Text calling for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa vetoed after discussion in eight meetings.

Text calling for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa vetoed after discussion in eight meetings

A DRAFT RESOLUTION calling for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter was vetoed in the Security Council on 9 April. The vote--9 to 3 (Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom, United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Italy, Japan)--came after eight Council meetings held on 6, 7, 8 and 9 April at the requests of Gabon, on behalf of the African Group, and Zimbabwe, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

Under the text (S/18785)-- put forward by Argentina, Congo, Ghana, United Arab Emirates and Zambia--the Council would have determined that South Africa's continued illegal occupation of Namibia constituted a breach of international peace and security in violation of the Charter, and that the "persistent refusal by racist South Africa' to comply with Council and General Assembly resolutions and decisions on Namibia "constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security'.

The Council would also have determined that the militarization of Namibia and repeated armed attacks perpetrated from Namibia by South Africa against independent and sovereign States in southern Africa constituted grave acts of aggression.

South Africa would have been strongly condemned for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia and its persistent refusal to comply with Council resolutions and decisions, in particular resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978).

The Council would also have reaffirmed the legal and direct responsibility of the United Nations over Namibia and the legitimacy of the struggle of Namibians against the "illegal occupation by the Pretoria regime'. All States would have been asked to increase their political, material and moral support to Namibians in that struggle.

By the draft, the Council would have reiterated that, in accordance with its resolutions 539 (1983) and 566 (1985), Namibian independence could not be made conditional upon issues "totally alien' to resolution 435 and called on "those countries insisting on extraneous and irrelevant issues to desist from doing so'.

The "only basis'

It would also have reiterated that Council resolution 435, embodying the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, was the "only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia'.

The Council would have once again condemned South Africa for its installation of a "so-called interim government in Namibia in flagrant violation' of United Nations resolutions and decisions, particularly resolution 435, and would have reiterated, in accordance with resolution 566, its declaration of such action as illegal, null and void.

All States would have been called upon once more not to accord recognition to "this or any other entity' imposed on Namibians by South Africa in violation of United Nations resolutions and decisions on Namibia. The Council would have reiterated its demand that South Africa rescind "this and similar illegal and unilateral actions'.

All States would also have been called upon, in conformity with Article 25 of the Charter, to implement the resolution and all other relevant Council resolutions relating to Namibia. Specialized agencies would have been called upon to ensure the effective implementation of the resolution and all other relevant Council resolutions on Namibia. States not Members of the United Nations would have been urged to act in accordance with the resolution's provisions as well as principles stated in Article 2 of the Charter.

The Council would have decided to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Council Committee to monitor the resolution's implementation, and United Nations Members would have been asked to report on measures taken to implement the resolution.

Explanations: The United Kingdom said it would have voted for a resolution which included a considerable list of non-mandatory economic measures designed to exert pressure on South Africa to withdraw immediately from the Territory. It felt mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII would be counter-productive, giving South Africa the excuse to remain intransigent.

The United States said mandatory sanctions would seriously limit the initiative of nations, such as the United States, that sought to bring about South Africa's implementation of resolution 435, and would complicate and frustrate the achievement of that goal. Each Member nation should be free to enact or alter policies it deemed most appropriate, including sanctions, as all pursued the common goal of bringing independence to Namibia as rapidly and peacefully as possible.

The Federal Republic of Germany said comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa would not speed up the implementation of resolution 435; rather they could foster increased confrontation and hardening of positions on the question of Namibia.

The representative of the African Group said the Council's veto mechanism had "ironically ensured that South Africa's interests are protected and Namibians condemned yet again to life in bondage until those who see eye to eye with the racist Pretoria regime will Namibia's freedom'. The negative votes had served only the purpose of making Pretoria proud of its friends, because it was a cardinal policy objective of South Africa to preserve the United States-United Kingdom veto in the Council against economic sanctions.

"The only obstacle'

On 31 March, the Secretary-General reported (S/18767) on his efforts to promote implementation of the United Nations plan to bring Namibia to independence. He called for a determined effort on the part of all those directly concerned, as well as by the international community as a whole, to put in place the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) in Namibia in 1987. "For my part', the Secretary-General said in his report to the Council, "I am firmly committed to persevering in my effort to attain the goal of independence for Namibia'.

South Africa's "linkage precondition' --tying the implementation of the United Nations independence plan with withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola--was "the only obstacle' to the plan's implementation, Mr. Perez de Cuellar stated. That precondition --which dated back to 1982--was not valid. The presence of Cuban troops in Angola was a separate matter, to be dealt with by "those directly concerned acting within their sovereign competence'.

In November 1985, he went on, agreement had been reached with parties concerned on the system of proportional representation for the elections envisaged in resolution 435. With that agreement, the last outstanding issue relevant to the United Nations plan had been resolved, and it was hoped that that would pave the way for adoption by the Council of an enabling resolution to place UNTAG in Namibia.

To that end, the Secretary-General had proposed to the South African Government on 26 November 1986 that it should join him in establishing the earliest possible date for a ceasefire and the implementation of resolution 435.

South Africa's proposal that 1 August 1986 be the date for implementation of the plan ran counter to relevant Council decisions, since it reaffirmed that prior agreement must be reached on total withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola before implementation, he stated. The proposal as a whole could therefore not be sustained as a valid basis for proceeding with implementation of the plan, Mr. Perez de Cuellar said. South Africa should urgently reconsider its position on the linkage pre-condition in order to enable the United Nations to proceed with the implementation of resolution 435, he declared.

In a 13 March 1987 meeting with Leslie Manley, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations, the Secretary-General had reaffirmed the United Nations position on implementation of resolution 435, emphasizing that that text remained the only basis for a peaceful settlement in Namibia.

Ambassador Manley had stated his Government was willing to co-operate in implementing resolution 435, provided a firm and satisfactory agreement could be reached on the question of the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. His Government was prepared to enter into a dialogue at any time in order to try to resolve the question of Cuban withdrawal.

In regard to internal developments in Namibia, Ambassador Manley said that Louis Pienaar, Administrator-General of Namibia, on 24 February had stated that the international status of the Territory as well as international commitments of South Africa would not be jeopardized, and had emphasized that national elections or referendums which might jeopardize the external relations of South Africa could not be conceded.

On 30 March, in another meeting with the Secretary-General, Ambassador Manley had reiterated the will-ingness of his Government to proceed with implementation of the settlement plan.

Debate

James Victor Gbeho (Ghana), on behalf of the African Group, said that Namibians continued to live under "repression, torture and political domination, with no prospect for self-determination'. The main obstacle to Namibian independence was South Africa's refusal, "regrettably aided by the protagonists of the so-called constructive engagement policy', to implement Security Council resolutions, particularly resolution 435. Considerations such as the presence of Cuban forces in Angola were "extraneous and alien' to Namibian independence.

A number of Member States that professed opposition to South Africa's policies in Namibia were among the major beneficiaries of the Territory's exploitation, especially by powerful transnational corporations based within the jurisdiction of those countries. Namibia's future had for too long been held "hostage to cold-war considerations and rivalry'. The Council should impose comprehensive and mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter against Pretoria as a means of exerting pressure on South Africa to extend co-operation for the implementation of resolution 435.

Isack S.G. Mudenge (Zimbabwe), on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, said that for South Africa, the prior or parallel withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola was not necessarily a sine qua non for granting independence to Namibia. The true prerequisite was the emergence and survival of an "amenable puppet regime' in Namibia so that that Territory might continue to serve as a buffer State for apartheid South Africa. The presence of Cuban forces in Angola was a "convenient red herring' used to keep some Western countries enmeshed in South African schemes. "Botha's puppets' in Namibia had already taken unmistakable initial steps towards an illegal declaration of independence, he added.

Cubans were in Angola because Botha had invaded that country and continued to occupy parts of it. Namibia was still colonized mainly because key Western countries had become unwitting supporters of South Africa's illegal occupation of the Territory. Linkage--introduced by the present United States Administration --had become a stumbling block to Namibia's independence by equating Western interests in southern Africa with the survival of the apartheid regime. South Africa must either agree to implementation of resolution 435 now or face immediate imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Theo-Ben Gurirab, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), said Pretoria and been relying on massive military force and violent repression to perpetuate its colonial domination of Namibia. "We charge those unrepenting Western States which, in pursuit of their notorious policies aimed at perpetuatising world dominance and control of access to raw materials and strategic minerals, are still bent on practising the discredited imperialist doctrine of manifest destiny in Africa.'

Those who wanted SWAPO to lay down its arms must first persuade Pretoria to abandon the military option, eschew violence and implement resolution 435. SWAPO called upon Pretoria to meet it at the conference table as the first step towards the commencement of the implementation process. The adoption by the Council of comprehensive mandatory sanctions would go a long way to "obviate the ominous prospect of an even more extended military confrontation, human suffering and worsening race relations'. Vetoes by the Western Council members could not suppress the Namibians' will and determination to free themselves.

Francis Meli, of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC), said the chief obstacle to the eradication of apartheid proceeded from the "criminal assumption' that Namibia as well as South Africa ought to be kept as the "economic cornucopia of the Western democracies'. That assumption was the basis of the policy of "constructive engagement', as well as the policies of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany towards Namibia and South Africa, all of which were "extremely short-sighted'.

Mr. Manley (South Africa) said that further punitive measures would harm Namibia's economy. South Africa was ready to implement resolution 435 and bring about internationally recognized independence in South West Africa/ Namibia. The only remaining obstacle was the lack of commitment on the withdrawal from Angola of the extra-continental force of over 40,000 Cubans. Free and fair elections under conditions free of intimidation could not be held in the Territory "in the shadow of the menacing presence of such a major Soviet surrogate force in the region'.

Sanctions would deal a blow to the Namibian aspirations, have a negative effect on genuine efforts to resolve the problem, and retard the Territory's eventual independence. Apart from the economic effects they would have on the rest of the sub-continent, sanctions would also debilitate the capacity for resistance of all States of southern Africa against foreign intervention by "elements which do not have the interests of the peoples of southern Africa at heart'. Neighbouring countries with economies weakened by the effects of sanctions must inevitably fall.

South Africa was ready to enter into discussion with southern African leaders who recognized that peace, stability, progress and prosperity in the region depended on "our resolving our differences ourselves'. The people and leaders of South West Africa/Namibia must ultimately decide on their country's future. If all other endeavours failed to break the existing deadlock, South Africa and other parties must consider alternative means of achieving internationally recognized independence for the Territory.

Photo: Maurizio Bucci of Italy (left) conferring with Hans Werner Lautenschlager of Federal Republic of Germany in Security Council chamber.

Photo: The people of South Africa and Namibia await a better future.