Security Council condemns South Africa for 'premeditated, sustained invasions' of Angola.

Security Council condemns South African aggression against Angola, demands troop withdrawals

The Security Council on 20 June strongly condemned South Africa for its "recent act of aggression" against Angola in the Cabinda Province as well as for "renewed intensified, premeditated and unprovoked acts of aggression" against that country, which "endanger seriously international peace and security".

A strong condemnation was also made of South Africa's use of the "international Territory of Namibia" as a "springboard for perpetrating its armed attacks as well as sustaining its occupation" of parts of Angola.

The 15-member Council demanded that South Africa "unconditionally" withdraw forthwith all its "occupation forces" from Angola, cease all acts of aggression against that country, and scrupulously respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Angola was, it stated, entitled to "appropriate redress and compensation for any material damage it has suffered".

The Council acted unanimously in adopting resolution 567 (1985).

The Council had met in response to a complaint by Angola against South Africa. In a 13 June letter to the Council President (S/17267), Angola's Permanent Representative, Elisio de Figueiredo, cited "continuous acts of aggression and violence perpetuated by the racist armed forces of South Africa", resulting in the violation of Angola's territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

The Council, which met twice on 20 June, reviewed a letter of 12 June from Mr. Figueiredo to the Council President (S/17263) transmitting a message from Angolan Defence Minister Pedro Maria Tonha.

In the message, Mr. Tonha said that despite the 17 May statement of South Africa regarding disengagement of its military units from Angola, Pretoria's "aggressive actions" against his country and the attempts to destabilize it had not stopped. He noted "the detention and neutralization" by the Angolan army of a South African "special force commando group" which had landed on 19 March in Malembo Bay, more than 2,000 kilometres from Pretoria, and the apprehension of some 40 tons of armaments, army equipment and explosive agents, parachuted from aircraft coming from South Africa and from the occupied Territory of Namibia, and meant to be picked up by the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) more than 1,000 kilometres from the South African border.

Referring to "an increased violation of Angolan national air space, as well as a concentration of South African effectives and logistic means" along its border with Namibia, Mr. Tonha said that "a new invasion" of Angola was being prepared.

Angolan view

Afonso Van Dunen, Minister for External Relations of Angola, said on 25 May, a FAPLA patrol caught a South African armed forces special commando group that was ready to launch an attack against the Cabinda Gulf Oil compound in Malongo, in Cabinda Province, more than 2,000 kilometres from Namibia and even further away from South Africa. If the operation, code-named Argon, had succeeded, dozens--including some Americans--would have died, with damages amounting to at least $1 billion, including a $216-million reconstruction of the on-shore installation. It would have taken over a year to rebuild the Malongo oil installations, and the halt in production would have caused a loss of at least $770 million.

Operation Argon's objectives were to damage the credibility of Angola's legitimate Government with the Governments of Western countries, including the United States, with which Angola had excellent economic relations; to destabilize Angola's economy and create misery for Angolans; and to give credit for the aggression to the "UNITA puppet group", which existed solely because of South African assistance.

South Africa pretended that Operation Argon's goal was to detect bases of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC). The arms seized in the operation clearly showed the "sheer absurdity" of South Africa's claimed justification for its attempted sabotage.

Some weeks ago, even as Angola and South Africa were negotiating the holding of a ministerial-level meeting to find genuine solutions towards reestablishing peace in southern Africa, preparations for Operation Argon were in progress. In March and April, South African military transport planes had crossed Angola 80 times, parachuting 80 tons of military equipment destined for UNITA in Lunda and Malange provinces, with the aim of frustrating economic development, affecting coffee production, and supplying UNITA so it could destroy the main diamond mines. Those acts of aggression were designed to promote Pretoria's plan to create a so-called constellation of southern African States, in the framework of which regional countries would be dependent on South Africa's economic and military power.

Since the beginning of June, he observed, there had been a sudden increase in South African air reconnaissance operations against Angolan troops and an unusual movement of South African forces, which could indicate the launching of a new invasion into Angola.

The official Angolan position on "all outstanding issues", he said, was contained in the "global platform" presented to the United Nations by the Angolan President in November 1984. Angola was prepared to implement "that part of the negotiated plan that concerns us as soon as the four points referred to already here in this Council are fulfilled". (For details of the Angolan position, see UN Chronicle, 1984, No. 10.)

Despite South Africa's publicity campaign about its troop withdrawal, he concluded, its presence in Angola was "still very much alive". Angola wanted a just peace in southern Africa that would "allow all to live in dignity and mutual respect based on the non-violability of international borders, on the non-violability of the sovereignty of independent States and on the non-violability of the inalienable rights of peoples based on all the rights, duties and principles enshrined in the Charter".

South African view

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said the MPLA was providing facilities for thousands of ANC terrorists, actively assisting in training, arming and preparing for acts of terrorism against South Africans. South Africa had sought a peaceful resolution of its dispute with Angola, and had repeatedly urged the MPLA government to remove the large number of ANC terrorists from its territory and to cease assisting them with training and equipment.

On 21 May 1984, South Africa had proposed that South Africa and Angola issue a joint declaration that they would not allow any person or organization to be trained or accommodated on their territory to operate against one another or to practise violence against one another.

Thus far, the MPLA government had failed to respond to those representations. South Africa would not apologize for having taken "appropriate action" to counteract that threat. It would not allow itself to be attacked with impunity, and would take whatever action was necessary and appropriate to defend itself. South Africa's actions had been in accordance with international law.

Referring to the "so-called testimony" of Captain Du Toit (the South African military man captured by Angola), he said it would not stand up in any reputable court of law. Captain Du Toit had been under the influence of drugs when he had delivered his statement, which he was forced to read from a carefully edited text. His statement differed in important respects from the actual events surrounding the incident, especially with regard to the target of the operation. South Africa challenged the Council to allow Captain Du Toit to appear before it to give his "free and uncoerced" version of what had transpired.

South Africa had not recognized the MPLA government because, among other things, it was not in effective control of the greater part of Angola, and because it would be incapable of maintaining itself without the support of foreign troops. Angolans should themselves decide who their government should be. But the MPLA government had denied them the right to decide in free elections. He called on all Council members to join South Africa in calling for an international agreement for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Angola.

Council members

Natarajan Krishnan (India) said his country strongly condemned South Africa's continuing aggression against Angola and endorsed Angola's right to adequate redress and compensation for the enormous economic and other losses it had consequently suffered.

South Africa's policy of apartheid, its continued illegal occupation of Namibia, its continuing acts of aggression against neighbouring States, "and all else that has brought infamy to the racist regime" would come back again and again to haunt the Council until it was able to act with "greater collective resolve".

Huang Jiahua (China) said South Africa remained the root of the trouble in southern Africa. South Africa had never ceased its acts of aggression and sabotage against Angola over the past 10 years. It had not completely pulled its troops out of Angola. Pretoria had accelerated its intensified acts of aggression, displaying no goodwill in favour of a negotiated solution to the issue of southern Africa. If South Africa continued to refuse to implement Council resolutions, the Council should adopt effective measures to force it to change its intransigent attitude and stop its acts of aggression.

Hans Grunnet (Denmark) said there was no excuse for South Africa's action in Cabinda. South Africa's explanation totally lacked credibility. Even the captured South African captain from the Special Forces had openly admitted that his mission in Cabinda was one of sabotage and continued destabilization of Angola. Reports about a renewed concentration of a considerable number of South African troops in northern Namibia along Angola's southern border must give rise to the most serious concern. Council members remembered all too vividly South Africa's earlier attacks on Angola and the delayed withdrawal of its troops in spite of a firm commitment to that end. South Africa's conduct not only threatened regional stability but had wider implications for international peace and security.

Richard Woolcott (Australia) said it was "a damning indictment" of South Africa that the Council had been called into session to deal consecutively with its "unacceptable policies and actions" in Namibia, Angola and Botswana. Australia had been deceived about South Africa's assurances that it had withdrawn its troops from Angola. South Africa had no right to dispatch or station forces in Angola without that country's consent. Pretoria's actions in Cabinda were illegal, in violation of the Charter and in violation of international law, and deserved condemnation.

Vassiley Safronchuk (USSR) said South Africa's armed aggression against African States was a serious and growing threat to the peace and security of States not only in that region but also beyond it.

South Africa's provocative conduct and the challenging statements made by South Africa in the Council were the result of the support and patronage given to it by individual Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, and of the alliance between Pretoria and the authors of the policy of "so-called constructive engagement". Statements of "purported regret" by those Western Powers at South Africa's actions did not mislead anyone, because there was absolutely no proof of their willingness to take effective action to curb the aggressor or to halt its "bandit-like raids" into neighbouring countries. The Council should adopt measures that would force South Africa to halt its "outrages" against neighbouring States.

Philippe Louet (France) said South Africa did not comply with the rules of international law and pursued a policy of force against its neighbours. The February 1984 Lusaka Agreement between South Africa and Angola had afforded grounds for hope that there might be a genuine regional detente. Although South Africa had implemented it only after some delay and with a certain reluctance, the Agreement nonetheless had led to the withdrawal of South African troops that had been occupying southern Angola since August 1981. No sooner had that withdrawal taken place than Pretoria launched a commando raid in Cabinda Province. South Africa was pursuing a policy of "brutal pressure" against regional countries. It was bending its efforts towards weakening their already shaky economies and France unreservedly condemned that effort to create destabilization.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said South Africa bore all the guilt for the repression of democratic liberation movements, the illegal occupation of an international Territory and acts of aggression against States in the region. The Council had held back from strict application of the Charter to counter Pretoria's "imperial will". South Africa could not place itself above the law. All countries were bound by Charter provisions, none of which had been respected by South Africa, which had constantly ignored its obligations.

Ahmed Tawfik Khalil (Egypt) said South Africa's aggressive regime had decided to challenge the entire international community. It had carried out raids against sovereign States, first on the pretext of "hot pursuit" and then on other pretexts. When would the Security Council adopt the enforcement measures "for which we have asked time and again"? The time had come for the Council decisively to shoulder its responsibility to deal with those who insisted on defying Charter principles. Angola's appeal was a rightful one.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) said he condemned South Africa for its "renewed escalation of unprovoked, predatory and persistent acts of aggression" against Angola, including the continued military occupation and violation of Angola's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and airspace. Thailand demanded that Pretoria desist from its lawless acts and immediately and unconditionally withdraw its occupation forces from Angola compensate Angola for all the damage incurred, as well as cease all further violations against it.

Javier Arias Stella (Peru) said South Africa obstinately relied on force in southern Africa. For the past 10 years, Angola had known the "trauma of violence and occupation." The attack against the Malongo complex was part of a long chain of events which showed that South Africa had a penchant for forceful solutions combined with colonialist and racist practices which ran directly counter to the very essence of the United Nations objectives. Peru supported Angola's right to demand adequate compensation for the huge economic losses that it had suffered, and expressed its deep disquiet at acts of aggression that undermined the atmosphere necessary for successful dialogue and negotiation.

Leandre Bassole (Burkina Faso) said that since the South African commando unit had been caught red-handed in Angola, its leader had admitted its crime. The Council's condemnation of Pretoria would be spurned, as usual, by the racist regime. "Such conduct was possibly only through the support, whether avowed or not, of those who but yesterday again refused in the Council to impose sanctions on the Pretoria regime under Chapter VII of the Charter, which has so often been violated by that same regime. He wanted the countries bordering South Africa to "at long last be able to live free and in safety within secure boundaries".

Guennadi Oudovenko (Ukrainian SSR) said Pretoria had worked unceasingly to destabilize the situation in Angola. Its declaration of its so-called peaceful intentions towards Angola was "but the latest in a number of mendacious and propagandistic manoeuvres". The Ukrainian SSR condemned South Africa's continuing aggression against Angola, and demanded its immediate cessation and the unconditional and prompt withdrawal of all South African troops from Angola. The Council must oblige South Africa unconditionally to respect Angola's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

D.H.N. Alleyne (Trinidad and Tobago) said Angola had had to "endure the travails of South Africa's outright aggression, interference and intervention in its internal affairs". In view of that persistent aggression, Angola would have to continue relying on international support to resist Pretoria's flagrant violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Contrary to its pronouncements, South Africa was continuing its policy of destabilization and occupation of Angola. The Council must persuade South Africa that the use of force would not resolve political problems but only exacerbate them. One State must not be allowed, "on the basis of a distorted, archaic and abhorrent theory of human relations--apartheid--to disrupt international peace and security".

Peter Malcolm Maxey (United Kingdom) unequivocally condemned the violation of Angola's sovereignty and regarded the involvement of South African military personnel in Cabinda as "indefensible". The Council should express strong condemnation of South Africa's "illegal and totally unjustifiable act of force" in Cabinda. However, the United Kingdom did not endorse every formulation in the text. "Our intention is simply to express our views in the clearest possible manner" to South Africa, and "our sympathy" to Angola.

Warren Clark (United States) deplored the South African action in Cabinda, adding that his country had made its "deep displeasure" known to South Africa. It had received no satisfactory explanation from Pretoria for its conduct. The United States was particularly disturbed by evidence that the South African military action in Cabinda threatened the lives and property of United States citizens and companies. Such incidents should not recur. The United States deplored "cross-border violence in any direction and in any form". Its diplomacy in southern Africa had been aimed at stopping violence, obtaining the removal of foreign forces and securing respect for national sovereignty and the inviolability of international borders. The Cabinda incident, and other recent instances of violence in South Africa, Angola, Botswana and elsewhere in the region, underscored the importance of moving rapidly to a negotiated settlement in the region. The United States was committed to that goal, and it would continue to pursue it.

Other speakers

Marcus M. Kofa (Liberia), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said South African commando units were still in Angola with the intention of destroying that country's vital economic infrastructure. Pretoria was insincere in the search for a genuine regional peace. The African Group deplored the fact that South Africa had arrogated to itself the right to transgress the borders of the front-line States to commit acts of destabilization. It rejected and condemned the "unprovoked manoeuvres" as an affront to the spirit and letter of the Lusaka Accord of 16 February 1984. The Council should take decisions that would reflect, through the application of Chapter VII of the Charter, its resolve to compel Pretoria to comply with the principles of international law.

Joaquim R. Branco (Sao Tome and Principe), speaking on behalf of African countries whose official language is Portuguese--Sao Tome and Principe, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique--said South Africa was a permanent source of destabilization in the region. Proof of the escalation of South African acts of aggression in the region had been provided once again through its terrorist acts against Angola and Botswana. The four countries called for the cessation of all acts of violence against regional States and strict respect for Angola's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Other speakers represented the United Republic of Tanzania, Cuba, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Congo, the Asian Group, the Latin American Group, the Eastern European Group, and the Arab Group.