Security Council demands South Africa compensate Angola for attacks on that country: damages estimated at $36.7 million.

Security Council demands South Africa compensate Angola for attacks on that country: damages estimated at $36.7 million

The Security Council, in endorsing the report of its Commission of Investigation to Angola, has demanded that South Africa pay "full and adequate compensation" for the damange to life and property resulting from its "acts of aggression" against that country.

The Council, in unanimously adopting resolution 577 (1985) on 6 December 1985, also strongly condemned South Africa "for its continued, intensified and unprovoked acts of aggression" against Angola, "which constitute a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of that country as well as for its utilization of the international Territory of Namibia "as a springboard for armed invasions and destabilization" of Angola.

Member States were urgently requested to extend all necessary assistance to Angola "to strengthen its defence capacity". [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 Council further demanded that South Africa cease immediately all acts of aggression against Angola and unconditionally withdraw forthwith all forces occupying Angolan territory as well as scrupulously respect Angola's sovereignty, airspace, territorial integrity and independence.

Angola was commended by the Council for its steadfast support for the people of Namibia in their just and legitimate struggle against the illegal occupation of their territory by South Africa and for the enjoyment of their inalienable rights to self-determination and national independence.

While Member States and international organizations were asked urgently to extend material and other forms of assistance to Angola to facilitate the immediate reconstruction of its economic infrastructure, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar was requested to monitor developments in the situation and to report to the Council no later than 30 June 1986 on the implementation of the resolution.

Commission of Investigation

The Commission of Investigation undertook its mission in response to Council resolutions 571 of 20 September and 574 of 7 October 1985. Resolution 571 was adopted after the Council had considered Angola's complaint of an armed invasion by South Africa (see UN Chronicle 1985, No. 8). The Commission was charged with evaluating damage resulting from that invasion.

The three-member Commission--Mohammed Kamel Amr (Egypt), Leslie Rowe (Australia) and Felipe Beraun (Peru)--visited Angola from 13 to 23 October.

Report

The Commission reported (S/17648) an urgent need for international assistance to people affected by South African aggression against Angola, as well as for further aid for rhabilitation and reconstruction of that country. Damages suffered by Angola as a result of South African invasions in September and October 1985 were estimated at "substantially higher" than Angola's estimate of some $36.7 million.

Angola had reported to the Council on South African military actions on 17, 19 and 30 September, maintaining that despite South African assertions to the contrary, there were no South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) bases in the sites attacked, and that the South African actions were exclusively in support of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA).

By resolutions 571 and 574, the Council had strongly condemned South Africa for its armed attacks on Angola, and demanded that country cease all acts of aggression and withdraw immediately all its military forces from Angola. The Council, by resolution 571, called for full and adequate compensation to Angola for damage to life and property resulting from South Africa's recent acts of aggression.

The Commission stated it had met with top Angolan officials and visited locations of some attacks. The Commission visited Cazombo, which had been the object of South African aggression in September 1985 and estimated the material damage at $604,000.

Because of ongoing hostilities, however, it had been unable to visit Mavinga in Cuando Cubango province, the subject of an Angolan complaint to the Council in October. The Commission agreed that Angola's assessment of total losses i that area--$36,084,508--was "of the right order of magnitude".

It stressed that such estimates in the two areas did "not fully reflect" the extent of damage suffered in september and October. Also, they did not include compensation for loss of human life and injuries, as was called for in resolution 571, as relevant information on civilian casualties was not available.

Estimates also did not take into account "the consequences of the latest fighting on the livelihood of the people in the regions affected or on the economy as a whole because of the lack of data, continuing military operations and the fact that many of the effects would only become apparent over time". Nor did they include the cost of maintaining displaced persons from those regions or of providing them with emergency assistance, the Commission added.

International assistance was needed to alleviate the suffering of displaced persons and/or those otherwise affected South African aggression, as well as refugees from Namibia, South Africa and elsewhere, it said, noting the valuable contribution being made in those areas by international organizations, including the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund. While there was a "pressing need" for further assistance for rehabilitation and reconstruction, the call for further international aid "does not in any way replace or diminish South Africa's responsibility to pay full compensation" to Angola, the Commission concluded.

South Africa View

In a 27 November statement (S/17662), South African Foreign Minister R.F. Botha rejected the Commission report "because of its one-sidedness, its misrepresentation of the facts, and because it is so clearly part of the United Nations and Angola's propaganda campaign" against South Africa. The situation in Angola was the result of the civil war being waged between MPLA and UNITA. The MPLA had driven UNITA and FNLA (Frente Nacional para Libertacao de Angola) out of Luanda with Cuban and Soviet assistance. The free and fair elections which were to have been held before independence had never taken place because MPLA--"which has its cultural roots in Lisbon and its political roots in Moscow"--knew that it would lose in a free election against UNITA.

Instead of allowing Angolans to decide their own future, Mr. Botha continued, MPLA had imported more than 35,000 Cuban troops and thousands of Soviet surrogates to protect it against its own people. The Commission would have done well to report on the "untold suffering" those elements had inflicted on Angolans and how they had devastated Angola's economy and exploited its natural resources. It should also have assessed the damage done in South West Africa by SWAPO "terrorists" operating from bases in Angola.

Mr. Botha regretted that the Council did not respond to South Africa's suggestio that it should send a fact-finding mission to the area to establish who was fighting whom, who was directing the operations, what armaments were being used and what Angolans would like to see happen in their country. "It is a pity that the Commission did not report on the true nature of the type of conflict which is now afflicting the Angolan people."

Debate

Natarajan Krishnan (India) said that with its customary arrogance, South Africa had repeatedly defied the call of the international community and moved on from one aggression to another, whether against neighbouring States or against its own people. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter were the only effective international answer to that racist regime's obstinacy. The Non-Aligned Movement was unanimous in expressing and committing itself to firm solidarity with the Government and people of Angola.

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said the report's authors had made no attempt to present an accurate, objective assessment of the situation prevailing in Angola. Its "biased account" which was "liberally sprinkled with unsubstantiated allegations" attempted to lay the blame for the calamitous situation in Angolan at South Africa's door.

Elisio de Figueiredo (Angola) said no report could adequately and completely convey "the catastrophic and completely convey "the catastrophic dimensions of the 10-year onslaught by the racist regime" against Angola. No assessment could take into account "the deaths, the destruction, the sabotage, the horror of a national trauma caused by the incessant South African attacks in so many varied forms". South Africa's statement was "the type of xenophobic, paranoid, propagandistic stuff that is standard for a regime under seige by its own people".

South Africa should first apply the principles of freedom, dignity and justice within its borders before its racist leaders made "patently false claims outside". If it were not for "overt and covert" support by allies and friends, South Africa's "hegemonistic designs in southern Africa" would not be carried out. If the policy to destabilize legitimate Governments was put into action against Angola, as had been threatened, then all of Africa would be bound, in the interests of self-preservation, to vociferously oppose such action.

Melchior Bwakira (Burundi), speaking also for the African Group, said Angola was a victim of South Africa's "blatant violation of international law of which it boasts openly". In Angola, UNITA had no popular backing. South Africa was still illegally occupying a part of Angola and continuing "destructive operations" against the inhabitants and the economic infrastructure. Many deaths and serious damage to property had resulted. Total damage caused to Angola by South Africa from 1975 to 1985 was estimated at some $10 billion.

Speaking after the vote, Herbert Okun (United States) said his country had abstained on the provision on military aid because it could not support any request for assistance to strengthen Angola's military structure. What the southern Africa region needed was fewer guns and more negotiation. "If is the track of diplomacy my Government is actively pursuing and will continue to pursue", he stated.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said his country voted for the resolution because it condemned unequivocally South Africa's incursions into Angola. The South African representative should make that absolutely clear to his Government. The United Kingdom did not interpret anything in the resolution adopted as endorsing the intervention of foreign combat troops, as encouraging a policy of armed struggle, or as falling within the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. The United Kingdom would like to see the earliest possible withdrawal of all foreign forces from Angola and the beginning of reconciliation and reconstruction after years of conflict there. It would also like to see the implementation forthwith of the peaceful solution of the Namibian problem as contained in the United Nations settlement proposal and in Council resolution 435 (1978).