S/PV.2607 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at the previous meeting, I invite the representative of Angola to take a place at the Council table; I invite the representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Cyprus, Guyana, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. de Rgueiredo (Angola) took a place at the Council table; Mr; Muriiz (Argentina), Mr. Maciel (Brazil), Mr. Moushoutas (Cyprus), Mr. Sinclair (Guyana), Mr. Fall (Senegal), Mr. von Schimding (South Africa)). Mr. Wgewardane (Sri Lanka) and Mr. Sikaulu (Zambia) took the places reservedfor them at the side of the Council chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Cuba, Greece and Qatar in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the 1 . . item on the agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Oramas Oliva (Cuba), Mr. Dountas (Greece) and Mr. AI-Kawari (Qatar) took the piaces reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

Members of the Council have before them document S/17481, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago.

I shall’ be very brief, since the facts speak for themselves. 5. It is indeed saddening that the Council has to meet repeatedly to discuss South Africa and its aggressive policy towards neighbouring countries. 6. During the Council’s deliberations on 20 June last on Angola’s complaint against South Africa, we already had a foreboding of the possibility of a renewed meeting in the foreseeable future. At that time there was ample evidence of a considerable concentration of South African troops in northern Namibia along the border with Angola. Our Angolan colleague established convincingly that these troops were going to be used in the future. Regrettably, this has now proved to be the case. 7. Whatever official explanation is given by the South African Government, there is no doubt that South Africa has yet again committed a blatant violation of Angola’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. South Africa’s, premeditated act of aggression against Angola is under all circumstances indefensible in international law. Denmark has repeatedly voiced its strong condemnation of South Africa’s behaviour. It‘ is encouraging to note that even within the white minority in South Africa itself this policy is now being called seriously into question. 8. In our view the Council must reiterate its strong condemnation of South Africa’s flagrant violation of Angola’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and of its utilization of the Territory of Namibia as a springboard for armed attacks against Angola. Furthermore, the Council should reinforce its demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all South African troops from Angola.

I shall also be brief. It is only three months since the Council was called into session to discuss South Africa’s raid against Cabinda. On that occasion, the Council, in resolution 567 (1985), strongly condemned South Africa’s actions and its use of Namibia as a springboard for armed aggression against Angola. 11. The Australian Government has never accepted that South Africa has any right to dispatch or station forces anywhere on Angolan territory without the consent of the Angolan Government. We therefore welcomed the announcement in April 1985 that South Africa had decided finally to withdraw its troops from southern Angola. Our hopes, however, have been sadly dashed. Once again, South Africa has mounted a cross-border mid into Angola in defiance of international law, in defiance of the Charter of the United Nations and in defiance of the resolutions of the Council. 12. South Africa’s duplicity has been exposed. Its policies of apartheid are tearing South Africa apart; its policies of regional destabilization in Mozambique, in Botswana and in Angola give the lie to its proclaimed wish for good relations in southern Africa. Its most recent attack, deep into Angola, does nothing to bring closer a peaceful settlement in Namibia. That option is available through Council resolution 435 (1978), which provides the means for an early and peaceful transition to independence. ’ 13. South Africa has chosen the path of the gun over the path of negotiation, and its representative had the effrontery in the Council today to try to justify South Africa’s action against Angola on the grounds that it was necessary to maintain stability in Namibia-a Territory which South Africa occupies illegally. 14. South Africa’s actions in southern Angola must be deplored by the international community. Australia unreservedly condemns these actions and calls on South Africa to cease all aggression against its neighbours.

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

I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the high offtce of President of the Council for the month of September. I also thank you and your colleagues on the Council for allowing my delegation to participate in this debate concerning yet another act of aggression by South Africa against the People’s Republic of Angola. 17. The Council last considered a similar complaint by Angola against South Africa barely three months ago. South Africa had the audacity then to dispatch its military forces to the Angolan Province of Cabinda and to sow IS. Now South Africa has committed aggression against Angola in the Province of Cuando-Cubango, more than 200 kilometres from the border with Namibia. Innocent Angolan lives have been lost. Other Angolan nationals have been maimed, and valuable property has been destroyed. 19. The South African act of aggression against Angola in the Province of Cabinda surprised and even angered South Africa’s friends in the Western world, coming as it did not long after the purported completion of the withdrawal of its troops from that country in keeping with the Lusaka agreement and, indeed, as vital American Gulf Oil installations were earmarked for sabotage and destruction. The Council, as did world opinion in general, strongly condemned South Africa and demanded an end to all such acts of aggression, as well as strict respect by South Africa for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. But, as it has consistently done since Angola’s independence, South Africa ignored the demand of the Council. It treated resolution 567 (1985) with contempt, as its present aggression against Angola clearly demonstrates. 20. South Africa, of course, always has a pretext for its mischievous conduct. It is a master at concocting excuses for its actions and will insist on them no matter how ridiculous they may be to reasonable people everywhere. Now South Africa is seeking to convince the world that it invaded Angola in pursuit of freedom fighters of SWAP0 (South West Africa People’s Organisation). That, in the twisted logic of the South African regime, should impress the world and legitimize the act of aggression itself. 21. We know from the facts vrovided by Angola that there was no contact at all between the SWAP0 freedom fighters and the South African troops of aggression, because the SWAP0 freedom fighters were simply not in the area invaded. South Africa attacked, killed and wounded Angolan soldiers. Its mission was to render support to the UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) forces fighting against the legitimate Government of Angola. That is, indeed, in keeping with the well-known position of South Africa in support of UNITA in Angola, the so-called Mozambique National Resistance Movement in Mozambique and other dissident elements in front-line and other independent States in the region. 22. But South Africa would still be guilty of aggression against Angola even if it had sent its troops to attack SWAP0 freedom fighters more than 200 kilometres inside Angolan territory. South Africa, which is illegally clinging to Namibia, has no right whatsoever, under any pretext, to violate the territory of Angola. 23. This is the same South Africa which, in order to perpetuate its illegal occupation, introduced the so-called linkage between the independence of Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Because of that 24. Angola has put before the Council a convincing case. By coming to the Council, Angola has once again demonstrated that it is a peace-loving State and a faithful Member of the United Nations. Zambia, needless to say, fully supports all the demands of Angola articulated in the statement by my brother, Mr. Ellsio de Figueiredo. For its part, Zambia strongly and unreservedly condemns South Africa’s latest act of aggression against Angola. 25. For many years the Council has been discussing the problem of South Africa’s acts of aggression against Angola and other independent countries in the region. For many years the Council has been discussing the problem of South Africa’s continued illegal occupation of Namibia. Indeed, the Council has been confronted with the problem of aparzheid in South Africa. Those three problems are the problems of our region of southern Africa. They are responsible for the absence of peace and security in the region and for the tension and turmoil that prevail. 26. In reality, the main problem of our region is apartheid. It is in defence of apartheid that South Africa relentlessly commits acts of aggression against, and destabilixation of, independent countries in the region. It is in defence of apartheid that South Africa persists in its refusal to yield to the demands of the Namibian people for freedom and independence. 27. The scourge of apartheid is therefore the heart and soul of the ,problems of southern Africa. Beyond any action that the Council may take in this specific case of the aggression against Angola, it is important that there be proper and adequate focus on the need urgently to take effective measures for the eradication of the evil system of apartheid in order to establish conditions of durable peace and security in southern Africa. Now is the time for the Council to act decisively, particularly in the light of the grave situation in South Africa. 28. In his report’ to the General Assembly on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations, the Secretary-General has suggested that the Security Council should, in the near future, make a deliberate and concerted effort to solve one or two of the major problems before it by making fuller use of the measures available to it under the Charter of the United Nations. Zambia fully agrees, and ventures to suggest that apartheid be one such problem for action by the Council. Only then will the probiems of southern Africa be resolved once and for all.

I thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the opportunity to express the views of Sri Lanka, Chairman of the Group of Asian States for this month, on the armed invasion of Angola by South African forces. The Council is indeed fortunate in having you, Sir, to guide its deliberations during the month of September, and I am sure we shall benefit from your wide experience and wisdom. Let me also express the thanks of my delegation to Mr. Troyanovsky of the Soviet Union for the exemplary manner in which he presided over the Council’s work last month. 31. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka participated in the Conference of Foreign Ministers of nonaligned countries, held at Luanda barely two weeks ago. Speaking on behalf of the Asian members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, he said: “The choice of Luanda as venue for the Conference is more than symbolic. It sharply focuses the attention of the non-aligned on the crisis that confronts the African continent. At the political level, Angola stands in the front line in the battle against apartheid and racist minority rule. The people of Angola deeply cherish freedom and resolutely oppose racism. This commitment has been demonstrated by Angola’s ceaseless battle to preserve its independence against the evil empire of apartheid.” 32. Angola must not be alone in its struggle against aparzheid. These meetings of the Council have been convened to draw attention to and take suitable international action against the acts of aggression being committed by Pretoria against the independent State of Angola. The rep resentative of Angola has given the Council a clear and detailed report of the aggressive actions that the South African regime has taken and continues to take in Angola. 33. My country, along with the other members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, has always deplored the actions of the minority Government of South Africa as it has continued to engage in acts of aggression against the front-line States, in the latest instance a fellow country member of the Movement, Angola. 34. The Council has demanded that South Africa scrupulously respect the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of Angola. Despite the resolutions that we have adopted and despite the universal condemnation heaped upon South Africa for its perfidious conduct in destabilizing Angola, the racist Government of South Africa continues to divert attention from its putrid policy of apartheid at home by forays which the international community condemns in unequivocal terms as the desperate acts of a doomed regime. 36. These aggressive acts and raids into the front-line States will no doubt be resisted by ,the peoples of those States. When aggression’ is heavily backed up with the exploited resources of an oppressed black people, such acts of aggression are all the more deplorable. Resources that could ‘be used to develop black southern Africa, which has suffered for so long, and provide it with some relief after the exploitation of penturies are now being .wasted in inhuman and. criminal forays against Angola on the spurious grounds that these are pre-emptive strikes, against an enemy which only the myopic leaders of South-Africa can see, sitting as they do on a powder barrel which might at any moment now blow up. _ 37. The leaders of the present South African Government demonstrate time and again their incapacity to recognize their, true purpose and continue to act narrowly in a single-track vision of their own claim to superior thought. ‘... 38. Without recognizing the legitimate claim of the black majority to their rights, as citizens of their country, to self-determination and independence, the white minority Government of South Africa continues to use its policies of apartheid both internally to oppress the black majority. within South Africa and externally to hurl brute force against the front-line independent States striving to liberate their peoples from the shackles of economic want and deprivation. 39. The non-aligned countries are committed to supporting the black majority people of South Africa against the racist policies that are being imposed on them by brute force. The non:aligned countries are deeply committed to ‘safeguarding the interests of the front-line States-and to protecting them against ,the armed aggression, expansionism and destabilization that the racist South African Government continues .periodically to launch ,against them. These periodic strikes and forays are, in our perception, the last desperate strikes of a regime that is doomed. No longer is the international community prepared to watch in stony silence these acts of aggression against Angola and the front-line States. 40. By its actions, &South African regime cainues to demonstrate that its credibility has dipped below the bottom line. The international community is not prepared to accept the hypocritical protestations of this racist regime that it is acting in self-defence. : 41. We are aware that the .front-line States, along with SWAPO, have co-operated, with the United Nations .and the Security Council at all times. They have borne a heavy burden .and are paying a bloody price for their patience. 42. Therefore, I have no hesitation, as the representative of a non-aligned country which has the highest respect and regard for the democratic process and for law and order, in calling upon the’Counci1 to put an end to the senseless inhumanity that the minority regime in South Africa -continues to practise. 43. bnce again, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of Sri Lanka and the Group of Asian States, of which I am Chairman for this month. 44.. Mr. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): On 20 June 1985, the Council was seized of the questfon’of the raid by South Africa’s ‘racist military force in the province of Cabinda, Angola. Resulting from its. deliberations at that, time, the Council unanimously adopted resolution ‘567 (1985), which condemned South Africa for that act of aggression against the territoryof Angola as well as for its renewed, intensified, premeditated and unprovoked acts of aggression against that country. The resolution demanded that South Africa unconditionally and immediately withdraw its occupation ,forces’ from the territory of Angola and cease all acts. of aggression against that State. Moreover, the Council decided to remain seized of thematter. .’ 45. Three months to the day after the unanimous adoption of that resolution, which signalled to the Pretoria regime the Council’s unreserved condemnation of. South Africa’s aggressive attacks on Angola, we are once more considering a South African military incursion against’ Angola. The raid by South Africa’s racist forces in southem Angola beginning on 16’September 1985 is but the latest in the long chain of aggressive acts and territorial violations by the apartheid regime against Angola and, indeed,’ against other neighbouring States in southern Africa. These unprovoked and persistent acts -of aggression constitute a flagrant and callous violation of intemational law. ‘_ 46. ‘Mv delegation wishes to register its total reiection of d the South Afi&an regime’s pretext for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. From the standpoint of international law, there is no inherent right to engage in military activity across one’s borders on the basis of that activity being a preemptive strike or hot pursuit. Accordingly, under contemporary international law there can be no-legality for ‘a military action or a military preemptive action across borders into the territory of another country. 48. The question, then, is what is to be done in this year of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, when Member States are seeking to reaffirm the role and authority of the,United Nations and of the Council in respect of the non-use of force in international relations and other principles of international law. What action must be taken against a State that constantly, persistently and callously disregards international law and the will of the intemational community in the area of the non-use of force in international relations? 49. The Trinidad and Tobago delegation wishes to’reiter-. ate that the appropriate mechanisms for taking action under these circumstances exist in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We are of the view that South Africa’s policy of aggression towards ‘Angola must be condemned unanimously by the’ Council. We of the Trinidad and Tobago delegation are convinced that a strong signal should be sent to the racist regime. It must be made abundantly clear that the international community will not allow a State, on the basis of an archaic and abhorrent theory of human relations or some, alleged manifest right, to use the Territory of Namibia as a springboard for perpetrating armed attacks or for the occupation of the territory of Angola. Such actions by South Africa threaten international peace and security. That a Territory for which the United Nations is responsible should be used in this manner by South Africa shows the callous nature of the racist South African regime..The Council must act with unanimity on the draft resolution before it and thereby dispel any illusions on the part of the uparrheid regime about the commitment of the Council to maintain intemational peace and security and fully to implement the Charter. Our actions in the Council today should serve as a clear and unambiguous warning to South Africa of the Council’s determination to oppose violations of intemational law relating to the non-use of force, and should also serve as a deterrent against future armed attacks by South Africa in Angola. 50. At a time when the apartheid regime is desperately seeking to divert world attention from its crumbling racist society and when, in the face of the inevitable demise of the apartheid system, the regime is attempting to bolster the waning confidence of the racist minority, it is imperative that the Council take decisive action now by instituting certain provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, The Council must condemn these acts of aggression. But condemnation has not so far proved a deterrent. The Council must unanimously decide that strong sanctions be imposed

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

‘It is a pleasure to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for the month of September, We are fully convinced that, with your well-known experience and diplomatic skill, you will successfully guide the deliberations of the Council. I should also like to take this opportunity to extend our congratulations to your predecessor, Mr. Troyanovsky of the Soviet Union. 53. This is the second time in three months that the, Council has met at the request ‘of the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola as a result of South African aggression. 54. On 20 June, the Council was informed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola of the aggression committed against Angola by South African insurgent forces. Despite the overwhelming condemnation by the intemational community of the racist regime of South Africa for its acts of aggression and destabilization against ‘the nonaligned neighbouring country of Angola, the Pretoria regime has paid no heed, instead, it is once again involved, as was lucidly described this morning by the representative of Angola, in a new escalation of aggression against his country-this time with the excuse’that it is defending itself from attacks by forces of SWAPO. 55. The South African regime, which maintains the largest and by far the best equipped military force in southern Africa, launches massive ground and air strikes against Angola, expecting the world to believe that that is done in self-defence. 56.. The contempt of the Pretoria regime for the international community and international law is well known, and has been condemned repeatedly by this body. 57. The termination of South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia and the establishment of the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority of the Territory until-independence make South Africa’s oppressive presence in the Territory illegal. 58. The fact that South Africa uses the Territory of Namibia as a springboard for military operations and other subversive acts against neighbouring States adds another dimension to its disrespect for international law and its contempt.for the international community. By intensifying its aggression against the front-line and neighbouring States and, in this particular case, against Angola, the apartheid regime of South Africa is aiming at intimidating those countries into submitting to political ,arrangements that would neutralize them as opponents of apartheid. Moreover, through this naked aggression the Pretoria 59. The latest round of military aggression against Angola clearly shows that the aparrheid regime has never been interested in peace and stability in the region. The assertion of South Africa that the ongoing military operations in Angola were undertaken to protect Namibia from attacks by SWAP0 forces must be considered totally unacceptable and to be a cover for Pretoria’s disrespect for the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Angola. 60. Only a few weeks ago, Angola hosted the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries, which considered, among other international issues, the situation in southern Africa. The Ministers condemned the continued occupation of part of Angolan territory by South African troops, declared that they considered that occupation as an act of aggression against the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries and demanded the unconditional withdrawal of the South African troops. 61. It is the Council’s duty to act firmly and effectively in order to put an e’nd to the South African aggression against Angola. The aparrheid regime must be made to understand in very clear terms that its aggression cannot be tolerated. Otherwise, international peace and security will continue to be seriously threatened, and the prestige of the Organization will be further tarnished. 62. To the people and Government of Angola, the people and Government of the Republic of Cyprus extend their fullest solidarity and support.

The next speaker is the representative of Argentina. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 64. Mr. mIZ (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. President, allow me to begin by congratulating you on your assumption of the presidency for September. Throughout the three years in which we have shared work together at the United Nations, my delegation has always appreciated your qualities as a gentleman and your diplomatic skill. These qualities have greatly facilitated the important work of the Council this month, 65. I also wish to congratulate the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Troyanovsky, on the equanimity and sense of responsibility with which he presided over the meetings of the Council in August. 66. At the same time, Sir, through you, I should like to thank the other members of the Council for giving me an opportunity to take part in this debate. 67. The critical situation in southern Africa is a subject of special concern to my Government which shares the anxieties of the international community as to the uncertain future of that important region. 69. During the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non- Aligned Countries held recentlly at Luanda, Governments represented there had a chance to see for themselves the seriousness of the situation created by the repeated armed attacks by South Africa against the sovereign territory of Angola. At the same time they were able to gauge the spirit of sacrifice of the Angolan people and their determination to resist those attacks unflinchingly. The paragraphs of the Final Political Declaration adopted by the ministerial Conference which were iead out this morning by the representative of India are eloquent testimony to the firm backing of the non-aligned countries for Angola in this difficult time. 70. The general situation in southern Africa is develop ing in a direction which is increasingly dangerous for international peace and security. The gravity of the global conflict covering the region cannot be disregarded, nor should it be minimized. Aparrheid and South Africa’s refusal to implement immediately and unconditionally the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia are the factors Ijrimarily responsible for this situation. As the General Assembly has repeatedly stated, the inhumane r&ime of apartheid, which every day subjects millions of human beings to the horror and degradation of racism, is an affront to the conscience of the world. In the closing phase of a century which has witnessed unprecedented social, political and technological progress, the survival of this anachronistic vice of intolerance is damaging not just to its most ‘direct victims but to the entire international community. 71. That same intolerance is impeding the long delayed independence of Namibia, unjustly denying the people of that Territory the exercise of their inalienable right to selfdetermination. The South African Government itself has acknowledged that the current aggression against Angola is aimed at tracking down and eliminating the forces of SWAPO, which has been recognized by the General Assembly as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. 73. Pretoria and those which advocate the continued existence of apartheid should realize that an harmonious and balanced way out of the present conflict will be possible only by means of a profound and fundamental change in the unjust internal order of South Africa. The South Africa Government should realize that rigidity and intransigence are the worst enemies of its own interests. It is the responsibility of the international community to ensure that that Government is persuaded of this fact. The actions which the Council may take will play a fundamental role in this context. 74. For our part, we have unilaterally taken measures in the diplomatic, economic, cultural and sporting spheres against South Africa. As long as aparrheid, the illegal occupation of Namibia and attacks against African States continue, Pretoria can only expect mounting support by my country, Argentina, for the legitimate struggle of the oppressed peoples of southern Africa to gain the full realiration of their inalienable rights.

The Council has met today urgently to consider the question of the recent acts of aggression by the racist regime of South Africa against the People’s Republic of Angola. 76. Just three months ago, on 20 June, the Council strongly condemned South Africa for its act of aggression against Angola and the gross violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country. It further strongly condemned South Africa for its utilization of the Territory of Namibia as a springboard for perpetrating its armed attacks against Angola, and demanded that South Africa should unconditionally withdraw forthwith all its occupation forces from Angola, that it cease all acts of aggression and scrupulously respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola. 77. Thus, the Council clearly and firmly stated its attitude to the aggressive actions by the racist regime of Pretoria and, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, described them as a threat to international peace and security. 78. How did Pretoria react to that clear condemnation of its actions by the Security Council, the body of the United Nations primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security? Not only did it disregard that decision by the Council, not only did it not put an end to its policy of aggression against independent Angola, but it significantly increased the scale of its aggressive war against that neighbouring sovereign country. . 79. Continuing the policy of State terrorism and armed intervention against its sovereign neighbours, the military 80. These criminal actions by the South African racists are a gross violation of the Charter and international law. This is a new escalation of the racist aggression against Angola. This act of aggression has increased the threat to peace and security not only in southern Africa but far beyond its borders. For many sovereign African States, it has increased the danger of war that constantly emanates from that hotbed of racism in South Africa. 81. By continuing this undeclared war against Angola, the Pretoria regime has defied the United Nations and the entire world community, which has demanded that an end be put once and for all to South Africa’s aggression against neighbouring sovereign States. 82. The statement by the representative of South Africa in the Council this morning has shown that the racist Pm-. toria regime is not demonstrating any readiness to heed the loud and clear voices of protest and corrdemnation in the Council. The Government of South Africa has turned a deaf ear to the demands of the majority of the States of the world and continues to issue threats against neighbouring countries; it presumes to act as an international policeman in Africa and is using Namibia, which it illegally occupies, as a springboard for the expansion of its aggression against its neighbours. 83. As before, the South African’racists have been trying to cover up their crimes against the African peoples by using hackneyed inventions about the Soviet-Cuban danger. 84. The aggressor has been acting cynically and treacherously, in the hope, which it still maintains,. that its outrages will go unpunished, that it will get away with them because it has influential protectors and supporters in the West. No one has any doubt at all that Pretoria would not dare to counter the will of the overwhelming majority of States in the world if it did not have the support of a number of Western Powers, primarily the United States, which has blocked in the Security Council the imposition against the racist South African regime of the effective collective enforcement measures that are clearly spelt out in the Charter. 85. The oral statements by some Western Powers, with references to regret and friendly chiding of Pretoria, and their trifling micro-sanctions delude no one, because these statements are at variance with their deeds, their real policies. Today too there are no real signs that the Western 86. These long overdue effective measures-and this has been repeatedly stated by African countries-can and must be the binding comprehensive sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. This has been repeatedly suggested by African and other countries in the Council. _- :, ’ 87.’ ‘:Those are,the facts; those. are the realities. 88. The Soviet Union decisively condemns the aggression of the South African racists against Angola and other African countries, and. also the military and political support given to Pretoria by :a number of countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in their attempts to break South Africa’s political isolation and to stand in the way of the imposition. against South Africa .of comprehensive binding sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. Our country expresses its solidarity with friendly Angola, with which the Soviet Union has a treaty of friendship and co-operation. . _- ‘-, ‘ 89. The Soviet Union appeals to all States and to ‘the Security Council to take effective measures that would force the racist regime to heed the demands of world public opinion, halt its policy of aggression and State terrorism against neighbouring States and abide by United Nations decisions on the granting of independence to Namibia. The Soviet Union calls for an immediate halt to aggression against Angola and for the withdrawal by the South African racist troops from the territory of Angola. 90. We are convinced that the Council should not confine itself to another mere condemnation of South Africa’s acts of aggression. It should take decisive, effective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter! This is necessary in order to maintain international peace. It is necessary in order to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola and the other States in southern Africa. It is necessary, finally, in. order to strengthen the authority of the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole and their influence in Questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Chinese delegation. has listened very carefully to the forceful complaint by the representative of Angola against the recent armed aggression into Angolan territory by the South African authorities. We express our indignation and strong condemnation of the acts of aggression by the South African racist regime. We also express our sympathy with and support for the Government and people of Angola, the victims of aggression. , 92. The South African authorities have for a long time occupied Namibia, using it as a springboard for the carrying out of repeated acts of aggression and .destabilization 93. On 16 September, South Africa once again dispatched troops to invade Angola, thus grossly trampling on the norms of international relations. This constituted a new threat to the peace and security of southern Africa as a whole. It was both necessary and timely for the Council to hold an emergency meeting to deliberate on this emergency situation. 94. The South African authorities, on the pretext of safeguarding their security, wilfully carry out aggression against their neighbouring countries. At the same time, South Africa claims that it is ready for peaceful talks. It accuses the African front-line States and national liberation organizations of disrupting the peace in this area. However, over the years its record on internal suppression and external expansion fully demonstrates that it is pre-. cisely the perverse acts of the South African racist regime that cause turmoil in the region of southern Africa. 95. The new acts of aggression committed by South Africa against Angola further demonstrate that, contrary to what it claims, South Africa has no intention of solving the problems of southern Africa through peaceful talks. It tries to use its armed forces to intimidate the weak and to violate the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the neighbouring countries. 96. At a time when the Conference at Luanda of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries had come to a close, when the fortieth session of the General Assembly was about to begin and when more and more countries in the world were condemning the South African authorities for persisting in their policy of apartheid and other eviI acts, South Africa once more launched aggression against Angola-; This is indeed an open challenge to the intemational community. : 97. The Security Council, as an important organ for the maintenance of international peace and security, must fulfil the functions entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations. It must demand that South Africa immediately. and unconditionally withdraw all, its forces of aggression’from Angola. It must also compel South Africa to implement all Security Council-resolutions. If South Africa persists in its obstinate position, then the Council should consider adopting appropriate measures as called for by the Charter. 98. The Chinese Government and’ people have ‘always resolutely opposed and strongly condemned the system of apartheid practised by the South African authorities, its acts of aggression and destabilization against a neighbouring State and its illegal occupation of Namibia. We maintain that, in the interest of peace and security in southern Africa, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of-Angola and other front-line States shot$d be respected. Namibia should be independent as soon as possible, and the system of apartheid of the South African regime should be abolished. ._ 100.’ The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the representative of Cuba. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 107. Angola and the other African countries which have been victims of systematic aggression by ,South Africa are entitled to live in peace and to devote all of thier resources to the rebuilding of their countries and to their social and economic development in the interest of the well-being of their peoples. It is high time that the Council which bears responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, allows itself to act in keeping with its mandate under the Charter of the United Nations. It is high time that the obstacles be eliminated so that the Council can apply against South Africa the sanctions provided for under Chapter VII of the Charter.

’ I wish first of all to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for this month. I also wish to express our gratitude to Mr. Troyanovsky, repre-. sentative of the Soviet Union, for the diplomatic skill and manifest ability with which he guided the work of the Council in August. 102. Once again, South Africa, by its aggressive and criminal policy, has obliged the members of the Council to convene, even though barely three months ago we saw with what indignation the international community responded to the cowardly and unsuccessful act of aggression carried out against Malongo, in Cabinda. 108. On this occasion, we wish to reiterate the unswerving solidarity of the people and the Government of Cuba with the fraternal people and Government of Angola, and we urge the international community to redouble its political, moral and material support for Angola in the,face of the brutal acts of aggression committed by the Pretoria racists. 103.. On this occasion, using unjustifiable pretexts and’ invoking the dangerous doctrine of preemptive strikes which is fraught with such grave consequences for international peace and security, the racist armed forces crossed the sovereign frontiers of the People’s Republic of Angola and pressed on 250 kilometres inside Angolan territory in order to carry out indescribable acts of brutality and their brand of State terrorism.

‘The next speaker is the representative of Greece. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement:

Allow me at the outset, Mr. President, to thank you and the members of the Council for acquiescing to my request to address the Council on the subject under discussion. 104. We listened to the explanation of the representative of the racist regime of Pretoria, who, this morning yet again, gave us an example of the unbelievable defiance and contempt with which the apartheid regime treats this lofty body. In a cynical manner, he lied as to the true motives behind this act of aggression, which was designed, first, to check the offensive of the forces of FAPLA (People’s Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola) against the bandits of UNITA in the south of Angola, where they have suffered heavy casualties in the last few months, and secondly, to divert the attention of the international community from the current situation in South Africa and the brutal and cowardly manner with ‘which the racist forces have killed hundreds of black citizens and gaoled and tortured thousands of people merely because of their opposition to the apartheid regime. Yet the ,representative of apartheid still has the gall to speak before the Council about freedom and violations of human rights. 111. I should like to avail ‘myself of this ,opportunity to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of ‘October. I am certain that with your wide experience and diplomatic skills you will successfully carry out your duties. . 112. I should like also. to extend my congratulations to the representative of the Soviet Union Mr. Troyanovsky, on the way in which, in his usual exemplary manner, he guided the deliberations of the Council last month. 113. Upon instructions from my Government, I have asked to speak to state before the Council the Greek position on the deplorable events which have led to the present meeting of the Council. I am referring to the raid into the sovereignty territory of the People’s Republic of Angola by armed forces of South Africa. We consider this armed intrusion an act of aggression, which we condemn, as we have consistently condemned all such acts of agression no matter where they have occured, no matter who the perpetrator has been. Such acts are in flagrant violation of the fundamental provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law in general and should not remain without consequences. + 105. How long will South Africa go on taxing the patience of the peoples? How long will racist South Africa continue to benefit from the pious and indulgent attitudes of certain Western countries, which thereby are merely encouraging the disciples of Hitler who hold the reins of power in Pretoria? 106. We salute all those who have sincerely adopted resolute measures against South Africa, and we hope that 115. This last ongoing invasion is not an isolated phenomenon. It falls within the pattern of South African palicy both in its domestic dimension and as regards its attitude towards its neighbours. On the one hand, South Africa attempts to show that it wishes better relations with its neighbours by signing agreement with them; on the other, it ignores the very agreements it has signed, and perpetuates its policy of aggression and destabilization. As long as South Africa continues to enforce internally the universally detested system of aparrheid, which deprives the majority black population of elementary human and political rights, and as long as it oposes the full implementation of Council resolution 435 (1978) with regard to Namibia, the situation in the whole of southern Africa will continue to deteriorate. The population of South Africa will continue to suffer immensely. The legitimate interests of its neighbours will be subject to its abuses. 116. We express the hope that the Government of South Africa will finally take the necessary steps in order that apartheid may be eliminated and the human and political rights of the population of South Africa restored.

The next speaker is the representative of Qatar, who wishes to make a statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Arab States for the month of September. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I should like to thank you for allowing me to participate in the deliberations of the Council on the item before us. 119. I will not repeat the details of the act of aggression committed against that African country detailed by previous representatives. It is important, however, that I reaffirm, on behalf of the Group of Arab States, that the acts of aggression by South Africa against the territory of a sovereign State Member of the United Nations, Angola, are a flagrant violation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international law on which is based the legal system of the international community. 120. The Group of Arab States strongly condemns these repeated acts of aggression. It is high time to put an end to those acts, to deter the aggressor State and to impose the sanctions provided for in the Charter so that that State ceases its unjust policies, returns to legitimacy and respects the provisions of the Charter. 121. The flimsy pretexts put forward by the South African regime are baseless and illegal. We have heard such pretexts concerning preventive attacks before in our region of the world. Israel has resorted to such flimsy pretexts in order’ to justify its acts of aggression against neighbouring 122. We are confident that the Council will shoulder its responsibility and adopt a strong resolution, consistent with the provisions of the Charter which reject the use of force in international relations and seek to safeguard international peace and security. 123. Mr. de KEMOULARIA (France) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, may I begin by joining my colleagues in expressing our great pleasure upon having you in the Chair, with the qualities which we know you to possess, and in wishing you full success at the presidency in a month which is so important in the life of the United Nations and, naturally, of the Security Council. 124. I should also like to join with those who have paid tribute to the representative of the Soviet Union, our friend and colleague, Mr. Troyanovsky, for his wise presidency and for the experience he lent to our proceedings. 125. For the second time in a few months, the Council is convened to consider a complaint from Angola against South Africa, which has unleashed a new armed attack on its territory. This policy of aggression, of which Botswana also was a victim last June, shows that serious tension in the region persists. 126. The operation launched by the South African armed forces in southern Angola from Namibian territory is a clear violation of international law. Hence, my Government most vigorously condemns this unprovoked attack. We demand the immediate withdrawal by South Africa of all its troops and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the People’s Republic of Angola. 127. We cannot accept the pretexts put forward by the South African Government, according to which this attack is to be viewed as preventive action against the forces of SWAPO. They do not threaten the territory of South Africa, and nothing authorizes Pretoria to conduct military operations in Angola in the name of the inhabitants of Namibia. 128. Whatever the objectives or the reasons given for these military operations by South Africa, they are directly linked with the continued illegal South African presence in Namibia and the refusal of the Pretoria Government to accept the immediate and unconditional implementation of resolution 435 (1978). In his report of 6 September 1985 [S/Z7444 to the Security Council on the implementation of resolution 566 (1985), the Secretary-General had to note that the South African Government maintained its position regarding the “linkage” of the implementation of the 129. Once again the French Government reaffirms its solidarity with the Government of Angola. We once again appeal to South Africa to put an end to the cycle of violence in southern Africa and to embark upon a course of dialogue and understanding with its neighbours in the region. It is therefore first and foremost important for South Africa to put an end forthwith to a military operation which-and let me strongly emphasize it again- France most strongly condemns.

The United States strongly deplores all cross-border actions. They are totally inimical to the search for peaceful solutions to the problems besetting southern Africa. We have communicated our concern and displeasure regarding this largescale South African incursion into Angola to the South African Government. It is the long-standing position of the United States Government as well as the international community that South Africa’s presence in Namibia is illegal. Consequently, we are not sympathetic to South .African assertion of any right to conduct military expeditions into Angola under the theory of defending its illegal presence in Namibia. We have asked that all parties in the border areas between Namibia and Angola act with restraint. 131. This has been and continues to be our position. We urge, therefore, the immediate withdrawal of South African forces.

As there are no more speakers, I should like to make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the UNITED KINGDOM. 133. The United Kingdom maintains friendly relations with the People’s Republic of Angola. No one is better placed to attest to this than the representative of Angola, who, to our pleasure, is also the Angolan Ambassador accredited at the Court of St. James in London. 134. The United Kingdom ‘sees no justification in the violation of Angola’s sovereignty andterritorial integrity by South African forces. Time and again we have expressed this view in debates in the Council on Angola. Time and again we have joined other members of the Council in calling upon South Africa to withdraw completely its forces from Angola and to respect Angola’s sovereignty. Time and again we have deplored all crossborder military actions, which cannot but undermine the prospects for peace and stability in the southern African region. As recently as June this year we expressed strong condemnation of the South African attacks on Cabinda in Angola and on Gaborone in Botswana. 135. Following the latest South African incursion into Angola, the Foreign and Commonwealth Offtce in London stated the British Government’s view as follows: “We urge South Africa to withdraw her forces at once. The British Government believes that the longerterm prospects for the security of the region depend on mutual respect for borders and on urgent progress towards implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) leading to internationally recognized independence for Namibia. “We are making these views known to the South African Goveinment through diplomatic channels.” There is. therefore. no ambiguity in our attitude to these deplorable events and no room for confusion about where the United Kingdom stands. 136. The reoresentative of Angola has properly seized the Council of this renewed attack, and the Council has before it a draft resolution [S/17481] with which we are in general sympathy and for which my delegation will vote. The text of the draft resolution does not fall within the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations nor constitute a formal determination thereunder, but it expresses in clear and strong terms the Council’s condemnation of the South African attack. My delegation does not interpret operative paragraph 5 as endorsing the intervention of combat troops from other countries in the affairs of the region. As is well known, my Government is concerned that any such intervention risks widening the conflict and is likely to exacerbate the problems of finding peace in the region. 137. However, I do not need to remind the Council of the United Kingdom’s support for the stability and territorial integrity of all the front-line States, support which has been expressed in a practical, effective and appropriate way by our bilateral assistance to those States over many years. 138. The United Kingdom accordingly hopes that the Council will adopt the draft resolution and that this will serve as a clear signal to the South African Government of the unambiguous views of the international community. We call upon South Africa to withdraw .its forces immediately. 139. I now resume my functions as PRESIDENT of the Council. 140. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. Unless I hear any objection, I shall now put the draft resolution to the vote. 141. I have been informed by the sponsors of the draft resolution of the following revisions: In paragraph 5 there is a small revision, which consists in deleting the words 142. In order to make this quite clear, I will read paragraph 5 as it now stands after the revisions: “Retie+ Member States urgently to extend all necessary assistance to the People’s Republic of Angola and other front-line States, in order to strengthen their defence capacity against South Africa’s acts of aggression;“. 143: ‘If there is’no objection,’ we will now proceed to the vote on the draft resolution as orally revised.

Could we possibly have, under rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure, a short recess to discuss this matter a bit further before we put it to a vote? ‘. 145.. The PRESIDENT: Does the Council agree with this request? I..

Is that possible under the rules of procedure, since we have started the process of voting?

I am open to expert opinion, but my personal understanding is that once the voting procedure has started, it should not be interrupted. However, perhaps in the circumstances, the request of the representative of the United States might be met.

How long would you intend this break to be, Mr. President?

Let us say 10 minutes.

Could we, through you, Mr. President, request all members of the Council to stay in the chamber or nearby so that we can reconvene in 10 minutes?

I am very clearly in favour of that proposal.

I presume it is understood that this will’not set a precedent or introduce any changes in the provisional rules of procedure.

That is certainly my understanding. In that case we will postpone the next step for 10 minutes. ” l2e meeting was suspended at 6.45p.m. and resumed at ZO.5 p.m.-

I wish to thank all the members of the Council for their understanding of my request for a short pause, as I have the slowest pencil in the West. 156. Since the only paragraph with which we have any difficulty is operative paragraph 5, I should like to ask whether, under rule 32 of the provisional rules of procedure, we could have a vote on paragraph 5 and then proceed with a vote on the rest of the draft resolution.

Is there any objection to that? There being no objection, it is so decided. I shall now put to the vote operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution as orally revised. A vote was taken by show of ham&. In favour: Australia, Burkina Faso, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, Madagascar, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great ‘Britain and Northern Ireland. Against: None. Abstaining: United States of America. Operative paragraph 5 of the &aft resolution as orally . revised was adopted by I4 votes to none, with 1 abstention.

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution as orally revised. A vote war taken by show of hands. The &aft resolution, as oraI& revised, was adopted unanimousIy [resoiution 571 (1985)]. 159. The PRESIDEm I call on the representative of Angola. 160. Mr. de FIGUEIREDO (Angola): On behalf of my delegation, I should like to thank you, Sir, and all those who spoke out in support of the Angolan position in connection with the South African aggression against my country and people. I also wish to thank all of our friends and well-wishers for the assistance rendered to us with regard to this meeting. 161. During the time between this morning’s meeting and this afternoon’s meeting of the Council, I wondered briefly whether it was at all worth our collective time and trouble for me to respond to the ludicrous issues and allegations contained in the statement made by the representa- 162. I wish to state very briefly that no Cuban intemationalist has ever crossed the borders of Angola. What the Government and people of Angola do inside our territory is entirely our own business. Angolan territory belongs to the Angolans. Pretoria’s assertions about “an increasing flow of evidence that SWAP0 was intent on staging some major terrorist operation” are so patently false that they need not have bothered with this feeble excuse. What increasing flow of evidence? What major operation? 163. The reputation of the South African armed forces, their military intelligence unit and their state security apparatus is so well known that “admissions” obtained by them are of no worth and would never stand up in any court of law except that of the racists and run by the racists. The mysterious “deaths” and “suicides” of people under racist detention are also a matter of international knowledge and public record. And the description of the present massive armed invasion of Angola has been described by the racists as “a follow-up operation”. Follow-up to what? Followup to the confession of a tortured Namibian patriot, even if the story of the arrest is true-which it is not? Follow-up to an imagined, unimplemented ghost operation? By whom, where, and when? 164. Even a cursory look at past Council records will reveal that the racists undertake a brutal invasion, and then, as soon as a Council meeting is called on the subject, they announce the “commencement” of the withdrawal of their troops. Sometimes the “withdrawal” takes years to complete, and more often than not it is never completed before yet another violent operation is put into effect. 165. My Government, my delegation and I myself have always had the highest regard for the proceedings of the United Nations, and in particular for those of the Security Council. We are conscious of the need for a serious approach, especially when the circumstances are so serious and even tragic. But without disturbing the seriousness of the intent, purpose and proceedings of the Council, may I be permitted to regale all members with a moment of levity. Can we sit here with serious faces while the representative of the racist, minority apartheid rkgime of South Africa-a country whose so-called Government is rejected by the majority of South Africans, a r&ime that kills children, little children, a rigime where the country’s majority is at war with its minority, a rkgime that denies even the basic human rights to the people it has systematically disenfranchised, a rkgime whose violence against the people of South Africa is daily displayed in the world press, in newspapers, on television, over the radio, a @ime which is fast 166. The “ravenous tiger” referred to by the racist representative is well known to him-it is none other than the animal of apartheid itself. And it is equally ridiculous to hear the Pretoria representative speak’ of “imperialism”, again a subject well known to him, since today the only imperialists in southern Africa are the South African racists. And when he says “we, the people of Africa”, surely he jests; for him, “we, the people of Africa” refers only to the minority that rules South Africa. When for the Pretoria racists “we, the people of Africa” really means the people of Africa, then there will be no further Security Council meetings on that subject. 167. In conclusion, I wish to thank all members of the Council once again. My Government is indeed gratified at the show of support it has received from the ,Council today. 168. The struggle continues. Victory is certain!

The United States welcomes the occasion of this Council meeting to reiterate our call for an immediate withdrawal of South African troops from Angolan territory. We join all the members of the Council in deploring the South African incursion into Angola. Acts of this nature can only-frustrate the hopes and endeavours of all those seeking peacefully to resolve the problems besetting southern Africa. 170. My Government is one of those convinced that southern Africa needs fewer guns, fewer soldiers and fewer bullets. What will the introduction of more weapons of war into the area-which would result from the implementation of paragraph 5 of the resolution we have just adopted-accomplish? The answer is simple: an escalation of violence .in an already volatile situation, more death, more misery. Our diplomatic efforts are aimed at the achievement of a peaceful settlement in this region. South Africa has no justification for violating Angolan sovereignty. Angola needs peace, not more foreign troops, foreign intervention and imported arms. ,’ 171. The United States supports the territorial integrity of Angola and deplores the fact that it has been violated. We call on South Africa to halt this and any further acts of aggression against neighbouring States. But we cannot vote in favour of a call to arms. For that reason, my delegation abstained in the vote on paragraph 5 of the resolution. Since the rest of the resolution was acceptable to us, I had no hesitation in voting for it.

The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on the agenda. 174. The Security Council has been seized with the Cyprus question since 1964. The members of the Council have been kept informed of the efforts begun by the Secretary-General in August 1984 as part of the mission of good offices entrusted to him by the Council. 175. On 20 September 1985, the members of the Council heard an oral report from the Secretary-General, in the course of which he conveyed his assessment that his initiative had brought the positions of the two sides closer than ever before and expressed his conviction that what had been achieved so far should lead to an early agreement on the framework for a just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus question in accordance with the principles of the 176. The members of the Security Council, therefore, call upon all parties to make a special effort in co-operation with the Secretary-General to reach an early agreement. The meeting rose at 7.25 p.m. NOTFS ’ Oflciat Records of the General Assembly. Fortieth Session, Supplement No. 1 (A/40/1). ’ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970). Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1971. p. 16.