Security Council demands South Africa withdraw its forces from Angola.

• Position: United Nations

That "gesture", South Africa said, would have to be reciprocated by Angola through assurances that "its own forces, SWAPO and the Cubans would not exploit the resulting situation, in particular with regard to actions which might threaten the security of the inhabitants of SWA/Namibia".

Angola on 31 December replied it "would not oppose the establishment of a truce of 30 days after 31 January", if SWAPO agreed to it, and if South Africa "withdraws its military units from Angolan territory and solemnly promises to initiate the implementation, within 15 days after that period, of resolution 435 (1978) on Namibia without extraneous considerations in that context".

Annexed to the letter was what the Angolan President termed "a partial chronological list of acts of aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty of the People's Republic of Angola by the South African armed forces, and which demonstrates the military escalation which has taken place" since South Africa's 15 December proposal.

Security Council resolution 435 (1978) outlines a United Nations plan for Namibia's independence. South Africa has specified that the major issue to be resolved before implementation would be the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, on the understanding that they would not be replaced by any other hostile forces; that firm agreement would have to be reached on the fundamental requirements of Cuban withdrawal; and that a commitment would have to be obtained from the Angolan Government regarding the implementation of such an agreement.

(South Africa's position had been rejected by the Security Council in its resolution 539 (1983), adopted on 28 October 1983, in which the Council said that independence of Namibia "cannot be held hostage" to the resolution of irrelevant and extraneous issues.)

The South African proposal came in a letter of 15 December to the Secretary-General from its Foreign Minister R.F. Botha (document S/16219). Angola's reply was from its President, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, in a letter to the Secretary-General (document S/16245).

South Africa also said in its letter that it would consider extending the disengagement period if provisions of its proposal were adhered to and was prepared to begin the process of implementing Security Council resolution 435 (1978) "upon resolution of the problem of Cuban forces in Angola".

On 5 January, Sam Nujoma, President of SWAPO, in a letter to the Secretary-General (document S/16256), said SWAPO had always been agreeable to the immediate signing of a cease-fire between itself and South Africa. It agreed with the Angolan proposal that the Secretary-General should initiate consultations with the two parties concerned to agree on the exact date for a cease-fire in Namibia.

SWAPO wanted resolution 435 (1978) "implemented forthwith without modification or extraneous and irrelevant issues such as linkage, parallelism or reciprocity". Provisions of that resolution did not, in any way, refer to temporary cease-fire arrangements in Namibia, SWAPO maintained.

Resolutions Adopted: Council resolution 545 (1983) was adopted by a vote of 14 in favour (China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, Togo, USSR, United Kingdom, Zaire, Zimbabwe) to non against, with 1 abstention (United States).

Under the 14-Power draft, the Council demanded that South Africa cease all violations against Angola and "strongly" condemned its continued military occupation of parts of southern Angola. It declared that the continued illegal military occupation of Angola's territory was "a flagrant violation" of Angola's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and endangered international peace and security.

The Council demanded that South Africa henceforth "scrupulously respect" Angola's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It considered that Angola was entitled to appropriate redress for any material damage it had suffered, and called on all Member States to "desist from any action which would undermine the independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Angola".

Resolution 546 (1984) was adopted by a vote of 13 in favour (China, Egypt, France, India, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Upper Volta, Zimbabwe) to none against, with 2 abstentions (United Kingdom, United States).

By the 13-nation text, the Council demanded that South Africa "cease immediately all bombing and other acts of aggression" and "strongly" condemned South Africa "for its renewed, intensified, premeditated and unprovoked bombing, as well as the continuing occupation of parts of the territory of Angola".

The Council also strongly condemned South Africa for using the international territory of Namibia "as a springboard for perpetrating the armed attacks as well as sustaining its occupation of parts of the territory of Angola". All States were called on to implement fully the arms embargo imposed against South Africa in Council resolution 418 (1977).

The Council asked the Secretary-General to report to it not later than 10 January on implementation of resolution 546 (1984) and decided to meet again if South Africa did not comply with that resolution, "to consider the adoption of more effective measures in accordance with appropriate provisions of the Charter".

(The two-year terms of five non-permanent Security Council members--Guyana, Jordan, Poland, Togo and Zaire--expired on 31 December, and the terms of Egypt, India, Peru, Ukrainian SSR and Upper Volta began on 1 January.)

Secretary-General's Report: On 10 January, the Secretary-General reported (document S/16266) that South Africa had informed him it would not respond formally to resolution 546, which it rejected. However, it had provided him with extracts from recent official statements to indicate its position on some matters raised in the resolution. The Secretary-General said that in a statement on 7 January, South African Foreign Minister Botha had said that South Africa would continue to act against "any terrorist organization" that sought to determine the future of South West Africa through violence. South Africa accepted that that position "can entail confrontation with the whole world". *nevertheless, South Africa was prepared to accept the confrontation and conflict which might ensue and all its consequences.

On 8 January, the report stated, South Africa's Defence Minister, General M. Malan, had said that South African security forces had "reached their goal with the premptive operations against SWAPO terrorists in southern Angola and the withdrawal had already commenced". South Africa believed, he said, that the solution to the problem should be sought at the conference table and not through military force. Angola should realize the seriousness of the situation and "cease protecting and supporting terrorists in their murder plans and actions against the local population of South West Africa/Namibia". South Africa had always been and still remained "prepared to negotiate with that Government with a view to obtaining lasting peace in our sub-continent".

On 10 January, the Secretary-General said, Angola informed him there had been no fundamental change in the military situation in Angola and no signs of withdrawal of South African armed forces. South African forces continued to conduct operations and to occupy parts of southern Angola, it reported.

Further information was provided on 24 January, when Angola reported to the President of the Security Council (dodument 16287) that contrary to Western media reports of a South African withdrawal, South African troops still had eight infantry battalions, an artillery battery and a group of 155 mm. artillery in six localities: Otchinjau, Vangongo, quiteve, Nigive, Mupa and south of Caiundo. Also from 15 to 17 January, the South African forces had violated five times the aerial space of Angola, carrying out reconnaissance flights over some of those localities and Mulondo, Cuvelai, Jamba, Kassinga and Cuchie.

On 14 December, Angola, in a letter to the Council President (document S/16216), asked the Council to meet urgently "in view of the threat to regional and international peace and security represented by the occupation since 1981 of parts of southern Angola" by South Africa, "resulting in the violation of the territorial integrity and national sovereignty" of Angola, and increased acts of aggression and violence.

In the debate, Angola said the fullscale war by South Africa against Angola since 1981 was being supported by certain Member States. Without their backing, Pretoria would not be able to carry out destabilizing attempts against Angola. South Africa's acts of aggression against Angola had intensified since mid-1982. As a result of the veto by a super-Power, a permanent Council member, in August 1981 of a Council draft resolution that had, among other things, demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South African troops from Angola, South African troops were still occupying southern Angola. In a gesture of Calculated cynicism", Pretoria, upon hearing of Angola's request for a Council meeting, had made a tactical move aimed at diffusing suport for Angola, and at giving its allies the dubious distinction of being able to point with pride to the fact that, at last, their policy of constructive engagement was paying off. Despite the South African letter and the publicity given to its "offer", four columns of racist troops made up of armoured corps had mounted an offensive into Huila province. A clash had already taken place on 14 December near Mulongo between them and the People's Forces for the Liberation of Angola.

Angola stated that South Africa had really made no offer at all. The letter contained a vague statement that South Africa was prepared to begin a disengagement, but it did not talk of withdrawal. Furthermore, it again brought up linkage, which Angola and most nations had rejected. The withdrawal of the racist...