S/PV.2616 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at the previous meetings on this item, I invite the representative of Angola to take a place at the Council table; I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Botswana, Cameroon, Cuba, Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President. Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola) took a pIace at the Council table: Mr. zarif (Afghanistan), Mr. TaIeb Ibrahimi (Algeria), Mr. Legwaila (Botswana), Mr. Engo (Cameroon), Mr. Malmierca Peoli (Cuba), Mr. Dinka (Ethiopia), Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani (Islamic Republic of Iran), Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwaiti, Mr.’ DOS Santos (Mozambique), Mr. Chamorro Mora (Nicaragua), Mr. Garba (Nigeria), Mr. Sarr4 (Senegal). Mr. von Schimding (South Africa), Mr. AI-Shaali (United Arab Emirates), Mr. Foum (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. Le Kim ‘Chtmg (Viet Nam), Mr. GoIob (Yugoslavia), Mr. SikauIu (Zambia) and Mr. Mangwende (Zimbabwe) 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 Ghana, Morocco and Tunisia in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s 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 Council’s provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Asamoah (Ghana), Mr. AIaoui (Morocco) and Mr. Bouziri (Tunisia) took the pIaces reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 4 October 1985 from the representatives of Burkina Faso, Egypt and Madagascar, which reads as follows: “We have the honour to request that during the Security Council’s discussion of the item entitled ‘Complaint by Angola against South Africa’, the Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Mfanafuthi J. Makatini, Head of International Department and Chief Representative of the African National Congress of South Africa to the United Nations.*’ If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Council agrees to extend an invitation to Mr. Makatini under rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure. It was so decided.

Members of the Council have before them document S/17531, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago. 5. The first speaker is the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 7. Like most States Members of the Organization, Tanzania learned with great dismay of the blatant attack by South African forces against the People’s Republic of Angola in the province of Cuando-Cubango. It is to be recorded that the Council is now meeting for the third time in less than four months to deliberate on South Africa’s aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola. 8. The Council has accordingly adopted a number of resolutions condemning South Africa, the latest being resolution 567 (1985), of June 1985, and resolution 571 (1985), adopted only two weeks ago. What is most obvious is that all those resolutions, expressing the will of the international community as represented in this body, have remained unheeded. Those were resolutions aimed at staying the aggressive hand of apartheid South Africa. This latest act of aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola is thus another violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles of international law. As such, it poses a threat to international peace and security. 9. For almost 10 years now we have all witnessed what has become institutionalized aggression against Angola by the fascist forces of South Africa. Thus, what is before the Council, or what the Council should face, is not merely the present act of aggression in itself. Certainly, the act of aggression is in itself an issue that must be universally condemned. In our view, however, what needs to be fully examined is the larger issue of what South African aggression against Angola represents, why South Africa is afforded aid and comfort by some members of the Council, and the dangers attendant upon the motives for which such aid and comfort are given to the abhorred and condemned regime of apartheid. 10. South Africa has left no doubt as regards its racial arrogance and the extent to which it would go to sustain the system of apartheid. It is within the same context that the Pretoria regime has continued its colonial occupation of Namibia and used. that international Territory as a springboard for aggression. 11. The Council will recall that South Africa has consistently used the so-called excuse of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) or the mirage of Communism to perpetrate aggression against Angola, as it has done against other neighbouring States. Subterfuge and double-talk and, above all, brute force have been the mainstays of the regime in its efforts to sustain its abhorred system and the colonial occupation of Namibia. 13. Angola has suffered aggression now, just as it has suffered aggression before and may suffer it again if these larger issues are not fully addressed. Angola has suffered aggression because South Africa is determined, in a manner apparently much admired by those that support it, to undermine Angola’s freedom and sovereignty. Angola has suffered aggression at the hands of apartheid South Africa because, ever since the people of Angola won their freedom, imperialism has pursued every means available in an effort to change Angola’s institutions and the very fabric of the society the Angolan people are trying to forge for themselves. 14. With the aid and comfort afforded it by supporters, apartheid South Africa today represents all that is dangerous and that threatens peace and security in the region. Apartheid South Africa has arrogated to itself the role of regional gendarme and is acting as the surrogate of imperialism. 15. The representative of Angola has eloquently presented to the Council the facts of the latest attack on Angola [2612th meeting]. It has thus been shown that even the spurious excuse of pursuing the SWAP0 militants is no longer being advanced. That latest act of aggression was an act directly aimed at assisting the bandits of UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola), who are South Africa proteges, organized, financed, armed and launched by the apartheid regime to undermine the freedom and sovereignty of the People’s Republic of Angola. 16. The dangers inherent in such policies and practices must be clear to all. In seeking to cross borders with a view to supporting bandits and subverting the institutions of the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola, South Africa has acted in much the same way as those that, acting on the dubious concept of so-called hot pursuit, have violated the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of States in Central America, in the Middle East and, most recently, in North Africa, where Tunisia suffered a cowardly bombardment. 17. We consider the latest act of aggression against Angola to be part of an institutionalized concept of aggression, part of a pattern for the subversion of the region by imperialism. It is thus a dangerous escalation of the 19. The United Nations has the duty, through the Security Council, at this stage, to ensure-the ob&vance of norms necessary for peace and security. The People’s Republic of Angola has been before the Council on a number of occasions demanding action to stay the hand of the aggressor. The general membership of the Organization has on a number of occasions demanded action to eradicate the system of apartheid, which is the cause of the aggression. Apartheid is itself aggression. It is a permanent assault on the freedom, the dignity and the very humanity of the blacks of South Africa and of the region as a whole. The Council is the highest international institution, and can, given the co-operation of all its members, ensure observance of the decisions of the Organization for peace and security and for freedom, sovereignty and territorial integrity. 20. We therefore join those who have done so before us in demanding that South Africa be made to pay for the loss of life and damage to property, sustained by Angola. More important, however, we consider it high time for the Council to take action to ensure that apartheid South Africa no longer commits aggression. To that end, it is our hope that the Council will take appropriate action under Chapter VII of the Charter and impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the apartheid regime. To do otherwise, to fail to act firmly and with conviction, can only send the wrong signals to a regime universally abhorred and internationally condemned. That would be tragic. For that reason the Council will take action, we hope, as already demanded by the People’s Republic of Angola and as dictated by the real threat to peace and security caused by the policies and practices of the apartheid regime.

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

Mr. President, I welcome you to the United Nations. My delegation is pleased to see you presiding over the affairs of the Council during the month of October. Your mastery of many languages-American, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Brazilian, Russian and others-will, I am convinced, help you understand the cries and plight of our women and child- 23. I also wish to pay a tribute to your predecessor, Sir John Thomson, who, with Shakespearian language and wisdom, handled the Council’s affairs last month. 24. It would be remiss of me not to express my delegation’s gratitude to you and to the other members of the Council for the opportunity given to me to address it. 25. Africa is once again the victim of barbarous aggression perpetrated by two equally barbarous, blood-thirsty regimes: the apartheid regime and Israeli regime. The two regimes shudder at any prospect of peace, for peace would mean their demise. They fear peace as one fears cyanide, for it kills in seconds. Aggression is as essential to their existence as oxygen is to human beings. 26. The cyanide time-bomb has been ticking during the past several months in the Middle East, and Israel was thrown into utter confusion, for it was not able to deal with it effectively. Finally it found a way by throwing it at innocent people in Tunisia. The target was carefully chosen in order to arouse the utmost disgust and thus derail the peace process. Had the attack been carried out against Lebanon, it would probably not have aroused so much horror, for the world seems to have accepted such acts there as a matter of fact. 27. The two regimes carried out their aggression almost at the same time against the same continent, killing almost the same number of people. Both regimes arrogate to themselves the right to kill Palestinians and Africans whenever their warmongering fancy takes them. 28. Just a few days ago, the international community learned with a profound sense of shock of the barbaric and cold-blooded attack against Palestinians and Tunisians in Tunisia carried out by the regime of Israel. The attack on Tunisia constituted a gross violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia and a threat to international peace and security. The international community, rightly, has strongly condemned that dastardly act. The People’s Republic of Mozambique vehemently condemns that barbaric act and expresses its solidarity with the people and Government of Tunisia. 29. The People’s Republic of Mozambique reaffirms its support for and solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization and its legitimate struggle. 30. The people of Angola has once again been the victim of armed aggression perpetrated by the apartheid regime of South Africa. Once again the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola have been violated. The Charter of the United Nations, the resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, the organ primarily responsible for the mainte- 32. The South African aggression against Angola is also part of the whole process of destabilization carried out by South Africa against the countries of southern Africa, particularly the front-line States. 33. South Africa has perpetrated aggression against Angola, Mozambique, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Seychelles. Using armed bandits which it itself recruited, trained,. armed and infiltrated, the apartheid regime is waging an undeclared war against our countries. 34. Armed banditry is an operational weapon .in the hands of the Pretoria regime to massacre defenceless populations, to destroy the social and economic infrastructures of the countries of the region and to hinder the economic development of these countries. The South African Development Co-ordination Conference-the expression of the countries of the region in regard to economic development and co-operation-has fallen victim to systematic sabotage. 35. The latest in the long chain of aggressive acts against Angola by South Africa came at a moment when the armed forces of Angola have been inflicting heavy blows on UNITA on the military front. Indeed, military operations carried out by the Angolan armed forces against the bandits of UNITA have led to the virtual destruction of the sanctuaries of the latter. In this context, the recent South African acts of aggression should be seen as aimed first and foremost at rescuing UNITA from total annihilation and at supplying these bandits with more military equipment for them to carry out their massacres against civilian populations and to destroy the economic and social infrastructures of Angola. As is well known, these armed gangs could not survive without the backing of the Pretoria regime for which they work. 36. The aggression .against Angola was most probably also carried out in order to distract world public opinion from the crimes apartheid is committing against innocent and defenceless people in South Africa itself. 37. It is therefore incumbent uuon the Securitv Council and the United Nations as a whole to act decisively to bring to an end these systematic acts of war against the countries of southern Africa. 39. .What the people of Angola are expecting from the Council is not just one more resolution. International peace and security cannot be safeguarded by a resolution or by resolutions. It demands concerted and decisive action to translate into practical steps what the resolutions contain. 40. The people of Angola, like our people, cherish peace and reject everything that is against this noble .objective. For centuries the people of Angola had been subjected to brutality and colonial violence. To their quest for justice, freedom and dignity,. the colonial fascist had always responded with systematic massacres. When the MPLA (People’s Liberation Movement of Angola) was created, it gave preference, first and foremost, to dialogue and negotiations as the means to regain the dignity, freedom and independence of the people of Angola. The armed struggle that was to be launched later on did not represent a break with or the abandoning of this desire for dialogue, It came as the only reasonable and possible alternative, in order to preserve the people’s lives and their freedom and their. dignity in the face of the colonial-fascist intransigence. 41. After their hard-won independence, the people of Angola sought nothing but to consolidate their victory and devote all their efforts to national reconstruction. 42. It is in this context that, despite South African aggression, the People’s Republic of Angola and the People’s Republic of Mozambique have not abdicated their principles of peaceful coexistence and their search for peaceful solutions to the problems affecting the region. 43. As for South Africa, its criminal record is well known to the international community and, naturally, to the Security Council and the United Nations in general. Apartheid has been declared a crime against humankind. 44. In southern Africa, the cyanide grenade has been in place since 1969, when the Manifesto on Southern Africa’ was adopted-a manifesto that proposed a peaceful solution to the apartheid system, thus sparing the region from cataclysms and bloodshed. The proposals may have been advanced far ahead of their time. Neither South Africa nor its friends would accept them. South Africa seemed mighty strong and was on the verge of becoming even stronger with its friends’ brotherly counsel and multifaceted and generous help. A military solution was seen at that time as the best answer to preserve this last bastion of Western civilization, with its rich mineral resources, in that part of our continent. South Africa was armed to the teeth. We are now reaping the fruits of that policy. ._ 45. In the last two years, important peace initiatives have been embarked upon in southern Africa. South Africa was seen as liking to take all its clothes off before the whole 46. We have always known and stated the racist South 51. Mr. MOHAMMED (Trinidad and Tobago): The African’s true intentions. Now they cannot hide them. Council is considering yet another South ‘African armed They are now publicly acknowledging their breach of attack on the People’s Republic of Angola. This latest accords and understandings they have entered into. Acts attack, carried out on 28 September 1985, was a particuof aggression against Angola and Mozambique are no larly vicious one, in that over 200 Angolans were either longer justified in terms of hot pursuit but in terms of killed or wounded by the South Africans. The attack typipropping up their agents and puppets, the defeat of which fies the persistent, hostile, unprovoked acts of aggression they are not prepared to countenance or accept. They are and the sustained armed invasions committed by the racist now publicly asserting that their aggressive troops .are regime of South Africa in violation of the sovereignty, air likely to continue not only to carry out their aggression but space and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of to occupy any .neighbouring States until what they call Angola. foreign troops are removed. 52. Early in our debate [2622th meeting], the representative of the South African minority regime contended that 47. Now nothing can be hidden even from those who at the attack was undertaken against Angola in the defence of one time or another chose to be blind to the true nature of liberty, in the context of the East-West ideological confronapartheid. It has finally started the precipitous descent of tation and in order to permit the self-determination and the steep slopes of the Himalayan mountain with no possiindependence of Angola. Coming from a country which bility of returning to the top, for as it descends the mounpractices the abhorrent policy of apartheid, with its built-in tain its speed increases at an exponential rate and it can system of denial of self-determination to the majority of stop only when it crashes in the valley below, plunging the the population, such a contention is totally baseless. The area into a bloodbath. Once set in motion, the body canminority Pretoria regime cannot presume to articulate the not stop itself at mid-slope, nor can it be stopped by anywill and interests of 31 million oppressed and politically one else. No wonder, then, that racist South Africa seems disenfranchised South Africans and Namibians living to be oblivious of its own interest. In its descent it will under apartheid. In any event, there is no legal justification undoubtedly uproot both young sprouts and old trees. As under the Charter for the violation by South Africa of the apartheid regime becomes more and more desperate in Angola’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. its attempt to preserve itself, the use of chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction will become an 53. South Africa’s attack against Angola was undertaken increasing possibility. It may even take to its death some of as a means of strengthening its hold on Namibia. Namibia the stones that are now desperately trying to cushion its is illegally occupied by South Africa, and South Africa’s fall. But keep in mind also that the stones, once they reach aggression is compounded by its actions taken to maintain the valley below, cannot go up the slope again; however, its illegal occupation of the Territory by launching armed new sprouts will spring up on the entire slope to give life to attacks on Angola from Namibia and by occupying parts new and vigorous plants of freedom and independence. of Angola’s territory. _, .‘: ‘. 48. The imposition of the state of emergency is nothing but a desperate attempt by the regime to avoid the 54. South Africa’s premeditated and unprovoked attack unavoidable. As expected, the state of emergency has not against Angola and its continuing occupation of parts of brought about the results the racist regime expected. It has, the territory of that State constitute a flagrant violation of instead, strengthened the people’s detestation of apartheid. the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country and ought to be strongly condemned by the Council. My delegation reiterates its call on South Africa to cease its persist- 49. Tbe struggle of the South African people is expeent acts of aggression against Angola, to remove forthwith riencing one success after another. South Africans of all its military forces from Angolan territory and to respect colours and races come out barehanded to face the apartthe territorial integrity and independence of Angola. heid repressive machinery-the police and the army. The foundations of a new South African nation are taking 55. The deteriorating situation in southern Africa, with shape.lNo force can deter the determination of the South its wider implications for international peace and security, African people to free ,themselves from oppression and must be addressed effectively by the Council. The Council brutalization. should reaffirm the right of the People’s Republic of Angola, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, to 50. Namibia’s independence is as inevitable as the rising take all measures necessary to defend and safeguard its of the sun. Justice, freedom, majority rule and democracy sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. will prevail in South Africa. The People’s-Republic of Angola is there to stay, whether South Africa likes it or 56. The Council should also impose mandatory sancnot. This is not a dream. Nobody can stop’the wind with tions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Char- 57. In conclusion, the Trinidad and Tobago delegation expresses the hope that the Council will take a unanimous decision against South Africa as a way of demonstrating to the apartheid regime the Council’s displeasure with that regime’s consistent violations of the Charter and of the resolutions of the Council, as exemplified by this latest attack on Angola.

The Security Council has been compelled to meet again to consider an act of aggression carried out by the South African armed forces against the People’s Republic of Angola. Just a week after the adoption of resolution 571 (1985), in which the Council, inter alia, strongly condemned “the racist regime of South Africa for its premeditated, persistent and sustained armed invasions of the People’s Republic of Angola”, the South African air force carried out raids into Angolan territory in support of racist soldiers who had come to the aid of the UNITA puppets who were experiencing difficulties as a result of the advance of Angolan Government troops. The facts, as reported by the representative of Angola and by the press, are serious: about 60 soldiers of the people’s liberation armed forces were killed and six helicopters were shot down. 59. South Africa’s latest act of aggression against Angola is one part of the well-known hostile policy of the racist regime of Pretoria towards the independent African States of the region. To entrench its domination in southern Africa, South Africa has committed many acts of sabotage and political and economic destabilization. It is supplying financial and military assistance to so-called liberation movements ,which are fully in its pay and to dissident groups to enable them to attempt to overthrow the legitimate Governments, whether of Angola, Mozambique, Botswana or Lesotho. All this is crowned by the systematic use of direct military aggression against these countries. All these measures of intimidation unquestionably constitute aggression within the meaning of article 3 of the Definition of Aggression annexed to General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX), and pose a real threat to peace and security in the region, and hence in the world. 60. Whatever South Africa’s explanations in its attempt to justify its latest act of aggression, there is no doubt that it has yet again carried out a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola. The racist regime’s arrogance and hypocrisy pass beyond tolerable limits when we hear its representative insult the wisdom of the Council and dictate to us the conditions for Angolan national reconciliation and for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of that country. 61. It is South Africa, and South Africa alone, which for the past 10 years has been attempting not only to destabilize the legitimate Government of Angola but also to throt- 62. In fact, assured of an unsavory impunity and imbued ” with its arrogance, South Africa is trying to impose on the States of the region its wrong view of the world and international events to force them to depend on its military and economic power. Respect for international law and strict implementation of the Charter are basic obligations for all States, and in many resolutions we have recognized Angola’s right to take, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, in particular Article 51, all necessary steps to defend and safeguard its sovereignty and its independence. We have also condemned South Africa’s illegal occupation of Namibia and the use of it as a base for the launching of armed attacks against Angola. 63. We have seen that the deeds ascribed to the apartheid regime have not been denied at all, and no attempt at rational justification has been made, save to give us arguments that have been heard so many times, but never taken seriously, about what Pretoria thinks about democracy and about the rearguard action conducted against the irreversible course of history. 64. It is true that because they are shut up in an intellectual and political ghetto they no longer manage to see the facts, except through the distorting mirror of an obsolete fundamentalism. 65. By what right can South Africa claim to speak for the aspirations of the Angolan people? What provision of international law allows it grossly to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign, independent State and to advocate the overthrow of a legitimate Government that has been internationally recognized? What right does South Africa have to take upon itself the way in which Angola intends to defend itself, to safeguard its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and to conduct its policy according to a system it has freeiy chosen? 66. Again we seem to be hearing the voice of the master ordering his slave to do what he wants, and only what the master wants him to do. We should know that South Africa is a power foreign to Angola, and not yet its tutelar power. We most. strongly reject South African hegemonism, this new aspect of imperialism, which would undermine peace and stability for its sole advantage. A little modesty, a little restraint, a little logic would be appropriate-unless these concepts are unknown in the land of apartheid, which would not surprise us. 67. Naturally we feel solidarity with the people of Angola, to which we reaffirm our fraternal sympathy. We unreservedly condemn the latest act of aggression perpetrated by South Africa against Angola. We believe it is time for the Council to take specific measures to have its resolutions complied with, particularly at this fortieth 68. It is in this spirit that we, along with the delegations of Burkina Faso, Egypt, India, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago, have submitted the draft resolution now before the Council in document S/17531.

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 begin by congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. I am confident that, with your rich diplomatic background, you will preside over the Council with great skill and a sense of purpose. 71. May I also congratulate the representative of the United Kingdom, Sir John Thomson, on the able manner in which he presided over the Council Iast month. 72. It is rather remarkable that until last Friday, when it adopted resolution 573 (1985), the Security Council was alternately considering two serious cases of aggression committed almost at the same time against two African countries, Angola and Tunisia. The acts of aggression against Angola and Tunisia have been committed by two regimes, those of South Africa and Israel respectively, known to be close friends and collaborators in the military field. 73. Both regimes are famous for their intransigence, for their arrogance and utter contempt for the United Nations, including the Security Council. Indeed, both regimes have no regard for the norms of international law, which they break at will, relying heavily on their awesome military might. Through the use of force, the Pretoria and Tel Aviv regimes’ delude themselves into believing that they can evade the fundamental issues of apartheid-and minority rule in South Africa and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine. 74. The challenge before the Security Council is simply this: does it continue to deal with the effects of the conflicts in southern Africa and the Middle East, or is it not time that it became more realistic and found solutions to the problems of apartheid and minority rule in South Africa and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in the Middle East, which are the root causes of the conflicts and which therefore will have to be resolved for justice and conditions of durable peace and security to prevail in both regions? 75. It is only a few days since the Council met to discuss the invasion of Angola by the racist regime of South 76. Today, the Council is meeting to consider yet another unprovoked act of aggression by the unrepentant Pretoria regime. Once again we have South Africa, defiant as ever, invading a loyal and committed State Member of the United Nations. More innocent lives have been lost, more property has been destroyed, and tension in the area has been heightened. 77. This new act of aggression, much in the pattern of its predecessor, has been committed in spite of the demand by the Council that South Africa cease all acts of aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola and respect Ango la’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Resolution 571 (1985), unanimously adopted by the Council two weeks ago, has been ignored by South Africa. And this is not the first time that the racist regime in Pretoria has totally and with impunity ignored the well-intentioned decisions of the Council. 78. The racist South African regime has more than amply demonstrated that it is determined to continue to kill innocent men, women and children, not only in South Africa but also in neighbouring countries, and to continue to pursue its policy of violence and destabilization in the region, in defence of its inhuman and satanic system of apartheid. Yet all of us in the international community, indeed all the members of the Security Council, with as much regularity, state our opposition to apartheid. Our words against apartheid, which have filled volumes, have not been enough; they have been aimed at an impervious regime and have had no impact on it at all. 79. The South African regime is clearly not in a position, to listen to the voice of reason. It has buried its head.in the sand and deliberately refuses to see the serious repercussions of its policy of apartheid, which propels it to commit violent actions both inside South Africa and in neighbouring countries. That same policy of apmtheid is responsible for South Africa’s continued stranglehold over Namibia. South Africa clings to Namibia illegally in order to continue using it as a buffer for apartheid and a springboard for committing acts of aggression against independent African States which oppose apartheid. 80. The time has come for the Security Council to ponder seriously about how to deal with the problem posed by the policies and practices of apartheid of the South African regime. There must be a credible alternative to the mere passage of resolutions of admonition or condemnation which are honoured only in the breach by the Pretoria regime. The Council should tell South Africa in no uncertain terms that enough is enough, and adopt 81. South Africa must no longer be allowed to continue to feel that, in spite of pronouncements.critical of apartheid, in reality it continues to enjoy tacit political support from some major Western Powers. And decisive action against South Africa would also be the best repudiation by 3 those same major. Western Powers of the all-too-frequent assertions by ‘the Pretoria regime that it is the annointed custodian of Western interests in southern Africa. Well, it would indeed be unwise, if not foolish and short-sighted, for a regime which is sure,to crumble to be entrusted with such a responsibility. The Pretoria regime simply has no future; it will not be there much longer to. protect the interests of its friends and allies. The opponents of apartheid, the oppressed masses of South Africa, possess the key to long-term, fruitful and co-operative relations between South Africa and the rest of the world. 82. While we appreciate the imposition of limited sanctions against South Africa by some countries, we feel that those sanctions have not gone far enough. What is needed is the imposition of comprehensive, mandatory sanctions against South Africa. Only in this way will the intemational community express its real displeasure at the atrocities being committed by South ‘Africa and expect meaningful change away from apartheid in South Africa. More than ever before, there is need now for comprehensive, mandatory,. sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter as an available peaceful means to bring about change. Let no country pretend otherwise, for the alternative is a bloodbath in South Africa of unimaginable proportions. 90. In the light of these breaches of the norms of intemational law and the Charter of the United Nations, the international community, and first and foremost the Security Council, must react firmly and resolutely against the Pretoria racists by adopting against them the necessary comprehensive mandatory sanctions as provided. for in Chapter VII of the Charter. Burkina Faso h convinced that it is high time this was done. Countries that continue to’ refuse to do this are playing into the hands of South Africa, which takes advantage of their hesitancy and irresolution in order to violate with impunity the most elementary ,rules of international law ,and the provisions bf the Charter.’ I’:. / 85. Beset from within by movements in opposition to apartheid, incapable of dealing in a responsible manner with the legitimate demands of the immense black majority for freedom, justice and equality, the racist authorities of Pretoria believe that they are gaining time and prolonging their existence by brandishing the spectre of an imaginary external threat. This kind of conduct, which is peculiar to moribund and practically bankrupt regimes, is well known; it is no surprise to us, any more than it surprises all those who have been closely following developments in South Africa.’ ‘I . 83. We the people of southern Africa want peace, but there can be no peace, there can be no stability and there can be no security in our region until the scourge of apartheid is completely eliminated. -, ,‘.. 1.

The racist minority regime of South Africa has once again drawn ‘itself to the attention of .intemational public opinion through its policy of systematic and premeditated aggression against the independent countries of southern Africa. : 87. The most varied appeals have been made to racist South Africa calling upon it to abandon apartheid and to put .an end to the oppression and repression of the black majority and to seek a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the problems of southern Africa, in accordance with the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all to no avail. There has been an increase in the acts of : aggression against independent African States. i ‘ 88. For Burkina Faso the underlying meaning of such violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the front-line States is to be found in the broader context of South Africa’s constant defiance of the world, in its attempt to justify its repression of the black African majority, the continuation of its colonial presence, the exploitation of Namibia’s wealth <and the systematic policy of destabilization of the countries of the region. 89. What has been happening in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and now Angola-in other words, the terror constantly being inflicted upon southern Africa by the racist Pretoria regime-is based on one and the same logic, that of .an apartheid regime attacked on all sides and now dug into its last remaining positions, a regime that believes that it can ensure its survival only by blind violence and systematic lying. 91, Such contemptuous behaviour by the racist Pretoria Government is curiously reminiscent of the behaviour of the Nazi authorities on the eve of the Second World War. By yielding to Hitler’s whims, the allied Powers of the day eventually convinced him that he could press ahead with his expansionist and annexationist aims ,in Europe and elsewhere in the world. By the time it was realized, that it was necessary to mobilize and confront the forces of Hitlerism it was already too late, and, widespread war had become inevitable. 93. The new act of aggression against Angola testifies to the survival of the vestiges of the forces of apartheid, racial discrimination and colonial tyranny, and to their stubborn resistance to the forces of change. 94. As the international community commemorates the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second Worid War, we should reflect on the lessons it drew therefrom in order not to repeat the same mistakes. With regard to South Africa, the mistake would be to continue to believe in any way in the good faith of the Pretoria leaders and to remain, silent in’ the face of their deeds. .’ 95. The PRESIDENT: The next speaker is the represenT tative of Ethiopia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. . . 96. Mr.. DINKA (Ethiopia): I should like at the outset to express the gratitude of my delegation to you, Mr. President, and to the other members of the Council for affording us the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I should also like to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of October. We have no doubt that your wide experience and proven abilities will contribute to meaningful consideration of this item. 97. I also express my appreciation to Sir John Thomson, representative of the United Kingdom, for the able manner in which he guided the work of the Council last month. 98. Once again the Council has been convened to con:. sider South African aggression against the territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola. In spite of the anger expressed by the international community and the Council’s condemnation barely two weeks ago of the cowardly acts perpetrated by the racist regime of Pretoria against Angola, the same racist regime has again had the audacity to mount yet another attack against the territory of the sister Republic of Angola. As in the past, the racist regime has advanced fr’ rolous excuses to justify the unjustifiable.‘ We are being told that such raids are‘ conducted with the aim of forestalling any possibiIity.of an attack by SWAPO, although it is well known to one and all that it is the oc&pation forces of South ‘Africa which have used Namibian territory to wage war on the People’s Republic of Angola, with the express purpose of saving from total defeat the renegade UNITA bandits. , 99. The truth is that, having failed to reverse the tide of history within the confines of South Africa, the terrorist 100. For how long can the African countries neighbouring South Africa live under such a state of terror and intimidation? For how long are those countries to be victims of arrogant sabre-rattling by the apartheid regime? 101. With the mounting opposition to ‘apartheid, especially in those Western countries whose Governments* collaboration with the racist regime is well known, we had hoped that those Governments would heed the unequivocal voices of their own populations and prevail upon the apartheid regime, which they have for long mistakenly perceived as an ally and the bastion of Western civilization. We had entertained the hope that the time had come for those. countries to take concrete steps against the’,illegal conduct of that regime with a view to compelling Pretoria to desist from such banditry. It seems our hopes were vain. , 102. It is a sad commentary on the efficacy of the Security Council ‘that the South African regime has found it expedient to violate the territorial integrityOof a Member State at a moment when all peace-loving nations are enthusiastically celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the United’Nations. ” , .: .,. ,,. .,. 103. If these unwarranted acts of banditry are allowed to continue unchecked, the racist regime is bound to intensify its aggression against the front-line States. It is abundantly clear that the front-line States cannot face alone the challenges posed by the repeated aggression and the destabilization schemes of Pretoria. All nations committed to the maintenance of peace and security and loyal to the fundamental principles of the Charter and the basic tenets ,of international law must join hands in confronting South Africa and its, belligerent conduct in a credible manner; > ,. 104. In this tionnection, we appeal once ,again to the Security Council to take concrete*enforcement measures against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. While expressing our solidarity with the Government and people of the People’s Republic of Angola at this trying moment, we urge the Council to shoulder its responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Barely two weeks have elapsed since the Security Council ,last considered the question of the acts of aggression by the racist regime of South Africa against Angola. The Council then adopted a resolution in which it demanded that South Africa withdraw forthwith and unconditionally all its military forces from the territory of the People’s :Republic of Angola, cease all acts of aggression against that State and scrupulously respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. I<, : 106. Yet here we are ‘again today ‘dealing with the gross acts of armed aggression perpetrated by the South African 107. These latest acts of aggression by Pretoria against Angola clearly show that because of the racist rigime, a situation has emerged in southern Africa which is a threat to the cause of peace. 108. The latest unprovoked act of aggression must be added to the long list of crimes by the apartheid regime against neighbouring States. We still clearly recall the carnage that South African commandos caused in June in Botswana, where they killed and wounded dozens of people. At the end of June, South African military units crossed the border of Angola and invaded the territory of that country. Again, dozens of people fell victim to that gangsterish raid. Three months later, there was another act of aggression against Angola, and again innocent people died and material damage was sustained. This year alone, the Council has three times taken up the question of the tense situation in South Africa, and it has five times dealt with situations connected to aggression by the Pretoria regime against independent States. 109. We have stated many times in the Council that the South African racists are acting in such a defiant and brazen manner merely because they are supported by broadbased and constant political, diplomatic, economic and military assistance given by the United States and a number of other Western countries and Israel. 110. “Your goals are our goals. I wish you success and God bless you.” These are not my words-I have quoted them from the message from the United States President to the mob of ring leaders of the terrorist gangs that met in June this year near the Angolan border. The question arises as to how the United States Administration can try to convince international public opinion about its concern for a “peaceful solution” to the problems of southern Africa and other regions while it is fostering terror against legitimate Governments. The terrorist grouping UNITA took part in that gathering, as did the anti-Mozambique gang the MNR (National Resistance Movement). This was clearly mentioned in the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe [261&h meeting]. 111. I should like to draw the Council’s attention to the growing collaboration between the regimes in South Africa and Israel, which has virtually led to an alliance between them, posing a threat to international peace and security. This has been borne out, for example, by the act of aggression by Israel against Tunisia, consideration of which has just been concluded in the Council. 112. Of particular danger is the growing scale of the military and nuclear collaboration between these two regimes. South Africa is a major purchaser of weapons from Israel; it accounts for 35 per cent of Israeli arms exports in recent 114. I could give other examples of the collaboration between South Africa and Israel. 115. We are compelled to agree with the finding of the Special Committee against Apartheid to the effect that the violent, oppressive and aggressive actions of the Pretoria regime “underline that any form of assistance to the military, police, intelligenceor other forces in South Africa -is nothing less than complicity in the crimes of the apartheid regime.” 2 116. There is very good reason why Pretoria’s extremism has grown precisely now, when the Republic of South Africa is going through an acute crisis caused by actions by the oppressed black majority which are unprecedented in scale and force. The racist regime has lost control of the situation in the country. In these conditions, the ruling clique is hoping to reinforce its positions through military adventures. Attempts are being made to perpetuate their domination in Namibia, and banditlike aggressive acts against independent countries by Pretoria are becoming more frequent and are being intensified. 117. Again, worthy of note is the parallel between South Africa’s actions and those of Israel. Tel Aviv, which is also confronting complicated problems caused by its own policy of aggression and occupation in lands which do not belong to it, is trying to resolve those problems by actions beyond its own borders. The most recent example of this took place thousands of kilometres away from Israel. 118. Again, this points to the serious threat posed by the policies of South Africa and Israel to peace and security not only in southern Africa and the Middle East but in the whole world. 119. To put an end to the crimes of apartheidand its acts of aggression against neighbouring States, we need decisive action, including that provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. This was mentioned in the special communique adopted on 1 October 1985 by the Ministers and heads of delegation of the non-aligned countries, at the fortieth session of the General Assembly [S/17518, annex]. The Ukrainian SSR strongly supports their demand. The Security Council should do its duty and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of Angola.

The next speaker is the representative of the United Arab Emirates.-1 invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

It is my pleasure to open my statement by congratulating you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. We are convinced that you will preside over the Council’s deliberations with the utmost skill and objectivity. 123. I also wish to thank your predecessor, Sir John Thomson, representative of the United Kingdom, for his skilful and wise leadership of the Council during the month of September. 124. For the third time this year, the Council is meeting to consider yet another act of aggression perpetrated by the racist regime in .South Africa against Angola. If this fact can be said to point to anything, it points to the disregard and contempt in which this racist regime holds the meetings and resolutions of the Council. 125. The racist regimes in South Africa and Israel have become the Council’s main preoccupation. No sooner has the Council adjourned than it is once more convened to discuss a new act of aggression. One may indeed think it a remarkable coincidence that the two regimes should perpetrate two acts of aggression against two African countries at the same time. That is a further indication of the role entrusted to those racist regimes, which is aimed at undermining the will of peoples, at eliminating national liberation movements and forcing the States of the third world to submit to the colonialist will imposed on them from outside. 126. The justifications put forward by the Government of South Africa for perpetrating its acts of aggression, such as invoking the right to self-defence for intervening in the internal affairs of Angola, are rejected, because they run counter to the principles of the Charter and the rules of international law. International law and jurisprudence provide that two fundamental conditions must be present to exercise that right. The first is urgent need, and the second is that the use of force be a proportionate response to the danger posed. Those conditions were not present at all in the case of the acts of aggression perpetrated by South Africa against a small peace-loving State such as Angola, which presents no danger whatsoever to a strong State with such huge military arsenals as South Africa possesses. 127. The concept of international law on the conditions for the use of the right to self-defence and the non- “The position of the United States Government is that any use of force by a State has to be justified under the doctrine of self-defence. There is no inherent right to engage in military activity across one’s borders on the basis that it is a pre-emptive strike. “From an international-law standpoint, the important issue is whether the use of force in question is justified from the standpoint of self-defence, in that it must be reasonable and a proportionate response to the danger posed. South Africa’s raid did not appear to be justified by a clear and imminent danger to Namibian territory, and therefore was not reasonable and a proportionate response.“* 128. That quotation makes it clear that the act of aggression by the -South African Government against’ Angola was a flagrant act of aggression, according tti the General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression adopted by the General Assembly and annexed to resolution 3314 (XXIX), article 3 of which defines aggression as “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State”.* 129. As they have been described, the acts of aggression perpetrated by Pretoria are such as to require the application of sanctions against South Africa under Article 39 of the Charter. Any reluctance, any hampering of the implementation of such sanctions will only encourage the regime to renew its acts of aggression. We must not forget that this is the third time the regime has perpetrated an act of aggression against Angola in the past few months, not to mention previous acts committed against Angola and other front-line States. 130. The racist practises of the regime against the black majority in South Africa, its occupation of the Territory of Namibia and its acts of aggression against the African front-line States will not end unless the regime feels the seriousness of the international attitude to such acts. Such seriousness will be achieved when States that still deal with the regime in one way or another put an end to that practice and apply economic sanctions by imposing a comprehensive embargo on South Africa. I refer particularly to those States that continue to provide the regime with vital supplies, States that bear a special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Those States bear the international responsibility to look at the regime in that light, so that international peace and security prevail over narrow economic interests. 131. Justice, equality and human rights form an indivisible whole. Africans are entitled to them just as much as other human beings in any other part of the world, If *Quoted in English by the speaker. 132. The United Arab Emirates once again stresses its strong condemnation of South Africa’s act of aggression. We declare our solidarity with Angola, a member of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, and with the other front-line States. We reaffkn our support for the national liberation movements in Namibia and South Africa, which are fighting for their national rights and their right to selfdetermination. 133. We once again call upon the Council not to cause the small States of the world to lose their faith in it. At the , : l7te meeting rose at I p.m. NOTES ’ offia! Records of the General Assembly. Twenty-lourth Session. Annexes, agenda item 106, document A/7754. 2 Ibid... Fortieth Session, Supplement No. 22, para. 374. -dI &I dJ+b Jc &4LI * &Sll~ I+ +I . ,.JlJl .Li e 3 &lJJ* d+5ill ,y iLr;tl ,+gI G!,+ Jc. J+l ,& . cis 3 Ji dJ& 4 &’ rj 4 ull&: J!~IJl+mJdLd~l $faJRWm%ElitltJfdiC a9~~~~~~~~p~g~g~n~~~~~~~ iiwJ#BaH~SE~~?3MaEAKm EkmlFBP5lJL HOW TO OBTAIN &TED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sent en vente dans les librairies et les agences &posies j du monde entier. Informez-vous aup+s de votre libraire ou adressez-vous B : Nations Umes, Section des ventes, New York ou Gentve. KAK IIoJIYwITb IT3JJAImsI oPrAHEBAL&iFf OEbEJWBHHbIx W kl3mxim Opramisamisi 06%; ~IXH~MOXCHOQTISfTh BKHHXCRbIKMafB3liIiaX HEtEIiTCTI%3XBOBCCKpdiOHttX~i% HaaomiTecnpan&uo6 H3JWiSiKKBBaLneMLHIURIIOM bmramie mm rumme no Wtpecy:. Opramt%%mia 06aelUfHeIiHblx Ha@t. CeKsun HO IlpOAklXCCH3A~,HbKP~OPK ElEi>KCHCBa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONRS DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estAn en venta en librerfas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas. Secci6n de Ventas, Nueva York o Giibra. Litho in United Nations, New York 00300 90-61439-January 19954925