Security Council calls on South Africa to lift state of emergency.

Security Council calls on South Africa to lift state of emergency

Security Council members on 13 June called for the immediate lifting of the state of emergency imposed in South Africa on 12 June to permit the observance of the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre on 16 June without "any provocative interference or intimidation on the part of the police and military forces'.

In a statement by Council President Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) on behalf of Council members (S/18157), they condemned "the policy and all the repressive measures which only serve to perpetuate the apartheid system, in particular the recent imposition of a nation-wide state of emergency and the arrest and detention of thousands of persons involved in the struggle against apartheid'. They also urged the immediate and unconditional release of all persons detained in that respect.

Council members recalled Council resolution 392 (1976) by which South Africa was condemned for "its resort to massive violence against and killings of the African people, including schoolchildren and students and others opposing racial discrimination' in June 1976 at Soweto.

"A repetition of such tragic events', they stated, would "aggravate the already serious threat that the situation in South Africa poses to the security of the region and could have wider implications for international peace and security.'

Council members warned the South African Government that it would be held "fully responsible' for any violence, bloodshed, loss of life, injury and damage to property which might result from acts of repression and intimidation "on the occasion of the observance of the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre'.

Council members reaffirmed "the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa for the total elimination of apartheid' and recalled previous resolutions calling upon "the racist regime in South Africa to abolish apartheid and to establish a non-racial democratic society based on majority rule, through the full and free exercise of adult universal suffrage by all the people in a united and unfragmented South Africa.'

Zaire, on behalf of the African Group, had requested the convening of the Council to consider "the serious situation in South Africa on the occasion of the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacres'.

At a 12 June meeting with South African Ambassador Kurt von Schirnding, the Secretary-General expressed regret that the state of emergency in South Africa had been reimposed, and appealed for "maximum restraint' regarding the observance of the anniversary of Soweto. Mr. Perez de Cuellar also appealed for South Africa's implementation of Security Council resolution 569 (1985).

South African Foreign Minister R.F. Botha, in a 13 June statement (S/18158), said the Council's action in convening a special meeting and issuing a statement "concerning 16 June 1986 is calculated to fan the fires of hate, violence and revolution'. He added: "It constitutes a misuse of the Security Council, particularly if the Council's primary role to maintain peace and security is kept in mind.'

Debate

The Council met on 13 June, hearing five speakers in the discussion.

Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya (Zaire), speaking also on behalf of the African Group, said South Africa was getting ready "to subject the black freedom fighters to reprisals, massacres, torture and arbitrary arrest'. The Soweto uprising--a "spontaneous outburst' in which 618 people had been killed and 1,500 had been wounded--had "sharpened the determination and yearning for liberty of the young blacks, who were ready to confront the machine-guns of the repressive forces of the racist South African regime and unambiguously expressed the pent-up anger of black youth at the regime's callous injustices'. It was a "consciousness-raising that had spread throughout an entire country, awakening the whole black population of South Africa from a long sleep, motivating it and strengthening its capacity to fight the oppressor'.

Nothing could stop the movement of black South Africans towards recovery of their freedom and the elementary rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter. The strength of black trade unions was "the first link in a long chain of elements that can thwart the racist regime's action and completely strangle it'. The South African regime had "distinguished itself by its deeply inhuman nature'. Inspired by the rightness and legitimacy of their struggle, its black people were untiringly continuing to fight the South African regime's repressive forces. The regime was in the process of losing control of the situation and increasingly found itself cornered.

The re-establishment of the state of emergency was aimed at enabling the South African regime to arrest blacks without any pretext, to torture them without the police having to worry about any kind of punishment, to detain any black freedom fighter for six months and to fire without warning on any black person.

South Africa had beaten the highest records in the world for hangings, arrests and detention. There were at least 125,000 persons imprisoned in South Africa. Confrontation among blacks was encouraged and organized by the racist regime. "The slavery to which South African blacks are subjected must not continue.' It was time that the international community supported the liberation of that people.

Herbert Okun (United States) said that what was needed in South Africa were moves towards peaceful dialogue and an end to apartheid. The United States deeply regretted the reimposition of a state of emergency and the widespread arrests of opposition figures. Such repressive measures were a serious mistake on the part of the South African Government and showed a lack of appreciation of the fundamental causes of unrest and violence there. Those measures would only serve to undermine opportunities for genuine dialogue; they would retard the restoration of public confidence and order.

Although the United States had gone along with the consensus on the presidential statement, it took issue with certain language contained in it. The goal of such a statement should essentially be a call for calm in a volatile situation. All South Africans should use peaceful means on the solemn occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Soweto uprising. It was to be regretted that that hope was not given more emphasis in the statement. The United States did not consider it appropriate for the Council to dictate the kind of Government that ought to emerge in post-apartheid South Africa. That was a matter that should be determined by all South Africans themselves, but not by outside forces.

Peter Malcolm Maxey (United Kingdom) registered reservations about two aspects of the presidential statement. Statements of that kind should be based meticulously on positions held in common by all Council members. They should express the deep feelings of members in statesmanlike and restrained language if the Council's standing was to be preserved. Reservations previously expressed by the United Kingdom about some of the terms used in the statement, for example in its explanation of vote on 13 February 1986, remained valid.

The United Kingdom strongly regretted that the statement did not go further; a vital element was absent. The statement should have expressed the Council's preference for peaceful and just solutions, and should have appealed to all concerned to show the greatest possible restraint and to work together by peaceful means. He regretted that the Council had been prevented from expressing the desire that even at that late stage a peaceful means should be found of eradicating the evil of apartheid.

Vasiliy Safronchuk (USSR) said the deteriorating situation in South Africa had reached a critical point. In response to the legitimate demands of the majority, South Africa had resorted to armed violence against a peaceful population. Information had been received about "new crimes' committed by Pretoria, which had perpetrated the harshest repression against the indigenous population struggling for the elimination of the apartheid system. South Africa had also increased its aggressive activities against front-line and other independent African States. It continued its illegal occupation of Namibia.

The Soviet Union regretted that the presidential statement did not go far enough on the question of adopting truly effective measures against South Africa as provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. The Council should issue an unambiguous warning to the South African racist regime, "given its bloody repression of the people', and unreservedly and authoritatively confirm the legitimacy of the African people's struggle to eliminate apartheid and racial discrimination. The Council must speak out strongly against the new laws promulgated by the regime.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) said an alarming situation was developing in South Africa. International opinion continued to witness brutal physical violence against millions of people in South Africa whose only crime was their legitimate aspiration for a life of equal rights and dignity in their native country. A few days before, Pretoria had adopted new racist laws in addition to "the obscurantist security laws' in the country. By those measures "the racists' were "legalizing mass repression and massacres of South Africans who dare to raise their voices for an equal and dignified life, without discrimination or apartheid.'

The only way to solve the problems in South Africa and in the southern region of the African continent was to proceed to the total eradication of apartheid; in order to achieve that, mandatory comprehensive sanctions must be imposed pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.