Security Council again condemns South Africa for 'unprovoked aggression' against Angola.

Security Council again condemns South Africa for "unprovoked aggression' against Angola

The Security Council on 7 October strongly condemned South Africa for its latest "premeditated and unprovoked aggression' against Angola, and its "continuing occupation of parts of the territory of that State'.

South Africa was also condemned for using the illegally occupied Territory of Namibia as "a springboard for perpetrating acts of aggression' against Angola, and sustaining its occupation of part of the territory of that country.

In unanimously adopting resolution 574 (1985), the Council again demanded that South Africa "cease immediately all acts of aggression and unconditionally withdraw forthwith all military forces occupying Angolan territory', and that it "scrupulously respect' Angola's sovereignty, airspace, territorial integrity and independence.

Angola's right--in accordance with relevant Charter provisions, in particular Article 51--to take necessary measures to defend and safeguard its sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence was reaffirmed. All States were called on to implement fully the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa imposed in Council resolution 418 (1977).

The Council renewed its request to Member States "to extend all necessary assistance' to Angola "in order to strengthen its defence capability in the face of South Africa's escalating acts of aggression and the occupation of parts of its territory by the South African military forces'. [This provision, on which a separate vote was requested by the United States, was adopted by a vote of 14 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States).]

The three-member Commission of Investigation dispatched by the Council to Angola under Council resolution 571 (1985) of 20 September 1985 was asked to report urgently on evaluation of damage resulting from South African aggression, including the latest bombings.

In case South Africa did not comply with resolution 574, the Council said it would meet again to consider adopting "more effective measures in accordance with appropriate provisions of the Charter'.

A draft resolution circulated by South Africa (S/17522) was not voted upon by the Council. (Under rule 38 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, a proposal or draft resolution submitted by a non-member of the Council "may be put to a vote only at the request of a representative on the Security Council'.)

The South African draft would have had the Council demand that all foreign military forces be withdrawn "forthwith and unconditionally' from Angola, and would have called on all States to scrupulously respect Angola's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Various factions within Angola would have been requested to settle their differences through a process of peaceful negotiation and in a spirit of national reconciliation. The Council would have asked Member States to refrain from intervening in Angola's domestic affairs "so that self-determination can at last be achieved in that country'.

Debate

Meeting at Angola's request, the Council heard 39 speakers on 3, 4 and 7 October.

Elisio de Figueiredo (Angola) said that on 28 and 29 September 1985, South African planes had violated Angola's airspace "with the purpose of reconnaissance' of Angolan troop positions. On 30 September, eight planes had bombed Angolan troops near Mavinga--250 kilometres from the Namibian border, incurring more than 65 casualties, wounding hundreds and destroying six Angolan helicopters.

The latest South African action had taken place just as Angola's armed forces were breaking through the third and last defence position of the "group of puppets, traitors, bandits, mercenaries and thieves which calls itself the UNITA group'. South Africa's attacks were aimed primarily at saving UNITA, South Africa's protege.

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said some Soviet pilots were flying Angola planes and helicopters, and the Soviets were commanding the current Movimento Popular de Libertacao de Angola (MPLA) offensive. The Soviet Union had sought to take advantage of the current international vendetta against South Africa further to expand its influence in Africa. SWAPO was sending major units southward as part of the Soviet-directed offensive with the intention of opening new fronts in its "terrorist' campaign against the people of South West Africa/Namibia. South Africa could not and would not shed its regional responsibilities and its responsibilities for the security of its own people and for the security of the people of South West Africa/Namibia.

Joseph N. Garba (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the South African aggression against Angola was "vicious, unprovoked, premeditated and dastardly'. There was "no reason, no argument, no circumstance' that could justify that "unprovoked, consistent and cold-blooded' aggression with its consequent destabilization of Angola. The Council should call for the application without delay of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against Pretoria, and consider other measures against South Africa, including those specified in Article 42 of the Charter. (That Article states the Council "may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea or land forces of Members of the United Nations.')

Council members: Natarajan Krishnan (India) said South African troops had never left Angola, despite Pretoria's professions to the contrary, and the Council should take swift action to make Pretoria comply with its Charter obligations.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said Angolans should resolve their internal affairs without intervention by combat troops from other countries. Pretoria's action was improper, illegitimate, utterly shortsighted and certain to be counter-productive.

Richard A. Woolcott (Australia) said the South African attack was illegal and its apartheid policies were "repugnant'. Australia could not condone the "doctrine of tutorial or punitive aggression'.

Chuchai Kasemsarn (Thailand) said South Africa, by maintaining forces in Angola, was defying the Council. Pretoria should cease its lawless acts and immediately and unconditionally withdraw from Angola and Namibia.

Ahmed Tawfik Khalil (Egypt) said Pretoria had proved it would not abide by Council resolutions until the Council took "the steps provided for in the Charter'. The Council must act decisively to regain its dignity.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said South Africa had admitted that the sole purpose of its latest aggression was to support UNITA. While it maintained at home "one of the most oppressive and least democratic systems in the world', it reserved for itself the right "in the very name of democracy' to be the "policeman' of southern Africa.

Huang Jiahua (China) was deeply outraged at the "willful' South African aggression. South Africa's "glib talk' about direct dialogue with Angola for the peaceful settlement of the dispute was deception. The Council should strengthen its support to Angola, and adopt effective sanctions against Pretoria.

Oleg A. Troyanovsky (USSR) said the "UNITA gangs' were being actively used by South Africa to destabilize the domestic situation in Angola and to subvert that country's sovereignty and independence. Washington believed that the way was open for direct support to be given to the subversive activities of the "counter-revolutionary gangs'. South Africa had adopted as a rule of conduct recourse to "the bugbear of a communist menace as an ideological screen' behind which it could attack other countries.

Carlos Alzamora (Peru) said South Africa's repeated acts revealed a "blind determination to impose solutions of force' by violating the sovereignty and integrity of other States and carrying out colonialist and racist practices. The time had come for the Council to "go beyond the usual rhetoric and compulsive inhibitions' and use measures available under the Charter.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) vigorously condemned South Africa's "unjustifiable' attack, which was a "disturbing acceleration' in the cycle of violence in the region. Pretoria should withdraw its troops from Angola without delay, and "face squarely the real problems that it must resolve'.

Hamid Mohammed (Trinidad and Tobago) said South Africa's contention that the attack had been undertaken in the defence of liberty, in the context of the East-West ideological confrontation, and to permit the self-determination and independence of Angola, was "totally baseless'. The "premeditated' attack had been undertaken to strengthen Pretoria's hold on Namibia.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said for the past 10 years, Pretoria had been attempting to destabilize the legitimate Angolan Government and to throttle the Angolan economy by aiding UNITA and by establishing a policy of "state terrorism'. Madagascar strongly rejected South African "hegemonism', a "new aspect of imperialism'.

Leandre Bassole (Burkina Faso) said the "spectre of an external threat' to South Africa was "purely imaginary'. The Council must impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter against Pretoria, accompanied by immediate and large-scale assistance to Angola and the other front-line States.

Guennadi I. Oudovenko (Ukrainian SSR) said South Africa was acting in such a "defiant and brazen' manner because of "broad-based and constant' support from the United States, other Western countries and Israel. The Council should take decisive action, including that provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter.

Vernon Walters (United States) said South African operations of the sort under discussion served to exacerbate an already volatile situation, and had "negative consequences' on chances for a negotiated solution to the region's problems. They frustrated the aspirations of those in southern Africa who longed to enjoy their right to a life without war and bloodshed. All parties should recognize the folly of that strife. United States diplomacy in the region was geared to peaceful, negotiated solutions.

Photo: Mr. von Schirnding of South Africa

Photo: Mr. de Figueiredo of Angola

Photo: Council President Walters of United States