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...