Security Council does not adopt text calling for selective mandatory sanctions against South Africa.

Security Council does not adopt text calling for selective mandatory sanctions against South Africa 

A draft resolution calling for selectivemandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter was vetoed in the Security Council on 20 February because of negative votes cast by two permanent members. The vote was 10 to 3 (Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom, United States), with 2 abstentions (France, Japan).

The sanctions--which would havebeen imposed in accordance with Article 41--would have included prohibition of import of South African agricultural products, uranium, coal, food, sugar, iron and steel, kruggerands, South African military articles, and products from South African parastatal organizations.

Also prohibited would have beencomputer exports to South Africa; air transportation with South Africa; the acceptance, receipt or holding of deposit accounts from the South African regime or from any agency or entity owned or controlled by it; new investment in South Africa; government procurements from South Africa; promotion of tourism to South Africa; government assistance to, investment in, or subsidy for trade, with South Africa; and exports of crude oil and petroleum products to South Africa.

(Article 41 states that the Council"may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions', and it may call upon United Nations Members to apply such measures, which may include "complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations'.)

The text (S/18705)--proposed byArgentina, Congo, Ghana, United Arab Emirates and Zambia--would also have had the Council prohibit nuclear trade with, co-operation with the armed forces of, and loans to South Africa. The Council would also have demanded the termination of tax treaties and protocols with South Africa.

South Atrica would also have beenstrongly condemned for its persistent refusal to comply with Council decisions and General Assembly resolutions on "the policies and practices of apartheid, the decolonization of Namibia and on its acts of aggression against and destabilization of neighbouring independent States'. The Council would have reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of the "oppressed South African people' to eliminate apartheid and establish "a free, united, non-racial and democratic society in their country'.

The Council would have declaredthat "racist South Africa's intransigent refusal' to comply with the relevant Council decisions and General Assembly resolutions constituted a direct challenge to the United Nations' authority and a violation of Charter principles.

It would have determined that thepolicies and practices of apartheid pursued by the "Pretoria racist regime, which are the root cause of the grave and deteriorating situation in South Africa and in southern Africa as a whole', constituted a serious threat to international peace and security; and that the continued illegal occupation of Namibia, as well as the "repeated armed attacks perpetrated by South Africa and destabilization of neighbouring States', constituted "grave acts of aggression' and a violation of their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

All Member States would have beencalled upon to implement the resolution, and specialized agencies would have been requested to ensure its effective implementation. States not Members of the United Nations would have been urged to act in accordance with the resolution's provisions.

The Council would also have establisheda Committee to monitor the implementation of the resolution. All States would have been called upon to report to the Secretary-General on measures taken to implement the resolution, and the Secretary-General would have been invited to report to the Council on the progress of the resolution's implementation not later than 30 June 1987.

The vote came after seven Councilmeetings held from 17 to 20 February at the request of Egypt, on behalf of the African Group.

Vote no, abstain: Five nations didnot vote for the draft resolution--the United Kingdom, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, who voted against; and France and Japan, who abstained.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom)said punitive economic sanctions were not an effective way to end apartheid. They would exacerbate the present conflict and put reform at the bottom of the South African Government's agenda and repression at the top. They would encourage a siege mentality amongst white South Africans, making a peaceful solution more difficult. "Only by maintaining political contacts will we be able to influence-- indeed insist on--the process of reform.'

Herbert S. Okun (United States) saidthe United Nations should not mandate to all its Members what their appropriate course of action should be. Each nation should be free to determine the form and substance of its measures aimed at eliminating apartheid. The mandatory sanctions requested would be "all but impossible to enforce', and the Council would find it difficult, if not impossible, to agree on when such sanctions should be lifted. Mandatory sanctions would result in the progressive destruction of the South African economy and the heightening of repression in that country "as those now in power attempt to consolidate their hold'. The United States would continue to do all in its power to achieve the peaceful elimination of the evil system of apartheid. It had committed itself to a continuing diplomatic effort to persuade all parties to enter into negotiations.

Hans Werner Lautenschlager (FederalRepublic of Germany) was sceptical about the use of economic sanctions for political purposes. Coercive economic measures would not lead to the peaceful elimination of apartheid. The Federal Republic of Germany did not want to resort to means which could affect the "vital foundations of the entire South African population and jeopardize the fate of the whole region'. The South African threats that it would impose counter-sanctions against the States in the southern African region must be taken seriously.

Pierre Brochand (France) said pressure,including sanctions, must be applied on South Africa to induce it to engage in an authentic national dialogue. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions would not, however, "bring us any closer to the desired goal: the effective and complete abolition of apartheid'. The gradual approach must be the most productive. Means of exerting pressure must be adapted to the evolution of the situation.

Commencement of a dialogue withall forces opposed to apartheid was the sole non-violent option that could lead to the transition of South Africa towards a democratic, non-racial society. France intended to take part in the quest for a solution. The situation was critical, but not all chances of a peaceful settlement had yet been lost.

Kiyoaki Kikuchi (Japan) said theCouncil should explore every possible way of reaching agreement on concerted action by the international community, but the draft could not be a basis for such action. However, South Africa should not draw the wrong conclusion. "We are firmly committed to the continued exertion of pressures on Pretoria--with or without a Security Council resolution--until it has completely abolished the system of apartheid.'

Debate

Abdel Halim Badawi (Egypt), on behalfof the African Group, said that the increasing violence in South Africa was deeply rooted in the policies and practices of the white minority rulers, who were determined to monopolize authority at any price. Their actions were responsible for the deterioration of the situation and the exacerbation of the crisis to its present dangerous level.

"The racist regime' had persistedin its "policies of terrorism and aggression' against other African States and peoples. It had heightened tension and created instability throughout southern Africa. The region had been ravaged by war and destruction. The Council was being called upon to put into force the warning to South Africa contained in resolution 566 (1985). The selective mandatory sanctions being proposed to the Council were a way to expedite the inevitable result-- the end of apartheid.

Pretoria must pave the way for theinitiation of a democratic dialogue with the oppressed majority, a dialogue that would lead to a peaceful solution acceptable to all parties. The first step on that road could be the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and the immediate cessation of all kinds of suppressive measures against political organizations. Twenty-five years in apartheid gaols had been unable to diminish Mandela's determination and hope, or the aspiration of his heroic people to a better tomorrow in a democratic society free from racism, "in which all parties participate in deciding on its future, with no discrimination or pre-conditions'.

Albert Leslie Manley (South Africa)said the drive for sanctions against his country was based on the false premise that sanctions promoted the interests of the black people of South Africa and constituted a peaceful alternative to violence. South Africa's neighbours would be hit hardest by punitive United Nations actions, and millions of people, mainly black, in southern Africa would suffer. To believe that imposing punitive measures against South Africa would somehow bring about the downfall of the South African Government was an illusion.

South Africa would not be divertedfrom its continuing programme of "controlled political and constitutional reform by those who believe in threats and intimidation'. It would continue to seek a "new constitutional dispensation to provide fully for the aspirations of all our peoples, but we will not negotiate under duress, nor under threat, nor out of fear'. It would also continue to seek dialogue with the leaders of all the communities that constitute the "multi-faceted fabric of our society'. But dialogue and negotiation could only be conducted in an atmosphere of non-violence with those who abandoned violence as a means of achieving political objectives.

Far-reaching reforms had alreadybeen introduced in South Africa and much discriminatory legislation had disappeared from the statute book. What the South African Government was striving for was: stability in southern Africa; an end to violence; negotiations between it and all of South Africa's communities and groups for the peaceful solution of South Africa's problems; and the full participation of all parties in the political process as long as they were prepared to abandon violence as a means of achieving their political objectives.

"We intend to create a South Africawhich will be strong and which will provide for the political, economic and social needs of all South Africans,' he concluded.

Council views: Li Luye (China) saidthat since February 1986, when the Council adopted resolution 581 (1986), the situation in southern Africa had continued to deteriorate. The South African authorities had "clung stubbornly to racist rule by playing the dual tactics of brutal suppression, on the one hand, and political deception, on the other'. Apartheid could not be reformed, it could only be destroyed. In view of the regime's refusal to implement Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the question of southern Africa, the Council should adopt effective sanctions against that regime in accordance with the Charter.

Aleksandr M. Belonogov (USSR)said only mandatory sanctions and the force of resolute joint pressure by the international community could have a sobering influence on the Pretoria regime. Limited optional sanctions, particularly if not complied with by everyone, would not compel South Africa to renounce apartheid. Exhortation, persuasion and trifling with the regime only made it certain of its own impunity, thereby encouraging the racists to engage in further arbitrary behaviour and violence against the black population and carry out new acts of aggression against neighbouring States.

Martin Adouki (Congo) said the situationin South Africa was woresening steadily, but eventually the blacks of South Africa would triumph over apartheid. Africa was steadily improving its organization and riposte against apartheid, "which is like a ghost vessel taking on water heavily'.

Ivan Garvalov (Bulgaria) said theSouth African regime had resorted to brutal force and violence in order to stifle the will of the hundreds of thousands of persons involved in the struggle against apartheid. The apartheid regime continued to exist because of the political, economic, military and moral support of certain Western States and of the transnational corporations, "which continue their plunder of the natural and human resources of South Africa and Namibia'

Marcelo E.R. Delpech (Argentina)said the Pretoria regime, far from recognizing its obligations to immediately end its "heinous and totally inadmissible policy' of racial discrimination, had opted for the adoption of measures aimed at perpetuating apartheid. South Africa's intransigent refusal to implement relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions required that the international community make Pretoria comply by widening mandatory sanctions against it.

Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali(United Arab Emirates) said the only peaceful means available to the international community to bring about change in southern Africa was application of Chapter VII of the Charter. Trading and dealing with South Africa would only result in strengthening it. Saying that economic sanctions would affect the front-line States and the black population of South Africa was "duplicitous'.

Andres Aguilar (Venezuela) said thatit was clear that the policy of apartheid was incapable of reform. The "slight reforms' that had been brought about in the last few years in legislation-- which actually enshrined the policy of apartheid--did not touch the essence of the system which was the "worst and most odious example of racial discrimination and an insult to human dignity'. The only way of forcing Pretoria to abide by the obligations it had assumed as a Member of the United Nations was the imposition of mandatory sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter.

James V. Gbeho (Ghana) said powerin South Africa was concentrated in the hands of security forces which did not hide their "ferocious determination' to maintain apartheid. "It is sheer hypocrisy to oppose sanctions because of the "hardship and suffering' of the blacks in South Africa. Indeed, it is rather insensitive to profess exaggerated concern about a few thousand blacks losing their meagre wages when millions of them have for so long been consigned to a situation of dehumanizing poverty under conditions of ruthless oppression.' Mandatory sanctions were the only firm option for ending apartheid.

Maurizio Bucci (Italy) said the situationin South Africa "remains substantially blocked'. Economic sanctions, even mandatory ones, had become a necessary part of a strategy aimed at promoting peaceful change in South Africa, provided they did not deprive the international community of its capability to influence developments in that country. Selective mandatory sanctions could play a useful role as a powerful political message and as an instrument to exert gradual pressure for change on the South African Government.

Other speakers: Among otherspeakers was Elisio de Figueiredo (Angola), who said that South Africa's "racist imperialist actions' were predicated on its diplomatic, political, military and economic ties with certain Western Powers. Without such assistance, South Africa's minority regime and apartheid structure could not survive, let alone be militarily powerful enough to attack, invade and destabilize the peaceful front-line States.

Isack S.G. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) appealedto all nations to desist from actions that gave succour to the apartheid regime, which indulged in State terrorism against its citizens and the front-line and other neighbouring States.

Wilbert K. Chagula (United Republicof Tanzania) said the survival of the evil policies of apartheid depended on the continued violation of the basic human rights of the black majority and "their daily massacre, which really amounts to genocide'. The oppressed peoples of Sough Africa and the front-line States urgently needed unreserved moral, political, diplomatic and material support in order completely to isolate the apartheid regime.

Mfanafuthi J. Makatini, of the AfricanNational Congress of South Africa (ANC), said the situation internally in South Africa and in the region had deteriorated alarmingly. The peoples of the world must embark on a concerted onslaught against apartheid. The philosophical underpinnings of the apartheid regime did not lend themselves to meaningful reform or change. The international community must exert maximum pressure, including imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions, against Pretoria. South Africa belonged to all who lived in it, black and white, and no Government could justly claim authority unless it was based on the will of all the people.

Lesaoana S. Makhanda, of the PanAfricanist Congress of Azania (PAC), said the "oppressed, the dispossessed, the exploited and the discriminated against majority' had been the victim of the Pretoria regime's "calculated genocide'. Only comprehensive mandatory sanctions would "avert the impending confrontation that will and, within the logic of history, must come in Azania--unless serious measures are taken to defuse it'. Any settlement, negotiated or not, in Azania that purported to safeguard apartheid or group interests as against individual human interests "will be very short-lived and would ultimately fail, and fail lamentably', he said.

Other speakers represented: Yugoslavia,Nicaragua, India, German Democratic Republic, Sudan, Morocco, Senegal, Ukrainian SSR, Algeria, Pakistan, Kuwait, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, League of Arab States, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mongolia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Uganda, Guyana, Togo, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Photo: Peter D. Zuze of Zambia, President of the Security Council for February, presided over the sessions dealing with imposition of expanded mandatory sanctions against South Africa. He is also President of the Council for Namibia.

Photo: Informal consultations, both in private and, as shown here,in public, are often undertaken by the Security Council. In conference with Hans W. Lautenschlager of the Federal Republic of Germany (back to camera) are Maurizio Bucci of Italy (left), Kiyoaki Kikuchi of Japan (centre) and Vernon Walters of the United States.