Security Council demands lifting of state emergency in 36 districts in South Africa.

Security Council demands lifting of state of emergency in 36 districts in South Africa 

The Security Council on 26 July strongly condemned the establishment of a state of emergency in 36 districts in South Africa (declared on 20 July) and demanded that the South African Government lift it immediately.

The Council acted by adopting resolution 569 (1985) by a vote of 13 in favour (Australia, Burkina Faso, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, Madagascar, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian SSR, USSR) to none against, with 2 abstentions (United Kingdom, United States).

Under other provisions of the resolution, the Council urged Member States to adopt several measures against South Africa, including suspension of all new investment, prohibition of the sale of krugerrands and all other coins minted in South Africa, restrictions in the field of sports and cultural relations, suspension of guaranteed export loans, prohibition of all new contracts in the nuclear field, and prohibition of all sales of computer equipment that might be used by the South African army and police.

The Council strongly condemned the "mass arrests and detentions recently carried out by the Pretoria Government and the murders which have been committed," as well as "the apartheid system and all the policies and practices deriving therefrom". It called upon South Africa "to set free immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners and detainees, first of all Mr. Nelson Mandela".

The Council reaffirmed that "only the toal elimination of apartheid and the establishment in South Africa of a free, united and democratic society on the basis of universal suffrage can lead to a solution". It commended those States which ahd already adopted voluntary measures against the Pretoria Government and urged them to adopt new provisions, and invited those which had not yet done so to follow their example.

Prior to adopting the resolution, the draft of which (S/17354/Rev. 1) was submitted by Denmark and France, the Council failed to adopt a proposed amendment (S/17363) by which it would have strongly warned South Africa that failure to establish a "free, united and democratic society on the basis of universal suffrage" would compel the Council "to meet forthwith to consider the adoption of appropriate measures under the United Nations Charter, including Chapter VII, as additional pressure to ensure South Africa's compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions".

The vote on the proposed amendment, introduced by Burkina Faso, also on behalf of Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago, was 12 in favour to 2 against (United Kingdom, United States) with 1 abstention (France). It was not adopted due to the negative votes of two permanent members.

Three provisions in the revised draft were not included in the original draft resolution (S/17354), which was also submitted by Denmark and France prior to the Council meeting in the afternoon of 25 July to consider the question of South Africa in response to separate requests by France and by Mali (on behalf of the African Group). The provisions concerned the Council's condemnation of the state of emergency, its reaffirmation that only the total elimination of apartheid and the establishment in South Africa of a free, united and democratic society on the basis of universal suffrage could lead to a solution, and its commendation of those States which had already adopted voluntary measures against the Pretoria Government and its urging them to adopt new provisions, and its invitation to those which had not yet done so to follow their example.

After meeting on 25 July for three hours, the Council suspended its deliberations at the suggestion of France and Burkina Faso to allow delegations to consult on the draft before it. The Council resumed its meeting soon after midnight but decided after its next meeting scheduled for 11 a.m. on 26 July. Following that second meeting, the Council met for the third and last time on the issue the same afternoon.

In its 24 July letter to the Council President (S/17351) requesting an immediate Council meeting, France said it was "deeply concerned at the continuance and worsening of the human suffering which the apartheid system is causing in South Africa". In its 25 July letter to the Council President (S/17356), Mali (on behalf of the African Group) requested an urgent Council meeting "to consider the situation in South Africa".

Views of France, African Group

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said his country was totally opposed to racial discrmination and rejected it, especially because it had become systematic in South Africa. The elimination of apartheid offered the only prospect for a possible settlement. "Neither arrests, arbitrary detentions, the policy of forced removal of the population, nor violence exercised by the forces of law and order can be a solution." The solution lay only in the establishment of a just and democratic society based on the equality of civil and political rights and on equal respect for the dignity of every human being. France had decided immediately to recalla its Ambassador to South Africa and to suspend forthwith and unconditionally and new French investment in that country.

Speaking after the vote on resolution 569, he said the vote was the gravest warning issued to South Africa to condemn its policy of racial discrimination and the violation of human rights.

Seydou Niare (Mali), speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the African Group, said the state of emergency in South Africa gave the security forces "unlimited power to arrest, torture and assassinate all the black opponents of that country". By its proclamation, the South African government wanted to "massacre the people and consolidate and perpetuate the abominable system of apartheid". Pretoria's "violent intransigence" was encouraged by Certain Western countries that were its allies. The only solution was the total elimination of apartheid. The African Group condemned the policy of constructive engagement and "all other forms of collaboration" with apartheid which encouraged South Africa in its intransigence. The declaration of the state of emergency was "bound to worsen terror and conflicts" in South Africa itself and throughout southern Africa.

South African position

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said the process of reform in South Africa to which his Government was committed was aimed at achieving a political dispensation involving all the communities. South Africa was ready to enter into dialogue and negotiation with representatives of black opinion to find an equitable solution to problems which would satisfy the reasonable aspirations of all its peoples. His Government was "seeking to create structures of government which will allow participation by all, without domination". However, violence should be forsworn as a means to achieve political ends. His government has embarked upon sincere efforts at reform. The unrest in South Africa had been and continued to be instigated to frustrate the reform process.

Moderate black leadership was being initimidated by the acts of assassination, murder, arson and threats to their lives and properties to prevent their becoming involved in the negotiating process. "Extremist elements" had perpetrated excesses, and additional security measures were necessary. The emergency measures were introduced not to protect white lives and property but black lives and property in black areas. Black South Africans would be the first to feel the effects of measures designed to undermine the South African economy. The additional measures taken by his Government would be lifted as soon as the violence diminished. "We shall continue the process of dialogue and debate, and nothing this Council may say or plan will deter us from doing what we believe is in the best interests of all the peoples of South Africa."

Council members

Peter Maxey (United Kingdom) said South Africa must address the root cause of the growing violence in that country: the need for fundamental reforms. Apartheid must be ended as soon as possible. His country preferred the path of negotiation and of dialogue between the communities concerned to armed struggle, violence and the repression which that engendered. It would be "gravely irresponsible" for the Council to encourage violence. "It should be common ground between us to maintain a balance of pressure and persuasion in our relations with South Africa, keeping open the channels of communication and the prospect of economic advancement for poorer sections of the community, while insisting on far-reaching reform."

Speaking before the vote on the revised draft, he said he could not vote for it because it would not be responsible to call for measures that would not achieve the changes all sought in South Africa and which could prove counter-productive.

Hans Grunnet (Denmark) said repression seemed to be the only answer from the white minority to the demands of the black majority to exercise its rightful political and civil rights. The latest measures, aimed at preserving the inhuman apartheid system, would only result in further violence and bloodshed. The state of emergency must be ended immediately and all those held under its provisions must be released without delay. The "latest manifestation of the racial policy of repression" demonstrated the need for increased international pressure against the apartheid system. Pretoria must be made to understand that that system had to be abolished while it was still possible through peaceful means.

Vernon Walters (United States) said totally isolating Pretoria economically and politically would lead to more bloodshed, to increased autarky of the South African economy, to a curtailment of external influence to effect change, and to greater suffering for the very people all were trying to help. Apartheid was directly responsible for the current tragic events in South Africa. The violence and deaths must end so that south Africans could proceed to a meaninful dialogue leading to urgent, fundamental reforms and an end to the system of apartheid. However, extreme measures would not produce the desired result.

Speaking after the vote on resolution 569, Warren Clark (United States) said the state of emergency should be ended. There should be serious talks between Pretoria and black leaders aimed at establishing a just society. The United States would maintain its policy of constructive enagement.

Richard Woolcott (Australia) said the introduction of the state of emergency revealed starkly the extent to which South Africa was prepared to go to shore up the apartheid system. The state of emergency would not provide a permanent end to violence. Rather, it was more likely to encourage people to feel that the only way to achieve real progress lay through confrontation and violence. Although Australia did not condone violence, only the removal of the grievances and the introduction of genuine political reform, through consultation with the real representatives of the black community, could offer the prospect of lasting and peaceful solutions in South Africa.

Qian Yongnian (China) said his country strongly condemned Pretoria's "fresh criminal acts", and was deeply sympathetic to the "black masses", who had been subjected to repression and persecution by South Africa. The "double tactics" of deception and suppression only served to expose further the false nature of the "reforms" made by Pretoria, which was in essence trying to defend the apartheid system. Should Pretoria refuse to implement relevant United Nations resolutions, the Council must seriously consider the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Vassily Safronchuk (USSR) said that essentially, there was a war going on between the racist regime and the majority of the South African population rebelling against it. Pretoria was trying to crush a popular revolt using "bloody terror tactics against the native population". Recents events showed that the criminal apartheid system was "in the throes of deep crisis". The apartheid regime was "a malignant tumour in the body of Africa"; it must be "removed surgically". Comprehensive and binding sanctions must be imposed against Pretoria under Chapter VII of the Charter. Limited economic sanctions would not lead to the elimination of the apartheid regime. His country condemned the support for the racist regime on the part of certain Western countries members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United States policy of "constructive engagement".

Ricardo V. Luna (Peru) said that under the state of emergency, South Africa was implementing a policy of terror, violating the most basic of universally recognized norms of human conduct. Its constant acts of repression and its declaration of a state of emergency with all the accompanying brutality, were nothing more than a show of brute force, on which the racist system was based. The combined force of both internal and external pressure--the latter in the form of specific measures--would have a decisive influence on Pretoria and bring about conditions more favourable to the struggling South Africans. Peru was committed to an end to repression, to the freeing of political detainees and to a lifting of the state of emergency.

Mohamed Shaker (Egypt) said the Council must demand that South Africa rescind the state of emergency, along with all other emergency and special measures. It must declare null and void all those measures and demand that Pretoria free immediately all political detainees, including Nelson Mandela. It must also demand that South Africa embark unconditionally upon dialogue with the true leaders of the black majority to lay the foundations for a democratic, authentic Government in South Africa, in which all inhabitants would participate on an equal footing, and immediately end the apartheid regime. The Council must ensure that Pretoria understood clearly that if it ignored those demands the Council would be compelled to enforce the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter.

Vinay Verma (India) said his country strongly condemned the imposition of a state of emergency in South Africa. South Africans had seized the initiative, and policies of intimidation and terror could not crush their indomitable spirit. South Africans had determined that apartheid must be destroyed, come what might, and that, if the Council did not act with a sense of purpose, they would act on their own through mass popular mobilization. The cycle of violence and bloodshed produced by "racist terror" could only intensify. The non-aligned countries were convinced that comprehensive mandatory sanctions were the only answer.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) said his country strongly condemned the Pretoria regime for its imposition of the state of emergency, which would not only aggravate the sufferings of the black majority in South Africa but would also exacerbate tension as well as threaten international peace and security. Pretoria must end its policy and practices of apartheid, case the oppression of the black majority, normalize conditions in the 36 districts in which the emergency had been imposed, set free immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners and detainees and comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions without further delay.

Leandre Bassole (Burkina Faso) said that by means of the declaration of the state of emergency, Pretoria had entered a new phase in carrying out its programme designed to perpetuate its domination over the peoples which it had constantly been oppressing merely because of the colour of their skin. It was high time to use the only language that South Africa understood: the language of force. The Council should immediately adopt comprehensive mandatory sanctions againt Pretoria under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Speaking also on Behalf of Egypt, India, Madagascar, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago following the vote on resolution 569, he said it was regrettable that permanent Council members had voted against the proposed amendment introduced by those countries. That had led to a weakening of the Council's position, thus sending Pretoria "a false message".

Hamid Mohammed (Trinidad and Tobago) said the declaration of a state of emergency was the latest manifestation to enable the minority regime to pursue "unbridled repression". South Africa would not have been able to show such "blazen defiance" of the international community without the "open and tacit" support of some countries. Policies of "constructive dialogue" had not worked and would not work. In fact, those policies had not only produced "contemptuous intransigence" by South Africa, but had given the racist regime moral support for its policy and practice of violence. The Council should adopt immediately effective measures against South Africa, as provided for under the Charter, including the imposition of sanctions under Chapter VII.

Noel Rakotondramboa (Madagascar) said Pretoria would shrink from nothing to preserve the white minority's position of domination and privilege, but the majority of South Africans were more than ever determined to persist in their liberation struggle. The proclamation of a state of emergency was intended only to legalize the terror perpetrated by South Africa's forces of repression, and reflected the disarray of the regime in the face of the increasing turbulence and the growing fervour of the demonstrators. Only concerted international action to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa could bring about peaceful change in that country.

Guennadi Oudovenko (Ukrainian SSR) said that after failing in its political manoeuvring, Pretoria had returned to its "more unusual methods--the use of guns and bayonets". However, that new violence on the part of the regime would lead only to a greater upsurge in the national liberation struggle in South Africa. South Africa had been settling scores so brutally with the indigenous population because it felt secure in its reliance on and co-operation with the United States and several other Western countries and Israel, and felt secure that they would protect it from sanctions. The Council should adopt all necessary measures against South Africa, including comprehensive, mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Other speakers

Also participating in the debate were the representatives of Cuba, Kenya, Senegal, the Central African Republic, Zaire, The Syrian Arab Republic, the German Democratic Republic, Ethiopia and Yugoslavia, and the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, Joseph N. Garba (Nigeria).