Security Council does not adopt text condemning South Africa for attack against Angola.

Security Council does not adopt text condemning South Africa for attack against Angola

On 18 June, a draft resolution calling for condemnation of and sanctions against South Africa for a "premeditated and unprovoked attack' on the port of Namibe in Angola as well as its continuing occupation of parts of the territory of that State, was not adopted by the Security Council because of negative votes cast by two of its permanent members.

The text also called for condemnation of South Africa for its "premeditated, persistent and sustained armed invasions of Angola', and utilization of Namibia "as a springboard for armed invasions and destabilization' of Angola.

South Africa stated that its Defence Force had denied that it "operated in the harbour town of Namibe'.

The vote was 12 to 2 (United Kingdom, United States), with 1 abstention (France). The draft (S/18163)-- submitted by Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, and United Arab Emirates--would also have had the Council determine that South Africa's "policies and acts of aggression' constituted "a threat to international peace and security'.

The Council was asked to impose "selective economic and other sanctions' against South Africa "as an effective means of combating the apartheid system and bringing peace and stability to southern Africa'. These would have included: suspension of all new investments in South Africa; prohibition of the sale of krugerrands and all other coins minted in South Africa, of all sales of computer equipment and of all new contracts in the nuclear field; suspension of all new investments in South Africa and of guaranteed export loans; and restrictions in the field of sports and cultural relations.

The Council would have demanded that South Africa withdraw forthwith all its military forces from Angola and cease violations of Angola's land, sea and air space.

Member States would have been requested urgently to extend all necessary assistance to Angola and other front-line States to strengthen their defence capabilities against South Africa's "acts of aggression'. Assistance to Angola to facilitate immediate reconstruction of its economic infrastructure would also have been asked.

The Council would have called upon all Member States to desist from any action which would undermine Angola's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, and would have called once more upon States to implement fully the arms embargo imposed against South Africa in resolution 418 (1977).

The Council would have also demanded full and adequate compensation to Angola by South Africa for the damage to life and property "resulting from the acts of aggression'.

The vote came after three Council meetings held in 16, 17 and 18 June at Angola's request to consider what it described as "the South African aggression against the People's Republic of Angola, especially in light of the recent and continuing acts of terrorism and violation' of Angola's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The United Kingdom said it was unable to support the draft, which called for mandatory sanctions based on Chapter VII of the Charter. It opposed economic boycotts, because they did not work. The United Kingdom Government had shown itself willing to implement a range of measures against South Africa and was looking, with its partners in the Commonwealth and the European Community, at what further effective steps it could take to increase the pressure on South Africa to put an end to apartheid and its policy of destabilization. Its aim was to bring down apartheid, not the South African economy, and it would not be pushed into adopting particular measures in advance of such consultations.

The United States "with regret' had opposed the text, although there had been much in the draft resolution that it supported. It was difficult to ascertain the truth regarding "a part of the world largely inaccessible to independent and unbiased fact-finding'. A fact-finding commission might have investigated thoroughly the Angolan charge. It could not accept the call to assist Angola's military capabilities. The region needed fewer guns and more efforts to resolve disputes peacefully. The United States also could not support mandatory sanctions for reasons it had outlined on numerous occasions in the past. It was working to help the forces of reason in South Africa prevail in time to prevent increased bloodshed and chaos.

France said although it had taken national measures against South Africa, following adoption of Council resolution 569 (1985), it did not think it appropriate to transform those voluntary measures into mandatory sanctions as provided for in the draft.

Communications: On 31 May the Secretary-General received a letter from Afonso Van Dunen, Angola's Minister of External Relations (S/18129), stating that since the Council adopted resolution 577 (1985) on 6 December 1985, demanding that South Africa cease all acts of aggression against Angola and unconditionally withdraw forthwith all forces occupying Angolan territory, as well as scrupulously respect the sovereignty, airspace, territorial integrity and independence of Angola and that it pay compensation for damages resulting from its "acts of aggression' against Angola, those acts had increased steadily. South Africa had increased to seven battalions the troop strength of its land forces stationed on Angolan territory.

The month of May 1986 had been marked by almost daily violations of Angola's airspace and the build-up of South African regular troops inside its national territory, he continued. Those actions had culminated in "treacherous attacks' near Xangongo, in southern Angola, in which 53 people had been killed and 5 wounded.

On 8 June, the Soviet Union, in a statement (A/41/405-S/18142), said that unarmed Soviet and Cuban merchant ships unloading in Namibe on 5 June had been the target of "a pirate attack', as a result of which Soviet ships had been damaged and a Cuban ship had sunk. Pretoria had engaged in "an act of terrorism' that might have "far-reaching and dangerous consequences'. "Those who embark on a course of terrorism and violate the generally accepted rules of international law, including the freedom of navigation, must realize where this may lead', the Soviet Union stated. South Africa's aggressive policy against neighbouring African States and other members of the world community exacerbated international tension in general. "South Africa's patrons, chiefly the United States', also bore responsibility for that situation. South Africa, the Soviet Union stated, was "responsible for the act of terrorism committed in the Angolan port of Namibe' and "such actions could not be left unpunished'.

On 18 June, Peruvian Foreign Minister Allan Wagner, in his capacity as President of the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, sent a cable (S/18168) to the Council President, stating that the attack on Namibe by South Africa's "globally repudiated apartheid regime' showed once more the need to adopt sanctions.

On 13 June South African Ambassador Kurt von Schirnding in a letter to the Secretary-General (S/18156) said that the actions South Africa was "compelled to undertake in Angola' were "aimed exclusively at the terrorist forces who use the safe haven offered them by that government to perpetrate acts of violence against the people of South West Africa/Namibia'. He stated that as was the case with regard to the report of the Security Council Commission of Investigation established under resolution 571 (1985) (S/17648), his Government rejected, on account of its one-sidedness and its misrepresentation of the facts, Council resolution 577 (1985). His Government further rejected the inference in resolution 577 that it was involved in ""acts of aggression' against Angola' and considered itself under no obligation to pay compensation to that country.

By allowing "terrorists' of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) "to carry out their campaign of terror' from Angolan territory, contrary to international law, Angola must shoulder the responsibility for the loss of life and property suffered by the people of the territory. Angola was also responsible for loss of life and damage to property in South Africa "as a result of the violence perpetrated by the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC)', which, he stated, also received "terrorist training and succour' in Angola.

Debate

Elisio de Figueiredo (Angola) said that on 5 June South African troops had mounted a dawn raid against Angola, hitting oil tanks and cargo ships anchored at the Namibe port "Racist divers' had planted high-power magnetic devices on three naval vessels-- one Cuban and two Soviet--all of which were carrying foodstuffs and medical supplies for the people of southern Angola. He stated that at the end of May 1986 combined South African troops and bands of South African puppet units had killed more than 53 Angolan troops and wounded dozens in an attack near Xangongo in the province of Cunene. Another attack in Cabinda had been repelled in the week of 8 June.

South African troops had invaded Angola again and again since 1975 and seven South African battalions were still inside Angola. South African troops had repeatedly attacked other front-line States. He appealed to the Council to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria.

After the vote, he said the position of the United Kingdom and the United States came as no surprise. But he admitted to a feeling of frustration and even despair for the Council's usefulness, indeed of the raison d'etre of the United Nations itself, when two permanent Council members, "virtually guardians of the United Nations Charter', saw it "fit to defy it and to violate their mandate'. No amount of pontification on apartheid's evisl would have any effect or carry any weight when those two Powers refused to join in the international community's otherwise unanimous call for sanctions against the Pretoria regime. He did not believe that the Council had seen "the last of South African imperialist military adventurism'. Not until South Africa had been made to change "its imperialist posture', and not until South Africa had been "truly decolonized' and had a majority Government freely elected, would peace and stability come to southern Africa.

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said Angola's ill-directed complaint against South Africa had been introduced in an attempt to hide the facts concerning the situation in Angola. He denied that the South African Defence Force operated in the harbour town of Namibe. South Africa was committed to a policy of co-operation and peaceful coexistence with all the countries of the region, including Angola. South Africa could not be held responsible for Angola's civil war. A "massive Cuban expeditionary force' was still inside Angola, in contravention of the Alvor Agreement, to sustain the Government in Luanda against the people's wishes.

Weapons deliveries were being stepped up, and the past two years alone the Soviet Union had injected at least $2 billion worth of military equipment into Angola.

South Africa had complied in good faith with the Lusaka Agreement of 16 February 1984, despite the Angolan Government's inability to contain SWAPO's incursions acrose the Namibian border. South Africa had also explored the possibility of establishing some form of joint South African-Angolan peace-keeping mechanism. But Angola had refused to co-operate in any such venture. The problems in Angola should be solved by Angolans. All foreign forces should be withdrawn from Angola.

The Soviet Union required "a subjugated Angola' to extend its influence along the west coast of Africa, south and north of Angola. If it succeeded in its aims in Angola, no country in southern Africa would be safe from Soviet encroachment. The leaders of the countries immediately south of Angola were deeply concerned about that threat, and urgent action was required to ward it off. He proposed that the Council send a fact-finding mission to Angola to establish the facts.

Council members: Vasility S. Safronchuk (USSR) said the international community could not tolerate such acts of international terrorism as the South African attack at Namibe. The attack had resulted in major destruction of the docks and major damage to the Soviet ships, while the Cuban ship had sunk. Pretoria's action was reminiscent of aggressive actions against Libya taken by the United States, with the assistance of the United Kingdom, two months ago. The "policy of State terrorism' pursued by the United States served as a model for "the racists of Pretoria.' The United States could help suppress terror and violence dealt out by South Africa and could end Pretoria's policy of aggression by "even just abstaining in the vote on a draft resolution on sanctions against South Africa'.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) said South Africa's aggressiveness was constantly growing. The recent visit "by the bandit Savimbi' to Washington demonstrated "the open commitment of the United States to South Africa's attempted destablization of Angola'. The danger of a serious conflagration with unforeseen consequences for international peace and security was evident. Taking into account South Africa's nuclear ambitions, the Council should draw attention to the great danger to international peace and security inherent in its aggressive policy. The Council should adopt effective, mandatory and comprehensive sanctions against South Africa.

Richard Woolcott (Australia) recalled that during the past 18 months the Council had met on numerous occasions to consider the matter of South Africa's illegal incursions into neighbouring States. South Africa had time after time used its superior armed force against its neighbours. The argument that its actions were aimed at maintaining the stability of Namibia-- which it occupied illegally--was "untenable in law and fatuous in terms of common sense and morality'. By its own actions, South Africa was increasing the pressures on the world community to adopt sterner measures to bring it to its senses.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said South Africa persisted in pursuing its acts of repression and destablization. However, Pretoria was gravely mistaken in believing that its neighbours could be forced into compliance with its own design for the region No true peace could come to southern Africa as long as apartheid prevailed in South Africa, and South Africa must bear the heavy responsibility for the consequences of its aggressive acts. South Africa's contemptuous and repeated acts of aggression against Member States in the region, as well as its violent and oppressive policies towards its own people had reached a level where international peace and security were seriously threatened. Increased international pressure must be brought to bear on South Africa.

Huang Jiahua (China) said that "all justice-upholding countries and people the world over' were "vehemently indignant' at, and had strongly condemned, South Africa's "barbarous crimes'. The root cause of the instability in southern Africa lay in Pretoria's insistence on pursuing the policy of apartheid, its continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its incessant aggression against neighbouring countries. Strong, firm and effective measures should be taken to enforce sanctions against South Africa.

Pascal Gayama (Congo) said that in carrying out "its aggression against the port of Namibe', South Africa sought to balance its renewed apartheid policy "against the support and good will of certain Powers, through "constructive engagement' or declared opposition to all forms of sanctions against it.' The fact that Angola's political institutions were not to Pretoria's liking in no way gave Pretoria a mission to attack or occupy Angola--or, for that matter, any other front-line State.

Chuchai Kasemsarn (Thailand) said South Africa's latest attack demonstrated its intransigence and arrogance, as well as its lack of respect for United Nations Charter principles and norms of international law. South Africa should be condemned by the world community not only for its latest "act of aggression' against the Angolan port of Namibe but, even more, for its continued occupation of Namibia and the presence of its troops on Angolan soil. Its policy of apartheid had exacerbated tension and conflicts in southern Africa. Stronger measures by the international community were required to convince Pretoria that aggression did not pay and that its repugnant policy of apartheid must end if it wished to live in peace with its neighbours.

Reinaldo Pabon-Garcia (Venezuela) said the situation in southern Africa was becoming worse day by day, and South Africa represented an increasing threat to peace and security in that part of the world. The imposition of selective economic or other sanctions would be an appropriate first step towards forcing South Africa to abandon the apartheid system, and would contribute to the establishment of peace and stability in the region.

Nelson K. Dumevi (Ghana) said South Africa's objective was to destabilize Angola and pressure its Government into denying support to SWAPO and other liberation movements. The attack on Namibe could widen the conflict in the area, and was "an act of desperation of a regime clearly on its last legs'. That "misguided display of arrogant power' was made possible by direct and indirect support from certain Western Powers which had persistently thwarted action to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria for continuing to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said the "apartheid regime, a specialist in State terrorism, sure of impunity and of being protected within the Council itself', had publicly threatened to continue to commit acts of aggression against front-line States and other countries in southern Africa. The systematic destruction of Angola's economic infrastructure and the cessation of its support to the Namibian people in their struggle for freedom and national liberation were two of South Africa's priority objectives. Severe condemnations and solemn warnings by the Council had been issued in vain. Global and binding sanctions must be imposed against South Africa. The draft resolution, of which Madagascar was a co-sponsor, met the expectations of the international community, he continued.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) deeply deplored South Africa's policy of armed actions against neighbouring countries and condemned those attacks most strongly. South Africa was in error and such an attitude on its part contributed nothing to settling the true problems which it had to confront. France would have deeply wished that the international community's condemnation of those repeated acts might be translated into a vote not marred by reservations on the part of Council members. France had not hesitated to take measures at the national level against South Africa following the adoption of resolution 569 (1985).

Peter Malcolm Maxey (United Kingdom) condemned all violations of Angolan territory. There was absolutely no justification for the latest attack on an Angolan port facility. The United Kingdom utterly condemned all violations of Angola's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It would never in any circumstances countenance cross-border violations by South Africa against its neighbours. It was a matter of very considerable regret that the Council's repeated calls upon South Africa to withdraw completely its forces from Angola and to respect that country's sovereignty had gone unheeded, as had the Council's assertions that acts of force could not but undermine the prospects for peace and stability in the southern African region. Referring to South Africa's denial of any responsibility for the latest military operation, he responded that admitted armed incursions into Angola had caused the convening of the Security Council no fewer than four times in 1985.

Herbert S. Okun (United States) said much of the unrest in the southern African region could be attributed to South Africa's system of apartheid. The United States had over the years taken a number of unilateral steps to accelerate the dismantling of apartheid. It aim was to promote the end of apartheid in South Africa through peaceful means. Punitive economic sanctions against South Africa would represent an abdication of United States responsibility to support efforts by those in South Africa who were seeking to bring about a peaceful end to apartheid. It would foster even greater instransigence on the part of extremists in South Africa and impede the path to negotiations between the Government and its opponents. Sanctions would damage both South Africa's economy and the economies of the region, which should not be victimized because of apartheid, and would be "flatly inimical to peaceful change'.

Other speakers: Ludunge Kadahi Chiri-Mwami (Zaire), speaking also on behalf of the African Group, said that since its accession to independence in 1975, Angola had been subjected to a war of aggression by "the backward racist regime of South Africa'. Despite many condemnations by the Council, part of Angolan territory was still occupied by South African forces. The present "textbook case of aggression' masked "the expansionist aims of South Africa, which, ultimately, would like to extend the apartheid regime beyond its borders'.

Mere condemnation of the South African regime was no longer enough. The Council should consider adopting vigorous measures to force South Africa to renounce apartheid, to halt its aggression against the region's independent countries, and to liberate Namibia. To be effective, those measures should be supported by those with the power to put political, economic or other pressure on South Africa.

Godwin M.S. Mfula (Zambia) said that once again South Africa was engaged in its only contribution to the region--the perpetration of unprovoked acts of aggression and destabilization of independent African countries in southern Africa. The only remaining peaceful and effective way to put pressure on Pretoria was to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions. "Policies of appeasement such as so-called constructive engagement' only served to strengthen the regime's resolve to further entrench apartheid.

Alberto Velazco-San Jose (Cuba) said the Cuban ship that had been sunk in Namibe had been unloading foodstuffs for the Angolan people. Foodstuffs donated to the Angolan children by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) had also been lost. The acts of sabotage, the indiscriminate bombing of defenceless populations and the illegal occupation of territory by South Africa joined the activities being engaged in by "the mercenary forces of the UNITA bandits' that could operate on Angolan territory only because they enjoyed the military, political and logistical support of South Africa and the United States, which supplied them with the most sophisticated means of wreaking death and destruction. The Council must impose upon South Africa the sanctions stipulated in Chapter VII of the Charter.

Natarajan Krishnan (India) said that "Namibe joins the litany of places on Angola's sovereign soil which have been chosen by Pretoria as its laboratories of State terrorism'. India and its fellow members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries would continue to do whatever their resources allowed to assist in Angola's reconstruction. The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries favoured the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Pretoria.

Photo: Mr. de Figueiredo of Angola

Photo: Mr. Safronchuk of USSR

Photo: Mr. Okun of the United States