Security Council warns South Africa against committing 'aggression, terrorism and destabilization' against African states.

Security Council warns South Africa against committing "aggression, terrorism and destabilization' against African States

The Security Council on 13 February strongly condemned "racist South Africa' for "recent threats to perpetrate acts of aggression against the front-line States and other States in southern Africa'. It also strongly warned that country against committing any acts of "aggression, terrorism and destabilization' against independent African States and using mercenaries.

The Council acted in adopting resolution 581 (1986) by a vote of 13 in favour (Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela) to none against, with 2 abstentions (United Kingdom, United States). The text (S/17817/ Rev.1) was submitted by the Congo, Chana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates.

The Council demanded that South Africa end violence against and repression of "the black people and other opponents of apartheid', and that it unconditionally release all persons imprisoned, detained or restricted for their opposition to apartheid and lift the state of emergency.

The immediate eradication of apartheid was seen as "the necessary step' towards establishing a non-racial democratic society based on self-determination and majority rule through the full and free exercise of universal adult suffrage by all the people in a "united and non-fragmented South Africa'.

To that end, the Council demanded the dismantling of the bantustan structures, as well as the "cessation of uprooting, relocation and denationalization of the indigenous African people'; the abrogation of the bans and restrictions on political organizations, parties, individuals and news media opposed to apartheid; and the "unimpeded return' of all exiles.

The Council deplored the escalation of violence in the region and called on South Africa to respect fully the "sanctity' of international borders. Any form of assistance given by States which could be used to destabilize independent States in southern Africa was deplored. All States were called on "to exert pressure on South Africa to desist from perpetrating acts of aggression against neighbouring States'. The Council reaffirmed the right of all States "in the fulfilment of their international obligations to give sanctuary to the victims of apartheid'.

The front-line States--Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe--and other States neighbouring South Africa were commended for their support of "freedom and justice in South Africa'. Member States were asked "to extend urgently all forms of assistance to these States in order to strengthen their capacities to receive, maintain and protect South African refugees in their respective countries'.

The Council deplored "the racist regime' for disregarding principles of international law and its obligations under the United Nations Charter. The Secretary-General was asked to monitor developments related to South Africa's "threats to escalate acts of aggression against independent States in southern Africa' and to report to the Council as the situation demanded.

The resolution was adopted after the Council held nine meetings, beginning on 5 February, to consider the situation in southern Africa as requested by the Sudan, on behalf of the African Group.

Debate

Kwam Kouassi (Togo), Chairman of the African Group for February, said the highly explosive situation in southern Africa grew more disturbing daily. The common denominator of all ills there was the racist Pretoria regime, which was strengthening daily the "machinery of repression'. Security forces had a free hand to behave arbitrarily, and hardly a day passed without police violence. The only crime of the blacks was to ask that they be allowed to enjoy in their own country the most fundamental rights guaranteed to all mankind by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There was a growing danger that South Africa might simply annex Namibia outright. Incapable of controlling its internal crisis and concerned with perpetuating its illegal occupation of Namibia, South Africa was "forced to extend the war beyond its borders'. When South Africa had not intervened in Angola directly, it had used UNITA (the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) as a proxy. UNITA was not a body of nationalists and could not be compared to freedom fighters. It was financed, equipped, trained and militarily supported by Pretoria. Any assistance given by any country to UNITA could only result in delaying the peaceful solution of southern Africa's numerous problems.

The Council must not be misled by South Africa's sporadic "bogus reforms' purportedly designed to bring about apartheid's gradual elimination and usher in an egalitarian society in that country. Such "so-called reforms' were no more than vague promises and in no way bound their authors to any precise action, either with regard to their content or with regard to a timetable for their implementation. If South Africa persisted in its "criminal stubbornness', he stated, the Council should consider adopting comprehensive and mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Massamba Sarre (Senegal) said the eradication of apartheid and the total unconditional independence of Namibia were essential for the return of peace to southern Africa. South Africa had threatened to send its armed forces against any neighbouring State that intended to receive persons who it considered to be "active and subversive African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) militants', though they were only South African refugees who had fled the horrors of apartheid. That was "political blackmail', he said.

South Africa's so-called "reforms' were really no more than manoeuvres to mislead many Governments. Its latest proposals had been denounced by Abdou Diouf, the current OAU President, who had said that the conditions for a climate of dialogue in South Africa remained the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, an end to the state of emergency, the complete abrogation of repressive legislation against anti-apartheid and political and social organizations, and the beginning of genuine negotiations between the Pretoria authorities and the legitimate representatives of South African liberation movements and "patriotic forces'. The Council should impose comprehensive and binding economic sanctions against South Africa.

Kurt von Schirnding (South Africa) said his country's State President, on 31 January, had made to Parliament "far-reaching proposals of historic significance for the future of South Africa and the entire southern African region'. The present Council meeting was entirely uncalled for. Some important reforms in South Africa since President Botha had assumed duty were: development of full black tradeunion rights; recognition of the permanence of urban blacks; introduction of freehold title for blacks in urban areas; evolution of black business rights; and scrapping of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and the relevant provisions of the Immorality Act.

No South African would be excluded from full political rights and all should participate both in Government and in the future of South Africa through their elected leaders. The Government was committed to equal provision of education for all population groups. The so-called pass system would be scrapped by 1 July 1986.

The President had said: "We accept an undivided Republic of South Africa where all regions and communities within its boundaries form part of the South African State, with the right to participate in institutions to be negotiated collectively. We accept one citizenship for all South Africans, implying equal treatment and opportunities . . . We believe that a democratic system of government, which must accommodate all legitimate political aspirations of all South African communities, must be negotiated. All South Africans must be placed in a position where they can participate in Government through their elected representatives. We have outgrown the outdated colonial system of paternalism as well as the outdated concept of apartheid.'

Those were not simply "empty promises', but pronouncements of a reformist President, who had announced his intention to negotiate the establishment of a national statutory council which, pending the creation of constitutional structures jointly to be agreed upon, would consider and advise on matters of common concern, including proposed legislation on such matters. That council should consist of members of the South African Government and of representatives of the self-governing national states, as well as leaders of other black communities and interest groups. That would be the first step towards institutionalized power-sharing in South Africa, he stated. "We have no ready examples and models for us to reproduce, but we are ready and we are determined to address these challenges.'

There would be no peace or stability in the region as long as countries "knowingly harbour terrorists who plan and execute acts of terror against a neighbouring State'. South Africa was prepared to implement Council resolution 435, provided agreement could be reached on Cuban withdrawal from Angola.

President Botha had extended a hand of friendship to South Africa's neighbours and had hoped that the Governments of the region would give tangible expression to "our common desire for peace and stability'. That would include the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the region, the peaceful settlement of disputes, regional co-operation on common problems and an unequivocal ban on support for violence across national boundaries. The President had proposed the establishment of a permanent joint mechanism for dealing with matters of security, particularly threats to the peace and prosperity of the subcontinent.

No previous South African Government had taken such far-reaching and dramatic decisions. But transition to the new era which the President had foreshadowed could only be achieved by negotiation, and not by violence. "Threats of sanctions and other punitive measures will lead nowhere.'

President Botha's statements should be accepted at face value--as "a genuine reaffirmation and commitment to the reform of South African society in the social, economic and political spheres to provide fully, on a basis of co-operation and consultation at every level, for the aspirations of all the peoples of South Africa'. He concluded that "the wheel of reform is turning'.

Council members: Cavan Hogue (Australia) hoped that dialogue for change would be opened with genuine representatives of the black community, leading to a multiracial and democratic South Africa. Without such action, the worrying situation of regional instability and unrest would continue, and South Africa would remain a difficult and threatening neighbour for surrounding countries. Australia rejected any moves to pre-empt or bypass the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, contained in resolution 435.

Ole Bierring (Denmark) said the policy of apartheid was the root cause of the conflicts and tensions in southern Africa. President Botha's statement to the South African Parliament was "far from an adequate response to the legitimate demands and aspirations of the black majority'. Pretoria had yet to demonstrate through actual deeds that its "alleged desire' for fundamental change in South African society was sincere. By a combination of pressure and direct intervention in the internal affairs of neighbouring States in contravention of international law, Pretoria had tried to force them to adopt policies that ran counter to their national interests. The international community had an obligation to alleviate the economic and other problems facing the countries that bore the brunt of South Africa's aggressive policies.

Boris Tsvetkov (Bulgaria) said that "backed into a corner', South Africa had been seeking a solution to its grave problems by expanding abroad and conducting armed terror against independent neighbouring countries. South Africa had acquired nuclear capability, which it might use in the near future as its ultima ratio to protect its criminal power. Some imperialist forces still regarded South Africa as the bastion of their own economic and strategic interests in that part of the world. The policy of "constructive co-operation' ensured supplies of material resources and guaranteed freedom of action to Pretoria.

Hamid Mohammed (Trinidad and Tobago) said the internal situation in South Africa had deterioriated dramatically since September 1984. "Excesses of unspeakable extremes' had been carried out by Pretoria's security forces. Real reform in South Africa would come only when apartheid was abolished and when the minority regime was made to negotiate with the true leaders of the South African people. The Council had a crucial role to play in hastening the advent of reform in South Africa by applying comprehensive sanctions against Pretoria, and must also demand immediate implementation of resolution 435.

James V. Gbeho (Ghana) said South Africa's action to protect apartheid involved unmitigated violence against its neighbours and must be halted before the subregion was engulfed in serious armed conflict. President Botha's proposals in his speech to Parliament could not be genuine unless and until the so-called reforms had been discussed and approved by the genuine representatives of the black majority in addition to other ethnic groups. There was no evidence that Namibia's independence was anywhere near. The only peaceful way to make Pretoria abide by the norms of the United Nations was to impose comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against it.

Li Luye (China) said the root cause of the turbulent situation in southern Africa lay in Pretoria's pursuance of apartheid inside the country and the policy of aggression against other countries. In order to sustain its reactionary rule of apartheid, South Africa had enforced a reign of terror in the country. Apartheid was the root cause of terrorism in the region. South Africa must immediately cease its aggression and threats against neighbours, unconditionally terminate its illegal occupation of Namibia and eradicate the system of apartheid.

Andres Aguilar (Venezuela) was ready to support application of sanctions against South Africa, whose external debt made it vulnerable to such sanctions. That could lead to genuine concrete changes in its policies and not in "mere vague promises of future reform'. The implementation of resolution 435 could not be linked to other unrelated elements. The apartheid system should be totally and finally eliminated.

Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR) said that, while hiding behind a smoke-screen of verbal condemnations of Pretoria and talk of selective economic sanctions, Western Powers--particularly the United States and the United Kingdom--continued to retain vast investments in South Africa and Namibia, thereby participating in the harsh exploitation of the indigenous African population and supporting apartheid economically.

Savimbi, "the ringleader of the UNITA bandit groups' and the "lackey of the racist South African regime', had met recently with senior officials in Washington to expand subversive activities against Angola. The United States and its West European allies had impeded the adoption of sanctions by the Council. Decisive and urgent action was needed to compel the Western Powers to end the policy of appeasement and encouragement of "the racist aggressor'.

Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) said Pretoria had not said it would set aside the injustices of apartheid or its dehumanizing policy of segregation. It was hardly thinkable that the division of power could be equitable since Pretoria did not recognize universal suffrage and had stated that it had no intention of subscribing to the principle of "one man, one vote'. "Constructive engagement' was now hardly credible, even in the circles that advocated it. The practice of aggression, the brutal repression of Africans in South Africa, and the denial to Namibians of their rights were three closely linked aspects of a single policy--the extension of political, economic and military hegemony based on institutionalized racism to the entire region.

Birabhongse Kasemsri (Thailand) said indigenous Africans in South Africa were still oppressed by the apartheid system, imposed through the most brutal means by Pretoria. An escalation of hostile, unprovoked and persistent acts of aggression was being perpetrated or threatened by Pretoria against the front-line and other States. Pretoria continued to use Namibia as a springboard to sustain armed attacks against neighbouring countries. Apartheld had become the scourge of not only the peoples of South Africa and Namibia but also of all the front-line and other regional States.

Mohammad Hussain Al-Shaali (United Arab Emirates) said the problem in southern Africa was "a triangle', with the base being the apartheid police regime and the two sides being the occupation of Namibia and the destablization of neighbouring States. Under the pretext of protecting white civilication, South Africa was plundering Namibian resources and imposing the apartheid regime through puppet political parties. Those States which continued to pursue a policy of understanding and reasoning with South Africa should slam the door on conciliation through imposition of a complete boycott to make it abandon its racist policies.

Martin Adouki (Congo) said that in South Africa there had been no serious reform, no "far-reaching proposals of historic importance', and no power-sharing. Pretoria had transformed dissident groups in neighbouring countries into terrorists and was manipulating them. Pretoria was backed in "its acts of madness' by powerful Western allies. Only genuine sanctions would lead to a speedy elimination of apartheid and the advent of a new South Africa.

Pierre Brochand (France) was concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the region as a whole. Only the dismantling of apartheid could be considered an appropriate solution to the region's problems. France welcomed the fact that the Council was sending a clear warning to South Africa. Once again the international community had expressed its grave concern and had demanded: the immediate eradication of apartheid by South Africa; that the front-line States no longer be made to suffer from South Africa's policies; and that South Africa accept without delay the United Nations settlement plan for Namibia. It was only thus that security, stability and harmony would be restored to southern Africa.

Sir John Thomson (United Kingdom) said it was urgently necessary to remove apartheid in its entirety and to provide for a democratic, non-racial and just society within South Africa. He hoped that dialogue for change in South Africa would be opened with genuine representatives of the black community, that Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners would be released, that bans on political organizations and restrictions on the media would be removed, and the state of emergency ended. That could best take place in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides.

The resolution adopted did not accurately address the evolving situation in southern Africa and invited rejection by those to whom it was directed. Its purpose should have been to prevent, not to provoke, and that could have been easily achieved.

Herbert Okun (United States) said the heart of the struggle in Africa was the competition between freedom and tyranny, between open societies and closed ones. The real battle in southern Africa was being waged over representational government. The United States hoped that South Africa could be transformed peacefully into a nation of justice and equality and of rule based on the consent of all its people. The resolution adopted did not advance matters when it called only on South Africa to respect international borders. Outside assistance was not the main cause of destabilization of some regional States. Governments which relied on foreign troops to maintain themselves in power against the opposition of a significant portion of their own people were inherently unstable. Instead they should enter into dialogues with opposition groups in their own nations.

The United States would maintain contact with all sides to the disputes in southern Africa. Failure to do so might open the door to "monolithic totalitarian solutions based on violence and repression'.

Front-line States: Joel Ngo (Zambia) said the front-line States were only abiding by the accepted conventions which governed the status of refugees when they gave sanctuary to South African refugees fleeting from the "bestiality' of the apartheid system. South Africa had not honoured its peace agreements with some of those neighbours, and now aimed to weaken its neighbours so their opposition to apartheid could be compromised. Zambia was greatly pained that the United States identified with South Africa and used it to destabilize regional States. Only sanctions against South Africa would compel it to abandon apartheid and its policy of aggression and destabilization in the area.

I.S.G. Mudenge (Zimbabwe) said southern Africa had been subjected to South Africa's acts of state terrorism as it sought its long-cherished goal of establishing hegemony over the whole region. Pretoria incited, recruited and financed malcontents for destabilization activities in neighbouring countries. South Africa was responsible for creating political instability and the economic strangulation of Zimbabwe and other neighbouring States to make South Africa safe for apartheid. Pretoria could not stand non-racial democratic societies on its frontiers, for such societies were the antithesis of apartheid. The United States seemed to be formulating a new policy for southern Africa, which could only be termed "destructive engagement'. The only non-violent way for the international community to show its disapproval of apartheid was to impose effective, mandatory sanctions.

Elisio de Figueiredo (Angola) said Savimbi's "gang of traitors' had been welcomed and feted by a super-Power whose policy of constructive engagement had been an abject failure, whose policies had been unfriendly towards much of Africa, and whose administration was seeking to assist "those traitors'. That aid would only intensify the war in southern Africa and create destabilization inside Angola. Support from Pretoria's friends did nothing to check its military and political ambitions in southern Africa. Constructive engagement and "half-hearted so-called sanctions' would not save the situation. The issue of "internationalist Cuban friends' in Angola had no relation whatsoever with the independence of Namibia, with the withdrawal of South African troops from southern Angola, with the granting of basic rights to the majority inhabitants in South Africa, with the security of borders and territorial integrity and sovereignty of the States of southern Africa. Peace in southern Africa could come about only through a just negotiation with the peoples of southern Africa. It would not and could not come if southern Africa was made a part of East-West talks with which it had no connection, either geographically, politically or historically.

Muhammad A. Foum (United Republic of Tanzania) said there was "terror in the air' in southern Africa. The Council must squarely face the tragedy of state terrorism practised by the Pretoria regime. The "aggressor' was raising the "bogey' of external threat with the intention of winning support for "its domestic oppression and aggression against its neighbours'. The cause of the developing critical situation in southern Africa was the existence of the system of apartheid, the continued illegal occupation of Namibia and the non-implementation of resolution 435, and the perpetual threats and military aggression by Pretoria against its neighbours.

Patriot L.B. Yane (Botswana) said the troubled situation was approaching an even more dangerous level. The situation inside South Africa was the direct result of the abominable policies of apartheid. Instead of embarking on a campaign of terror and murder, South Africa should be seriously engaged in dismantling apartheid. Neither cosmetic changes nor violence would help the situation. The Council should act to deter South Africa from violating the front-line States' sovereignty and territorial integrity and to ensure the safety of refugees to whom they gave sanctuary.

Manuel dos Santos (Mozambique) said "the virus' that was "scourging the subregion' was called apartheid. The region's people were being victimized by an undeclared war imposed upon them by "the neo-Nazist regime of South Africa'. In South Africa, the white minority regime had declared a war against its own citizens. The apartheid regime was on the verge of collapse. The tactic of using indiscriminate violence against neighbouring States under the pretext of harassing and destroying the so-called based of the ANC was "as fallacious as it was ridiculous'. The region's countries had nothing to do with the situation in South Africa. There could be no peace in the region because South Africa was sending bandits into Mozambique, Angola and Lesotho, and while South Africa occupied parts of Angola and Namibia.

Other speakers: Alberto Velazco-San Jose (Cuba) said southern Africa was an area where imperialism and its close ally South Africa were seeking to undermine the progressive front-line States and obstruct the irreversible process towards Namibia's independence, while the apartheid regime attempted to drown in blood the yearings for freedom and justice of black South Africans. The peoples of southern Africa had already had to pay too high a price for their independence, their freedom and justice. It was now up to the Council, through the application against South Africa of measures provided for under Chapter VII of the Charter, to halt without delay the crimes committed by Pretoria.

Neo Mnumzana, representative of ANC, said P.W. Botha's 31 January statement had driven South Africa "deeper and deeper into darkness'. The conspicuous reluctance of a certain handful of inordinately powerful Western nations to join the rest of the international community in resolute action against apartheid was bound to be seen by Pretoria as permission to continue and escalate its "criminal and murderous' career against the people of South Africa, Namibia and the entire region of southern Africa as well as beyond it. "The butchers of Pretoria' were preparing to redouble their efforts to "impose a pax apartheid' on southern Africa "in a Fascist search for lebensraum'.

Lesaoana Makhanda, representative of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) said the South Africans' just struggle would escalate as long as the real issues of the national liberation and self-determination of "the dispossessed and oppressed masses' were not addressed. The front-line and neighbouring States of the region were the scapegoats for Pretoria's sins, with the connivance of some Council members. There was state terrorism in apartheid South Africa. The root cause of all the problems in "occupied Azania', in illegally occupied Namibia and in southern Africa as a whole was racist South Africa's policies and practices. It must be recognized that it was "the oppressed and dispossessed' that constituted the vehicle for genuine change in South Africa.

Theo-Ben Gurirab, representative of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) said Namibia's natural resources were being plundered by South African firms and by transnational corporations from Western Europe and North America. Namibia's independence was being delayed indefinitely for that programme to be continued, regardless of the cost in human lives. "From nowhere', the United States Administration and the Botha regime had linked Namibian independence to the withdrawal of the Cuban internationalist forces from Angola.

Photo: "End repression of the black people.'

Photo: Kalk Bay fishing harbour near Capetown.

Photo: Shanty home near Capetown.

Photo: Women squatters near Capetown.