Security Council considers situation in Middle East, takes no action.

The Security Counsil on 12 March strongly condemned South Africa for the killing of defenceless African people protesting against their forced removal from Crossroads and other places.

It also strongly condemned "the arbitrary arrests" by the Pretoria regime of members of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and "other mass organizations opposed to South Africa's policy of apartheid".

The Council took its action with the unanimous adoption of resolution 560 (1985). The vote was 15 in favour to none against, with no abstentions.

Under other provisions of the resolution, the Council called on South Africa "to release unconditionally and immediately all political prisoners and detainees, including Nelson Mandela and all other black leaders with whom it must deal in any meaningful discussion of the future of the country", and "to withdraw the charges of 'high treason'" instituted against the UDF officials. The Council called for their immediate and unconditional release.

The Council commended the "massive united resistance of the oppressed people of South Africa" against apartheid, and reaffirmed "the legitimacy of their struggle for a united, non-racial and democratic South Africa".

In a letter of the same date to the Secretary-General (S/17051), the Permanent Representative of South Africa, Kurt von Schirnding, pointed out that "the events at Uitenhage" had occurred "on the anniversary of Sharpeville," and added that "the organizers of this ill-conceived march, so tragic in its consequences, cannot escape a heavy responsibility for what occurred."

(On 21 March 1960, 69 civilians were massacred in Sharpeville, a township south-east of Jahannesburg, in South Africa, when police fired into a peaceful crowd protesting the apartheid regime's "pass laws" which severely restrict the movement of all blacks and require them to carry special passes.)

The South African letter stated that Pretoria remained determined to continue the efforts to promote "a programme of fundamental reform in every sphere of life . . . and specifically constitutional reform".

The South African representative said a crowd estimated at three to four thousand, "armed with stones, petrol bombs and bricks", had marched along the road approaching Uitenhage. About a kilometre outside the town, a 19-man police unit had parked two police vehicles across the road and when the crowd was a few metres from the vehicles, the officer in charge signalled it to stop. Addressing the leader, he informed him that the march was unlawful and urged the crowd to disperse. The appeal was ignored, whereupon the officer fired a warning shot. "In spite of this crowd surrounded the police and pelted them with stones, and other missiles including petrol bombs. The police were left with no alternative but to fire in self-defence. The crowd retreated and fire ceased immediately."

The State President had appointed a Commission "to investigate forthwith all the factual circumstances" regarding the incident at Uitenhage "where people were killed and injured and to submit an urgent report", the letter said.

Questioned on 22 March at the daily press briefing about Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar's response to the killings in Uitenhage, a spokesman replied that the Secretary-General "condemned and deplored" them. The Secretary-General was of the view that "any policy that was founded on force could only sow violence".

Council Meeting

The Security Council met on 8 March at the request of Egypt, on behalf of the African Group, "to consider the serious situation in South Africa" resulting from the "murder of defenceless African demonstrators against forced removals", the arrests and "high treason" charges against UDF officials, "and the continued intensification of the apartheid State's violent repressions in that country".

The request was contained in a letter of 28 February to the Council President from the Deputy Permanent Representative of Egypt, Mohamed Ibrahim Shaker, in his capacity as Chairman of the African Group for February (S/16991).

In the course of two days of consideration of the subject--on 8 and 12 March--the Council heard 21 speakers and reviewed a letter of 6 March to the Secretary-General from Vinay Verma, the Acting Permanent Representative of India (S/17009). The letter contained the text of a communique adopted the same day in New York by the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries.

The Bureau, among other things, demanded that South Africa immediately and unconditionally end its policy of uprooting indigenous African people from their homes and "banishing them to artificially created 'bantustans'". It also demanded that the charges of "high treason" preferred against members of the UDF and other mass organizations opposed to the apartheid regime be withdrawn, and that the arrested persons be immediately and unconditionally released. It called on the Security Council to effectively deal with the "current grave situation" through the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Saliou Coumbassa (Guinea), speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the African Group, said the situation in South Africa was very serious. The proponents of apartheid had been brandishing so-called constitutional reforms, organizing massive repression, carrying out arbitrary arrests followed by detention without trial, and removing, against their will, the defenceless inhabitants of Crossroads and other black townships to more arid zones. Several decades ago, the "neo-Nazis" of South Africa had vowed their determination to resist the winds of change. That was the fundamental reason for "these parodies of constitutional reform, for the violence at Crossroads, for the hunting down of militants and leaders of liberation movements, and for the massive carnage which has bathed in blood more than one place in South Africa".

However, in the end, "like a bee drowning in its own honey", the Pretoria regime would be "hoist by its own petard and would be undone by its own hand". The recent events at Crossroads proved clearly that the Pretoria regime really believed that it could force the liberation movements "to come to Canossa and perpetuate its regime of oppression". Apartheid must be rooted out. It was imperative for the international community to keep up and increase its pressure to force Pretoria to respect the legitimate rights of the South African people. Only the elimination of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic and non-racial society based on inter-community dialogue within the framework of universal suffrage exercised by all could lead to a just solution of the "painful problem" of South Africa. The days of apartheid were numbered.

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said the resolution was an "astounding distortion" of events in South Africa. It was "fraudulent and malicious, in both substance and intent". It was ironic that South Africa was confronted with a series of "outrageous and ridiculous" accusations in the Council at a time when it had "embarked upon major constitutional reform and development", when it was "building upon the pattern of consultation and negotiation" with leaders of all population groups, of all races and colours and creeds, on the basis of "peaceful and orderly constitutional reform". The opportunities for increasing goodwill and co-operation between all the peoples and communities in South Africa had been "dramatically enhanced" at the present. As the South African Foreign Minister had stated recently, there was a majority of countries in the United Nations to which a peaceful solution to South Africa's problems was "simply anathema".

In spite of the Government's assurances, unfounded rumours were circulated among the inhabitants of Crossroads to the effect that a mass forced removal programme would be carried out without prior notice. Those rumours had given rise to an "understandable panic situation". Riots ensued during which police were attacked by "stone-throwing mobs" and were fired upon with live ammunition, compelling the police to return the fire. South Africa regretted the loss of life and was actively pursuing a plan of action aimed at avoiding a repetition of those tragic events. The acts of violence were instigated by a relatively small group of agitators. South Africa had invited representatives of resident groups and factions at Crossroads and related areas to participate in negotiations with a view to an acceptable resolution of the problems. It was prepared to consider the possibility of the proper upgrading and urban development of Crossroads and other areas.

The persons referred to in the resolution were not arrested on the instructions of the South African Government, he said. The decision was taken by an attorney-general--who was not a political appointee, but a senior official of the Department of Justice--after studying a dossier submitted by the police, who had conducted a lengthy investigation into the case. There was nothing arbitrary about it. They had not been arrested for their political beliefs or their membership of any organization. They had been charged with specific acts allegedly committed in contravention of the law, and they would be tried in an open court of law where the onus would be on the State to prove its case. South Africa would respect and abide by the Supreme Court's judgement.

Nelson Mandela had been offered his freedom on condition that he denounce violence as a political instrument. He had apparently refused to accept that condition, and must therefore personally accept the responsibility for his further imprisonment.

Council Members

Cavan Hogue (Australia) said Australia condemned the violence at Crossroads. It also condemned South Africa's policies of forced resettlement. The recent incidents in Cape Town were another example of the violence which apartheid engendered in its attempts to enforce the artificial separation of racial groups in South Africa.

South Africa's actions in arresting and detaining its political opponents, including keeping leading UDF members in prison for an extended period awaiting trial, demonstrated its continuing intolerance of legitimate political opposition and its determination to intimidate extra-parliamentary dissent. The banning or imprisonment of many of the Government's political opponents made a mockery of South Africa's professed intent to widen participation in the political process. South Africa detained the very leaders who represented the black community's legitimate concerns and aspirations. All those imprisoned or banned on political grounds should be released early.

He stated that Australia remained unequivocally opposed to apartheid. The essential and fundamental elements of apartheid remained unchanged as the basis of political and social development in South Africa. The goal of all South Africans must be to work for the creation of a system of government which brought about the abolition of apartheid and granted equal rights to all its citizens irrespective of race. That objective should be achieved through dialogue and negotiation. The continuing course of confrontation pursued by South Africa could only lead to disaster.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said that once more, the anger and despair of the oppressed black population had erupted. Hundreds of blacks had died or were wounded. Apartheid had always been anathema in Denmark, which remained committed to its peaceful dismantling. Sustained an dincreased international pressure against South Africa was paramount in efforts to convince it of the urgent need for a peaceful abolition of the apartheid system. Denmark had particularly emphasized the necessity for the Council to adopt mandatory sanctions and to strengthen the arms embargoes.

The detentions and subsequent trials of prominent UDF members could only lead to increased political tension. Denmark appealed to South Africa to release the UDF leaders as well as all other political prisoners. Denmark urgently requested South Africa to implement substantial reforms to meet the legitimate aspirations of the black majority before it was too late. The world community would never acquiesce in apartheid, and would not continue to be an "idle bystander".

Ling Qing (China) said South Africa had once again cruelly suppressed the black people fighting against apartheid. China condemned South Africa's "new crimes of wantonly arresting and killing" black people. It supported the struggle of the South African people. Racial discrimination and racial oppression was South Africa's State policy. The ultimate purpose of the so-called "improvement of the living rights" of the urban black residents was to deprive the black people of their basic rights as citizens, to dislodge them in large numbers from their homes and to confine them to their homelands or bantustans.

The UDF leaders and some other prominent figures had been arrested and arbitrarily charged with treason only because they opposed racials discrimination. Opposition to apartheid was a crime, while "stubbornly clinging to it" was legal. Was that not clearly South Africa's perverse logic? China supported the 6 March communique of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

Oleg A. Troyanovsky (USSR) said recent events in South Africa had evoked universal outrage and condemnation. South Africa continued with impunity to "flout wholesale" the basic human rights of the indigenous pupulation totalling more than 20 million. Apartheid was an ideology that had been promoted to the rank of an official State policy.

South Africa could not "insolently ignore" the demands for an end to the system of apartheid and the granting of equal rights to the entire population of South Africa if it did not enjoy the "overt support" of a number of Western countries--the United States and some of its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which were prepared from time to time "gently to reprove" the practice of apartheid verbally but which, in fact, acted as protectors of the Pretoria regime against the introduction of any effective international sanctions. Recent events in South Africa had once again underlined the urgency of demands that the Council adopt comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter and also that all States faithfully observe the arms embargo.

Hamid Mohammed (Trinidad and Tobago) said his country rejected South Africa's "outrageous action" in arresting six prominent UDF leaders and charging 16 UDF officials with high treason for their participation in a non-violent campaign for a united, non-racial and democratic South Africa. It called for the immediate and unconditional release of all South African "patriots". The violent campaign unleashed against the residents of Crossroads and other places because of their unwillingness to submit to forcible relocation was yet another indication of South Africa's shocking contempt for the norms of civilized State practice and further emphasized its complete illegitimacy.

Trinidad and Tobago urged "those with the necessary influence" to indicate unequivocally their total disapproval of South Africa's policies and put effective pressure on it so as to ensure an end to apartheid before violence and destruction spiralled completely out of control. the international community would not tolerate South Africa's continued persecution and repression of its people. The Council demanded the immediate and complete dismantlement of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial, democratic society in South Africa.

Guennadi I. Oudovenko (Ukrainian SSR) said that in their clashes with the anti-racist movement, the authorities preferred to use force and violence. That was indicated by the shooting of the peaceful demonstrators at Crossroads. There were widespread searches and arrests; "terror and repression once again rule the roost". No cosmetic reforms could in any way alter the criminal and inhuman essence of apartheid.

It was because they could rely on "comprehensive co-operation" offered by the United States and other Western countries and because they were safe from sanctions that the racists in Pretoria were brutally repressing the indigenous population, had not ceased their threats and blackmail against independent African coutries, and continued their illegal occupation of Namibia and their esploitation of its wealth. The Council should take effective steps, including measures envisaged in Chapter VII of the Charter, to force Pretoria to give up the system of apartheid. All States should striclty observe the arms embargo.

Leandre Bassole (Burkina Faso) said Pretoria's forces of repression were doing their utmost to "drown in blood" the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed black majority. As long as the odious policy ot apartheid remained in force, and as long as there were those who were "inclined to indulge it, to justify it or to explain away its generally outrageous behaviour", human rights would continue to be trampled underfoot in South Africa. "Those who now are stubbornly refusing to hear or listen to the cries of distress that rach us so ominously from the country of apartheid should not be astonished if tomorrow they see South Africa as a whole plunged into a huge blood-bath."

The harbingers of that general explosion were already clearly to be seen. "Neither arbitrary arrests, nor whimsical imprisonment, nor charges of treason against the leaders of the organizations of the masses, nor the prohibition of freedom of movement, nor the banishment of their leaders, nor the bloody crimes committed by the Pretoria regime will halt the progress of the South African people towards restoration of its dignity." Nothing in Pretoria's present attitude suggested that any gleam of hope could be expected in the evolution of the internal situation in South Africa. Recent events at Crossroads were evidence of that.

Mohamed Ibrahim Shaker (Egypt) said that what was happening in the township of Crossroads was another link in the chain of the continuous struggle in South Africa between the black majority--the opponents of apartheid--and the racist Pretoria Government. It also constituted a further step by Pretoria in the application of its policy to relocate blacks in bantustants.

The violence with which Pretoria reacted to the opposition of blacks to the attempted relocation from Crossroads and the large numbers of dead and wounded which resulted from that opposition accorded with the philosophy of the regime, which was based on violence and repression and whose purpose was to impose its inhuman policy. The Pretoria regime was "decadent". It must be given a clear message by the Council that the struggle against it would continue and become stronger.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said France condemned the policy of apartheid in South Africa, the racial discrimination there and the separate development that led to the establishment of bantustans and forced displacements of inhabitants. Pretoria was wrong "if it expects to resolve the problems posed by the constitutional reforms which leave untouched the foundations of the apartheid system, as can be seen from the violence carried out by the police."

France denounced the brutal repression that had taken place at Crossroads, resulting in a great number of victims among the demonstrators protesting against threats of forced displacement. The elimination of the policy of apartheid and civil peace must be obtained throuh dialogue. France "wishes to express its concern to see the release of Nelson Mandela, the historic leader of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC)". It denounced the recent wave of arrests mainly of UDF leaders, which could only delay the opening of the genuine dialogue France earnestly wished.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) said Thailand had learned of the "tragic massacre" at Crossroads with shock and dismay. The news of the arrests of UDF leaders "indicates the inhumane extent of the abhorrent policy and practices of apartheid, as well as the moral bankruptcy and perfidy of the racist Pretoria regime". Thailand condemned apartheid in the strongest possible terms, and supported every means to bring about its dismantling as soon as possible. Any further delay in taking appropriate measures to remedy the situation arising from apartheid would aggravate the racial conflict in South Africa and exacerbate tension there.

The process of bantustanization and the imposition of the so-called consitutional reforms continued to defy all civilized norms and democratic principles. Thailand condemned Pretoria for the killing of defenceless blacks who protested agianst their forced removal from Crossroads and the arbitrary arrests of those who opposed the apartheid regime. It demanded that Pretoria release unconditionally and without undue delay those who had been arrested, as well as withdraw the charges of "high treason" against those political prisoners.

Javier Arias Stella (Peru) said Peru continued to reject apartheid. It always expressed its solidarity with efforts to abolish that "hateful system from the face of the earth". Peru shared the profound concern of the international community in the face of the aggravation of the situation in South Africa. The time had come seriously to attempt to end the murders, the arbitrary detentions, the accusations of high treason against UDF leaders and other opponents of the apartheid regime.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said Pretoria had begun a new escalation of repression. It had called out the army to put down the rebellion of the defenceless inhabitants of Crossroads, killing some 20 victims and wounding 230. The forced displacement of the inhabitants of the townships was a part of the policy of bantustanization, whose ultimate goal was to prevent the formation of a South African nation, to dispossess the majority of its land, and to strengthen the political and economic domination of the white minority.

In the face of the intransigence, cruelty and continuous brutality of the apartheid regime, the international community could only reaffirm the legitimacy of the struggle of the South African people for liberation, and renew its total support for the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa, under the ANC's leadership. The present situation in South Africa derived from the continued imposition of the policy of apartheid and racial discrimination by the minority regime, as well as from its contemptuous dismissal of United Nations resolutions. If South Africa wished to be readmitted to the comity of civilized nations, it must completely eliminate the practice of apartheid.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said turmoil continued in South Africa. The deaths, injury and violence in Crossroads had provoked uniform condemnation. The continuing exclusion of black South Africans from political life, the denial to the large majority of the population of fundamental civil and political rights and the policy of forced removals were deplored throughout the world. However, it would be "prejudicial" to pretend that "some highly significant developments" were not taking place in South Africa. The South African State President had indicated greater flexibility and a commitment to a fuller dialogue between his Government and black opinion in South Africa.

The Council should encourage dialogue between Pretoria and a fully representative cross-section of black South African opinion. The Council must not rule out peaceful change, but must press for the fundamental reforms which would be needed to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of South Africa's black majority. The United Kingdom did not interpret the reference in the resolution to the legitimacy of the struggle as relating to armed struggle or extending to the use of force. It was concerned about the recent arrest of leading members of the UDF, a non-violent organization. It reiterated its previous reservations about certain aspects of the resolution, including the "tendency to exaggerate an already serious situation".

Warren Clark (United States) said the United States was deeply concerned about a number of recent developments in South Africa, in particular the continuing civil unrest and the arrest of 16 opposition leaders on charges of high treason. It shared in the general sentiments contained in the resolution. It abhorred apartheid and sought to encourage the transformation of South Africa into a society that provided equal opportunity for all its people--"a society that provides all people the opportunity to live in dignity and to enjoy the full social, political and economic benefits of the land of their birth". It sought that transformation through peace, not through violence and through evolution, not revolution. The process that could lead to a government fully representative of all South Africa's peoples and based on the consent of the governed, was one in which all South Africans should be involved.

The process was complex and was bound to be "arduous". "Our role is to encourage and, to the extent possible, to facilitate the process of change." A genuine process of reform was under way in South Africa, whose Government had made its decision to move away from apartheid. That had created a new dynamic of change. Further change was not only desirable, it was inevitable. Important decisions and commitments had already been made, but much more must be done.

The United States deeply regretted the arrest of 16 opposition leaders and the decision to press charges of treason against them. South Africa's decision to seek those trials detracted from its own stated commitment to seek a dialogue with black leaders. The trials were "inopportune" and were bound to detract from the success of that dialogue.

He said the United States recognized the need to remedy the injustices of the past in South Africa, and to put an end to those that continued. The changes that must come, and would come, to South Africa should be undertaken without recourse to further bloodshed. Dialogue should replace confrontation. South Africa should move forward with all possible haste on the reforms it had outlined, "to move forward with the upgrading of Crossroads and its transformation into a permanent residental area, to move forward to end all forced removals, to move forward with the expansion of residency rights for all its people and, indeed, to move forward towards the society of equal justice under law that we all wish to see".

In the resolution, the United States objected to the prejudging of the judicial process in South Africa. It neglected to call for observance of judicial due process, including such important elements as a speedy trial and access to legal counsel. However, the United States' strongly hedl views on the situation in South Africa had led it to join with others in consensus within the Council.

Natarajan Krishnan (India) said that with the resolution, the Council had sent a clear and unequivocal message to Pretoria reiterating the universal condemnation of its policies, categorically affirming that the Council and the international community could not and would not countenance the continued practice of apartheid, that it would not tolerate the killing of defenceless people, that opposition to and struggle against apartheid was not treason but entirely legitimate, to be commended and supported.

The resolution was a beacon of hope and a manifestation of the international community's solidarity with and support for the many freedom-loving persons now languishing in South African prisons in their noble cause and just struggle. They and the millions of oppressed and disppossessed people of South Africa were not forgotten in their plight and predicament. The Council had spoken with one voice. The significance of that fact would not be lost on Pretoria.

Other Speakers: Other speakers in the debate were Vinay Verma (India), who spoke on behalf of the non-aligned countries; the Acting Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, Serge Elie Charles (Haiti); Hussein Saeed Al-Alfi (Democractic Yemen), who spoke in his capacity as the Chairman of the Arab Group; and Shani O. Lweno (United Republic of Tanzania), who spoke in his capacity as representative of the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

Mr. Verma said there was a "peculiar and poignant significance" that lay in the name of Crossroads, the township in South Africa that had been so "prominently and tragically" in the news in recent days. For a long time now, the Council had been at a crossroads on that question. Racist South Africa had continued to fling defiance before the Council. It was high time that the Council decided what path it should take from that crossroads--the path towards imposition of suitable enforcement measures against Pretoria, which was the correct path, or a path which could only serve to push South Africa and southern Africa as a whole closer to the kind of violence which all would wish to avoid. If South Africa did not mend its ways, the Council would have to make that critical choice.