World Conference calls for universal system of mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa.

World Conference calls for universal system of mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa 

A Declaration calling for a worldwide, comprehensive system of mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa--aimed at bringing to an and that country's apartheid system, its illegal occupation of Namibia and its attacks on neighbouring States--was adopted by acclamation on 20 June by the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa.

The Conference, held from 16 to 20 June in Paris, was timed to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the Soweto uprising in South Africa.

Abdou Diouf, President of Senegal and current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), said the aim of those sactions would be to avoid a "bloodbath'. South Africa's "continued defiance of reason and law' had created "an ever more explosive situation' in the region and the continent.

Conference President Allan Wagner, Foreign Minister of Peru, said the international system had emerged stronger because of the Conference's call for comprehensive mandatory sanctions to prevent South Africa from "persisting in its obstinate defiance of the peoples of the world and the mandate of civilization'.

The Conference, organized by the Special Committee against Apartheid in co-operation with the OAU and the Non-Aligned Movement, also adopted a Message of Solidarity with the Struggling People of South Africa (see box).

By the Declaration, the Conference urged the Security Council to identify policies and actions of South Africa's apartheid regime as "a grave threat to international peace and security', which would then make the regime liable for imposition of binding sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

In calling on the Council to impose such sanctions, the Conference stated that they constituted the most effective peaceful means available to the international community to end apartheid. "The alternative to sanctions is escalating violence and bloodshed.' The situation "brooks no delay', it said.

The declaration urged the Western Powers which still opposed sanctions against South Africa--especially the United States and the United Kingdom--and which had exercised their power of veto in the Security Council to prevent the imposition of sanctions, "to reassess their positions and co-operate in, rather than hinder international action'. It further urged all Governments to exert their influence to secure the co-operation of those Powers.

The policy of "constructive engagement', according to the Declaration, had not contributed to the abolition of apartheid, but had allowed it to continue, while South Africa had maintained its illegal occupation of Namibia and its policy of aggression, subversion and destabilization of neighbouring States.

The Conference stressed the need for strictly maintained embargoes against South Africa regarding three areas: military and nuclear equipment and technology; supply and transport of oil and gas; and investments, loans and financial concessions. The importance of voluntary steps to be taken by individual States, "not only for their direct effect on the situation in South Africa, but as one of the means to promote mandatory action by the Security Council for universal implementation', was also stressed.

The Declaration stated that a sanctions programme must be accompanied by a programme of assistance to the front-line States, as well as to the oppressed people of South Africa and Namibia through their national liberation movements. Attempts to interpret the situation in southern Africa as part of East-West or other conflicts must be opposed; the rendering of assistance to subversive groups instigated by South Africa in other southern African States was condemned. In particular, it appealed to all States not to provide any assistance to "the UNITA criminal bandits' in Angola.

The only reservation expressed at the time of the Declaration's adoption was by Australia, which said it did not support the recognition, in the section on assistance to liberation movements, of "the right of the people of South Africa and Namibia . . . to choose their means of struggle'.

In its analysis of the situation in South Africa, the Declaration stated that South Africa was the "only regime that practices racism as its official policy'. The regime had enshrined racism in "its so-called "constitution'', and was rooted in "the same racist and bellicose ideology that provoked the Second World War, and caused untold deaths and destruction'. Appeasement, therefore, could "only have the same disastrous consequences'.

The Conference stated its conviction that apartheid could not be reformed and that no encouragement should be given to any so-called reform. The destiny of South Africa must be decided by all the people of the country, exercising their right to self-determination --irrespective of race, colour, sex or creed--on the basis of complete equality.

The Conference identified as the primary objectives of international action: assisting the South African people in eliminating apartheid and building a non-racial, egalitarian and democratic State; securing the independence of Namibia, without further delay, in accordance with United Nations resolutions, in particular, Security Council resolution 435 (1978); and restoring peace in the region, thus ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security.

The "indispensable prerequisites' for a negotiated, just and lasting solution in South Africa, the Declaration stated, were: acceptance of the objective of the speedy and total elimination of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial democratic society; immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners; abrogation of bans on political organizations and measures which prohibited full and free political organization and expression; an end to censorship; and negotiations with genuine leaders of the oppressed people of South Africa.

The Security Council should reinforce its 1977 mandatory arms embargo against South Africa by calling on all States: to end all military and nuclear collaboration with South Africa; to cease the sale or supply of "dual purpose' items, such as computers, radar and other electronic equipment and related technology to South Africa; to terminate all investments in corporations manufacturing military equipment or supplies in South Africa; and to take steps to discourage or prevent the enlistment of their nations in the South African military forces and to assist those who resisted conscription or recruitment.

The Conference urged the Council to make mandatory its request to all States, contained in resolution 558 (1984), "to refrain from importing arms, ammunition of all types, and military vehicles produced in South Africa', and to extend the embargo to cover all components and related materiel originating from South Africa. The extension of the arms embargo to include the police sector was also called for.

All States were urged to adopt and implement measures for an effective oil embargo. They were also urged to take all possible legal actions against companies and individuals that had been involved in violating the oil embargo. To monitor compliance with the embargo, the Conference urged the establishment of an intergovernmental monitoring agency. The Security Council was called on to adopt a mandatory oil embargo under Chapter VII of the Charter.

The Declaration noted that some transnational corporations, as a result of government legislation, pressures of their shareholders and public action, had begun to reduce their operations in South Africa. "Regrettably, other transactional corporations from some Western countries and Japan have most unscrupulously stepped in to fill the vacuum', it stated.

The Conference condemned those corporations and called for a list of them to be published periodically by the Special Committee against Apartheid and other appropriate United Nations bodies. It also called for "intensified vigilance to identify those corporations that may take advantage of withdrawal of others, with a view to subjecting them and those remaining in South Africa to a world-wide boycotte campaign'.

The Conference recommended that the Security Council urgently consider a mandatory embargo on investments in and financial loans to South Africa. It urged that Governments be requested to make every possible effort to persuade banks and financial institutions to refrain from further rescheduling South Africa's debts.

Other sanctions the Security Council was urged to consider included: prohibition of the transfer of technology; an end to all promotion of or support for trade with South Africa, including assistance to trade missions; prohibition of the sale of krugerrands and other coins minted in South Africa; prohibition of imports from South Africa; termination of visa-free entry privileges to South Africa; termination of air and shipping links; and cessation of academic, cultural, scientific and sports relations with South Africa, and of relations with individuals, institutions and other bodies endorsing or based on apartheid.

In a message to the Conference, Security Council President Blaise Rabetafika (Madagascar) extended his "sincere wishes for success in hastening the elimination of the scourge of apartheid'.

In opening the Conference, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar said several Governments had taken measures in recent months to impress on Pretoria the need for change. Unfortunately, South Africa's decision to re-establish the state of emergency made the dialogue between it and the great majority of its population even more difficult. The solution to the problem did not lie in repression but in respect for fundamental freedoms.

South Africa must realize that "time is running out' for a negotiated settlement and understand that its defiance of the international community as a whole could not be tolerated indefinitely, he said. It should lift the state of emergency and release Nelson Mandela and all political prisoners. Only the total elimination of apartheid would restore peace in southern Africa in general and in South Africa in particular. The solution of the question of Namibia must be based on resolution 435 (1978), "its sole and unique foundation'.

"The practice of apartheid, the policy of destabilization of neighbouring countries and the violation of their territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as the stubborn occupation of Namibia, today constitute a grave threat to regional peace and security', Mr. Perez de Cuellar said.

President Diouf said sanctions constituted the only response that could make the upholders of apartheid see reason before the southern African region went up in flames. The Conference must co-ordinate the measures it decided upon with those that it would call on the Security Council to take, particularly in the context of Chapter VII of the Charter.

Conference President Wagner said the world had "finally joined the cause of the South African people'. A world movement of moral consciousness had given impetus to the actions of Governments for a definitive solution. A vast mobilization of awareness had been "set in motion to write the final chapter of the South African drama'.

Nations should pledge faithfully to implement sanctions against South Africa so that they could have full effect, Mr. Wagner said. They should also work to persuade the Security Council to adopt such sanctions as mandatory, in keeping with its Charter responsibilities.

Joseph N. Garba (Nigeria), Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, said the Declaration provided the basis for action to be taken by all Governments which had not yet done so, and particularly those which had decided not to participate in the Conference. He hoped it would be possible to secure united and effective international action through the adoption of peaceful sanctions against South Africa, which could help to avert a major violent confrontation throughout the region.

Mr. Garba said the black people of South Africa demanded sanctions. Other States in southern Africa had been equally firm in calling for sanctions. The struggle for liberation in South Africa was not a fight against the whites but against "the unjust and ungodly' system of apartheid. "The white people have nothing to fear from living in a non-racial, democratic and united South Africa.'

A. Bolaji Akinyemi, Foreign Minister of Nigeria and Chairman of the OAU's Liberation Committee, said South Africa was able to defy the world because of the foreign investments in its economy, because it continued to receive loans, because it continued to enable transactional corporations to plunder Namibian resources and because it was said to be a bulwark against a particular ideological adversary in the subregion. The international community must impose its will on South Africa. There could be no peace in southern Africa as long as apartheid continued to flourish, and as long as South Africa Continued its illegal occupation of Namibia.

Conference Secretary-General Iqbal Akhund said the Conference Declaration had set out a programme of action designed to mobilize international pressures for the eradication of apartheid, give support to the oppressed people of South Africa in their struggle against that system, and help all people of South Africa agree on a new system which would be free of injustice and the absurdity of racial discrimination. The new system would be based on democracy and freedom. While the Declaration embodied a worldwide consensus, fundamental divisions remained on the question of sanctions.

Debate

Africa: Obed Y. Asamoah, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Ghana, said the scope and application of the sanctions adopted so far had not been sufficient to force South Africa to face up to its responsibilities. The lack of unanimity in their adoption, the barely concealed contempt of certain Western regimes, particularly the Reagan and Thatcher Governments and now the French and West German Governments, and the lack of political will had prevented the desired effect. The international community could not now refuse to adopt and implement effective comprehensive and mandatory sanctions.

Abdurahman Jama Barre, Foreign Minister of Somalia, stated that the Conference was meeting at a a decisive moment in the struggle of the peoples of southern Africa for their liberation. In effect, it was witnessing the massive uprising of those peoples. Pretoria had intensified its repression and multiplied its acts of aggressions against neighbouring States. The explosive situation which prevailed in southern Africa threatened international peace and security.

Witness Mangwende, Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe, said key Western industrial countries, especially the United Kingdom and the United States, had been reluctant to impose mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa. Change would come in South Africa "by less violent means, if still possible; but by bloody revolution, if necessary'. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions were no guarantee for a less violent change in South Africa; however, they were "at the very least an historical statement that mankind did not sit idly by as the gathering storm threatened to strike'.

Bagbeni Adeito Nzengeya (Zaire) said sanctions which the Conference should adopt would deal the final blow to the apartheid system, leading to the transfer of power to a government of the majority in South Africa. Change was inevitable in that country. The apartheid regime was no longer able to exercise control. Those Governments that identified with that regime had public opinion against them.

Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi, Foreign Minister of Algeria, said the apartheid regime had not been punished. Its crimes had increased. The apartheid system had asked the international community that it be given "the benefit of the doubt'. But meanwhile, threats, intimidation, cruelty and torture had become the way of life. Apartheid continued to be a system of exploitation, terror and colonial order.

Souler Issoufou Idressou (Benin) said it was disturbing that the universal condemnation of the obnoxious apartheid system for atrocities and crimes committed against the people had not been transformed into actions. The people of South Africa and Namibia and their national liberation movements had stated that what killed people was not economic sanctions but the apartheid system. It was deplorable that certain countries continued their co-operation with South Africa, particularly in the nuclear field, and supplied it with oil.

L.J. Mwananshiku, Foreign Minister of Zambia, said comprehensive economic sanctions would given an important and concrete signal to South Africa of the international community's abhorrence of apartheid, and would indicate that South Africa's trading partners could no longer provide the economic fuel which had sustained apartheid for so long. Sanctions must be compulsory and comprehensive if they were to achieve the desired objective of forcing South Africa to renounce apartheid and come to the conference table. They could be lifted once South Africa had ended apartheid.

Mohamed Izzat Eldeeb (Sudan) said the so-called "reforms' introduced by South Africa could not change the nature of the apartheid regime. The tragedy of Soweto and Sharpeville had been repeated in every village. New atrocities had been committed by South Africa and new acts of aggression had been undertaken against neighbouring countries. Arguments that economic sanctions would be a burden on the population were inconsistent, as it was the apartheid system that was oppressing and subjugating people.

Franca Van Dunen (Angola) said terrorism in South Africa had increased and the bloody repression had resulted in hundreds of victims each month. Apartheid had not yet been eliminated and Namibia was not yet independent because South Africa's chief protectors had not respected relevant United Nations resolutions. The time for words was past; it was time to move to actions.

Benjamin Mkapa, Foreign Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania, said the international community could no longer look on unmoved and unconcerned at the inhumanity and atrocities of the system of apartheid perpetrated by South Africa. The Conference should expose the hypocrisy and self-serving insensitivity of those Governments and transnational corporations that continued to give support to institutionalized racism in South Africa. Sanctions were necessary to force if not exactly a peaceful change, at least a less violent one.

Boutros Boutros Ghali, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Egypt, said South Africa knew that the international community did not have the determination to impose sanctions against it. Pretoria had undertaken a new round of aggression against neighbouring States. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions were sought by the victims of apartheid--the people of South Africa and Namibia and by the front-line States.

Elijah W. Mwangale, Foreign Minister of Kenya, said certain quarters held that sanctions would hurt the people of South Africa and the economies of neighbouring States. What was perhaps not fully appreciated by some Western countries was the fact that the people who were supposedly being shielded from the repercussions of economic sanctions were prepared to suffer a little now, than much more later. Their real reasons for refusing to apply sanctions against South Africa was that they perceived South Africa to be stable and, therefore, safe for their investments.

Youssef Ben Abbes (Morocco) said the international community was seriously concerned with the continued occupation of Namibia by South Africa. Pretoria had ignored all Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Morocco expressed solidarity with the front-line States. Isolation of the Pretoria regime was the most effective way to induce change.

Silvino Manuel da Luz, Foreign Minister of Cape Verde, said the Conference was perhaps the last chance for countries truly interested in avoiding a bloodbath in South Africa to take necessary measures to force South Africa to listen to reason. While international pressure had compelled South Africa to speak of "reforms', those reforms had in no way begun to dismantle the basic racism of the system. If international pressure were co-ordinated, substantial results could be achieved in dismantling apartheid and bringing independence to Namibia.

Bubacar Toure (Guinea-Bissau) said the international community must envisage the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter against South Africa. He called for the implementation of the United Nations Plan for the independence of Namibia and for an end to South Africa's attacks against neighbouring States, particularly Angola.

Antoine Ndinga Oba, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of the Congo, said the peoples of southern Africa expected from the world community the adoption of concrete measures for the final abolition of the apartheid regime. The explosive situation in South Africa constituted for the world a very real danger. Those States capable of bringing pressure to bear on South Africa had not done so. The Conference must come to the rescue of a people who were the victims of genocide.

Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh (Cameroon) said the majority of countries favoured the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. However, certain countries persisted in their resistance to the imposition of sanctions. A United Nations seminar hosted by Cameroon had concluded that the international community did not have the means for providing assistance to the national liberation movements.

Joaquim Chissano, Foreign Minister of Mozambique, said that within the international community, there was a moral and legal recognition of the need to end apartheid, but disagreement on how to do so. Any solution involving dialogue to end apartheid would not be favourably accepted by Pretoria. The international community must take more strenuous measures to ensure an end to apartheid. The limited measures applied by some had demonstrated South Africa's vulnerability.

Ibrahim Mukiibi, Foreign Minister of Uganda, said some Commonwealth members had refused to impose economic sanctions against South Africa. That indicated that those countries were "only interested in sharing material commonwealth with the African people but not their suffering and aspirations for freedom, democracy and justice'. He hoped that those countries would abide by the wish of the majority of the international community.

Goshu Wolde, Foreign Minister of Ethiopia, said the United States and the United Kingdom had sought to help apartheid gain respect and credibility. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions, having the United Nations' full backing, would be a useful addition to the determined effort being exerted to dismantle apartheid through effective armed struggle. Those who continued to collaborate with South Africa should, in the name of humanity, take a genuinely just position.

Mahamane Sani Bako, Foreign Minister of Niger, said the community of States must act to isolate South Africa. The struggle there and in Namibia had undermined the apartheid system. The world community could not tolerate dilatory measures which would only prolong the suffering of the South Africa people. It must manifest, in a strong and concrete way, support for the national liberation movements of South Africa.

Hamed el Houderi (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said the international community should totally isolate the Pretoria regime and exert political, economic and cultural pressure. It should condemn the attitude of the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Economic Community (EEC) should be asked to impose sanctions and embargoes against Pretoria.

Lamin Kiti Jabang, Foreign Minister of Gambia, said South Africa's actions had shown that the policy of "constructive engagement' had proved to be ineffective. All attempts to save the apartheid regime must cease. South Africa should enter into negotiations with the black majority. Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners must be released. The world should exert maximum pressure to force Pretoria to negotiate meaningfully.

Atsu-Koffi Amega, Foreign Minister to Togo, said the international community had a duty to support the legitimate struggle of the South African people by more than just words. Profits realized by the countries and transnational corporations that continued to trade with South Africa were steeped in the blood of black South African nationalists. The time had passed for hesitation or half-measures.

Mamadou Diawara (Mali) said the reservations expressed by some countries with regard to the effectiveness of sanctions were lacking in credibility. Mandatory economic sanctions were the only peaceful means by which to eliminate apartheid and liberate the people of Azania and Namibia.

Other speakers

Claude Malhuret, State Secretary for Human Rights of France, said apartheid was an especially serious and odious violation of human rights. Rather than embarking on the path of dismantling apartheid, South Africa had declared a state of emergency and had encouraged blind and brutal repression. The present situation in South Africa demonstrated that the apartheid system must be abolished.

Eduardo Faleiro, Minister of State for External Affairs of India, read out a message from Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India and Chairman of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, in which he said: "We cannot wait indefinitely and helplessly in the face of daily destruction of the moral values of civilization. Freedom and racial equality cannot be sacrificed at the alter of economic and commercial interests. In the name of humanity, I urge that we forge . . . united will to enforce immediate and effective mandatory sanctions against South Africa.'

Anatoliy L. Adamishin, Deputy Foreign Minister of the USSR, said it was symbolic that some Western countries, including the United States, were absent from the Conference. The situation in southern Africa required immediate and decisive international action. The efforts of all should be mobilized for the elimination of apartheid. The policy of "constructive engagement' was a total failure and the time had come for concrete measures.

Sten Andersson, Foreign Minister of Sweden, said Sweden was "greatly disappointed' to note that some key Member States of the United Nations had decided not to participate in the debate. To escape from a debate where international peace was at stake was a sign of weakness. Those members of the Security Council who continued to prevent effective international action against apartheid--the United Kingdom and the United States--were taking upon themselves an increasingly heavy responsibility.

Isidoro Malmierca-Peoli, Minister for External Relations of Cuba, said the Conference should renew the appeal to the Security Council for the imposition of full, collective and mandatory sanctions against South Africa, and request Member States to adopt effective measures against Pretoria. The international community should condemn the United States and its present Administration for its alliance with South Africa and its refusal to allow the adoption of sanctions in the Security Council.

Zhou Jue (China) said it was the common demand of all justice-upholding countries and peoples in Africa and the world at large to impose sanctions against South Africa. More countries had begun to impose sanctions against Pretoria. Never before had South Africa been so isolated. The days of the South African authorities were numbered.

Alfred Parsons (Australia) said his country had repeatedly taken more comprehensive measures against South Africa. It had been an Australian initiative that had led to the establishment of the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons to find a way to bring South Africa and the black leadership together to begin negotiation. Australia's initiative represented a conscious decision to test South Africa's willingness to pursue peaceful change.

Further views

Shridath S. Ramphal, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, said the message of the report of the Commonwealth's Group of Eminent Persons was clear: apartheid must end. Only sanctions, effective economic measures--rigorously applied with determination--would compel the dismantling of apartheid and could ensure that freedom was no longer denied in South Africa.

Lisbet Palme, widow of the late Prime Minister of Sweden, Olof Palme, said the world was witnessing an escalation of violence in South Africa. It was an honour to be able to speak to the Conference in the spirit of her husband, who had said one week before he was murdered that a system like apartheid could not be reformed; it could only be abolished.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, President of the National Rainbow Coalition of the United States, said that although apartheid had come under consistent assault, it had grown economically stronger because of the increase of Western investments, it had grown politically more slippery because of the loopholes afforded it by the Western countries, and it had grown more diplomatically arrogant. It was necessary to translate into economic and political language the plan to end apartheid.

Johnson P. Mlambo, Chairman of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), said the Congress and the oppressed and dispossessed people of Azania valued international support and solidarity and believed that they were an important complementary factor in the just struggle to abolish apartheid and win national liberation. International support and solidarity should assume a far more concrete form. Mere condemnation of apartheid revealed a lack of willingness to effectively contribute towards the elimination of that evil system.

Oliver Tambo, President of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC), said the major Western Powers, in particular the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and France, could not avoid taking the blame for the inevitable and terrible outcome of havoc throughout the region. They had shielded the apartheid regime from decisive international action, and aided and abetted it. The ANC had tried over many years to liberate South Africa by peaceful means, to no avail.

Theo-Ben Gurirab, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), said the entire world, except for a few recalcitrant allies of Pretoria, demanded sanctions. Even as the Reagan Administration cast vetoes and held Namibia's independence hostage by linking it to extraneous and irrelevant issues, such as the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, there was in the United States Congress unity of action and the adoption of meaningful measures against Pretoria.

Noel G. Sinclair (Guyana), Acting President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, said the Council had called on all countries, particularly those major Western States and Israel which maintained close links with South Africa, to recognize that the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa had created an increasingly intolerable and dangerous situation. The world community must not recognize or take any action implying recognition of illegal arrangements imposed by Pretoria in Namibia.

Oscar Oramas-Oliva (Cuba), Acting Chairman of the Special Committee on decolonization, said repeated calls for full implementation of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter against South Africa had been ignored, primarily due to the lack of support from certain permanent members of the Security Council. Those failures lent substance to South Africa's erroneous belief that it could defy the world with impunity.

Abdul S. Minty, Director of the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa, said some Governments had adopted partial measures against South Africa. Those limited measures could not seriously affect the apartheid regime. The anti-apartheid movement would not stop naming accomplices of the South African regime until apartheid was eradicated.

The Conference was preceded by a commemorative concert on 15 June at the Cathedral of Notre Dame to mark the twentieth anniversary of the International Day of Solidarity with the Struggling People of South Africa.

Photo: Cape Town skyline (above).

Photo: Road to Cape Town (below).

Photo: View of Soweto

Photo: Children of Soweto