Security Council fails to adopt proposals to condemn South Africa for actions against four states.

Security Council fails to adopt proposals to condemn South Africa for actions against four States

ON 23 May, a draft resolution calling for condemnation of and sanctions against South Africa for "military raids' into three other African States was not adopted by the Security Council because of negative votes cast by two of its permanent members.

The vote was 12 to 2 (United Kingdom, United States), with 1 abstention (France). The text (S/18087/Rev. 1)-- put forward by Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, and United Arab Emirates--would have had the Council determine that South Africa's policies and acts 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'.

The Council would have also demanded full and adequate compensation to Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe for loss of life and damage to property suffered during the 19 May actions. The three nations would have been commended for their support for refugees from South Africa.

The proposed sanctions 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; bans on new contracts in the nuclear field and all sales of computer equipment; suspension of guaranteed export loans; and restrictions on sports and cultural relations.

Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar would have been asked to continue to monitor the situation in southern Africa and to report to the Council by the end of August.

The vote came after three Council meetings held on 22 and 23 May at the requests of Senegal, on behalf of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and Zambia, on behalf of the front-line States (Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe).

Explanations: The United States said it could not support a call for imposition of mandatory sanctions. All States should be able to decide for themselves what measures were most appropriate "as we pursue our common goal of destroying apartheid'.

The destruction of the South African economy served no one's interests, least of all those who suffered under apartheid. A severance of economic ties would lead ineluctably to severance of political ones, depriving the United States of any leverage over Pretoria, and depriving the international community of any ability to work for the timely and complete dismantling of apartheid.

The United States would not turn its back on the millions of blacks in South Africa and on a growing number of whites there who looked to the West to lead the South African Government out of its "crude and inhuman' political system into one where the voice of the majority participated directly in the formulation of national and international policy.

The United Kingdom said the draft contained "unacceptable' passages. It would have voted for all its provisions except that calling for sanctions. It regretted that the draft's sponsors would not accept a paragraph-by-paragraph vote.

Nothing must be done to undermine the chances of a successful outcome, however hard to achieve, to the Commonwealth initiative to peacefully abolish apartheid.

The United Kingdom would not take short-term steps which might endanger that long-term and fundamental goal.

France said there were no grounds for replacing national measures with mandatory sanctions.

Secretary-General: On 19 May, Mr. Perez de Cuellar strongly condemned the South African "armed raids' into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe, in violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of those States and of the United Nations Charter. Those latest attacks by South Africa against neighbouring States represented a further extension of the violence in southern Africa, the roots of which sprang from the "iniquitous policies of apartheid and racial discrimination, which have been universally condemned'.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that the Makeni transit centre in Zambia had been bombed by two planes, killing one person and injuring 11 others.

Three nations affected

Legwaila J.M.J. Legwaila (Botswana) said that on 19 May, South African commandos descended in heavily armed helicopter gunships on the "tiny, sleepy hamlet' of Mogoditshane adjacent to Gaborone, where "they murdered in cold blood one Motswana and wounded three others'. Residential property was also destroyed. The housing complex alleged by South Africa to be a transit camp for "ANC gangsters' did not house refugees, nor were there "ANC gangsters' in Botswana. The complex was rented by Botswana nationals.

Botswana harboured refugees, not terrorists. It would never turn its back on victims of racial tyranny in South Africa, regardless of the consequences. Botswana refused to be enslaved by a non-aggression pact with a country which notoriously violated agreements concluded in good faith. That pact, in addition to turning Botswana into a "servile buffer zone' in the struggle for freedom in South Africa, would commit it to "performing slave tasks' for which it had neither the capacity nor the moral inclination. The permissive attitude of South Africa's "apologists' towards that country encouraged anarchy and bloodshed in the subcontinent.

Joel M. Ngo (Zambia) said that on 19 May, South Africa had used two unmarked defence force aircraft to bomb a United Nations refugee transit centre 15 kilometres from Lusaka, causing extensive damage and killing one Namibian refugee. The transit centre was not an African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) camp, he said.

By inaction and military, economic and political support, friends of South Africa--some of them permanent Council members--had encouraged Pretoria to "murder, maim and torture, and even to attack and destabilize its neighbours'. South Africa's friends spoke with "forked tongues' when it came to decisive action to end apartheid. The United States bombing of Libya had encouraged South Africa to step up its acts of aggression.

The "cowardly, criminal and unforgivable' South African acts showed that Pretoria did not want to live in peace with its neighbours. Having failed to contain the situation inside South Africa, the racist regime, in a desperate effort to appease its minority supporters of apartheid, decided to attack its peaceful neighbours. South Africa's intention in launching the attacks was to pollute the atmosphere for peaceful negotiations with the Commonwealth group of eminent persons that was in South Africa at the time.

Isack S.G. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) said South Africa had carried out a midnight attack against two ANC targets in Harare. Damage had been caused at one location to a public building, and a private security guard had been injured; no injuries occurred to a former ANC house which was not occupied. At both places, "the racists', in panic, had left behind communication items, vehicles and explosives after security forces had reacted to the attacks.

South Africa had attacked the three nations primarily because they were good examples of successful non-racial societies and opponents of apartheid. South Africa was also trying to divert attention from its internal upheavals and discords by creating "fictitious outside enemies'. The raids were part of a well-laid policy of sanctions against front-line and neighbouring States. The United States should "abandon linkage, constructive engagement and the supply of Stinger missiles'. Those were not policies but "fantasies and delusions, and prescriptions for disaster in our region'.

South African response

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said that on 19 May small elements of the South African Defence Force attacked "terrorist' operational and transit facilities in Harare and near Gaborone and Lusaka, with great care taken not to involve local citizens. However, peoples of neighbouring countries were often used as a shield behind which terrorists sought shelter. South Africa had frequently warned that it would act if Governments tolerated the harbouring of terrorists engaged in hostile actions against it. Terrorist elements continued to operate in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, Mr. von Schirnding said.

South Africa could not be expected to continue its reform process while terrorist forces insisted they would not negotiate and would continue violence until power was handed over to them. President Botha, on 17 April, had presented evidence of use of neighbouring countries by South African terrorist movements as bases for operations against South Africa. Governments of neighbouring States had been asked to co-operate in eradicating the "terrorist threat to all of southern Africa', but no responses had been received.

South Africa was committed to a democratic system of government, which must be negotiated and must accommodate all legitimate political aspirations of all South African communities. All South Africans should participate in government through their elected representatives. Power should be shared between all communities, but also devolved as far as possible and minority rights must be protected without one group dominating another.

South Africa would not tolerate activities endangering its security. Although it was committed to resolving its differences with its neighbours by peaceful means, it would not hesitate to take whatever action might be appropriate for the defence and security of its people and for the elimination of terrorist elements. South Africa nevertheless remained convinced that the region's problems could not and would not be resolved by violence.

Council members

Cavan Hogue (Australia) said the premeditated South African attacks-- outrageous and deplorable violations of the sovereignty of three independent countries--were unacceptable to Australia. South African incursions undermined the credibility of Pretoria's willingness to move towards genuine reforms and a peaceful resolution of its problems. The attacks against Zimbabwe and Zambia represented a dangerous escalation in tension in the region. The raid against Botswana was even more inexplicable given the recent discussions between Botswana and South Africa on mutual security concerns.

Herbert S. Okun (United States) said his country condemned the South African attacks without reservation, as "reprehensible, irresponsible, inexcusable'. They were a "body blow' to efforts to bring about a political system in South Africa based upon the consent of the governed, to bring independence to Namibia, and to end domestic strife in certain nearby States. Pretoria was employing "strong-arm tactics' to prop up apartheid, a system the United States was committed to eliminating by every peaceful appropriate measure at its disposal. The United States rejected South African threats to repeat such attacks. Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe had made efforts to limit cross-border violence directed at South Africa, and it was unjust that they should then be subjected to attack by the very State with which they were trying to reach peaceful solutions to urgent problems.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) said Pretoria's new act of blatant violation of international law and the Charter constituted a true danger to international peace and security, and proved it was pursuing a policy of destabilization in southern Africa aimed at maintaining the influence of imperialism and neo-colonialism in free, independent Africa. Washington's recent armed aggression against Libya had encouraged Pretoria to perpetrate aggression against the three countries.

Liang Yufan (China) said South Africa's attacks proved that the policy of racism stubbornly pursued by Pretoria was the root cause of the disrupted peace and stability in southern Africa. Pretoria's new acts of aggression showed it was not sincere in pursuing a peaceful settlement of the southern African question. The South African authorities had to resort to force to maintain their rule, and had also attempted to intimidate and threaten its neighbours in the hope of stopping their support for South Africans. All those manouevres had been in vain.

Claude de Kemoularia (France) said his country firmly condemned South Africa's incursions against sovereign countries. France had lodged a strong protest against military actions that endangered the region's peace and stability, and which had taken place just when South Africa's neighbours were demonstrating great moderation in their relations with Pretoria. Those countries were facing with dignity and generosity the problems posed by the growing flood of refugees fleeing the tension and violence within South Africa. Apartheid was the cause of the troubles afflicting South Africa and the region as a whole. Armed action by South Africa beyond its borders could in no way resolve the problems of southern Africa. Apartheid should be dismantled through dialogue and negotiation.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said that ANC was not a terrorist organization and by "supporting its action', Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe were not guilty of any crime. It was morally and politically unacceptable that South Africa, guilty of terrorism against its African majority and against neighbouring States, should claim participation in the struggle against international terrorism. There was no proof that facilities made available to the ANC had been used for armed attacks against South Africa. Defence of territory took place within borders and not by means of adventurist expeditions.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom would never countenance cross-border violations and South Africa's illegitimate use of force against its neighbours; such acts were contrary to the long-term interests of all South Africans. Pretoria's recent threats to renew such attacks were totally unacceptable. Violence of that kind begot more violence. South Africans should recognize that they had more interest than anyone else in promoting peaceful political evolution. South Africa should also realize that if it frustrated the Commonwealth initiative to promote a process of dialogue to end apartheid in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, it could expect no support from any quarter. South Africa's future depended on the way in which it responded to that initiative.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said his country strongly condemned the "totally unprovoked and unwarranted acts of aggression' by South Africa. Its continuing ruthless persecution had forced large numbers of people to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. Its vain efforts to destroy the ANC, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and other political parties, demonstrated the incredibility of its alleged desire for fundamental change. There was no alternative but to increase pressure on Pretoria. Only through dialogue and a sincere search for justice could peace be established in the region.

Vladimir V. Shustov (USSR) said Pretoria's aggression threatened peace and security throughout the world; the intent of its evil deed was to force the three countries to renounce support of the just cause of South African patriots. The apartheid regime was trying to prolong its existence through bloody, brutal acts carried out within South Africa and by acts of aggression directed against neighbouring countries. The co-ordinated raids, which represented the broadest military operation by Pretoria in the past 25 years, were acts of state terrorism. The policy of state terrorism being implemented by the American Administration, including the recent barbaric attack on Libya and its unceasing threats directed to other freedom-loving States, served as a model for South Africa. The United States never hesitated to employ sanctions against countries struggling to attain national liberation and independence or against socialist States, but when it came to South Africa, it suddenly regarded sanctions as inapplicable.

Andres Aguilar (Venezuela) said the efforts of some States to change South Africa's attitude through persuasion and dialogue had produced no tangible results. South Africa continued its policy of internal repression and external aggression. More effective measures than those used so far had to be applied. The Council should impose selective sanctions against Pretoria. The apartheid policy was the fundamental cause of the tragic situation in southern Africa.

Martin Adouki (Congo) condemned South Africa's raids, which violated international law and the Charter. They showed that the champions of apartheid were trying to save their racist regime. But internal acts of repression, state terrorism, and the "high-handed way' in which Pretoria acted, could not ensure its survival in any form. Apartheid, the fundamental cause of disorder in the region, would be dismantled.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) said the already tense situation in southern Africa had been aggravated by the brazen armed attacks on Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. They undermined the region's stability, and endangered international peace and security. The attack on a refugee transit centre under UNHCR's supervision was a criminal act. The root cause of all southern African problems remained the apartheid policies of Pretoria. The Council must affirm the right of neighbouring countries to give sanctuary to refugees fleeing from apartheid and also help bring about the dismantling of apartheid. The time had come for strong concerted measures against South Africa, since any other effort had proven illusory and ineffectual.

Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali (United Arab Emirates) said stability would not be installed in South Africa and peace restored to southern Africa until the apartheid regime was eliminated. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions should be imposed against South Africa. South Africa had acted against Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana as a means of consolidating the apartheid regime and undermining the dialogue aimed at a peaceful settlement of the question.

D.H.N. Alleyne (Trinidad and Tobago) said the South African regime sustained itself on repression and massive violence against the overwhelming majority of the people within its own borders. That would lead to increasingly violent conflict, with serious international repercussions. The Council must impose comprehensive, mandatory sanctions against South Africa, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter.

James Victor Gbeho (Ghana) condemned the "illegal and barbarous attacks'; they were "reprehensible, irresponsible and inexcusable', morally indefensible, and constituted state terrorism. South African State-organized terror, manifested in illegal and violent incursions into the territories of the front-line States, would continue to be a central feature of its policies. The continued opposition of some members of the international community to the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa was indirect support, if even inadvertent, for the Botha regime.

Other speakers: Massamba Sarre (Senegal), on behalf of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), said that with the barbarous aggression against the three countries, the Pax South Africana had shown to the world Pretoria's determination to silence any country that tried to challenge the guiding principles of its policy in southern Africa-- the maintenance of apartheid, the refusal to grant independence to Namibia and the systematic policy of destabilizing neighbouring countries.

Natarajan Krishnan (India) said the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries had strongly condemned South Africa's "barbaric, cold-blooded and dastardly acts of aggression', which constituted yet another act of state terrorism committed by Pretoria. Governments of certain Western and other States were called on to abandon the policies of constructive engagement and active collaboration with South Africa. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions should be instituted.

Photo: Mr. Legwaila

Photo: Mr. Ngo

Photo: Mr. Mudenge

Photo: Mr. von Schirnding of South Africa (right) listening to debate in Council Chamber.