1951’ and the Convention of the Organ&ion of African Unity Governing the Specitic Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa concluded at Addis Ababa in 1969*. and as a humanitarian and moral obligation and duty, we do give political asylum to refugees fleeing the persecution and the brutalities that result from the inhumanities of apartheid in South Africa. This we will do, regardless of the consequences, for we are a freedomloving people and country. It would he morally repugnant to us to deny hospitality to our fellow men in their flight from racial tyranny. 14. The train of developments leading to the Friday aggression against our capital is an uncomplicated one. Having failed to get us to sign a non-aggression pact whose utility could be best known to and appreciated by South Africa, in January of this year the rulers of South Africa. through the bantustan of Bophuthatswana. issued an unveiled threat that unless Botswana stopped allowing its territory to he u.d as a launching pad to attack South Africa, South Africa would invade Botswana and take retaliatory action. When we publicized that threat, the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. Botha, denied that it had been isued by his country and said he had simply reported what he had been told by Bophuthatswana. For our part. we reminded 8outh Africa of our well-known policy regarding the rtgime that governs the presence of refugees in our country. 15. At the request of the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs, a meeting was arranged for 22 February 1985 between him and myself. In the meantime. on I3 February, nine days before the meeting was to take place, a bomb blasted a house in Gaborone. our capital, in which some South African refugees lived. Miraculously, the occupants escaped unhurt. On 22 February the two sides met and had full and frank dixusrions on the state of relations between our two countries. Botswana on= again explained at length why it refused to sign a non-aggressioa pact. We aurgued that, since it was neither our intention to launch an attack a@nst South Afriw my &! WC !EI\?* !.k capacity to do so, we saw no reason why we should sign a non-aggression pact with South Africa. We harboured no warlike intentions or ambitions towards South Africa, for that would be sheer madness on our part, as we had repcatediy stated. 16. In answer to the hackneyed South African staple charge that freedom fighters use our country to infiltrate If. We did not agree on everything; we did not solve everything. But the meeting ended amicably with the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs assuring US that South Africa fully believed what we had said and therefore would not again ask us to sign any agreement. He also assured us that South Africa would no longer block our economic projects. which they had attempted to link to the signing of a non-aggression pact, in contravention of the terms of the Customs Union Agreement to which both our countries belong. Mr. Botha then announced to the world that our meeting had been so fruitful that Botswana would no longer be pressed by South Africa to sign a non-aggression pact. IS. The sense of relief we felt can be imagined. We went beck to Botswana with a sense of achievement, and 1 was abk to say the following to the Botswana Parliament: “I am pleased to inform honourabk members that, after diffiiult negotiations lasting more than a year, during whiih South Africa pressed Botswana to sign a nonaggression accord with it, the South Aftin Government has fhtally accepted our stand and publicly announced that there is no need for Botswana and South Africa to sign an accord, It is my hope that this particular chapter in our relations with South Africa is now closed and never to be reopened.” 19. We were pka.sed with what appeared to us to be a clear signal of the end of the inexplicable nastiness of Pm@ ria’s attitnde towards our country, but not nafve enough to believe that all would henceforth be plain sailing. We could never be lulled into believing that we had suddenly earned the unquestioning respect and trust oi a seii-appointed regional Power accustomed to bullying its weak neighbours. We expected more bullying and arm-twisting in some other direction, but not what happened on Friday. I4 June. 20. On Tuesday, I4 May. at around 1000 hours. a cat belonging to a South African refugee parked outside a 21. During the week beginning 3 June, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Africa suggested that we have a meeting either on 26 June or 2 July. His office was informed that I was away and owing to standing commitments could not meet him before 23 July. In the small hours of I4 June, South African commandos raided our capital, and later the same morning of 14 June, before we could recover from the shock of the early morning’s carnage, Mr. Botha sent a telex to my offke accepting 23 July as suitable for a meeting. 22. If this is not a Jekyl and Hyde situation, it is ditlicult to imagine one, when a responsible Minister can appear to want to discuss issues of mutual interest while at the same time he plans and executes the most cold-blooded terrorism with mathematical precision. Is the meeting being called just to replay the televised wanton destruction, accompanied by the display of sadistic pleasure at the fantastic and intoxicating success of the operation? Or is it to deliver uttotlter foretaste of things to come when South African commandos will once more strike Botswana with ruthless efficiency’? The warning has been given in no uncertain terms. llte South African newspapers, led by the Govemtnent-aupported 28e U~izen, radio and television, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Chief of the Army ate beside them&es with the sheet delight they have derived from the whole sordid aflair. 23. Tlte excuse given by South Africa is that the recent attempt in Cap Town on the lives of two Coloured members of parhatttent was pktnned and executed from G&orone, and it was the last atraw for the South African Govemrnmt. 24. Since Cape Term is about 2,000 kilometres from Gaborone, our @taI, several questions arise in one’s mind. fn view of South Africa’s sophisticated intelligence. comnttmkmiom and other resources. why did they not intercept and/or forestall the operation? Was it because the Ciovemntettt of South Africa wanted the operation to succeed in order to use the assassination of the Coloured IUPs to strengthen Pretoria’s war against the ANC (A/rlun Narld coyltnr o/ Snd Alncrr)? Was it in order to pnttny Borswana as an unsafe country, the centre ofguerrilla activity, and frighten prospective investors away from It? Did South Africa allow it to happen in order to have a pretext to launch an attack on a peace-loving neighbouring country7 25. Yes, more nagging questions. If the real reason for the brutal attack.on our small defenceless capital was to flush out ANC nerve centre, as was the reason given for theabortedraidontheC&indaoilcompkxafewweeks ago, then, timt. would every house in which a refugee lived be a nerve centre? Secondly, could that justify the rhoot- 26. Let us look at the particulars of the victims of the Friday attack to see if there is any truth to Pretoria’s charge that they were guerrillas planning military attacks against South Africa from our capital. 27. The murdered l ‘ANC guerrillas” were: a Wyear-old man who emigrated from South Africa in the early 195Us, the holder of a residence permit that was to expire in December this year; a 7l-year-old man who came to Botswana in 1981 to spend the remaining days of his waning life in peace and freedom in exile; a 47-year-old businessman and his social-worker wife who worked for our Ministry of Local Government and Lands; a student at the University of Botswana; a Dutch national of Somali origin who worked for a data-processing company and may never have heard of the ANC, a musician; a teacher at one of our secondary schools; a young visitor who had been a student in South Africa; two young Botswana housekeep em, who very likely had never heard of the ANC, and, worst of all, a six-year-old child who, as I said earlier, had been shot to death fleeing for his dear life. The six wounded are: a Dutch national who, like her Somali husband murdered in the raid, is not even remotely connected to the ANC, two innocent Botswana who were shot going about their own business in their own home town and country; and three refugees, one of whom was a 15yearold dependent of a refugee, 28. ‘Ihe are the so+alled guerrillas of the ANC-all. including the eix-year-old, who were said to be the masterminds of the raging revolution in South Africa. Now let us look at the geographical location in our capital of the llowcs they occupied. 29. Gabot0.r is a free and open city accessible to visitors, including South Africans, who require no visa to enter our country. The city is only I2 kilometres from our common border with South Africa and is the location of a popular Southern Sun casino hotel heavily patron&d by South Afric-ns of all colours and races in search par&uiarly of a weekend of non-racial freedom. These funseeking, freedom-hungry victims of the Group Areas Act and Immorality Act-the tatter now abolished-are free to walk the stmets of our capital, visit their friends in its suburbs and go anywhere they like. 30. This L dz s :rRa!! city dciC&ed 50 ipiiy by ihe London obsprvrr Sunday last as being “the size of an English market town, the kind of place where everybody know everybody else”-indeed, the kind of place where not even one guerrilla can hi& without being discovered in no time, let alone so many living publicly in our midat. 31. But even more fantastic is the fact that one of the murdered “ANC guerrillas” occupied a house that was sandwiched between two houses owned by two members of the Botswana police, the same police whom refugees should dread if they had anything to hide, such as the planning from our soil of military attacks against South Africa. How could they have engaged in guerrilla activities against South Africa in that kind of location without being discovered? 32. All the houses attacked by the South African commandos were scattered all over the city. They were well known to everybody, including our police, and, as it has turned out, even to South Africa itself. They could not by any stretch of the imagination be used as guerrilla bases or nerve centres and fail to attract the vigilance of our police force. Inspection of what remains of the destroyed houses has turned up no evidence that the houses had ever been used, as charged by Mr. Botha: no caches of weapons, other than the two suspicious pieces given to the pressthe pieces could simply have come from South Africa’s own arsenal to try to prove a very difftcult point-were found, no dramatic, staged display of morning-after loot in Pretoria and Capt Town. There was. on the contrary, overwhelming evidence that the murdered refugees had been nothing but peaceable civilian refugees who had been so nonchalant about their innocent stay in Botswana that they did not even have a knife to defend themselves with when they were shot in their sleep. 33. Permit me at this stage to comment on some of the specific alkgations, the facts and the fiction, contained in the press statement made on I4 June by Mr. Rotha. I shall comment only on those I have not already touched on. 34. In the second paragraph of Mr. Botha’s statement it is stated that my predecessor, Mr. Archie Mogwe, was given a list at a meeting held on 21 April 1983 at Jan Smuts Airport, Johannesburg, containing names of “terrorists in Botswana totuther with an indication of their active panicipation in the planning and intended execution of viclena in South Africa” [see S/17282, annox]. Yes, the list was given to him and the allegations were thoroughly investigated. it turned out that the so-called terrorists were ordinary refugees who had never violated the legal &ime which governs their stay in our country and their recognition as refugees. Most of them were not even in Botswana at the time. having left our country some time earlier to seek safer refuge abroad. Thus, we could not take action 35. Mr. Botha speaks at length in his statement about several meetings held in the course of 1984 between Botswana and South African officials aimed at reaching an agreement on ‘*appropriate measures*’ to be taken “to prevent the planning and execution of acts of violence, sabotage and terrorism against each other” [ibid.]. This is clearly a nostalgic reference to the long series of meetings we had with South Africa on the signing of a non-aggression pact. Mr. Rotha knows that Botswana has always co-operated with his country on matters of common security. We have done so without the encumbrances of a meaningless formal treaty. so the measures he is referring to have always been there. That is why we have arrested, charged, imprisoned and deported those who have violated our policy of not allowing them to operate from our country. 36. There is. of co~me, a presumption in Mr. Botha’s statement which must be rejected with the contempt it deserves. This presumption is that but for the intransigence of the political side of the Botswana Government our security services would have signed some non-aggression pact “because of a realization on their part of the destabilizing effect of the growing ANC presence in Botswana” [Ibid]. This is a fabrication. No part of the Botswana Govemment has ever felt that a solution to the problem of security along our common border with South Africa lies in the signing of a non-aggression pact; the contrary is true. 37. Mr. Botha further lays great stress on what he calls repeated waminga by his Government about “ANC terrorist activities” in Botswana. He admits having thnatened in January to invade Botswana if wt continued to allow the ANC to use it as an “infiltration route to South Africa”. What Mr. Both eannot admit is that in all thc3e charges hehaeranlygivenusproofor~tltstthcANCis indeed doing from our territory what he says they are doing. All WC are given are &en nebulous vituperative statements of charges based on mete suspicion, or simply dehkrate fabrications de&ted to force us to get rid of gcnttlnc dtgcaa. Mr. Botha know that wtmever m arc givenf&tswefouowthemuptmtilwcarcsatisfi~that indecdm,oneisbrreki~outLa~byJ~grcountryas an “infiltration route to South Africa”. llte facts are there for anybody to set. 3% But South Africa till be asking for the impostdbk if its new polii is that no country in its ncighbourhoad should act as host to nfugees front South Africa and that d should all treat victims ofoporrwand facial tyranny as enemies of “regional stability” and peace and accept the cynical view that the most dangerous “terrorist’* is a South African refugee who lives in Gaboronc, Maseru, Mbabane, Mapuro or Hararc and who keeps crossing into South Africa clandestinely to spit his venom there. Our very humanity, our sense of morality, the international legal instruments relating to t&m to which we arc party and 0I’r love of freedom as a people will never allow us to bar our doors a&wt victims of political circumstances. 40. We have long warned that the pestilence of racism will consume all of us in the region if it is allowed to go on unchecked; no commando raids against the front-line States will bring South Africa, or the region as a whole, nearer to zalvntion. Salvation lies soiely in putting an end once for all to the brutalities of upartheid in South Africa EO that there will be no more Sowetos, Uitenhages. Sharpevilles, Langas and the rest, no more refugees scattered all over the subcontinent and the world at large taring to return to their country at all costs. 41. ‘Ilte ANC, the dreaded scourge of white minority rule in South Africa, would not need to resort to armed struggle as an instrument with which it seeks to pry open the barred doors of freedom if the movement were allowed to operate freely and to articulate without fear of persecution the frustrated aspirations of a black South Africa that has been wallowing in misery for so long. 42. For my people in their hour of crisis and tragedy I ask of the Council nothing more or less than the strongest possible condemnation, unequivocally expressed, of South Africa’s brutal terrorism perpetrated against our capital and against refugees given refuse in our country. I appeal to the Council to demand that South Afriat desist from f&&r acts of terrorism against Botswana and abandon its planned attack on our country. I appeal to the Council and to the international community to find ways of ensuring security in our region. I request the Council to dispatch a mission to see and assess on itx behalf the damage caused and to examine the question of possible assistance. 43. Let me end by assuring the Council that WC will never give up our values. As the President of Botswana said on Satulliay, “Botswatm wiU neither wawr nor compromise its principled position of s&guafding innocent lives that are jeopardizcd and of providing a sanctuary for refit- 8#e. It is not poaiibk, in spite of all the military power South Afrfca pcxsesa and may u&ash upon us, to destroy our belief’ in the rule of bw, our traditions, our customs and our dvilization.” lltat is our fundamental promise to the Council.

It is with pieasure. Sir, that we express once again our satisfacrion ai Yaing you i&i ii-i Chair. 45. We are meeting today to consider the dastardly military attack, a week ago, by forcu of the racist Pretoria r&he on Gaborone, the capital of Botswana. lltat attack 46. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana apprised the Council this morning of the details of the latest act of aggression perpetrated by the fotces of the racist regime against Botswana and the loss of human life and material damage inflicted as a result. There can be little doubt that South Africa’s action has been unprovoked, unjustified, premedittted and cold-blomied, that it is in complete contravention of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and that it is in violation of United Nations resolutions. It is an actiort that evokes our strongest condemnation. 47. The Government of India issued the following statement on 18 June 1985: “The Government of India have learnt of the umvarranted and unprovoked attack made by the tacist South African regime on civilians residing in Botswana which has resulted in the loss of several lives. This is the latest in a series of brutal incidems caused by the racist regime, which has shown no respect for the territorial integrity or sovereignty of States which arc its neighbours. The savage killing of these people living in Botswana, a country whiih has given repeated assurances of not permitting its territory to be used for launching attacks on neighbouring countries, showa yet again that the racist South African r6gime is willing to flagrantly violate all laws of civilized behaviour. The Govemmem of India stror@y condemns the racist South African regime for perpetrating this outrage, which is part of its continuing pattern of aggressive and unlawful behaviour towards its smaller and weaker neighbours. The Government of India also offers its profound sympothka to the Government of Botswana and to the retativw of the deceas&.” 48. The Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi from 7 to I2 March 1983, in its Politicai De&&m, “noted with great concern the increased acts of military. political and economic destahilization perpetrated by the South African racist regime against the independent neighbouring States , . . [includirtg] Botswana” [S/l5675 and Cow.! and 2, annex, sect. I, para. 6Oj. “commended the front-line States and other neighbouring States for their courage and &termination in the face of brazen intimidation by South Africa and called upa! the wor!d community to provide afl possible 49. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries stands by Botswana, a peace-loving, non-aligned country, in its hour of travail. We assure the Government of Botswana of our continuing solidarity and support. 50. Pretoria has once again put forward the familiar argument seeking to justify its action in terms of the defence of its own security. The statement of I4 June by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the racist regime reads: “The South African security forces had no alternative but to protect South Africa and its people from the increasing number of terrorist attacks emanating from Botswana. . . . “It is an established principle of international law that a State may not permit on its territory activities for the purpose of carrying out acts of violence on the territory of another State. It is equally well established that a State has a right to take appropriate steps to protect its own security and territorial integrity against such acts.** [see s/f 7282, wme.c J Such references to international law sound strange coming from a regime that makes a mockery of law and, indeed, of the elementary norms of civil&d behaviour. 51. The threat to the apn&e&f r&gime stems not from peace-loving and law-abiding Botswana or Angola, or any other State for that matter; that threat is rooted within South Africa itself, embodied in the odious system of apartheid, That system eats at its own vitals and is responsible for all the tension and instability that afflict southern Africa. Pretoria’s forays against its smaller, wreker neighbours and its killing of defenceless people are mmly pan of its attempts to place its own crimes at somebody else% door. The Council must recqgnizc that fact and act accordingly. 32, Mr. MAXEY (United Kingdom): I listened carefully and with profound sympathy to the moving and eloquent statement made by the Minister for Foreign Atfails of Botswana this morning. 1 am sure other members of the Council were similarly impressed. 53. It is an extraordinary and, perhaps, unprecedented state of affairs that the Council should today be entering its third separate debate within a single week on the actions of one Member State. This, of itself, is a fact of which all the pcopk of South Afti ~ow!d take note. Though I appreciate the presence here today of the representative of South Africa and till listen carefully to what he has to say this afternoon. 1 regret that his Government all too often gives the impmssion that it dots not wish to take account of the very serious prooredings of the Council. It would be most unwise for the South African Govem- 55. The United Kingdom is not blind to the complexities of the internal situation in South Africa and to the tension in that unhappy country. The United Kingdom is utterly opposed to the use of violence and to acts of assassination. But, in South Africa’s own best interests, as well as in the interests of all neighbouring countries, the South African Government must come to recognixe that a solution to its internal problems will never be found by attacking neighbouring countries. It is for the people of South Africa-all the people of South Africa, of whatever race or colour-to resolve their own future. It is within South Africa, not outside, that upur&id must be completely dismantled and that different groups and races must learn to live together in justice and equity and with full respt for the rights of each individual-and that will happen sooner or later. 56. As the Council knows, the British Government has expressed its views on the attack on GaM~orte to the Government of South Africa in the strongest possible terms. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Alfairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe, has condemned the violation of Botswana’s sovereignty and deplored South Africa’s act of violence. He has left the Sot@. African Government in no doubt that we regard the attack as utterly indefensible. 57. We have at the same time kept in the closest possible contact with the Government of Botswana, and have offered our support. The relationship between Britain and Botswana, as fellow members of the Commonwealth, could not be warmer or more extensive, and I am delighted today to renew our oiler of assistance to the Minister for Foreign Allairs of Botswana. Her country, as I said on I4 June, threatens no one and has not the slightest intention of attacking anyone. Botswana has lived in peace and democracy since independence. The way in which Botswana has coped with the burdens of geography and of nature and with conflict and turbulence in neighbouring States has attracted universal admiration. 58. ln attacking Gaborone, South Africa has made an incomprehensible as well as a tragic error. Is it too much to hope that the South African Government will itself acknowledge this, and will at once repair the enormous harm it has done? Is it too much to hope that South Africa will desist henceforth from cross-border violence. recogniz-

As the representative of the United Kingdom said at the beginning of his statement, the Council is meetingto consider a third complaint within a week aga:nst the racist Pretoria Government, which has persisted in committing illegal acts and in its aggression against neighbouring States. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana has unequivocally explained all the facts. 61. It is ironic that the racist Pretoria rkgime should call on a peace-loving, peaceful State such as Botswana, which has no army, to enter into a so-called non-aggression pact. The recent aggression against Botswana was committed after a series of threats, which culminated in the perpetration of a deliberate, abominable act that can in no way be justified or explained. We listened attentively to details of the scope of that act of aggmssion, the deep psychological effects and the loss of life and property, as described by the Foreign Minister of Botswana. 62. Once again within a week, we are forced to repeat that the situation requires the Council to apply the measures provided by the Charter of the United Nations in order to deter the racist r&me. Egypt reiterates that it is ready to go all the way with the Council, including the application of measures under Chapter VI1 of the Charter. 63. Yesterday the repreacntative of the Government of South Africa arrogantly told the Council of the conditions that the racist dgim 4eek4 to impose on its tteighbours in -Red peaceful cocxistettce. Those words deceive no one. Moreover, in pemkuhtg in violating Council resolutiotu, South Africa claims for itself the right to call its acts of aggmsion Wot pursuit”. 64. We ha= often dimmed the acts of the mcist Government of Pmtoria. We hope that today the Council will faa the deteriorating situation with the necessary fimmess.

lhe next speaker is the representative of the Bahamas, who wishes to make a statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States for the month of June. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Statistics support the view that the month of June is the luckiest for men. because that is the period when most are chosen as husbands, For a slightly different reason, I4hatl have to adopt 67. The words “luck” and ‘civilized”, despite the frivolity and facetiousness their use may convey, are not cited merely for levity, but to bring out the gravity and seriousness of the issue before us, so ably expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana. We may say, on the one hand, that the people of Botswana had bad luck on 14 June and, on the other, that the Government of South Africa used c%lized weapons to execute its nefarious plan. The response by the Govcmment of Botswana to the attack once again underscores a fundamental virtue inherent in persecuted people-the ability to persevere. Perseverance in this context is the reverse of subjugation or fatalism, and it is for that spirit of patience and detetmination that we commend the black majority of South Africa and, indeed, abused people everywhere. 68. By no stretch of the imagination could the United Nations be called fledgling. Of course, maturity need not be synonymous with age, but it can be assumed that the Organization, which will be 40 years old in Cletobar, has in that period of time experienced, in one fomt or another, ewry international catastrophe. Time has shown that, no matter how incensed or elated npmentatives might feel about an issue, they could only rehash the old facts in a new way, and that not very often. Similarly, the matter before us is not a new one, but it augurs weIl for thii body that, rather than the matter’s being shelved, it is being recycled with the hope that the spin-off may IX put to some other useful advantage. 8. llte South African Government’s installation of an interim government in Windhoek, its violation of the human rights of the people of Soweto, its dii for the territorial integrity of Angola and now the attack on the capital of Botswana are clear signs that the Premtia r@inte cannot be coaxed into peaceful change. 70. The oppressed people of the African continent and, indeed, rational human beings everywhere, must be asking: if such atrocities and unilateral decisions persist, irrespective of genuine elforts being made by the international community to achieve a fair, lasting and non-violent sohttion. what can be the next step? Are the people of Batsward to accept these attacks as a foil accompk? Are families to live in constant fear for their lives and property7 Are human beings to be subjected forever to invasion of privacy and loss of integrity because of the colour of their skin? 71. These may seem like general, hypothetical and meI+ dramatic queries, but they go to the core of the problem before us today. Under the Pretoria regime, for instance, black South Africans have no freedom. Th9 have no legal, political, social or economic rights, because the policy of clprrrrhpid strips them of their reason for being. The law reinforces double or even triple standards, The cos- 72. We in the Latin American and Caribbean region feel a sense of indignation as well as a sense of helplessness. We speak here today because we are convinced that unity is strength. We believe in the interdependence of all States and the signiftcance of carrying one another’s burdens. Above all, we believe in the sanctity of human lives and the importance of justice. 73. We share in the sorrow that the bereaved families must feel. We sympathize with the Government of Botswana, which, besides being frustrated, must harbour anger, anxiety and fear of further aggression by South Africa’s commandos. 74. We in the Latin American and Caribbean region welcome this occasion to reiterate our condemnation of all acts of aggression, and in particular, the current attack ma& against the people of the sovereign State of Botswana. We reject the reasons given as unjustiliIble, espy cially since there have been mutual expressions of willingness to negotiate and to seek the best methods of fInding a just solution. We are cotteemed that the meaning and value of trust is diminishing and that the South African Government will continue to make unilateral decisions that eannot help but endanger the concept of international peace and security. There is no doubt, then, that the South African Government dtstrv#, the strongest condemnation by the Counell. 75. On b&l of the Member States of I&t America and the Caribbean, I would wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana to exprass our shteere condolences to tItefamiliesofthevictimsandtoassuretheGovemtnent anddnpopkafhercountryrhatmshallcontinwto support the struggIe for justice and freedom and work with all peace-loving nations for the promotion and impletnentation of gcnn%neighbourliness, interdependence and selfdetermination. 76. Mr, GRUNNM (Denmark): Gn the morning of I4 June, South African troops once more violated the borders of a neighbouring country spreading death and destntction, this time in an attack against Botswana’s capital. AtnongthemanyvictimswcrebothSouthAfricanrefugeca and citizens of Botswana. South Africa’s attack was particularly repugnant because it was directed agahtst a w-loving country which has the policy not to allow its territory to be used as a springboard for attacks against any of its neighbours, including South Africa. 77. The attack was also a deliberate and highly provocative act. ‘Ibe South African Government has openly stated that the attack was carried out after careful deliberations 78. The news about South Africa’s latest and blatant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbouring country was received with a profound sense of horror and deep shock in the internatioual community. 79. The Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs has expressed the strongest condemnation of this new example of South Africa’s reckless conduct. Furthermore, he deeply deplored that the inhuman uportheid regime in Pmtoria once more had demonstrated tha! it does not refrain from violating even the most fundamental principles of international law in its endeavours to suppress the black majority in South Africa and its representatives. 80. It has by now become abundantly clear that South Africa has little intention of ending its military and potitical aggression against the front-line States and that South Africa is totally indifferent to its moral standing in the eyes of the international community. This state of affairs is becoming increasingly unacceptable. South Africa must be brought to understand that it cannot continue with impuuity to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of neighbouring States. 81. !n the Council, Denmark has consistently argued in favour of unanimity with respect to South Africa’s 4pmrheid policy and other violations of human rights, its conduct on the Namibia question and its aggression agahtst neighbouring States. To us. the South African attack on Botswana underlines the necessity of a unauimous decision by the Council. 89. South Africa’s incursion represented a blatant breach of international law and underlined a complete disregard for Botswarta’s sotiguty. It was clear that the raid had been carried out with premeditated vioknce and without concern for the rights and safety of the people of Gabonme. 82. The members of the Council have to cwpcrate in a spirit of compromise in order to reach agreemeut on measures against South Africa which can in au effective way increase and sustain an international pressure directed against the totally unacceptable couduct and policy of South Africa.

The Austrahan dckption listened this morning to the poignant and detaikd statement of the Minister for Foreign Affaita of Botswana with genuine feelings of sorrow and respect-sorrow that a peaceful country should be so abused by its larger neighbour and respect for its unprovocative humanitatian and principled policies towards its neighbours, which the Minister so eloquently described. 84. It was with a sense of frustration and deep cotnzem that the Australian Government learned of the armed incursion by South African forces into Botswana on the night of 13114 June. 85. Botswana. a fellow member of the Commonwcahh. is a country with which Australia has warm and friendly relations. As one of the front-line States, Botswana has in 86. Botswana’s is a voice which is widely respected in the United Nations, in the Commonwealth and in Africa. Botswana has never attacked any neighbouring country and, as the representative of Botswana reminded us this moming, does not represent any threat to any of its neighbours. Yet it has been the subject of a brutal and cowardly incursion by South Africa against which it has little capacity to retaliate. The international community has a resconsibility to condemn South Africa for its actions in Botswana and to do all that it can to ensure that such actions do not EClU. 87. It is inevitable that after the exhaustive debates of the last weeks on developments in Namibia and Angola, our statements will have a Sense of d&j6 VU. It is important. however, that notwithstanding the coincidence of three consecutive Council debates. the issues be stated clearly and unequivocally in response to these specitic situations. This has been done in the cases of Namibia and Angola through the adoption of resolutions 566 (1985) and 567 (1985). and it will again. we trust, be done through the adoption of the draft resolution before us dealing specifttally with Botswana. 88. South Africa’s armed incursion was strongly condemned in a statement issued on behalf of the Australian Government by the Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Minister for Foreign AfTairs, Mr. J.ionel Boweu, on 16 June, and the concern of the Australian Govemtneut was strongly registered with the South African Government through the South African Ambassador in Canberra. 90. South Africa’s actions were particularly deplorabk because they took place at a time when Botswana and 8outh Africa wm holding talks on security measures. 91. Austdii does not condone the use of violence to settk probkms. South Afric3’s actions in Botswana, as indeed its recent a&us in relation to Angola and Namibia, deserve the strongest condemnation of the intematioual community. As other repmentatives have pointed out this morning, it wouki be in South Africa’s own interests to respond to the increasing frustration and anger of the intematiorml community and abandon its ilkpal and dangerous policies of seeking to destabilize its neighbours. 92 Mr. LOUET (France) (interpretathn from Fmh): For the 4 time this week we are meeting to consider a complaint by a neighbouring State of South Africa that has been a victim of an unprovoked attack. As soon as we 93. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana has come here to describe to us the events that led to the convening of the Council. We listened with keen attention to, her,particularly eloquent statement. At least I2 persons died and several others were wounded in the course of the raid by the South African forces. Among the victims are women and children. I respectfully request the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana to convey to the families of the victims the deepest condolences of the French Government and my delegation. 94. The incursion perpetrated last week in Gaborone at the very moment the Council was meeting to remind South Africa of its international commitments regarding Namibian independence has served to remind us that the problems of southern Africa are closely interconnected. It is because of the welcome that has been granted South African refugees victims of apartheid that South Africa has struck Botswana, just as it struck Lesotho in December 1982 and Mozambique in 1983. How can one ignore the implications of such delitnce? 95. None of the problems of southern Africa can be solved by violence. Armed actions perpetrated in crossbordr r violence can in tto way mitigate the internal tensions caused by the policy of apartheid. 96. Several States of the &on have demonstrated that they ate ready to talk. South Africa showed respond in good faith to their opening and commit itself to the path of pacification. It has everything to gain by doing so, and a great deal to lose by not doing so. 97. France stands in solidarity with Botswana and its people in the present difftltia. We have no doubt whatsoever that the Seettrity Council will demonstrate the sup port the international community should 8ive this worthy nation, which simply wishes to live in peace. 98. My delegation will vote in favour of the draft .resolution submitted by the nonaligned members of the Council.

For the last two weeks, the Council has, for all practical purposes, been considering uninterruptedly various aspects of the dangerous situation in the southern part of ihe African continent as a result of the aggressive actions of the racist South Airican regime. Another victim of that aggressive poiicy, and not for the first time, is the sovereign, independent non-aligned State of Botswana. 100 The facts put forward in the statement made today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Botswana speak for IO 101. As a result of the bandit-like raid by the racists on the capital of Botswana on I4 June. I2 peaceable people died. including a six-year-old child, and significant material damage was caused. 102. In recent years. Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe. Botswana, Lesotho and the Seychelles have been victims of the international lawlessness of the racist Pretoria regime. The international community has repeatedly characterizcd the aggrtssive acts of Pretoria as a serious threat to intemational peace and security, and has condemned them. The most recent such condemnation came from the Council just yesterday. Clearly. the aggressive policy of South Africa with regard to African countries represents an evergrowing threat to the peoples of southern Africa and to the security not just of that region but of areas beyond it. It is also quite clear that recent events in Botswana and Angola are not isolated incidents; they are inseparable parts of the South African policy of force and pressure. of destabilization and terrorism against sovereign States of Africa-a policy of maintaining the criminal system of apartheid at any cost. 103. The ruling circles of South Africa are virtually boasting of openly ignoring the decisions of the Council. They have come to believe in the impunity of their agenssive actions because they can count on support from the Western Powem. They know that when it cornea to a vote, the Western Powers block the adoption of effective measures against the South African r&me and proteet it from the application of international sanctions. 104. In these temts it is indicative that, r@tt after the bandit-like raid on Gaborone, the commander of the South African fotees who planned and carried out that shameful action stated, with the d&mesa ofa mindless4y okdient soldk “We plan, if neeessa further operations of this sort in Rots& ‘L “Ps else”. Echoing him, the Minister for Fore&u Affaits ofthe racist r@ne., Mr. Botba, made threats a@tst the United Nations ri8ht after the Gaborone raid. He said that South Africa “will not tolerate intematiortal interferertee in its atfairs”. 105. In the opinion of the Soviet dele@on, it is the Council’s duty to use its w&n and authority to demand an immediate end to the aggnsdve actions of the racist !South African &me and to protect the sovereignty and independence of African countries. The Soviet Union sup ports the draft rcroiution submiitai by the non-aiigned countries, which contains a strong condemnation of Pretoria’s criminal action against Botswana. 1%. Mr, GUlSSOU (Burkina Faso) (Interpretatt~ from &en&)z The events are so self-explanatory that my deltga- 107. Sooner or later, with or without the blind support that Pretoria continues to teceive from its friends, which allows its increasing a~tessiveness, the people of tiuth Africa are going to tear down the o~rktisystem in their beloved country. There is a choke to he made, and my country has chosen the peoples over aparrlreld. 108. Such actions put our conscience to the test and force us to consider the question of whether a man is a man, with the same rights and the same duties, wherever he may II l7te meeting me at 1.10 p.m. NOTES 1 United Nntionr. Tirtuy srrkr. vol. 189. No. 2S4S. * Ibid.. vol. 1001. No. 14691.