Text calling for sanctions against South Africa vetoed in Council.

Text calling for sanctions against South Africa vetoed in Council

A draft resolution calling for selective mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter was vetoed in the Security Council on 8 March. The vote was 10 in favour to 2 against (United Kingdom, United States), with 3 abstentions (Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan).

The proposed sanctions would have required an end to: further investment in and financial loans to South Africa: all forms of military, police, or intelligence co-operation with that country, in particular the sale of computer equipment; the export and sale of soil to Pretoria; all promotion of and support for trade with South Africa; importation of iron and steel; and the sale of krugerrands and all other coins minted in South Africa. As proposed, the measures would, in the first instance, have remained in force for a year, after which the Council could have renewed or increased them.

The text (S/19585)--as proposed by Algeria, Argentina, Nepal, Senegal, Yugoslavia and Zambia--would have condemned the continuing "intensification of repression" by South Africa.

The Council would have declared that Pretoria's "intransigent refusal" to comply with relevent United Nations decision directly challenged the Organization's authority and violated Charter principles. It would have determined that South Africa's policies and practices of apartheid--the "root cause of the grave and deteriorating situation" in South Africa and in southern Africa as whole--constituted a serious threat to international peace and security.

The sanctions would have been imposed under Article 41 of the UN Charter, which states that the Security Council may decide "what measures not involving the use of armed force are ro be employed to give effect to its decisions", and that 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 diplomaric relations".

The vote came after five Council meetings held from 3 to 8 March at the request of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Group, and Zambia to consider South Africa's decision to ban or restrict anti-apartheid activities.

The two nations which voted against the draft rejected the mandatory aspect of the proposed sanctions. The United Kingdom said that while it considered the bannings a "repression of peaceful, legitimate political activity" and "a retrogade step", mandatory sanctions would stiffen those who resisted change and make internal reconciliation and lasting regional stability even more difficult to achieve. It considered that it must be for each country to take what action it considered most likely to contribute towards the end of apartheid.

The United States said mandatory sanctions would further isolate South Africa and serve the interests of those in that country who wanted a perpetuation of apartheid. It considered the South African actions as "reprehensible," dealing a severe blow to efforts to move South Africa peacefully to a society with practised racial equality.

On 24 February, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar had strongly deplored South Africa's new regulation banning activities of 17 anti-apartheid organizations and forbidding 18 opposition leaders from making public statements.

On 1 march, he stated that the brief detantion on 29 February of Archibishop Desmond Tutu and other religious leaders by the South African police showed that the crisis in South Africa was intensifying. He hoped that the principles of free association and expression would be restored in South Africa as soon as possible.

In debate, Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African group, said the situation in South Africa had become "an unending nightmare that continues to torment the international community with its inherent and contradictions". The collective conscience of the international community must dictate a clearer, firmer and unambiguous course of action to end apartheid.

South Africa said the regulations promulgated had been specially directed at maintaining internal order and at neutralizing, in a non-violent way, those forces activity involved in undermining authority and stability. It had not been its intention to suppress legitimate opposition in South Africa. The Security Council had not recognized important strides made with regard to constitutional development and the socio-economic advancement of all the peoples of the country. To ensure continued progress, a climate conducive to such change must be maintained, and that was the reason for the restrictions, which affected only those activities that endanger the safety of the public and undermined the maintenance of law and order. South Africa would not allow revolutionary forces and radical activists to disrupt the lives of moderate South Africans.

PHOTO : South Africa on ban: Regulations aim to maintain internal order.