S/PV.2659 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at the 265Znd meeting, I invite the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia and the other members of the delegation of that Council to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Lusaka (Zambia) and the other members of the delegation of the United Nations Council for Namibia took a place at the Council table,

In accordance with decisions taken at previous meetings, I invite the representatives of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, the German Democratic Republic, Guyana, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, the syrian Arab Republic, the United Republic of Tanzania, 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. Zarif (Afghanistan), Mr. Djoudi (Algeria), Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Leqwaila (Botswana), Mr. Velazco San José (Cuba), Mr. Badawi (Egypt), Mr. Dinka (Ethiopia), Mr. Hucke (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Karran (Guyana), Mr. Verma (India), Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani (Islamic Republic of Iran), Mr. Azzarouk {Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Dos Santos (Mozambique), Mr. Ieaza Gallard (Nicaragua), Mr. Samudio (Panama), Mr. Sarré (Senegal), Mr. von Schirnding (South Africa), Mr. Birido (Sudan), Mr. El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Foum (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. Golob (Yugoslavia), Mr. Ngo (Zambia) and Mr. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chanber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Nigeria in which he requests 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 that representative 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, There being no cbjection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr, Garba (Nigeria) took the place reserved for him at the side of the Council Chamber,

The Security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda, The first speaker is the representative of China, on whom I now cali. Mr. LI Iuye (China) (interpretation from Chinese) : Last year we considered on several occasions in the Council the question related to security and stability in southern Africa, and we heard statements’ from representatives of many countries. The Council adopted resolutions accordingly. What happened afterwards? We have seen the further deterioration of the situation in southern Africa, and the security and stability of the countries in the region are under constant threat from the South African racist régime. | This development has posed a menace to international peace and security and caused deep eoncern from the international community. | What is the root cause of the instability in southern Africa? The answer to that question is obvious to ali. I fully share the view of many representatives who have spoken befere me that the root cause of the turbulent situation in southern Africa lies in the South African authorities’ pursuance of apartheid inside the country and the policy of aggression against other countries. However, Mr. P.W. Botha, President of South Africa, told us in his speech on 31 January that the worsening situation in southern Africa was the result of an "increased armed threat" against South Africa. He sounded as if those who should be condemed were not the authorities of South Africa but their neighbours. Everybody knows that the South African authorities have been pursuing a policy of destabilization against the neighbouring countries, Whichever of them opposes’ the South African policy of apartheid and its illegal occupation of Namibia will fall victim to the pressure from South Africa and destabilization by it through political, military and economic means. (Mr. Li Luye, China) Since last year South Africa has time and again dispatched troops into Angola under the pretext of reconnaissance or hot pursuit after the liberation organizations of Namibia, inflicting many casualties among civilians. Under the excuse of striking at members of South African liberation movements, it brazenly sent commandos to assault Gaborone, capital of Botswana, and Maseru, capital of Lesotho, killing innocent people. It has deployed a large number of troops along its border with Zimbabwe, threatening to launch an armed invasion. Furthermore, it has resorted to economic blockade and blackmail in its attempt to bring its neighbours to their knees. Under the threat of aggression from the South African racist régime, the newly independent African front-line States and other countries in southern Africa enjoy no security at all. In short, it is none other than the South African authorities that have grossly trampled underfoot the principles of the United Nations Charter and the norms of international relations, and seriously undermined the peace and stability of that region. The South African racist régime has tried hard to justify its policy of aggression, asserting that its invasions were intended to combat terrorism. That is nothing but a sheer confusion of right and wrong. It is known to all that in order to sustain their reactionary rule of apartheid the South African authorities ‘have not hesitated to employ large numbers of troops and police to suppress the struggle of the South African people, enforcing a reign of terror. In the face of the ruthless persecution by the South african authorities, large numbers of people in South Africa have fled their native land to seek refuge in the neighbouring countries. The countries concerned have allowed them to stay on humanitarian grounds. Their action is in Line with the provisions of the relevant international conventions. Wot allowing the neighbouring countries to accept those innocent refugees, the South African authorities have even crossed the borders in pursuit of (Mr. Li Luye, China) the refugees, trying to kill them, and have carried out subversion and military intrusion against the recipient countries. All those deeds by the South African racist authorities amply show that they are pursuing a policy that is more terrorist than terrorism. History will prove that, ‘in order for terrorism in southern Africa to be eradicated, the apartheid system of the South African authorities will have to be eliminated, since it is ‘the root cause of terrorism in that region. The realization of peace and stability in southern Africa is the ardent desire of the peoples in the region and the unanimous call of the people of the world. The front-line States and other countries in southern Africa have made unremitting efforts to that end. To divest the South African authorities of their pretexts for invasion, some countries have signed agreements with South Africa on not permitting the use of their respective territories for attacks on the neighbouring countries. However, the South African authorities have taken such tolerance and sincerity as a sign of weakness, Recently they proposed the setting up of a so-called permanent joint mechanism to handle the security affairs in southern Africa, and even threatened that should that proposal be ignored or rejected, they would take effective measures in self-defence. To put it bluntly, that proposal by the South African authorities is designed simply to legitimize their wanton interference in the internal affairs of the neighbouring countries and to create excuses for their armed intrusions into those countries. The proposal’ contains more malice than the professed intention of bringing peace to southern Africa. | The Chinese delegation holds that if the South African authorities truly want to improve their relations with the neighbouring countries, they must abandon hypocritical rhetoric and demonstrate their sincerity by actual deeds. They must immediately cease their aggression and threats against their neighbours, (Mr. Li Luye, China) unconditionally terminate their illegal occupation of Namibia and eradicate the system of apartheid. Otherwise, no matter how hard the South African authorities may try, they will never be able to stop the just struggle of the South African people against apartheid and that of the Namibian people for national independence. Mr. AGUILAR (Venezuela) (interpretation from Spanish) : Before I. set out the position of the Venezuelan Government on the agenda item before us, I wish, as this is the first time my delegation has spoken since the beginning of our current term of membership of the Council, to express our sincerest congratulations to you, Sir, and offer you our complete co-operation in performing your honourable and very demanding tasks as President of the Council for the month of February. The way in which you have led our work in these busy opening days of the month have made very clear your great qualities and redound to your credit and that of your country, Congo, with which Venezuela has for many years enjoyed very constructive co-operation at the United Nations. I wish also to express our appreciation to Ambassador Li Luye, Permanent Representative of China, for the outstanding way in which he performed the duties of President last month. I personally regret not having had the opportunity to work under his skilful leadership. I should also like to thank you, Sir, and all the other members of the Council for the kind words of welcome addressed to our delegation when we started our activities here and for the kind words addressed to me personally. It is a great honour for us to work with such distinguished colleagues, whose good wishes and words of encouragement oblige us to work even harder to do our utmost to discharge in the best possible way the mandate that we have been given. The convening of the Security Council to deal yet again with the situation in southern Africa is fully justified. A series of events has occurred which, individually and collectively, call for the Council's attention. (Mr. Aguilar, Venezuela) The policy of apartheid, which is still practised by the Pretoria Government, despite the universal condemnation of that policy and all the numerous resolutions adopted by the Council and other United Nations podids and specialized agencies, is, of course, the major cause of the grave events that have occurred in southern Africa in recent months, which undoubtedly threaten not only the stability and development of the States of the region, but also international peace and security. It is quite clear that that apartheid policy, rightiy described as a crime against humanity, can no longer continue to be applied without a repressive apparatus prepared to use the most brutal methods to suppress the legitimate protests of the black majority, which has been humiliated and deprived of all participation in the political life of its country. As a result of that cruel repression, the number of dead and injured grows daily, a fact that calls not only for compassion, but also for the urgent attention of the international community and the Council in particular. According to figures submitted by other members of the Council, more than 1,100 people have died since September 1984, In 1985 about 3,500 people were detained, and only a third have been released so far. This policy of racial discrimination, exploitation and oppression extends also to the Territory of Namibia, which the Pretoria Government continues to occupy illegally, notwithstanding repeated resolutions of the competent United Nations bodies. All this shows the obstinacy of the Pretoria Government, its contempt for the principles and purposes of the Charter, and its lack of sensitivity to international public opinion; it is compounded by that Government's aggressive policy towards neighbouring African States, which have been the target of all manner of illegal political, economic and military pressure and threats against the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of those States. One of the objectives of that policy of aggression is to force those States to cease providing asylum to South Africans compelled to leave their country in justified fear of grave injury or death should they remain in their homeland - South Africans who obviously have the right to the status of and protection accorded to refugees - and to prevent those States from fulfilling their basic duties of solidarity and humanity and the terms of their international commitments in this regard. And, in carrying out this policy of aggression against its neighbours, the Government of Pretoria has in some cases used the Territory of Namibia as a base. Venezuela's position on all these aspects of the situation in southern Africa is well known, because it has been stated repeatedly and clearly in ail forums and on all occasions concerned with their consideration, It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to go into detail on our position on these problems. However, we feel it would be useful to recall the relevant portions of the address made by the President of the Republic of Venezuela, Mr. Jaime Lusinchi, at the fortieth session of the General Assembly, on 30 September 1985: "As we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and 36 years after the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we see how the (Mr. Aguilar, Venezuela) racist régime of South Africa persists in erecting a barrier to contain the will of a people that wishes, as is legitmately and humanly its due, to be master of its own destiny. "Nelson Mandéla's Long imprisonment testifies to the tenacity of a brave and struggling people. It is at the same time, however, a sad symbol of our Organization's inability to end a universal problem that concerns us all. "After so many years of repression backed by selfish interests and associations which have compromised and damaged the credibility and effectiveness of the unitea Nations, we must without delay act resolutely and decisively to apply effective sanctions. A decisive outcome is required to end once and for all racism and the vestiges of colonialism. "We have seen how some Governments are taking selective measures to induce the Pretoria Government to desist from its ignominious practices of - racial segregation, But we insist that the firm will of important partners of South Africa is needed for sanctions to be really effective rather than simply an empty threat which only serves to spur on the racist Government to an intensified deployment of its powerful repressive ‘apparatus. Nothing must stop us or cause us to move backwards in the struggle against apartheid and racial discrimination. | “Phe fate of Namibia is closely Linked with the racist practices institutionalized by South Africa. We are filled with regret that we are celebrating this fortieth anniversary of the united Nations without the presence of a delegation representing a free Namibia. Numerous major obstacles have been placed in the way of that wish, shared by the overwhelming majority of nations represented here. We wish to convey to the people of Namibia our solidarity and our support in its struggle to exercise its inalienable right to self-determination and independence." (A/40/PV.14, (Mr. Aguilar, Venezuela) In line with that statement by the Head of State and Government of Venezuela, which reflected the unswerving position of my country, my delegation is ready not only to condemn in the severest terms the above mentioned policies of the Pretoria Government but also to support applying the enforcement measures provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. In this connection, we should recall that South Africa's external debt makes it vulnerable at present to economic sanctions, which could lead to genuine concrete changes in those policies and not in mere vague promises of future reform. With respect to Namibia, Venezuela reiterates its support for Security Council resolution 435 (1978), in favour of which my country, then a Council member, voted. We also reaffirm our position that implementation of that resolution cannot be Linked to other unrelated elements. As said by other speakers, the solution to all these problems is obviously the total and final elimination of the apartheid system. A Government which for many years has systematically defied the United Nations and all mankind certainly does not deserve much credibility. Indeed, practically since its foundation this Organization has been issuing innumerable statements, recommendations, appeals and resolutions. How can we trust President Botha's statements, about which the Permanent Representative of that Government has provided details, when his general and vague assertions on possible participation by the majority in running the affairs of the country are immediately contradicted by such significant actions as the public reprimand of the Pretoria Government's Minister for Foreign Affairs for having spoken of the mere possibility of a black becoming President of South Africa? All those statements show is that the Pretoria Government is increasingly aware of the isolation imposed on it by the majority of countries, and its fear at the possibility of more effective sanctions. It is therefore clearly necessary to step up pressure in order to achieve through enforcement measures what it seems to be impossible to achieve through reason and persuasion. We must not forget that in this matter the prestige and credibility of the United Nations are at stake as well, My delegation believes that, in view of all this, the Council should adopt a resolution containing, inter alia, the following elements: first, immediate abolition of the apartheid system as an indispensable step towards the establishment of a multi-racial, fully democratic society based on self-determination, the principle of majority rule, and full and free exercise by all South African population groups of universal suffrage; secondly, an end to all acts of violence and repression against the black population and others who oppose apartheid, the unconditional release of all those imprisoned, detained or suffer ing from any other limitation of freedom for opposing apartheid and an end to the state o£ emergency; thirdly, vigorous condemnation of the threats against the front-line States and other southern African States; fourthly, an affirmation of the right of States to shoulder their international obligations regarding granting asylum to the victims of apartheid; and, fifthly, application of appropriate enforcement measures.

I thank the representative 29— Venezuela for the kind words he addressed to me and .to my country. Mr. SAFRONCHUK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian}: Southern Africa continues to be a focal point of acute international tension. For a long time the racist régime of Pretor ia, relying on the support of the Western Powers, primarily the United States, has been perpetrating acts of aggression against neighbouring independent States, continuing its illegal recupation of Namibia, constantly disrupting the peace, and posing a threat to the Ntaintenance of international peace and security. In the face of the mounting resistance of the majority of South Africa's population to the system of apartheid, the racist Pretoria régime has used bloody repression within South Africa itself in an effort to preserve the inhumane system that the United Nations and the international community has long held to be a crime against mankind. In the circumstances it is only natural that the African countries have again brought the question of the situation in southern Africa to the Security Council and have voiced the need for the urgent adoption of measures to put an end to the aggression and State terrorism of. Pretoria against neighbouring Rfrican countries in order to liberate Namibia and eliminate the apartheid system. It is clear to all that there is but a single source behind the criminal acts being perpetrated in that region: the racist régime of South Africa. Support for Pretoria's actions in southern Africa and for its aggressive policies, support that provides a cover for racism and colonialism, also has but a single source, namely the same Western Powers that have been affording Pretoria direct protection and shielding that régime from the application of effective sanctions against it under Chapter VII of the Charter. In so doing, they have been acting as direct accomplices in the unlawful actions South Africa has taken throughout southern Africa. While hiding behind a smoke-screen of verbal condemnations of Pretoria and talk of selective economic sanctions, those countries - particularly the United States and the United Kingdom ~ continue to retain vast direct and portfolio investments in South Africa and Namibia, thereby participating in the harsh exploitation of the indigenous African population and supporting apartheid economically. The racist South African régime is an anachronism. History and the United Nations have already passed sentence on the system and policy of apartheid and colonialism in southern Africa, With the passage of time, both will disappear from the face of the earth, In the meantime, however, racism and colonialism can still inflict immense harm and sufferings on the peoples of Africa. They can cause enormous bloodshed and pose a real threat to international peace and security. We are witnessing that today. We should like to focus the Council's attention oh two aspects of the policy of South Africa and its protectors in the light of recent events, which are in fact an indicator of the growing threat to the peoples of southern Africa. We believe that the racist régime is seeking a solution to the deep-seated domestic crisis in South Africa through its repression of the majority of its own population and also through exernal aggression. The authorities in Pretoria are trying to impose their colonial hegemony on the whole of southern Africa. In recent weeks the whole world has seen how sovereign Lesotho, a small, defenceless country completely surrounded by apartheid, has been choked into submission by a complete blockade. At the same time South Africa has been issuing threats to extend its policy of State terrorism to other countries, to Botswana and Mozambique. | The policy of State terrorism and destabilization of the situation in Angola is assuming ever more sinister forms. Overt and covert aggression is being perpetrated against the People's Republic of Angola with the direct involvement of South African armed forces, while indirect aggression through use of the counter-revolutionary mercenary gangs of UNITA, which is made up of traitors to the Angolan people and plays the same ignominious role as the contras in Nicaragua and the American mercenaries in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. Tt is interesting to note that the sordid assembly of representatives of all those nercenaries, killers and traitors to their own peoples was held last summer on African soil. (Mr. Safronchuk, USSR) The whole world is aware of the ignominious deeds of the UNITA mercenaries in Angola. The whole world is also aware that those deeds have the direct support of the racist South African régime and Western intelligence services, primarily that o£ the United States. The latest evidence of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign Angola was the reception recently accorded Savimbi, the ringleader of the UNITA bandit groups, in Washington, to which a number of representatives have already referred. That lackey of the racist régime was almost accorded the honours due a head of State or Government. He was met by the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and a whole list of senior officials of the United States Administration. Negotiations were held with him and agreements were worked out, but one wonders what they were about. What is clear is that the purpose of the entire exercise was the expansion of banditry and subversive activities against the legal Government of Angola. To that end, tens of millions of dollars have been spent out of the United States budget and the pockets of United States taxpayers. That action by the United States Administration is a part of the policy of so-called constructive engagement between Washington and Pretoria. As was emphasized in the declaration of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), such interference by the United States is an act hostile not only to the sovereign State of Angola but to the Organization of African Unity as a whole, Who are these people who are being received with open arms by the representatives of the United States Administration, the very representatives who speak out so loudly against international terrorism? Here is just a brief - and far from complete - list of facts with regard to Savimbi's international terrorist activities,- They are well known to all, including the members of the United States Administration, As a result of terrorist actions by UNITA bandit groups in the southern regions of Angola, the following events have occurred: In 1980 two Soviet citizens were abducted as hos tages; in 1981 the same fate befell a Soviet citizen, who was abducted, and four who were killed; in March 1983 64 citizens of Czechoslovakia were abducted, one of whom was killed; in February 1984 16 British subjects were seized as hostages in July of the same year two Portuguese citizens; in September another Portuguese citizen; in December of that year 17 Philippine citizens, three British subjects and two American citizens; in March 1985 one Portuguese person was taken hostage} in May one British subject and one Irish citizen; in November 12 Soviet citizens, who @ied in the crash of a transport aircraft shot down by Savimbi's bandit groupe. The citizens of many countries giving unselfish assistance to the sovereign Government of Angola have thus suffered in this way. This is the true face of Savimbi, but a short time ago in this Council the representative of the United States stated that Israel was entitled to seize the civilian aircraft of another country if terrorists were on board. Whereas, for the inveterate international terrorist and bandit on whose conscience is the biood not just of citizens of sister African countries but of many other countries, in Washington they roll out the red carpet, instead of immediately arresting him and handing him over to the Angolan authorities for well-deserved punishment. The United States press, in particular the The Wash ington Post, has quite rightly pointed out that the United States has not only sided with the splinter group of UNITA but has also taken sides with the Sou th African authorities, who have been waging an undeclared war against independent Angola and other African i States. For many years now the international comnunity, the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and many other international forums, have been demanding the appl ication against South Africa of (Mr. Safronchuk, USSR) comprehensive and mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. Throughout all that time the United States and its West European allies have been impeding the adoption by the Security Council of such sanctions against the racist régime. More than 2 years have elapsed since the General Assembly denied that régime the right to take a seat at the United Nations among other peace-loving civilized States, Racism and apartheid itself have long been outlawed. None the less, we see that that régime continues to have its protectors and advocates, including even here in the Security Council. The Soviet Union condemns the utilization of regional conflicts for interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States in order to stoke up the East-West confrontation. The Secretary-General of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, Mikhail Gorbachev, clearly made this point recently when he said: “The Soviet Union opposes turning Africa into an arena for confrontation of any sort, not to mention military confrontation. We believe that only the peoples of Africa are entitled to determine the future of their continent and freely to choose the path of development for their States. No one must interfere in their internal affairs anda impose upon them alien policies. Africa as a whole is not the backyard of the developed capitalist countries, as some have grown accustomed to thinking since colonial times, The Soviet Union has built ite relations with the African countries on the basis of full equality, strict respect for their independence, equal rights and support for the struggle of those countries against the neo-colonialist policy of imper ialism." The hotbed of tension in southern Africa must be eliminated by political means, by way of a complete renunciation of the policy of State terrorism and . (Mr. Safronchuk, USSR) interference in the internal affairs of the States of the region. The United Nations, the Organization of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement will certainly have a major role to play in this process, The unity of action of the African and other non-aligned countries and all progressive States is a pledge of the successful outcome of the struggle againgt racism and all forms of colonialism, including neo-colonialism, in the southern part of the African continent. There is a need for decisive and urgent action in order to compel the Western Powers to put an end to the policy of appeasement ana encouragement of the racist aggressor. The Security Council, as has been emphasized by many here, must take effective action in order to avert the worst outcome, compel the racists in Pretoria to put an end to their repression against the African majority in South Africa and to their aggressive actions against neighbour ing States. and liberate Namibia.

The next speaker is the representative of Cuba. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. VELAZ@ SAN JOSE (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish}: First of ali, Sir, I should like to express the pleasure my delega tion feels at seeing you, the representative of an African country with which Cuba’ has relations of true friendship and fraternity, presiding over the work of this organ. We are particularly gratified that the work of the Secur ity Council in its discussions on the grave situation in southern Africa is under the guidance of the representative of a country whose historic commitment to the struggle of peoples aga inst — colonialism and foreign oppression is known to all. We are sure that for these reasons, and in view cf your well-known experience and per sonal skill, the presidency of the Coucil during the month of February is in good hands. We wish you every success in the tasks ahead. (Mr. Velazco San José, Cuba) We also wish to express our appreciation to the Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China for the excellent work he performed as President of the Council in January. It is no coincidence that, during the short time the Council has been meeting in 1986, on four occasions two of the closest allies of the United States have been in the dock in this organ charged with ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security. Similarly, it is no coincidence that on those four occasions the United States, together with its allies, found itself also seated on the bench of the accused. (Mr. Velazco San José, Cuba) How can one consider the problems of the Middle East and southern Africa outside the context of United States imperialism's aggressive strategy against the Arab and African peoples as well as against the peoples of other regions, such as Central America? We have all witnessed with indignation the overbearing conduct, arrogance and contempt for international public opinion - including the opinions of many of the countries that are its allies - with which on three occasions so far this year Washington has exercised its veto in the Council to protect its friends in Tel Avivand to ensure that their crimes and policy of State terrorism against the Arab peoples go unpunished. : Only a few hours ago the Security Council concluded its consideration of the hijacking of a Libyan civil airliner in international airspace by Israeli aircraft. That deed was not properly condemned and has thus, along with similar actions carried out by aircraft of the United States sixth Fleet against an Egyptian airliner, established a precedent fraught with unforeseeable consequences for international aviation and the safety of innocent passengers. Surely these criminal deeds, which perhaps symbolize perfectly the policy of State terrorism and the justification put forward for it in Washington and Tel Aviv, make clear the cynicism and duplicity of the United States and Israeli authorities when they condemn terrorism. Surely both countries are thus blatantly trampling underfoot General. Assembly resolution 40/61 and Security Council resolution 579 (1985), to which they adhered by joining in the consensus. That explains why the United States delegation tried so hard to prevent that General Agsembly resolution from specifically condemning State terrorism. Condemnation of State terrorism is tantamount to condemning Israel for its systematic actions against the Arab and Palestinian peoples, South Africa for its (Mr, Velazco San José, Cuba) constant acts of aggression against neighbouring African States, and the United States itself for its aggressive policy against the heroic people of Nicaragua. Once again the Security Council is compelled to consider the grave situation in southern Africa, an area where imperialism and its close ally South Africa are seeking to undermine the progressive front-line States and obstruct the irreversible process towards Namibia's independence, while the apartheid régime attempts to drown in bleod the yearnings for freedom and justice of the black South African population, In analysing the present international situation in his report to the Third Congress of the Cuban Communist Party, which recently concluded in the city of Havana, the First Secretary, President Fidel Castro Ruiz, made the following observations on southern Africa: “The United States has attempted to impose its policy of force in Africa, the Middle Bast and Asia, and it is failing in all three places. In the southern cone of Africa, it has offered firm support to the shameful South African régime, simultaneously attempting to achieve agreements between the South African racists and the People's Republic of Angola, trying to get Angola to agree to withdrawal of the Cuban forces. At the same time, it is ignoring and distorting Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which is intended to secure Namibia's independence. Rather than the independent Namibia for which the Namibian people have fought Pte) long under the leadership of SWAPO, Washington seeks to turn Namibia into an area to be exploited by South African and United States neo-colonialism. As a supplement to this policy it has also sought an understanding with the MPLA under Jonas Savimbi, a traitor to Africa and an associate of racist South Africa. "In recent days, Reagan received Savimbi in the White House with the honours due a Head of State, but Savimbi is a mercenary whose bands are attacking and burning down whole villages, murdering defenceless communities and indiscriminately killing tens of thousands of civilians - men, women, old people and children. These are the prototypes of the freedom fighters with which the President of the United States is associated in Nicaragua and Angola. "These manoeuvres by Reagan have encouraged South Africa to pursue its aggressive policy against Angola, to continue to support the counter-revolutionary bandits of Renamo, notwithstanding the hypocritical N'kKomati agreements with the People's Republic of Mozambique, to attack Lesotho and Botswana and to threaten Zimbabwe and zambia. "It is possible, however, to achieve a negotiated solution. The well-known bases provided in the Joint Cuban-Angolan Declaration of March 1984 for the achievement of Namibian independence based on implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and subseauent steps in the search for normalization of the situation in southern Angola are today fully relevant. "The old attempt to tie Namibia's independence to a withdrawal of the Cuban internationalist contingent was decisively rejected by the international community at the United Nations, by the Organization of African Unity (OAU} and by the non-aligned. Namibia's independence, a halt to acts of aggression against Angola and assistance to UNITA'S mercenary bands would make it feasible to bring about the gradual withdrawal of those forces, which Angola and Cuba have offered. However, as to whether the other personnel stay on, the circumstances and time of withdrawal - that is the exclusive prerogative of the Governments of Angola and Cuba. "South Africa is today facing an irreversible crisis of apartheid and of its own system of domination. The increasing activities of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the growing rebellion of the masses, which has been countered with the most brutal of racist repression, (Mr. Velazeco San José, Cuba) and the enormous solidarity around the world reflect the present state of affairs, We are sure that the historic result of this battle taking place on so many fronts will be the reaffirmation of the independence and revolution of Angola, the independence of Namibia and the disappearance of the intolerable apartheid system." The peoples of southern Africa have already had to pay too high a price for their independence, their freedom and justice. It is now up to the Security Council, through the application against South Africa of measures provided for under Chapter VII of the Charter, to help put a halt without delay to the crimes committed by the racist régime in Pretoria and to stop the increasing deterioration in that trouble spot, which represents a true menace to international peace and security, | We take this opportunity to reaffirm our wholehearted solidarity with the African National Congress, which is heading the struggle to eliminate the shameful apartheid system. We reiterate Cuba's steadfast solidarity with the Angolan revolution and its unswerving support for the struggle of Namibian patriots under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO}, its sole, legitimate representative. Furthermore, we express our appreciation to the front-line States which have taken a firm position in the face of threats of aggression by the apartheid régime.

I thank the representative of Cuba for the kind words he addressed to me. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall now adjourn this meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to consider this agenda item will be tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.