S/PV.2684 Security Council

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Cuba, India, Senegal, South Africa, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance 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 conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sarre (Senegal) and Mr. Ngo (Zambia) took places at the Council table; Mr. Oramas Oliva (Cuba), Mr. Krishnan (India), Mr. von Schirnding (South Africa) and Mr. Chagula (United Republic of Tanzania) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Security Council that I have received a letter dated 21 May 1986 from the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, which reads as follows: "I have the honour to request the Council to permit me to participate in my capacity as Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, under the provisions of rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, in the Council's consideration of the item presently on the Council's agenda." On Previous occasions the Security Council has extended invitations to representatives of other United Nation8 bodies in connection with the consideration of matters on its agenda. In accordance with past practice in this matter, I propose that the Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its its provisional rules of procedure to the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid. There being no objection, it is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting today in response to the request contained in a letter dated 21 May 1986 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/18072). I should like to draw the attention of metiers of the Council to the following documents; S/18067, letter dated 19 May 1986 from the Permanent Representative of Botswana to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; S/18069, letter dated 20 May 1986 from the Permanent Representative of Algeria to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; s/18070, letter dated 20 May 1986 from the Chargh d'Affaires ad interim of the Permanent Mission of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations addressed to the secretary4eneral.i S/18075, note verbale dated 21 May 1986 from the Charge' d'bffaires ad interim of the Permanent Mission of Barbados to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General; and S/18076, letter dated 22 my 1986 from the Chargd d'Affaires ad interim of the Permanent Mission of Zambia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. Members of the Council have also received photocopies of a letter dated 22 May 1986 from the Permanent Representative of Kenya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. That letter will be published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol s/18077 tomorrow. The first speaker is the representative of Senegal. (The President) Mr. SARRE (Senegal) (interpretation from French) : First of all, I should like, on behalf of His Excellency Mr. Abdou Diouf, President of the Republic of Senegal and current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), to convey to you, Mr. President, and to the other members of the Security Council, mY gratitude for having authorised this discussion devoted to South Africa’s aggression against Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. A skeptical cynic might take you, Mr. President, to task for acting as both judge and interested party in this affair, even though you are an African. That would demonstrate their utter lack of knowledge of your intellectual integrity and your desire to achieve the triumph of justice and legality. Since your accession to the presidency of the Security Council we have admired your talents as a diplomat, as a seasoned expert in international affairs and as a man devoted to peace and justice. For all those reasons, confident that our work here will be carried out objectively, we hope it will lead to a just and lasting peace in southern Africa. TO your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Claude de Kemoularia, the Permament Representative of France to the United Nations, we should like to convey our high regard for the exemplary manner in which he guided the Council’s work during the month of April. The son of a country strongly devoted to the values of man, he has enhanced France’s prestige in the third world. The world has learned with shock and indignation of the South African aggression - barbarous aggression, to say the least - against Botswana, Zambia and z imbabwe . That action, and we must stress this fact, has been unanimously condemned by the international community. As evidence I need only cite the statement issued by the White House concerning that event and the reactions Of certain members of the United States Congress, Indeed, we note that in the South African press as well, voices that have often expressed sympattiy and support for the South Africa rdgime have on this occasion condemned the aggression. Africa, through the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, His Excellency Mr. Abdou DiOUf, has expressed its repudiation, indignation and condemnation of South Africa’s cynical act in the following statement: “The brave peoples of Zimbabwe , Zambia and Botswana were brutally awakened this Whitsunday by the lethal bombardments of the South African army aimed at destroying purported aggressive bases of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) on their territories. “The violation of the integrity , independence and sovereignty of those countries could not have been more flagrant. “The apartheid regime has once again chosen a time when the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Pajiv Gandhi in his capacity as Chairman of the Movement Of Non-Aligned Countries, was travelling in the region and when the seven eminent Commonwealth representatives were still present there to commit those acts Of destabilization and aggression. What arrogance and cynicism! “Those who still believe that the segregationist re’gime, enlightened by the determination of the independent countries of southern Africa, had abandoned its attempt to turn those countries into a constellation of subservient States, have today had their answer from the advocates of apartheid. “Those who thought that the segregationist rdgime, having learned a lesson from the magnitude of internal resistance, from the representative nature and combativeness of the’liberation movements and from the oppobrium expressed by in terna tional public opinion, had finally come to understand that apar theid was irrevocably doomed and that it would therefore take the (Mr. Sar rd, Senegal) necessary measures before it was too late , can today see what can be expected from Mr. Botha’s men. “In any case, thanks to these lethal bombardments, the whole world today has a far clearer idea of the true nature of apartheid, whose suicidal reasoning forces its advocates to take ever more drastic measures to ensure its survival. “As current Chairman of the Organisation of African unity, I vigorously condemn this real State terrorism being carried out by South Africa. “With this new crime we have absolute proof that the time has come for the countries members of the Security Council clearly to condemn the attitude of Pretoria and to adopt mandatory economic sanctions to stop the South African segregationists. “At stake is their credibility and the safeguarding of international peace and security. “Pretoria must remember that today, as yesterday, intimidation will not work, because the methods it has just used were employed some years ago, at which time they encountered the fierce determination of the independent countries of southern Africa. “To those countries and to their courageous peoples I should like in these trying times to renew the active solidarity and unswerving support Of all of Africa, whose dignity has been so sorely insulted.” With this aggression against these three countries, the Pax South Africana has once again shown to the world the determination of the leaders in Pretoria to silence any country that tries to challenge the guiding principles of their policy in southern Africa, namely, the maintenance of apartheid, the refusal to grant independence to Namibia and the systematic policy of destabilizing neighbouring countries. with regard to this last point - the destabilisation policy against neighbouring countries - I have had occasion on several occasions during discussions of the situation in southern Africa to draw the attention of the: Council to the ur,gent need to adoptpreventive measures so that Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and the whole of the southern African subregion might escape that form of domination. The lack of appropriate measures in this regard has unfortunately encouraged South Africa to extend its vicious activities throughout the region. Today, thanks to the impunity they enjoy, the south African authorities have in fact succumbed to a frenzy of arrogance, committing their habitual crimes in the very heart of the large cities in neighbouring c untries and announcing, on the b fallacious pretext of combatting terrorist movements, that they will not shrink from a future resort to force if they deem it necessary. In the present political context the argument put forward by Pretoria to justify its once again trampling underfoot the principles of good-neighbourliness and respect for the sovereignty of others is obviously aimed at gaining the sympathy of those who are today engaged in a struggle against international violence. True, those now engaged in the struggle against terrorism are sensitive to any collaboration designed to put an end to that phenomenon. However, in the present instance, no one can have illusions about the intentions of the Pretoria authorities, who have never offered the peace-loving world anything but contempt for morality and international law and their preference for strong-armed tactics as a mode of conduct in international relations, South Africa*9 recent acts of aggression against the front-line countries has once again shown how little importance that country attaches to the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations Charter and to the very bases of international law. They are also a flagrant defiance of Security Council resolution 580 (1985), which states, inter alia, that (Mr, Sarrd, Senegal) “all Member States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integ’rityor polii&il” ’ ” independence bf any State , or act’in’g in any other manner incompatible with the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations”. Africa once again calls the international community to witness and appeals to it to shoulder its responsibilities. (Mr. Sarr45, Senegal) At a time when the international community has just commemorated 40 years of existence of the universal Charter, at a time when that same community is about to launch a vast development programme for the benefit of Africa - I am thinking of the special session that is to begin here in New York next week - it is inconceivable that a regime that chooses to flout both law and reason should continue to defy and scorn the conscience of the whole world and in particular tha% of the Security Council, whose authority it thus rejects. Faced with this serious prospect, which constitutes a very definite threat to international peace and security, the international community cannot remain silent Or inactive, for it would then be accused of collusion. It is the United Nations Security Council, which is entrusted under the Charter, the basic document of the United Nations, with the major responsibility for maintai P ing international peace and security, that should take the appropriate measures. Furthermore, the policy of diversion adopted by the racist r6gime of Pretoria must not distract world public opinion from the real problems, which remain the total eradication of the odious system of ppartheid and Namibia's rapid accession to independence, in conformity with the appropriate resolutions of the United Nations. This constitutes the Gordian- knot of the explosive situation in southern 'Africa. Thus Africa places its trust in the Security Council and expects it to face its responsibility fully by unequivocally condemning South Africa and demanding just and speedy reparations for damage caused , and by deciding on the application of comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against it, so that southern Africa may become a zone of peace and south Africa a multiracial, democratic society, based on equality and guaranteeing freedom for all. (Mr. Sarrd, Senegal) The PRRS IDlINT : I thank the representative of Senegal for the very kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Zambia, upon whom I now call. Mr. NaD (Zambia) : Allow me, on behalf of my delegation, and indeed on my own behalf, to congratulate you, sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of Ray. I want to assure you that my delegation will of’fer you unreserved co-operation in your noble but very difficult task. We are confident that, with your very well known diplomatic skills, your wide knowledge of the issue being discussed and your country’s commitment to the ideals of the United Nations, you’ will be able to discharge your responsibilities in such a manner as to meet the expectations of my delegation. May I also take this opportunity to pay a tribute to your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of France, for the very able and satisfactory manner in which he’directed the Council’s proceedings during the month of April. In February of this year we came to the Security Council with a complaint that South Africa was planning military attacks against front-line and other States in the southern African region. Speaking in this Council Chamber on .5 February 1986, I told the Council that the threats by South Africa were real. I also informed the Council that the only reason why South Africa intended to attack us was that we had continued to abide by our international obligations to give sanctuary to South African refugees who were fleeing from the brutal system of apa’rtheid in search of the peace and dignity they could not find in the country of their birth. For some reason South Af r icavs allies in the Security Council did not believe our reading of the situation. Some even indicated, although quietly, that there was no need to call a Security Council meeting because no actual attack had occurred. For our part, however, we felt then, as we do now, that there was a threat to peace and. security in our region , and we ,impressed upon the Security Council the need to take appropriate measures to ensure that South Africa did not go ahead with its threats. If South Africa's allies had listened to us and used their influence to dissuade South Africa, this Council meeting would not be taking Place today. We have come to the Security Council again because on Monday, 19 May, South Africa, in flagrant violation of all international norms of conduct and in blatant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our countries, attacked my country, Zambia, Botswana z&Zimbabwe. In the case of my country, the attack took place at approximately 8.50 a.m. Zambian time. In that attack the racist murderers used two unmarked South Africa defence force aircraft and bombed a United Nations refugee transit centre in Makeni, 15 kilometres from Lusaka, causing extensive damage tc one building. In a continued attack on another place in the same vicinity, a Public bar called "New Nkana Bar" was bombed. Approximately 24 cluster bombs were dropped, again causing extensive damage to property. In that attack one person, a Namibian refugee, was killed and eight others were injured. Among those injured were three Angolan refugees, two of them children aged 2 and 5, three Namibian refugees, one South African refugee and one Zambian national. The truth is that the place that South Africa attacked in Zambia was a United Nations transit centre,~ That centre operates under a tripartite agreement involving the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Government of Zambia and the Christian Council of Zambia. The centre is a temporary dwelling place for refugees while their documentation is being processed for permanent arrangements such as transit to other countries , settlement in appropriate places in Zambia or return to their own countries of origin if they so opt. This is therefore not an African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) campl as South (Mr. Nqo, Zambia) Africa would like its friends to believe. That has in fact been confirmed by a spokesman of the United Nati.ons High Commissioner for Refugees. (,/,. ,.. Earlier on, at about 6.30 a.m., South Africa had attacked Botswana. Using South African defence force helicopters, the crews fired at the Botswana defence force barracks at Mogoditshane. At the same time, there was a simultaneous attack by ground forces supported by helicopters on a civilian housing complex in Mogodi tsh ane . The Botswana defence force repelled the attack by engaging the helicopters with anti-aircraft fire. The helicopters then withdrew. One member of the Botswana .defence force suffered a bullet wound during that attack. During the attack on the housing complex property was extensively damaged and a lot of household effects were destroyed. A citizen of Botswana who was on the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and also taught at a night-school, was killed. Two other Botswana were shot ‘and critically injured. The south African helicopters also dropped leaflets addressed to members of the Rotswana defence force and the people of Botswana in general in which they accused the Botswana Government of supporting the ANC. (Mr. Ngo, Zambia) In Zimbabwe, the south African racist and apartheid regime carried Out midnight attacks on ANC targets located at two places in Harare. The barbarous acts were perpetrated at 16 Angwa Street in the city and at 19 Eve's Crescent in Ashdown Park. At 16 Angwa Street, the racists caused damage to a public building used partly as a restaurant and hairdressing salon and partly as executive offices. There was injury to one private security guard. At 19 Eve's Crescent, no one was injured as the former ANC house was not occupied. At both places the racists, in panic, left various equipment, I including communication items, vehicles and explosives when the Zimbabwe defence force reacted to the attacks. Following these unprovoked and premeditated acts of State terrorism by racist South Africa, we are promoted to ask: what type of r8gime is this which goes out of its way to kill and maim innocent men, women and children, including those under the care of the United Nations? Friends of south Africa, some of them permanent members of the Council, might have an answer to this, for by their inaction and their military, economic and political support, they have encouraged South Africa to murder, maim and torture, and even to attack and destabilize its neighbours. Many times we have heard from friends of South Africa, who are also members of the Council, argue that South Africa was slowly moving towards peaceful change, though they admit that they do not like the pace at which it is moving.. However, when it comes to decisive action to end apartheid, they speak with forked tongues, Indeed, many times we have been entertained and lectured to on the merits of the policy of "constructive engagement". We are grateful for the lectures, but we have now seen what "constructive engagement" can lead to - the killing and maiming of innocent men, women and children. This policy is simply wrong. Those with power and whose belief is "in God we trust" should in the interest of international peace use power reasonably and should avoid setting dangerous examples. _I The bombing of (Mr. Ngo, Zambia) Libya by the United States administration has no doubt encouraged the racist ri?gime of South Africa to step up its acts of aggression. The Pretoria rCgime has now followed its master's tactics of finding the flimsiest reasons to take innocent lives. Like the United States of America, South Africa has grossly abused its power. We have again witnessed State terrorism at its worst. We have stated many times before that we would like to see South Africa join the community of truly civilized countries in which all men,of whatever colour or creed are free and equal. Indeed, we have been advocating peaceful change in South Africa. However, the recent cowardly, criininal and unforgivable acts show not only that South Africa is as unrepentant as ever, but also that South Africa does not want to live in peace with its neighbours. Having failed to contain the situation inside South Africa, the racist rhgime, in a desperate effort to appease its minority supporters of apartheid, decided to attack its peaceful neighbours. At the last Commonwealth Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government, after one member had blocked the surest way of ending apartheid, namely, the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa, we, in a Spirit of compromise, went along with the decision to establish an eminent persons group of the Commonwealth whose role was to find peaceful solutions to the problems of apartheid. Again, in line with our desire to see peaceful change in South Africa, we gave the Commonwealth group our fullest co-operation. South Africa, on the other hand, was looking for an excuse to break off the talks and, when it found none, it decided to launch attacks on Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana and it chose a time when the Commonwealth group of eminent persons was in South Africa. Its intention was, no doubt, to pollute the atmosphere for peaceful negotiations. This, we submit, is the strangest way of working for peace. (Mr. Ngo, Zambia) We have ‘repeatedly said that the situation in southern Africa has three dimensions, namelyi the existence of apartheid, the illegal occupation of Namibia and South' Africa's aggression against and destahilization of the neighbouring independent States. The root cause of all this, is, of coursel the eXiSt@nCe of apartheid. The central issue that the Council should therefore address is the elimination of apartheid for, if apartheid were completely eliminated, peace would return to the region and Namibia would be independent. In seeking solutions, the Security Council should- be aware of the fact that we are dealing with a r&ime which is an outlaw, a r&gime which has for many years defied international opinion, a regime which is prepared to kill in order to sustain itself and, indeed, a r(igime which has chosen to be deaf and unwilling to listen to the voice of reason. Having failed to eliminate apartheid through peaceful negotiations, what does the international community do next? If we still want peaceful change in South Africa, we still have one last peaceful option: the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa, we have of course heard the argument that sanctions will most hurt the people of South 'Africa and the economies of neighbouring States. We do not deny the fact that the majority of front-line States are dependent on South Africa for the survival Of their economies; neither are we unaware of the temporary effects such measures will have on the people Of South Africa. What is perhaps not fully appreciated by our Western friends is the fact that the people who are supposedly being shielded from the repercussions Of economic sanctions are prepared to suffer a little now, rather than much more ’ later. In fact, the black people of South Africa are already suffering. The lame excuse by some Western countries that economic sanctions would hurt the people of South Africa is intended to hide their real, selfish reason for (Mr. Ngo, Zambia) refusing to apply sanctions against South Africa. The real reason is that they regard South Africa to be stable and, therefore, safe for their investments. They,‘, do not seem to care about what is happening in South Africa as long as their multinational Companies continue t P earn huge profits from their investments in South Africa, Let them be advised that their investments are not safe, because the. situation in South Africa is explosive. We would like them to understand that, if the situation does not change for the better, their investments will go UP in flames, This, however, is not what we want to see; it can be avoided, but only if Western countries take keen interest in what is happening in southern Africa= (Mr. Ngo, Zambia) We have come to the Security Council with a genuine case. An act Of aggression has been committed against three peaceful Members of the 'United Nations. The Council should not only condemn those acts of aggression, but should pronounce itself on how to eliminate apartheid, which is a crime against humanity. In our view, the time has now come to apply Chapter VII of the Charted and impose mandatory, comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa. Those who stand for freedom and human rights and all those who have respect for the Charter will, by their actions, be on the side of the struggling people of South Africa and Namibia. They can do that only if they identify themselves with the international demand for the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa. On our part, we shall continue to support the oppressed people of South Africa and Namibia, for we believe that their struggle is just and that victory is on their side. The people of South Africa have endured too much oppression, t& much suffering and too much tyranny, and they need to be assisted by the international community. Let me conclude by stating that the time for the Security Council to take up the challenge is now, for tomorrow will be too late, as the hour is already late.

I thank the representative of Zambia for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of South Africa. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. van SCHIRNDING (South Africa): Allow me on behalf of the South African delegation, Mr. President, to convey to you our best wishes,pn your assumption of the-presidency for this month. AS members of the Council are of course aware, on 19 May small elements of the South African Defence ‘Force attacked a terrorist operational centre and transit facility in Harare, a terrorist transit facility situated at Mogaditsano, outside Gabarone, and a terrorist operational centre 15 kilometres south-west of Lusaka. It will be recalled that we informed the Council during its meetings on 10, 20 and 21 June last year, and again on 30 December 1985, that South Africa had been obliged, and would ba obliged, to take action against terrorist bases from which violence in South Africa is planned and implemented. The South African Government has issued frequent warnings that it will have to take action if Governments tolerate the harbouring of terrorists engaged in hostile actions against South Africa. After a meeting of the South African State Security Council on 20 December 1985 it was stated that repeated representations by the South African Government, based on irrefutable evidence concerning the presence and activity of terrorist elements in those countries, had been to no avail. Terrorist elements continue to operate in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia. Frequent representations have been made to the Governments concerned to curtail the activities of the ANC inside their territories, and in particular the planning and execution of violence from their territories. They were requested to take appropriate measures [to prevent the infiltration of terrorists from those territories. I repeat that the South African Government has issued frequent warnings that it will have to take action if Governments tolerate the harbouring of terrorists engaged in violent actions against civilians in South Africa. (Mr. von Schirnding, South Africa) It cannot be expected of the south African Government that it should continue its reform process while terrorist forces remain adamant that they are not . interested in a negotiating process, but will continue their violence until power is handed over to them in order that they may rule the country on the basis of norms and standards which no one in the free world could support. It has always been the South African Government’s belief that the problems of southern Africa should be solved in a peaceful way by the leaders of the region. For that reason urgent appeals have been made to neighbouring Governments to give urgent attention to the problem, with a view to reaching an understanding on effective and practical arrangements between the respective security forces to ensure that the countries of the region were not used for the planning or execution of acts of sabotage or terrorism against each other. In that context President Botha,stated during an address to the south African Parliament on 19 June 1985: “It is simply unacceptable to us that our neighbours pay lip-service to the principle that States should not make their territories available for the launching of terrorist attacks against their neighbours, while at the same time harbouring terrorists in their countries ,..“. President Botha went on to say: “On behalf of the South African Government I’once again offer to all our neighbours a hand of friendship and a readiness to come to an understanding on the basis of certain ground rules which in my opinion ought to form the guidelines for regulating and normalizing our relations. These ground rules include an unqualified prohibition on support for cross-border violence or the planning of such’ violence, the removal of foreign forces from the region, the peaceful resolution of disputes, regional co-operation in meeting common challenges, and toleration of different socio-economic and political systems within our region.” During his address to the South African Parliament on 31 January 1986, President Botha reiterated the South African Government's desire to live in friendship with its neighbours. He said: "Let us come to an agreement on the specific rules of the game regulating the conduct of neighbours towards one another, rules that are honoured by all civilized nations. The Governments should give tangible expression to such a common desire for peace and stiability. "I want to propose, therefore, that we give urgent and serious consideration to the establishment of a permanent joint mechanism for dealing with matters of security, particularly threats to the peace and prosperity of our subcontinent. (Mr. von Schirnding, South Africa) "It makes no difference in which capital the secretariat of such body will be located. What matters is that the countries in the region should find a way to promote our joint security to everyone's advantage. should this offer by the Republic of South Africa be rejected, we would have no choice but f to take effective measures in self-defence to protect our country and 1 II population against threats." On 17 April 1986 a statement was made by President Botha in Parliament in which evidence was presented of the use by South African terrorist movements of neighbouring countries as bases for operations against South Africa. Excerpts from that statement were sent on 18 April 1986 to the Governments of neighbouring States with the request that they co-operate with South Africa in eradicating the terrorist threat to all of southern Africa. To date no response has been received from those Governments. In the actions of 19 May the greatest care was taken not to involve local citizens. The South African Government has no quarrel with the peoples of Our neighbouring countries, but they are often used as a shield behind which terrorists seek to shelter. The international community has made it clear that it rejects terrorism and that violence should not be used for the achievement of political aims. Terrorism cannot be deplored in one area and condoned in another. And yet it has been stated frequently by the Governments of South Africa's neighbouring States that they support the aims and actions of the ANC in what they see as that terrorist organization's so-called legitimate struggle to bring to an end the present system of government in South Africa. The members of the Council would do well to refer to the statement made by President Botha during the opening of Parliament on 31 January, from which I have (Mr. von Schirnding, South Africa) already quoted, when he confirmed the south African Government's commitment to negotiation to bring about further constitutional development to broaden the basis of democracy in South Africa. Negotiation between all South Africa's Peoples, not violence, will bring about the new and better South Africa we all wish to see created and to which end the South African Government is committed. 1 My Government has clearly stated that apartheid is disappearing. We have stated that we accept power sharing by all the communities up to the highest level of Government. We accept equal treatment and equal opportunities. We accept sovereignty of the law as the basis for the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals as well as of minorities. We accept the sanctity and indivisibility of law and the just application thereof. we accept equality before the law, protection of human dignity, life, liberty and property of all, regardless of colour, race, creed or religion. We are committed to a democratic System of government, which must be negotiated and must accommodate all legitimate political aspirations of all the South African communities. we accept participation by all South Africans in government through their elected representatives. We are committed to the sharing of power between all communities, but also to the devolution of power as far as posssible and the protection of minority rights, without one group dominating another. Negotiation is the key to the resolution of our internal problems. What we need now is for the outstanding issues to be addressed around a table. In returning to the issue before the Council, namely, South Africa's action 9. against ANC bases in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, permit me to emphasize in conclusion that South Africa will not tolerate activities endangering our security. Although we are committed to resolving our differences with our neighbours by peaceful means, we will not hesitate to take whatever action may be appropriate for the defence and security of our Own people and for the elimination (Mr. von Schirnding, South Africa) of terrorist elements who are intent on sowing death and destruction in our Country and in our region. We will not allow ourselves to be attacked with impunity. We shall take whatever steps are appropriate to defend ourselves. south Africa, nevertheless, remains convinced that the problems of our region cannot and will not be resolved by violence.

The next speaker is Major-General Joseph N. Garba, Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid, to whom the Council has extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules Of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. GARBA (Chairman of the Special Committee $gainst Apartheid): Let me start by congratulating you , Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of May. I know you personally and am aware of your skill and distinction as a diplomat. I am therefore convinced that you will conduct the current deliberations of the Security Council with your customary skill. I seize this opportunity also to congratulate your predecessor, the Ambassador of France, Mr. Claude de Kdmoularia, for the skilful manner in which he conducted the Council's affairs during the month of April. Ambassador de K&noularia deserves our further congratulations and commendations for the facilitating role that France is currently playing in respect of the holding of the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa - a Conference which has become all the more compelling and important in the context of racist South Africa's aggression, not only against three front-line States, but alao against the international community as a whole, and in violation-of all civilized standards set by the United Nations. It is our hope that all Member States represented here in the Security Council will be . represented at the Paris Conference on sanctions, or we shall find it very difficult to test their honest commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security. The Pretoria r&gime’s aggression on 19 r&y against BotSwana, Zambia and Zimbabwe is” a wanton and dastardly act of State terror’iSm. ‘The rdgime’ has used the time-honoured pretext of all aggressors in blaming the victims of its criminal action. It alleges that the places attacked are military bases of the African National Congress. This is a total fabrication. we have listened to the representative of Zambia, who told us - and he ought to .know - that the places ” attacked were refugee camps, one of them, indeed, run by the Office Of the Un i ted Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, an organization that, as the Council knows, received the Nobel Peace Prize for its humanitarian work, The victims are all civilians and refugees from the permanent terror’ which prevails in South Africa. This unprovoked and brutal )assault on peaceful ,neighbours recalls’ South Africa’s raid into Botswana last June, when 12 civilians were killed, and earlier attacks on Angola, Lesotho and Mozambique. Despite the Nkomati Accord and the Lusaka understanding, the apartheid rdgime has not refrained from attacking Mozanb ique and Angola. It continues aotively to support rebel groups of UNITA in Angola., the National Resistance Movement in Nozambique and the Lesotho Liberation Amy.: In ,the .past 10 *years, South Afr’ica has attacked Angola more than a dozen times. These acts fall into a pattern of aggressive behaviour the purpose of which is to cow and crush the growing revolt against apartheid. BUM what gives the present aggression its specially heinous character is that it took place at a time when the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons was in South Africa in pursuance of its mandate to help find a peaceful Solution to the crisis in the country. BY this act the Pretoria rdgime has given a conclusive demonstration of its ,perfidiousness and the hypocrisy of its talk about meaningful change in South Africa. (Mr. Garba, Chairman, Special Committee against Apartheid) There is no doubt that the Pretoria rdgime’s acts of aggression and destabilization in southern Africa are perpetrated in pursuit of the criminal policy of apartheid. They are intended to help perpetuate white domination and s upr emacy . Having failed to suppress the growing internal resistance against apartheid, the regime is using increasingly violent means to crush it= Yesterday the racist President declared: “South Africa has the will and capacity to crush the ANC". He threatened that the criminal aggression perpetrated against neighbouring countries was only the “first instalment” of what was to come. Botha has thus flung defiance in the face of the Security Council. He has derided the shook and outrage expressed by South Africa’s closest Western supporters, by calling them hypocrites. The Security Council. should take note of this defiance. Members of the Council that have for decades protected South Africa’against effective international action should take note of Mr. Botha’s brazen challenge, his threats of more instalments af violence and war against the indigenous majority of South Africa .and their legitimate representatives and against the independent countries of southern Africa. Certainly this latest act was no “first instalment”. As members of the Security Council are only ,too well aware, they have had repeated occasion to condemn South Africa for its aggression and to call it to order. As South Africa becomes desperate and as the inevitable end of apartheid looms large on the horizon, we can be sure that the racist rdgime will turn to more desperate methods, to yet greater repression at home and aggression abroad. It is the duty of the Security Council,to take action at last to call a halt to South Africa's aggression. Whatever the racist may do, it will not lead to the crushing of the liberation movements of South Africa, because' the people of South Africa have now I risen up and have shown that they will not rest until apartheid itself is crushed . and eradicated. No, the people of South Africa, the suffering indigenous majority, will not and cannot be crushed. what the racists are destroying in their blindness and arrogance is the prospect of settlement through peaceful negotiations and the hope of reconciliation among all the peoples of South Africa. The Commonwealth Secretary-General, Mr. Shridath Ramphal, rightly described South Africa's raids as "a declaration of war against peace in southern Africa". He urged that the only policy now open to the Commonwealth countries was to impose economic sanctions. The Organisation of African Unity as well as the Foreign Ministers of the front-line States have also renewed their call for sanctions. The General Assembly and the vast majority of the international community have repeatedly,called for mandatory sanctions agdinst South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. The United Nations has a responsibility to take action against a Member State which acts systematically in violation of the Charter and endangers international peace and security. On behalf of the Special Ctmtsittee against Apartheid, I express the hope that the Security Council wiii now seriously consider the adoption of mandatory sanctions against the Pretoria rigime, which has shown by mrd and deed its contempt for the United Nations Charter and its defiance of the world community. The failure of the world Organisation to take firm action has encouraged the racist (Mr. Garba, Chairman, Special Committee aqainst Apartheid) rdgime to pursue its criminal aims with impunity. It is vital now that the Security Council take fresh stock of the situation and act to avert %~~th Africa's threat to the peace of Africa and the world.

I thank the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of India. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. KRISHNAN (India): Permit me at the very outset to thank you, MK. President, and the other members of the Security Council for enabling me to participate in this discussion on behalf of India and on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of my. Your personal eminence and sagacity have distinguished the deliberations in this Council, as indeed in our Organisation. Ghana and India enjoy a particularly friendly relationship, both biJ.aterally and within the fraternity of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Commonwealth, We are confident that with your guidance the Council will be able to address itself with resolve and purpose to the grim question before it and sustain the faith of the world community in its effectiveness as an instrument for the maintenance of peace and international order. I should like to take this opportunity also to convey on behalf of my delegation and on my own behalf our deep appreciation to your predecessor, the representative of France , for the exemplary manner in which he guided the deliberations of the Council last month. (Mr. Garba, Chairman, Special committee against Apartheid) We meet today, once again, in the shadow of unprovoked aggression upon defenceless people. South Africa's record in this particular respect is well documented in the chronicles of the Security Council. On this occasion, in the stealth of night it chose to attack innocent civilians in the free capitals of sovereign States that are Members of the United Nations and members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Innocent lives have been sacrificed and civilian property destroyed. (Mr. Krishnan, Indi$) Only last month at the NOW Delhi Meeting of the Non-aligned CO-Ordinating Bureau, our Movement adopted a declaration which stated, inter alia: “The Ministers analysed the current situation in Southern Africa and noted with deep concern the continuing state of war in that part Of the continent. They concluded that the racist Pretoria regime and its agents are not Only the root cause of the problem in the region, but are also directly responsible for other crimes which threaten international peace and security, namely, aggression, terrorism and mercenary activities. They stressed that there can be no peace, stability or security in southern Africa until apartheid is completely eliminated. To this end, they stressed the determination of the non-aligned countries to intensify their joint efforts in Support Of the struggles of the peoples of southern Africa.” The Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Countries met in urgent session this forenoon at United Nations Headquarters to consider the latest Situation. I should like to read into the records of the Council the text of the statement issued earlier today by the Bureau: “The Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, meting in urgent session in New York on 22 May 1986, noted with profound indignation and grave concern the serious and unprovoked attacks carried Out by forces of the racist rigime of South Africa during the night of 18 and 19 May 1986 within the territories of Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe, “The Bureau strongly condemned the racist regime of south Africa for these barbaric, cold-blooded and dastardly acts of aggression, which Only offered further evidence of Pretoria’s policy of deStabiliSatiOn and subversion in the region and repeated violations of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of front-line African States. It noted that this unabashed act of aggression by South Africa, which wag Obviously (Mr. Rrishnan, India) designed to intimidate front-line African States , has been severely condemned by the international community with a sense of outrage. .‘I! “The Bureau reaffirmed its steadfast support for and solidarity with the peoples and Governments of the front-line States as well as the brave liberation movements in their heroic efforts to resist South African aggression and oppression. It recalled that the Non-aligned Sunnnit Conference, held in New Delhi in March 1983, had *commended the front-line States and other neighbouring States for their courage and determination in the face of brazen intimidation by South Africa and called upon the world community to provide all possible assistance and support to these countries to strengthen their defences as well as to create conditions to avert bloodshed in the whole of southern Africa’, It noted that the solidarity and support of the Movement to the peoples and Governments of the front-line States Was’ reaffirmed recently by the visit to four front-line States by the Chairman of the Movement, His Excellency Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. “The Bureau noted that these attacks constituted yet another act of State terrorism committed by the racist re’gime and recalled that the Ministerial Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries, held in New Delhi last month, had ‘strongly condemned the policies and acts of State terrorism of the Pretoria rdgime perpetrated against front-line and and other neighbouring States ’ and ‘called upon the international community to exert pressure upon the Pretoria racist re’gime to desist from its acts of aggression and destabilization against front-line and other neighbouring States’. That meeting had further concluded that the racist Pretoria re’gime and its agents were the root cause of the problems in the region. The Bureau reiterated that the policies and practices of the South African rigime constituted a serious threat not only to regional stability but also to international peace and security. "The Bureau reiterated its condemnation of the policies Of COnStrUCtiVe eW%Iement and active collaboration with the apartheid regime followed by the Governments of certain Western and other States and vested interests which give encouragement to the racist rCgime in its repression of the peoples legitimate StrUggle and aggression against neighbouring States and calls UPon these Government? to abandon such policies and join in the concerted efforts to bring a speedy end to apartheid. "The Bureau declared that the latest instances of aggression by South Africa further testified to the arrogance and intransigence of that rdgime and its Utter lack of respect for the purposes & principles of the United Nations and norms of international law. It urged the Security Council to deal Promptly and effectively with the serious threat to peace and security Posed by these acts of aggression and renewed the call repeatedly made by the Movement of Non-aligned Countries for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the united Nations Charter, It noted in this context the importance of the forthcoming Conference on sanctions against Racist South Africa to be held in June 1986 and urged the international community to redouble its efforts in this regard. "The Bureau reiterated that only the total eradication of the apartheid system and the establishment of a non-racial democratic society would constitute a solid foundation for a just, durable and universally acceptable solution of the situation in South Africa." That is the document that was adopted by the Meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Motiement of Non-aligned Countries today. The nature and the synchronization of this, the Pretoria rdgime's most recent act of international outrage, is evidence both of premeditation and desperation. Terrified at the promise and momentum of democratic political change within its (Mr, Krishnan, India) borders, the racist rCgime is doing its best to export terror abroad. The ' selectivity of the targets and the innocence of the victims have been documented before this Council and at the bar of the WOKld'S conscience. India, as Chairman of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries, as been appalled and angered at the unprovoked bombing by a commando group of the African National Congress Office in Harare, besides airborne attacks by commandos in GaboKOne and by fighter aircraft on a refugee camp near Lusaka, In a statement my Government declared: "This aggression is in line with the unabashed actions of this regime to destabilize neighbouring sovereign States on the flimsy pretext Of forestalling attacks on it by the liberation movements, ANC and SWAPO. Every such act of aggression by South Africa has, in the past, been severely condemned by the international community, but everything falls on the deaf ears of the racist rdgime of Pretoria. "The latest attack is obviously designed to intimidate Zimbabwe, which will soon host the next summit of the non-aligned nations. The racist policies have not succeeded in SUppKeSSing widespread protests against apartheid within South Africa and they are certainly not going to silence the voices of opposition abroad to their savage methods. The non-aligned nations are fully behind the African front-line States in their opposition to apartheid. We condemn these aggressive acts and will continue to stand solidly behind the brave liberation movements in southern Africa as well as the peoples and GOVeKnmantS of the front-line States." During the visit by the Chairman of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, to Angola, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe last week to express our Solidarity with the struggling people of South Africa and with the front-line States, he affirmed that the struggle against apartheid in South AfKiCa had reached beyond the point of no return. The only question now is whether freedom would come to South Africa peacefully or after bloodshed. The choir%? before the regime in South Africa is clear. If it decides to end apartheid it Could release the leaders of the liberation movements and begin a genuine dialogue. Or it could continue with its present policy of obdurate rejection of change, which will necessarily be.countered by more intensified and massive protest , and violence. But then the Pretoria r&gime,has always shown a preference for a Policy of arrogance and intimidation towards its neighbours, coupled with illusory political manoeuvres at home intended to deceive world opinion with a pretence of reform. Neither’that r&ime nor its powerful supporters who shed crocodile tears about the rising trend of violence seem to be willing to read the writing on the wall. (Mr. Krishnan, India) Allow me to refer to one of the elements of the so-called constitutional reforms by the Pretoria r&gime, the tricameral legislature introduced in August 1984, which excluded the black majority from the right to democratic representation and brought to the legislature representatives of the Coloured and Asian communities, whose record has not been distinguished either for the articulation of the aspirations of the majority in South Africa or for the creation of viable political means of constitutional reform, I should like to inform the Council Of the decision of the Government of India to ban the entry into India of any member of the Coloured and Asian legislatures that form part of the so-called constitutional reforms introduced by the Pretoria rhime. We do not feel that they are representative of the Coloured or Asian communities in South Africa, and their participation in that sham exercise only serves to divide and weaken the ,struggle against apartheid. I have dwelt at some length on the abhorrent racism and apartheid practised by the ejouth African rCgime because it is precisely this that constitutes, in the words of the New Delhi Declaration of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, "the root cause of the conflict and instability in southern Africa". Effrontery and audacity, bred by self-perceived racial superiority, to the majority of one’s own people is mirrored in the temerity with which South Africa has continued to disdain and ignore the counsel of the world community and persisted in aggression when it pleases against whomever it chooses. It is a matter of particular irony and concern that one such target should have been a camp for refugees driven from their Namibian homeland by the unsanctioned and illegal occupation forces of the Pretoria r&gime. It was only last week that the ninth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements unanimously decided to continue to provide assistance to (Mr. Krishnan, India) Namibians 80 displaced. It is precisely such efforts by a responsive and ,', *(_.I responsible international community that South Africa's racist r&ime iS determined to try to annul and destroy. Tomorrow is a day sanctified by the commemoration of the birth of Lord Buddha. It was he who articulated the potential of man to act t0 decide his Own salvation, a potential the oppressed people of South Africa have now shown their determination to develop and to use. The Council will do well to recognize that fact and to take the action against South Africa that it is empowered and expected to take under the Charter, The PRHSXDHNT: f thank the representative of India for the very kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. CHAGDLA (United Republic of Tanzania): I should like first to extend to you, Sir, my delegation's warm congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of May. We are confident that with your rich experience and diplomatic skills you will successfully guide the work and deliberations of the Council. I must also express our appreciation to your predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Claude de Kdmoularia, the Permanent Representative of the French Republic, for the able manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the Council during the month of April. Speaking on behalf of the African Group, I wish ht the outset to express our deep dismay and shock at the dastardly and cowardly aggression of the South African military forces against the sister independent African States of Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe, all members of the Organization of African Unity (GAD), the (Mr. Krishnan, India) Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations, We have been informed that that armed and premeditated aggression by South African military forces, which took place in the morning of 19 May 1986, has caused unnecessary loss of life and property in i Gabarone, Lusaka and Harare. Only three months ago the Council debated at great length the immanent fragile security s.ituation in southern Africa as a result of the Pretoria r8gime’s threats to neighbouring countries that provide refuge to the victims of apartheid in accordance with the established principles of international law relating to the protection of refugees. Today the Council is once again meeting to discuss the racist rbgime’s air raids against three front-line States last Monday , as the representative of Zambia has already reported, in total violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter. As far as we are concerned, the root cause of all this senseless action is centred around the evil policy of apartheid, a system that is universally condemned and is unacceptable. The Pretoria rdgime is now desperate and helpless as a consequence of the mounting and irresistible oppasition to the policy of apartheid within South Africa itself. In this respect the racist minority r&gime in South Africa has resorted to external aggression with a view to diverting international attention from its current internal problems. That, however, will not deter African States from continuing to give moral and material support to the liberation movements of South Africa and to the suffering masses of that unfortunate country. It has now become evident that the people of South Africa are no longer scared of the military machine of the racist rggime, and so far about 1,600 people have died since the uprising started just over a year ago. The defiance of the (Mr. Chagula, United Republic of Tanzania) repressive and oppressive racist rQgi.me by the people of South Africa is a manifestation of their frustration in their quest for freedom and national independence. The evil designs of the racist rhgime, the policy of bantustans Or homelands, bear testimony to the evil policies of the racist minority regime in South Africa, as the international community knows full well. In view of this, the solution to the problem cannot be found through the use of force, internally or externally, It is therefore incumbent upon the racist r&ime to release all political prisoners, li#t the ban on political parties and open up a dialogue with the nationalist leaders of the majority of the people Of South Africa regarding the future of that country. It is to be expected that the racist Pretoria rQgime will continue to carry out many more frantic and desperate attacks against the front-line States in the near future. The excuse given for such attacks has been that they are aimed against so-called terrorist bases, but in reality they have been targeted on refugee camps and other innocent people, who have lost their lives. The air raids against Botswana in 1984 resulted in 12 deaths. Zambia and Zimbabwe have also sustained several incursions by the South African military forces in the recent past, apart from last Monday's attack. The situation is even worse in Angola and Mozambique, where the UNITA and MNR bandits are armed, trained and financed by the racist r6gime of South Africa. In effect, the intention of the South African regime is to overthrow the legally constituted Governments of Mozambigue and Angola. (Mr. Chagula, United Republic of Tanzania) The policy of so-called constructive engagement of the Reagan Administration has in fact encouraged the racist regime and made it more intransigeht in its defiance of international public opinion. The policy has also encouraged the racist regime to carry out wanton aggression against the neighbouring States, particularly the People's Republic of Angola. The recent visit of dissident Savimbi to the United States of America is testimony to that fact. We view that visit and the material support recently given to the UNITA bandits by the United States as an insult not only to the people of Angola but to the whole continent of Africa. we therefore feel that the United States is no longer an honest broker in the negotiations which have been going on with the MPLA Government in Angola. In this connection we request the United States Government to stop forthwith any further support to the UNITA :.5 bandits, for such support is only increasing the suffering of the people Of Ango la. It is now over 10 years since Angola became independent, and since then the people of that country have never known peace, for they have been perpetually subjected to unwarranted war imposed upon them by the UNITA bandits with the'active support of the racist rdgime. Namibia continues to be illegally occupied by the racist re'gime of South Africa in total defiance of international opinion. The racist re'gime has also continued to use Namibia as a launching pad against the neighbouring African States. As far as we are concerned, the only solution to the Namibian problem would be implementation of resolution 435 (1978), which sets the basis for an internationally accepted arrangement for the independence of Namibia4 The linking of Namibian independence to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola is in our view irrelevant and extraneous. The Cuban forces are in Angola at the invitation (Mr. Chagula, United Republic of Tanzania) of the legitimate Government of Angola in accordance with the principles Of the United Nations Charter, which allms any State to enter inti a military agreement with any other State. The independence of Namibia therefore should not be taken hostage to that linkage, and thus it is the duty of the Council to bring pressure to bear on South Africa so that Security Co~~~cil resolution 435 (1978) is implemented without any preconditions. We also wish to reiterate that the so-called interim Government of Windhoek is both illegal and null and void. We call upon the racist regime in South Africa to release all the Namibian political prisoners and to grant the people of Namibia their self-deteKIIIinatiOn and independence. In this respect we commend the gallant and heroic struggle of the people of Namibia under the sole and authentic leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAFG). We appeal to the international community to increase its diplomatic, moral and material assistance to SWAP0 with a view to carrying on the struggle for their self-determination and national independence. As I said earlier on, the situation in southern Africa is quite explosive, and it can explode at any time, for the people of that country are sick and tired of the repressive r8gime of South Africa. The situation in South Africa therefore is not only a threat to the region but to international peace and security as a whole. The time has now come for the Council to take appropriate measures that would ensure lasting peace and security in the region. We have on numerous occasions reiterated that it is high time that mandatory sanctions were taken against the racist riqime in South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter . Such measures, we are sure , would compel the re’gime to negotiate with the majority of the people of south Africa, The concept that mandatory economic sanctions do not work is not wholly true I for such measures have been taken against (Mr. Chaqula, United Republic of Tanzania) . other countries and have been very effective. This, we believe, is the only peaceful option left for bringing change in South Africa. I wish to conclude by saying that the people of to0 long and that it is incumbent upon this Council, preservation of international peace and security, to South Africa now. We, for our part, vehemently condemn the recent unprovoked aggression by the racist minority re'gime.of South Africa against its neighbouring African States, whose objective it is to destabilize and weaken their support for the people of South Africa, In this connection we commend the heroic struggle of the people of South Africa and of their liberation movements to extricate themselves from the shackles of the inhuman policy of apartheid. It is the considered opinion of the African countries that it is now the duty of the international community to see to it that apartheid is eliminated once and for all along the lines we are advocating.

I thank the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania for the very kind words he addressed to me. The representative of the United States wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I call upon him. Mr. OKUN (United States of America): At the outset allow me to express my delegation's congratulations to you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of May. We are confident that under your sage and practised guidance the Council will be well led in its important work, and we salute you. Permit me also to express the thanks of my delegation to Ambassador de K&noularia of France, whose magisterial and serene leadership of the Council contributed so much to its deliberations during the month of April. (Mr. Chagula, United Republic of Tanzania) South Africa have suffered for which is entrusted with the send the right signal to The representative of Zambia has charged that the United States practised State terrorism in its response to Libyan terrorism and implied that, as South Africa ‘s alleged master , my country inspired the raids on the capitals Of Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. He is under a misapprehension on two counts. In the first place, there is no parallel. The United States acted in self -defence under the provisions of Ar title 51 of the vni ted Nations Charter against State terrorism directed by Libya. In the case at hand action was taken against the Governments of BOtswana, 2atii.a and Zimbabwe, which were engaged in discussions with South Africa to end cross-border violence. The United States also rejects the assertion that we were somehow responsible for the events of 19 May. Indeed, my Government issued a statement on the morning of 19 May expressing our sense of outrage at these events. That statement, issued by the White House, said in part: “On the occasion of South African military strikes into Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana the United States stands with the Governments and the peoples of those countries in expressing our sense of outrage at these events and our condolences to the families of the victims.” My delegation will have more to say about this tomorrow. In the meantime I deplore the tendency of some delegations to divert attention from the event at hand. I also wonder if by recalling the question of Libyan terrorism they wish to demonstrate to the people of my country that they sympathize with the terrorist acts committed by Libya. If so, we will duly take note and draw the appropr ia te conclusions. (Mr. Okun, United States)

I thank the representative of the United States for the very kind words he addressed to me. There are no further speakers for this meeting. The next meeting of the Security Council to continue the consideration of the item on the agenda will take place tomorrow, Friday, 23 May 1986, at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m.