Security Council resolution 387 (1976) [on South Africa's military activities against Angola]
Symbol: S/RES/387(1976)
Date: 1976-03-31
Meeting record: S/PV.1906
Subjects: MILITARY ACTIVITY|WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION|ANGOLA|SOUTH AFRICA|ANGOLA SITUATION|NAMIBIA QUESTION
Notes: Concerns South Africa's military activities against Angola.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1976. - S/INF/32. - 1977. - p. 10-11. - (SCOR, 31st year).

Resolution 387 (1976)
of 31 March 1976

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Kenya on behalf of the African Group of States at
the United Nations, 33

Having heard the statement of the representative of the
People’s Republic of Angola, 34

Recalling the principle that no State or group of States
has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any
reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any
other State,

Recalling also the inherent and lawful right of every
State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to request
assistance from any other State or group of States,

Bearing in mind that all Member States must refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations.

Gravely concerned at the acts of aggression committed by
South Africa against the People’s Republic of Angola and
the violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity,

Condemning the utilization by South Africa of the
international Territory of Namibia to mount that aggression,

Gravely concerned also at the damage and destruction
done by the South African invading forces in Angola and
by their seizure of Angolan equipment and materials,

Noting the letter of the Permanent Representative of
South Africa regarding the withdrawal of South African
troops, 35

1. Condemns South Africa’s aggression against the
People’s Republic of Angola;

2. Demands that South Africa scrupulously respect the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
People’s Republic of Angola;
3. Demands also that South Africa desist from the
utilization of the international Territory of Namibia to
mount provocative or aggressive acts against the People’s
Republic of Angola or any other neighbouring African
State;

4. Calls upon the Government of South Africa to meet
the just claims of the People’s Republic of Angola for a full
compensation for the damage and destruction inflicted on
its State and for the restoration of the equipment and
materials which its invading forces seized;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the implementation of the present resolution.

Adopted at the 1906th meeting by 9 votes to none, with 5
abstentions (France, Italy,
Japan, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of
America). 36



33 [bid., document S/12007.
34 Ibid., Thirty-first Year. 1900th meeting.
35 Ibid., Thirty-first Year, Supplement for January, February and
March 1976, document S/12026.
36 One member (China) did not participate in the voting.

Texto español (official Spanish version): República Arabe Siria y Uganda a participar, sin derecho de
voto, en el debate de la cuestión.

En su 1904a. sesión, celebrada el 30 de marzo de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de la Arabia
Saudita, el Congo y Sudáfrica a participar, sin derecho de
voto en el debate de la cuestión.

En su 1905a. sesión, celebrada el 31 de marzo de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de Bulgaria,
Guinea-Bissau y Portugal a participar, sin derecho de voto,
en el debate de la cuestión.

En su 1906a. sesión, celebrada el 31 de marzo de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar al representante de Mozambique a
participar, sin derecho de voto, en el debate de la cuestión.

Resolución 387 (1976)
de 31 de marzo de 1976

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Habiendo examinado la carta del Representante Permanente de Kenya, enviada en nombre del Grupo de Estados
Africanos de las Naciones Unidas33,

Habiendo oído la declaración del representante de la
República Popular de Angola34, -

Recordando el principio de que ningún Estado o grupo de
Estados tiene derecho a intervenir, directa o indirectamente, por cualquier razón que sea, en los asuntos internos
o externos de cualquier otro Estado,

Recordando también el derecho inherente y legítimo de
todo Estado, en el ejercicio de su soberanía, a pedir
asistencia de cualquier otro Estado o grupo de Estados,

33 Ibid., documento S/12007.
34 Ibid., Trigésimo Primer Año, 1900a. sesión.

Teniendo presente que todos los Estados Miembros deben
abstenerse, en sus relaciones internacionales, de recurrir a la
amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial
o la independencia política de cualquier Estado, o en
cualquier otra forma incompatible con los propósitos de las
Naciones Unidas,

Profundamente preocupado por los actos de agresión
cometidos por Sudáfrica contra la Republica Popular de
Angola y por la violación de su soberanía y de su integridad
territorial,

Condenando la utilización por Sudáfrica del Territorio
internacional de Namibia para organizar dicha agresión,

Profundamente preocupado también por los daños y la
destrucción que han ocasionado en Angola las fuerzas
invasoras sudafricanas y por el hecho de que éstas se hayan
apoderado de equipos y materiales angoleños,

Tomando nota de la carta del Representante Permanente
de Sudáfrica relativa al retiro de tropas sudafricanas35,

1. Condena la agresión de Sudáfrica contra la República
Popular de Angola;

2. Exige que Sudáfrica respete escrupulosamente la
independencia, la soberanía y la integridad territorial de la
República Popular de Angola;

3. Exige asimismo que Sudáfrica desista de utilizar el
Territorio internacional de Namibia para organizar actos de

. provocación o agresión contra la República Popular de

Angola o cualquier otro Estado africano vecino;

4. Exhorta a Sudáfrica a que atienda las justas reclamaciones de la República Popular de Angola para que pague
una indemnización total por los daños y la destrucción
infligidos a Angola y para que devuelva los equipos y
materiales de que se hayan apoderado las fuerzas invasoras
sudafricanas;

S. Pide al Secretario General que siga de cerca la
aplicación de la presente resolución.

Aprobada en la 1906a. sesión
por 9 votos contra ninguno y
5 abstenciones (Estados Unidos de América, Francia,
Ttalia, Japón, Reino Unido de
Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del
Norte)36.

35 Ibid., Trigésimo Primer Año, Suplemento de enero, febrero y
marzo de 1976, documento S/12026.

36 Un miembro (China) no participó en la votación.

La situación en Sudáfrica: matanzas y actos de violencia cometidos por el régimen de apartheid
en Sudáfrica en Soweto y otras zonas

Decisiones

En su 1929. sesión, celebrada el 18 de junio de 1976, el
Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de Argelia,
Cuba, Liberia y Madagascar a participar, sin derecho de
voto, en el debate del tema titulado:

“La situación en Sudáfrica: matanzas y actos de violencia
cometidos por el régimen de apartheid en Sudáfrica en
Soweto y otras zonas:

“a) Carta, de fecha 18 de junio de 1976, dirigida al

Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad por los represen-

11

tantes de Benin, la República Arabe Libia y la
República Unida de Tanzanía (S/12100)37;

“b) Telegrama, de fecha 18 de junio de 1976, dirigido al
Secretario General por el Presidente de la República
Democrática de Madagascar (S/12101)”37.

Er. la misma sesión, el Consejo decidió, también, a
solicitud de los representantes de Benin, la República Arabe

37 Véase Documentos Oficiales del Consejo de Seguridad, Trigé-
simo Primer Año, Suplemento de abril, mayo y junio de 1976.

Texte français (official French version): Somalie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la
question.

À sa 19602 séance, le 7 octobre 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants du Burundi, de la Pologne et de
Sri Lanka à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de
la question.

A sa 1961© séance, le 13 octobre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé d’inviter les représentants du Bangladesh, du

Botswana, du Libéria et de la République démocratique
allemande à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de
la question.

À sa 1963 séance, le 19 octobre 1976, le Conseil a
décidé, sur la demande des représentants du Bénin, de la
République arabe libyenne et de la République-Unie de
Tanzanie3!, d’adresser une invitation à M. Theo-Ben
Gurirab en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur
provisoire.

31 Ibid, Supplément d'octobre, novembre et décembre 1976,
document S/12216.

Plainte du Kenya, au nom du Groupe des Etats d'Afrique à l'Organisation des Nations Unies, concernant
l’acte d'agression perpétré par l’Afrique du Sud contre la République populaire d’Angola

Décisions

A sa 1900 séance, le 26 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé,
conformément à l’Article 32 de la Charte, d’inviter le
représentant de la République populaire d’Angola à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question
intitulée “Plainte du Kenya, au nom du Groupe des Etats
d’Afrique à l’Organisation des Nations Unies, concernant
l’acte d’agression perpétré par l’Afrique du Sud contre la
République populaire d’Angola : lettre, en date du 10 mars
1976, adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité par le
représentant permanent du Kenya auprès de l’Organisation
des Nations Unies (S/1200732)”.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé d’inviter
les représentants de Cuba, de l’Egypte, de la Guinée, du
Kenya, de Madagascar, du Nigéria, de la Sierra Leone, de la
Somalie, de la Yougoslavie et de la Zambie à participer, sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

A sa 1901€ séance, le 29 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de la Pologne et de la République
démocratique allemande à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À sa 1902€ séance, le 29 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d'inviter les représentants de l’Inde et de la République-Unie du Cameroun à participer, sans droit de vote, à
la discussion de la question.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, en vertu
de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur provisoire, d’adresser
une invitation à une délégation du Conseil des Nations
Unies pour la Namibie composée du Président et de quatre
membres de cet organe.

32 Ibid, Supplèment de janvier, février et mars 1976.

A sa 1903€ séance, le 30 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants du Mali, de l’Ouganda et de la
République arabe syrienne à participer, sans droit de vote, à
la discussion de la question.

À sa 1904€ séance, le 30 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de l’Afrique du Sud, de l’Arabie
Saoudite et du Congo à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À sa 1905© séance, le 31 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de la Bulgarie, de la Guinée-Bissau et du Portugal à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

À sa 19062 séance, le 31 mars 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter le représentant du Mozambique à participer, sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

Résolution 387 (1976)
du 31 mars 1976

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Ayant examiné la lettre adressée par le représentant
permanent du Kenya au nom du Groupe des Etats
d’Afrique à l’Organisation des Nations Unies33,

Ayant entendu la déclaration du représentant de la
République populaire d’Angola34,

Rappelant le principe selon lequel aucun Etat ou groupe
d’Etats n’a le droit d’intervenir, directement ou indirectement, pour quelque raison que ce soit, dans les affaires
intérieures ou extérieures de tout autre Etat,

33 Ibid., document S/12007.
34 Ibid, trente et unième année, 1900Ë séance.
Rappelant également le droit naturel et légitime de
chaque Etat, dans l’exercice de sa souveraineté, de demander l’assistance de tout autre Etat ou groupe d’Etats,

Tenant compte de ce que tous les Etats Membres doivent
s'abstenir, dans leurs relations internationales, de recourir à
la menace ou à l’emploi de la force contre l’intégrité
territoriale ou l’indépendance politique de tout Etat ou de
toute autre manière incompatible avec les buts des Nations
Unies,

Profondément préoccupé par les actes d’agression commis
par l’Afrique du Sud contre la République populaire
d’Angola et par la violation de la souveraineté et de
l’intégrité territoriale de ce pays,

Condamnant l’utilisation par l’Afrique du Sud du Territoire international de la Namibie pour monter cette
agression,

Profondément préoccupé également par les dommages et
les destructions causés par les forces d’invasion sudafricaines en Angola et par leur saisie d’équipement et de
matériel angolais,

Notant la lettre du représentant permanent de l’Afrique
du Sud relative au retrait des troupes sud-africaines35,

35 Ibid, trente et unième année, Supplément de janvier, février et
mars 1976, document S/12026.

1. Condamne l’agression de l’Afrique du Sud contre la
République populaire d’Angola;

2. Exige que l’Afrique du Sud respecte scrupuleusement
l’indépendance, la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale de
la République populaire d’Angola,

3. Exige également que l’Afrique du Sud s’abstienne
d’utiliser le Territoire international de la Namibie pour
monter des actes de provocation ou d'agression contre la
République populaire d’Angola ou tout autre Etat africain
voisin;

4. Demande au Gouvernement sud-africain de faire droit
aux demandes légitimes de la République populaire
d’Angola tendant à l’indemnisation intégrale de cet Etat
pour les dommages et les destructions qui lui ont été
infligés et à la restitution de l’équipement et des matériels
que les forces d’invasion ont saisis;

5. Prie le Secrétaire général de suivre l’application de la
présente résolution.

Adoptée à la 1906€ séance par
9 voix contre zéro, avec 5 abs

tentions (Etats-Unis d’Amé-
rique, France, Italie, Japon,

Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du
Nord}36,

36 Un membre (Chine) n’a pas participé au vote.

La situation en Afrique du Sud : massacres et actes de violence commis par le régime d’apartheid
en Afrique du Sud à Soweto et dans d'autres régions

Décisions

À sa 1929€ séance, le 18 juin 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d’inviter les représentants de l’Algérie, de Cuba, du Libéria
et de Madagascar à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question intitulée :

“La situation en Afrique du Sud : massacres et actes de
violence commis par le régime d’apartheid en Afrique
du Sud à Soweto et dans d’autres régions :

“a) Lettre, en date du 18 juin 1976, adressée au
Président du Conseil de sécurité par les représentants
du Bénin, de la République arabe libyenne et de la
République-Unie de Tanzanie (S/1210037);

“b) Télégramme, en date du 18 juin 1976, adressé au
Secrétaire général par le Président de la République
démocratique de Madagascar (S/1210137)”.

A la même séance, le Conseil a également décidé, sur la
demande des représentants du Bénin, de la République
arabe libyenne et de la République-Unie de Tanzanie38,
d'adresser une invitation à MM. Thami Mhlambiso et David
Sibeko en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur
provisoire.

37 Voir Documents officiels du Conseil de sécurité, trente et
unième année, Supplément d'avril, mai et juin 1976.
38 Ibid., document S/12102.

11

A la même séance, le Conseil a en outre décidé d'adresser
une invitation au Rapporteur du Comité spécial contre
l’apartheid en vertu de l’article 39 du règlement intérieur
provisoire.

À sa 1930 séance, le 19 juin 1976, le Conseil a décidé
d'inviter les représentants de l'Afrique du Sud, de l’Inde, de
la République-Unie du Cameroun, de la Yougoslavie et de la
Zambie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la
questinn.

Résolution 392 (1976)
du 19 juin 1976

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Ayant examiné la lettre adressée par les représentants du
Bénin, de la République arabe libyenne et de la République-Unie de Tanzanie, au nom du Groupe africain à
l’Organisation des Nations Unies, concernant les actes de
répression, y compris les massacres non provoqués, perpétrés par le régime d’apartheid en Afrique du Sud à
l’encontre du peuple africain à Soweto et dans d’autres
régions de l’Afrique du Sud3?,

39 fbid., document S/12100.

Русский текст (official Russian version): Алжира, Ганы, Гвинеи, Демократической Кампу-
чии, Егилта, Йемена, Кубы, Мозамбика, Ниге-
рии, Саудовской Лравии, Сьерра Леоне и Юго-
славии принять участие в обсуждении этого во-
проса без права голоса.

На 1958-м заседании 1 октября 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителя Зам-
бии принять участие в обсуждении этого вопро-
са без права голоса.

На 1959-м заседании 5 октября 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Ни-
гера, Сомали и Эфиопии принять участие в об-
суждении этого вопроса без права голоса.

На 1960-м заседании 7 октября 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Бу-

рунди, Польши и Шри Ланки принять участие
в обсуждении этого вопроса без права голоса.

На 1961-м заседании 13 октября 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Бан-
гладеш, Ботсваны, Германской Демократической
Республики и Либерии принять участие в обсуж-
дении этого вопроса без права голоса.

На 1963-м заседании 19 октября 1976 года Со-
вет постановил по просьбе представителей Бе-
нина, Ливийской Арабской Республики ин Объ-
единенной Республики — Танзания 3! направить
приглашение г-ну Тео-Бен Гурирабу на основа-
нни правила 39 временных правил процедуры.

3 Там же, Дополнение за октябрь, ноябрь и
1976 года, документ 5/12216.

ЖАЛОБА КЕНИИ ОТ ИМЕНИ ГРУППЫ АФРИКАНСКИХ ГОСУДАРСТВ В ОРГАНИЗАЦИИ ОБЪЕДИНЕННЫХ
НАЦИЙ ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНО АКТА АГРЕССИИ, СОВЕРШЕННОГО ЮЖНОЙ АФРИКОЙ ПРОТИВ НАРОДНОЙ

РЕСПУБЛИКИ АНГОЛА
Решения

На 1900-м заседании 26 марта 1976 года Совст
постановил в соответствии со статьей 32 Устава
пригласить представителя Народной Республики
Ангола принять участие без права голоса в 0б-
суждении вопроса, озаглавленного «Жалоба Ке-
нии от имени Группы африканских государств в
Организации Объединенных Наций относитель-
но акта агрессии, совершенного Южной Лфрикой
против Народной Республики Ангола: письмо
постоянного представителя Кении прин Организа-
ции Объединенных Наций от 10 марта 1976 го-
да на имя Председателя Совета Безопасности
(5/12007) »3?.

На том же заседании Совет также постановил
пригласить представителей Гвинеи, Египта, Зам-
бии, Кении, Кубы, Мадагаскара, Нигерии, Со-
мали, Сьерра Леоне и Югославии принять уча-
стие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права го-
лоса.

На 1901-м заседании 29 марта 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Гер-
манской Демократической Республики и Поль-
ши принять участие в обсуждении этого вопроса
без права голоса.

На 1902-м заседании 29 марта 1976 года Совет
постановил пригласить представителей Индии н
Объединенной Республики Камерун принять уча-
стие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права го-
лоса.

На том же заседании Совет также постановил
пригласить на основании правила 39 временных
правил процедуры делегацию Совета Организа-
ции Объединенных Наций по Намибии в составе
Председателя и четырех членов этого органа.

32 Там же, Дополнение за январь, февраль и март 1976
года.

На 1903-м заседании 30 марта 1976 года Совет
постановил пригласить представителей Мали, Си-
рийской Арабской Республики и Уганды принять
участие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права
голоса.

На 1904-м заседании 30 марта 1976 года Совет
постановил пригласить представителей — Конго,
Саудовской Аравии и Южной Африки принять
участие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права
голоса.

На 1905-м заседании 31 марта 1976 года Со-
вет постановил пригласить представителей Бол-
гарии, Гвинеи-Бисау и Португалии принять уча-
стие в обсуждении этого вопроса без права го-
лоса.

На 1906-м заседании 31 марта 1976 года Совет
постановил пригласить представителя Мозамби-
ка принять участие в обсуждении этого вопроса
без права голоса.

Резолюция 387 (1976)
от 31 марта 1976 года

Совет Безопасности,

рассмотрев письмо постоянного представителя
Кении, направленное от имени Группы африкан-
ских государств в Организации Объединенных
Наций 33,

заслушав заявление представителя Народной
Республики Ангола ®*, й

напоминая о принципе, в соответствии с кото-
рым государство или группа государств не имеют
права вмешиваться, прямо или косвенно, по ка-
ким бы то ни было причинам во внутренние или
внешние дела любого другого государства,

33 Там же, документ 5/12007.
4 Там же, тридцать первый год, 1900-е заседание.

10

декабрь
напоминая также о неотъемлемом и законном
праве каждого государства при осуществлении
своего суверенитета просить помощи у любого
другого государства или группы государств,

сознавая, что все государства-члены должны
воздерживаться в своих международных отноше-
ниях от угрозы силой или ее применения как про-
тив территориальной  неприкосновенности или
политической независимости любого государст-
ва, так и каким-либо другим образом, несовме-
стимым с целями Организации Объединенных
Наций,

будучи серьезно обеспокоен актами агрессии,
совершенными Южной Африкой против Народ-
ной Республики Ангола, и нарушением ее сувере-
нитета и территориальной целостности,

осуждая использование Южной Африкой меж-
дународной территории Намибия для осущест-
вления этой агрессии,

будучи серьезно обеспокоен также ущербом и
разрушениями, причиненными южноафрикански-
ми оккупационными войсками в Анголе, и захва-
том ими ангольского оборудования и материа-
лов,

принимая к сведению письмо
представителя Южной Африки относительно вы-
вода южноафриканских войск 35,

Постоянного

® Там же, тридцать первый год, Дополнение за январь,

февраль и март 1976 года, локумент $/12026.

1. осуждает агрессию Южной Африки против
Народной Республики Ангола;

2. требует, чтобы Южная Африка  неукосни-
тельно уважала независимость, суверенитет и
территориальную целостность Народной Респуб-
лики Ангола;

3. требует также, чтобы Южная Африка отка-
залась от использования международной терри-
тории Намибия для осуществления провокаци-
онных и агрессивных актов против — Народной
Республики Ангола или любого другого соседнего
африканского государства;

4. призывает правительство Южной Африки
удовлетворить справедливые требования Народ-
ной Республики Ангола о выплате полной ком-
пенсации за ущерб и разрушения, причиненные
Анголе, и возвращении оборудования и матери-
алов, захваченных оккупационными — войсками
Южной Африки;

5. просит Генерального секретаря проследить
за выполнением настоящей резолюции.

Принята на 1906-м заседании
9 голосами при 5 воздержав-
щихся — (Италия, Соединенное
Королевство — Великобритании
и Северной Ирландии, Соеди-
ненные Штаты Америки, Фран-
ция, Япония), причем никто не
голосовал против 3.

3% Один член Совета (Китай) в голосовании пе участво-
вал.

ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ В ЮЖНОЙ АФРИКЕ: УБИЙСТВА И НАСИЛИЕ, СОВЕРШЕННЫЕ
РЕЖИМОМ АПАРТЕИДА В ЮЖНОЙ АФРИКЕ В СОУЭТО И ДРУГИХ РАЙОНАХ

Решения

На 1929-м заседании 18 июня 1976 года Совет
постановил пригласить представителей Алжира,
Кубы, Либерии и Мадагаскара принять участие
без права голоса в обсуждении вопроса, озаглав-
ленного:

«Положение в Южной Африке: убийства и на-
силие, совершенные режимом апартеида в Юж-
ной Африке в Соуэто и других районах:

а) письмо представителей Бенина, Ливийской
Арабской Республики н Объединенной Рес-
публики Танзания от 18 июня 1976 года на

имя Председателя Совета Безопасности
(5712100) *7;
6) телеграмма президента — Демократической

Республики Мадагаскар от 18 июня 1976
года на имя Генерального секретаря (5/
12101) 37». Ш

На том же заседании Совет также постановил
по просьбе представителей Бенина, Ливийской
Арабской Республики и Объединенной Респуб-

У См. Официальные отчеты Совета Безоласности, три
дцать первый год, Дополнение за впрель, май и июнь 1976
года.

1

лики Танзания 3% направить приглашение г-ну
Тами Мламбисо и г-ну Давиду Сибеко на осно-
вании правила 39 временных правил процедуры.

На том же заседании Совет далее постановил
пригласить на основании правила 39 временных
правил процедуры Докладчика Специального ко-
митета против апартеида.

На 1930-м заседании 19 июня 1976 года Совет
постановил пригласить представителей Замбии,
Индии, Объединенной Республики — Камерун,
Югославии и Южной Африки принять участие в
обсуждении этого вопроса без права голоса.

Резолюция 392 (1976)
от 19 июня 1976 года

Совет Безопасности,

рассмотрев письмо, направленное представите-
лями Бенина, Ливийской Арабской Республики
и Объединенной Республики Танзания от имени
Группы африканских государств в Организации
Объединенных Наций, по поводу репрессивных
мер, включая преднамеренные убийства, осуще-
ствленных режимом апартеида в Южной Африке

® Там же, документ $/12102.

中文文本 (official Chinese version): 议决 定 邀 请 印度 和 喀麦隆 联合 共和 国 代表 参加 讨论 本
问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第 三
十 九条 ， 向 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 主席 及 其 成 员 四 人
组 成 的 联合 国 纳米 比 亚 理事 会 代表 团 发 出 邀请 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 三 次 会 议
决定 邀请 马里 、 阿 拉 伯 叙利亚 共和 国 和 乌干达 代表 参
加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 四 次 会 议
决定 邀请 刚果 、 沙 特 阿 拉 伯 和 南非 代表 参加 讨论 本 问
题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 一 日 安理会 第 一 九 〇 五 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 保加利亚 、 几 内 亚 比 绍 和 葡 葡 牙 代 表 参 加
讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 一 且 安 理会 第 一 九 O 〇 六 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 莫桑比克 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决
权 。

一 九 七 六 年 三 月 三 十 一 日
第 387(1976) 号 决议

安全 理事 会 ，

审议 了 肯尼亚 常 驻 代表 以 联合 国内 非洲 国家 集团
的 名 义 的 来 信 , 蚁

听取 了 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 代 表 的 发 言 ,@@

回顾 任何 国家 或 国家 集团 ， 无 论 为 何 原因 ， 都 无

权 直 接 或 间接 于 涉 任何 其 他 国家 的 内 政 或 外 交 的 原
则 ，

又 回顾 每 一 国家 都 有 行使 主权 ， 向 任何 其 他 国家
或 国家 集团 要 求援 助 的 固有 合法 权利 ，

鲜 问 上 上 ，S/12007 号 文件 。
昌 辣 上， 《第 三 十 一 年 2， 第 一作 @O 次 会 议 。

铭记 着 联合 国 各 会 员 国 在 其 国际 关系 上 不 得 为 侵
害 任 何 国家 领土 完整 或 政治 独立 的 目的 ， 或 以 与 联合
国 宗 旨 不 符 的 任何 其 他 方法 ， 以 武力 威胁 或 使 用 起
力 ，

严重 关切 南非 对 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 所 进行 的 侵略
行为 以 及 对 其 主权 和 领土 完整 的 破坏 ，

谴责 南非 利用 纳米 比 亚 这 个 国际 领土 发 动 这 次 侵
略 ，

并 严重 关切 南非 入 侵 部 队 使 安哥拉 遵 受 的 损失 种
破坏 及 其 对 安哥拉 的 设备 和 物资 的 抓 夺 ，

注意 到 南非 常 驻 代表 关于 南非 部 队 撤 退 的 来
信 , 凶

1. 诅 责 南非 对 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 进行 的 侵略 ;

2.， 要 求 南非 严格 莽 重 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 的 独
Y、 主 权 和 领土 完整

3. 又 要 求 南非 停 直 利用 纳米 比 亚 这 个 国际 领 十
对 安哥拉 人 民 共 利 国 或 任何 共 他 非洲 邻 国 发 动 挑 峡 或
侵略 行为 ;

414. 责成 南非 政府 实现 安哥拉 人 民 共 和 国 所 提 充
分 补偿 该 国 遭 受 的 损失 和 破坏 并 将 入 侵 部 队 所 拔 夺 的
设备 和 物资 交还 该 国 的 正当 要 求 ;

5. 请 秘书 长 密切 注意 本 决议 的 执行 情况 。

第 一 九 品 六 次 会 议 以 九 标
对 零 票 ， 五 票 并 权 (法 国
意大利 、 日 本 、 大 不 列 着
及 北 爱尔兰 联合 王国 、 美
利 坚 合众国 ) 通 过 。 四

国 间 上 《第 于 二 一 年 ， 一 娘 上 训 年 一 下 、 月 和 和 一 胃 份
补 网 》，S712026 切 文 件 。
国 一 个 成 员 国 (中 国 ) 没 有 佐 加 表 次 。
南非 局 势 ， 南 非 种 族 隔离 政权 在 索 韦 托
和 其 他 地 区 进行 的 属 杀 和 暴力 行为

决 是

一 九 七 六 年 六 月 十 八 日 安理会 第 一 九 二 九 次 会 议
决定 邀请 阿尔 及 利 亚 、 古 巴 、 利 比 里 亚 和 马达 加 斯 加
代表 参加 讨论 下 列 项 目 ， 但 无 表决 权 :

“南非 局 势 ， 南非 种 族 隔 离 政权 在 索 韦 托 和 其 他
地 区 进行 的 屠杀 和 暴力 行为 :

(a) 一 九 七 六 年 六 月 十 八 日 贝 宁 、 阿 拉 伯 利 比
亚 共和 国 和 坦桑尼亚 联合 共和 国 代 表 给 安
全 理事 会 主席 的 信 (S/12100) ;加

Cb) 一 九 七 六 年 六 月 十 八 日 马达 加 斯 加 民主 共
和 国 总 统 给 秘书 长 的 电报 (S/12101) 。” 回

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 经 贝 宁 、 阿 拉 伯 利比亚 共和 国
和 坦桑尼亚 联合 共和 国 代表 的 请 求 , @ 并 决定 按照 暂
行 议事 规则 第 三 十 九条 向 塔 米 ， 蒙 兰 比 索 先 生 和 戴
维 " 斯 比 科 先生 发 出 邀请 。

同 次 会 议 ， 安 理会 并 决定 按照 暂行 议事 规则 第 三
十 九条 向 反对 种 族 隔离 特别 委员 会 报告 员 发 出 邀请 。

一 九 七 六 年 六 月 十 九 日 安理会 第 一 九 三 〇 次 会 议
决定 邀请 印度 、 南 非 、 喀 麦 隆 联合 共和 国 、 南 斯 拉夫
赞比亚 代表 参加 讨论 本 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

审议 了 贝 宁 、 阿 拉 伯 利 比 亚 共 和 国 、 坦 桑 尼 亚 联
合共 和 国 的 代表 以 联合 国 非洲 集团 的 名 义 发 出 的 关于
南非 种 族 隔 离 政 权 对 南非 索 韦 托 和 其 他 地 区 非洲 人 民
采取 任意 屠杀 等 镇 压 措施 的 信 ， 曙

也 审议 了 马达 加 斯 加 民主 共和 国 总 统 给 秘书 长 的
电报 , @

对 一 九 七 六 年 六 月 十 六 日 示威 反对 种 族 歧视 的 非
洲 人 民 、 包 括 学 童 和 学 生 ， 遵 受 冷 酷 无 情 的 射击 ， 继
而 造成 南非 非洲 人 大 量 被 杀 与 受伤 一 事 深 感 震惊 ，

深信 这 种 局 势 是 由 于 南非 政府 不 顾 安 全 理事 会 和
大 会 的 决议 ， 继 续 强制 执行 种 族 隔 离 和 种 族 歧 视 而 造
成 的 ，

1. 强烈 遗 责 南非 政府 采取 大 规模 的 暴力 行径 对
付 与 层 杀 包括 学 童 和 学 生 与 其 它 人 在 内 的 反对 种 族 歧
视 的 非洲 人 民 ;

2. 对 这 种 暴力 行径 的 受害 者 事 示 深切 同情 ;

3 重申 种 族 隔离 政策 是 一 种 违背 人 类 和 良知 与 尊
严 的 罪行 ， 而 且 严 重 干扰 国际 和 平 与 安全 ;

4 确认 南非 人 民 为 消除 种 族 隔离 和 种 族 歧 视 而
斗争 的 合法 性 ;

5. 要 求 南 非 政府 紧急 停止 对 非洲 人 民 使 用 暴

一 九 七 六 年 六 月 十 九 日 力 ， 并 为 消除 种 族 隔离 和 种 族 歧 视 而 采 取 紧 急 步 又 ;
第 392(1976) 号 决议 6 决定 继续 处 理 这 个 问题 。
安全 理事 会 ， 第 一 九 三 〇 次 会 议 以 协商
ee 一 致 方式 通过 。
贸 见 《安全 理事 会 正式 记录 ， 第 革 二 一 年， 一 九 七 六 第
四 月 、 五 月 和 六 月 份 补 编 》。 息 加 上，5/12100 全 文件 。
国 同 上，S/12102 号 文件 。 得 着 上 ，S7/12101 季 文 作 。
赞比亚 对 南非 的 控诉

决 定

一 九 七 六 年 七 月 二 十 七 日 安理会 第 一 九 四 四 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 赞比亚 、 南 非 和 毛里 塔 尼 亚 代 表 参 加 讨论

下 列 项 目 ， 但 无 表决 权 : “ 灶 比 亚 对 南非 的 控诉 : 一 九
七 六 年 七 月 十 九 日 半 比 亚 常 驻 联 合 国 代表 团 临时 代办
给 安全 理事 会 主席 的 信 (S/12147)”。@

国 问 上 《一 上 七 六 年 七 月 、 八 月 和 九 月 份 补 编 》。


Draft resolution (S/12030):
UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY
COUNCIL

Distr.
GENERAL

$/12030
31 March 1976

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Benin, Guyana, Libyan Arab Republic, Panama, Romania and
United Republic of Tanzania: draft resolution

The Security Council,

Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Kenya on
behalf of the African Group of States at the United Nations (S/12007),

Having heard the statement of the representative of tue People's Republic of
Angola,

Recalling the principle that no State or group of States has the right to
intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or
external affairs of any other State,

Recalling also the inherent and lawful right of every State, in the exercise
of its sovereignty, to request assistance from any other State or group of States,

Bearing in mind that all States Members of the United Nations must refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned at the acts of aggression committed by South Africa against
the People's Republic of Angola and the violation of its sovereignty and territorial
integrity,

Condemning the utilization by South Africa of the international Territory of
Namibia to mount that aggression,

Gravely concerned also at the damage and destruction done by the South African
invading forces in Angola and by their seizure of Angolan equipment and materials,

Noting the letter of the Permanent Representative of South Africa regarding
the withdrawal of South African troops (S/12026),

1. Condemns South Africa's aggression against the People's Republic of
Angola;

2. Demands that South Africa scrupulously respect the independence,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People's Republic of Angola;

76-06679 Jon.
$/12030
English
Page 2

3. Demands also that South Africa desist from the utilization of the
international Territory of Namibia to mount provocative or aggressive acts against
the People's Republic of Angola or any other neighbouring African State;

k. Calls upon the Government of South Africa to meet the Just claims of the
People's Republic of Angola for a full compensation for the damage and
destruction inflicted on its State and for the restoration of the equipment and
materials which its invading forces seized;

5. Requests the Secrestary General to follow the implementation of this
resolution.

Meeting record:
UNITED NATIONS

hE
[

SECURITY COUNCIL

OFFICIAL RECORDS HRY
oc 10 188

THIRTY-FIRST YEAR

th
1906 MEETING: 31 MARCH 1976

NEW YORK

CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1906) ........ cov iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1

Adoption of the agenda ...... ci ee

Complaint by Kenya, on behalf of the African Group of States at the United
Nations, concerning the act of aggression committed by South Africa against

the People’s Republic of Angola:
Letter dated 10 March 1976 from the Permanent Representative of Kenya
to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council

(S/12007) © ott ae 1

S/PV.1906
NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United
Nations document.

Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/...) are normally published in
quarterly Supplements of the Official Records of the Security Council. The date
of the document indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given.

The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a
system adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Resolutions and
Decisions of the Security Council. The new system, which has been applied
retroactively to resolutions adopted before | January 1965, became fully operative
on that date.

1906th MEETING

Held in New York on Wednesday, 31 March 1976, at 3.30 p.m.

ee

President: Mr. Thomas S. BOYA (Benin).

present: The representatives of the following States:
Benin, China, France, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Libyan
Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic
of Tanzania, United States of America.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1906)
|. Adoption of the agenda

2. Complaint by Kenya, on behalf of the African
Group of States at the United Nations, concerning
the act of aggression committed by South Africa
against the People’s Republic of Angola:

Letter dated 10 March 1976 from the Permanent
Representative of Kenya to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Security
Council (5/12007)

The meeting was called to order at 4.25 p.m.
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.

Complaint by Kenya, on behalf of the African Group
of States at the United Nations, concerning the act
of aggression committed by South Africa against the
People’s Republic of Angola:

Letter dated 10 March 1976 from the Permanent
Representative of Kenya to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Security Council
(§/12007)

I. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
In accordance with the decisions adopted earlier

[1900th to 1905th meetings], 1 invite the representative
of Angola to take a place at the Council table and the
representatives of Bulgaria, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, the
German Democratic Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
India, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Nigeria, Poland,
Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South
Africa, the Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, the
United Republic of Cameroon, Yugoslavia and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of
the Council chamber.

2 In accordance with the decision taken at the
92nd meeting, I also invite the President of the United

Nations Council for Namibia and the members of
his delegation to take the places reserved for them at
the side of the Council chamber.

Ar the invitation of the President, Mr. Luviualu
(Angola) took a place at the Security Council table
and Mr. Ghelev (Bulgaria), Mr. Mondjo (Congo),
Mr. Alarcon (Cuba), Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt),
Myr. Neugebauer (German Democratic Republic),
Mrs. Jeanne Martin Cissé (Guinea), Mr. Fernandes
(Guinea-Bissau), Myr. Jaipal (India), Mr. Maina
(Kenya), Mr. Rabetafika (Madagascar), Mr. Kanté
(Mali), Mr. Harriman (Nigeria), Mr. Jaroszek
(Poland), Mr. Galvdo Teles (Portugal), Mr. Baroody
(Saudi Arabia), Mr. Blyden (Sierra Leone), Mr. Hussen
(Somaliaj, Mr. Botha (South Africa), Mr. Allaf (Syrian
Arab Republic), Mr. Mwangaguhunga (Uganda),
Mr. Oyono (United Republic of Cameroon),
Mr. Petri¢ (Yugoslavia) and Mr. Kamana (Zambia),
President of the United Nations Council for Namibia,
together with the members of his delegation, took the
places reserved for them at the side of the Council
chamber.

3. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
In addition I should like to inform members of the
Council that I have just received a letter from the
representative of Mozambique in which he requests
to be invited under Article 31 of the Charter to take
part, without the right to vote, in the debate of the
Council. If I hear no objection, 1 propose, in accordance with the usual practice of the Council and with
rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, to invite
him to take part, without the right to vote, in the
debate. 4

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Lobo (Mozamhique) took the place reserved for him at the side of
the Council chamber,

4. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The first speaker is the representative of the Congo.
1 invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to
make his statement.

5. Mr. MONDJO (Congo) (interpretation from
French): Mr. President, it is a matter of great satisfaction for the delegation of the People’s Republic of
the Congo that this important discussion has been
placed under your guidance. Since you assumed, Sir,
the responsible function of President of the Security
Council, you have brought to bear on it the full

-

weight of your competence and objectivity. I need way of exploiting the weakness of those not privy
hardly recall here the profound sentiments of brotherly imperialist manceuvres. The generous aid which
! friendship and militant solidarity that exist between friendly socialist countries have, at its request gpd
j Benin and the Congo, two African countries which without any hesitation, made available to the People's
are firmly committed to the constant struggle against ~~ Republic of Angola-—an independent and Sovereign
colonialism and imperialism, a struggle to achieve the ~~ country—in order effectively to stem the avalanche
dignity and the genuine independence of peoples. of aggression perpetrated by the racist imperialist
with the support of puppets who are traitors to the
6. Nor can 1 be silent about the fact that we have national cause needs no justification to those Who
with us the delegation of the People’s Republic of criticize unjustly. A calm analysis of the nature yy
Angola, headed by Comrade Pascal Luvualu, a very type of this aid, which is based upon a proper evaly.
well-known and respected figure in the Organization tion by the socialist countries of their internationalig
of African Unity. The participation in this debate of duty, would, on the contrary, lead us to express aloy
the delegation of the People’s Republic of Angola is and unequivocally our whole-hearted gratitude to thog
an embodiment of the victory of a heroic people friendly countries which have constantly given thei;
which consented, under the leadership of the MPLA ~~ most loyal support to the struggle of the peoples of
[Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola], Africa for freedom and independence.
to make tremendous sacrifices in order to liberate its
country. This gives my delegation an opportunity to ~~ 10. Therefore, this debate must be structured around
pay a very well-deserved tribute to the heroes, the a single leitimotiv: the criminal aggression by the ragig
worthy sons and daughters of Angola, who fell for ~~ South African Government against the People's
fi their people and who, in sacrificing their lives, have ~~ Republic of Angola. We have stated on previous
ol written the finest page in the history of African libera- occasions that the aggression of the racist South
I tion of which they symbolize the highest virtues. African régime against the independent countries of
Africa is not a new problem just now knocking on the
7. Once again the Security Council is considering Council's door. The Pretoria régime, under the label of
a complaint against the racist and fascist régime of the Republic of South Africa, is nothing more than the
Pretoria. This is not the first time that the Council bridgehead of imperialism in Africa; it is the head
has been called upon to pass judgement on the blatant quarters from which the exploitation of the peoples of
acts of criminal aggression perpetrated by the South southern Africa is perpetuated, these peoples against
fh African racists against an independent African country. ~~ whom imperialism is showing its ever more greedy
no The odious aggression of the Government in Pretoria talons. To be convinced of that it is not really neces
against the People's Republic of Angola provides, if, sary to rehearse once again here the long catalogue
indeed, it were necessary, a striking illustration of the of the crimes and acts of psychological piracy com
deadly role which world reaction, with its various mitted by the followers of apartheid. In the case |
manifestations of imperialism and old and new colo- before us I would refer to the masterly statement |
nialism, has assigned to the hysterical and bloodthirsty ~~ made by the representative of the People’s Republic
hordes of Vorster in Africa. of Angola [/900th meeting], who gave us a shap
awareness of the shameful and criminal activities of the
8. Those who dreamt of this debate being swiftly fascist South African army. The violent destruction
reduced to confusion will have been proved wrongand of property belonging to the Angolan people, the
EE will have to pay for their miscalculations. The Council massacre of women and children—in other words, the |
DER of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, civilian population—of that country, the brazen
Ly by requesting the Security Council to consider the act pillaging of the areas that they had invaded show que i
yo of aggression perpetrated by the South African Govern- clearly the nature of these monsters who are blindly
i ment against the People’s Republic of Angola, the supported by the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Org
yg youngest of its members, sought to express its un- nization] Powers, despite the most vehement universal
equivocal desire to see the consideration of this condemnation of the apartheid régime.
serious problem pursued to its proper conclusion in the
Security Council without its getting lost in a maze of 11. The statement made by the representative of
digressions that could only serve the machiavellian Guinea, Comrade Jeanne Martin Cissé, Chairman of
designs of imperialism, We must therefore be chary the Special Committee against Apartheid [01%
of false arguments which, quite obviously, by planting meeting], contained a wealth of irrefutable facts
erroneous ideas in open minds, are intended only to Because of that and because of Comrade Cissé's
disorientate us and to mitigate the burdensome respon- revolutionary commitment, with which we art al
sibility of the South African racists for their aggression familiar, that statement was very useful in helping
against the Angolan people. to understand the unsavoury conduct of the Preto?
régime, an evil tool of imperialism against African
9. The bourgeois press which speaks with one voice independence and unity.
when besmirching Africa may be trying hard to play
on the emotions of world public opinion by talking 12. Of course, there has been no shortage of argh
about foreign troops in Angola. This is a very clumsy ments in the mouths of the allies and accomplices 0

2

|
the Vorster régime, who coyly close their eyes to the
atrocities that that régime is perpetrating against the
African peoples, while flaunting a spurious legality and
so-called irrefutable proof: We have always spoken
out against the logistic and military support which the
Western Powers generously provide to the South
African régime, since we are deeply convinced that
these weapons not only serve to massacre the black
peoples of Azania, Namibia and Zimbabwe but also
are destined to be used, by dint of the deadly logic
of apartheid, to threaten seriously the independent
states of the sub-region.

13. Is there, then, any reason to be astonished that
South Africa can with impunity extend the frontiers
of its hideous régime to the north of its territory by
illegally occupying Namibia? Some undoubtedly
thought that we were acting like prophets when we
fought to have the voice of Africa heard both in the
General Assembly and in the Security Council, to
reveal the serious risks which the policy of apartheid
involves not only for our continent but also for international peace and security. Today we are all tragically
seeing cogent proof of the criminal behaviour of the
Pretoria régime and its diabolical future plans.

14. The convening of the Security Council at the
request of the African Group, as a result of the South
African aggression against the People’s Republic of
Angola, has, unfortunately, now proved the correctness of our analysis. In May 1975, under the fraudulent
pretext of defending its interests, South Africa
launched its troops in a vast attempt to recolonize
Angola at the very moment when the Angolan people,
at the end of 15 long and bitter years of heroic struggle
for liberation, had finally glimpsed the dawn of independence, the chance of recovering their dignity after
having severed once and for all the servile bonds that
had attached their country to Portuguese colonialism.
The arguments which Vorster’s envoy developed, in
a letter circulated to the Member States in an attempt
to justify South Africa's aggression against the People’s
Republic of Angola, do not warrant any time being
spent on them, so threadbare are those arguments.
Referring to the so-called moral obligations of his
country, the emissary of the South African racist
régime speaks of the anachronistic desire of his
Government to give protection ‘‘to the workers at
Calueque in order to ensure the vital water supply
to Ovambo'’ [S//2024]. That is an extremely serious
claim, which could lead to all sorts of adventures,
at any point of the planet. As for the so-called
assurances that Pretoria states it has received from
the revolutionary Government of Angola, they should
be treated with scorn. Indeed, the point of view of the
Government of the People’s Republic of Angola on
that matter has been made abundantly clear by Ambassador Luvualu,

15. My delegation challenges any contention that the
South African régime has anything whatever to do
with a dam over which the People’s Republic of

‘Angola exercises full sovereignty. The South African
letter refers to respect for international frontiers. That
is a serious insult to the intelligence and competence
of the members of this Council. There can be no doubt
in anyone’s mind: South Africa has never shared a
frontier with Angola. Furthermore, this arrogant
attitude on the part of the representative of South
Africa has been encouraged by the conniving indifference of the international community. South Africa
has no sovereignty over Namibia, whose territory it
is illegally occupying.

16. For several days now, efforts have been made,
stealthy mancsuvres have been set in motion, to ensure
that the unilateral withdrawal of the South African
troops on 27 March would be considered by the Council
as a sufficient argument for diverting attention from
the underlying reasons for its convening, that is
—I would once again recall—the aggression by South
African troops against the People’s Republic of Angola,
an independent and sovereign country, a member of
the Organization of African Unity and soon, we have
no doubt, a Member of the United Nations. The withdrawal of Pretoria’s troops from Angolan territory
has expunged nothing from the fact of the aggression,

17. 1 shall not dwell on the serious damage and harm
suffered by the fraternal Angolan people as a result of
this indescribable aggression. The lofty sense of justice
and equity of Council members will properly advise
them what energetic measures should be taken to
redress the grave harm caused to the martyred Angolan
people. For its part, the People’s Republic of the
Congo would like to join those friendly delegations
that have already demanded that South Africa be
condemned to redress the gratuitous acts of barbarism
committed by its troops in invading Angola. The Council must take energetic steps to discourage any inclination on the part of the South African racists to repeat
their foolhardy venture in Angola.

18. It is intolerable that South Africa should feel so
assured of impunity that it can at any time commit
aggression against an independent, sovereign African
country, cause it serious damage and, merely by
withdrawing, consider its action as a simple accident
of history without any consequences. South Africa
must-undertake scrupulously to respect the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the young People’s Republic
of Angola.

19. We have been told that South African troops, in
withdrawing from Angolan territory, have fallen back
into Namibia, thus leaving the door open for other acts
of aggression against the People’s Republic of Angola.
This is- why, when considering this important matter,
the Council must demand that South Africa refrain
from using the international Territory of Namibia to
perpetrate its acts of provocation or aggression against
neighbouring African States.

20. While the South African racists persist in their
stubbornness, for us the fundamental point at issue is
the struggle of peoples against oppression and exploitation. The peoples of southern Africa, like other
peoples in that continent, are entitled to freedom and
independence. To turn one’s back on this truth is to
damn oneself irrevocably. That is why, in conclusion,
I should like to quote this passage from the letter
recently addressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of my country to the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Comrade Théophile Obenga, speaking on behalf of the
Chairman of the Central Committee of the Congolese
Labour Party, Comrade President Marien Ngouabi,
said:

‘Because, finally, the time has come when the
true friends of the African peoples must no longer
rest content with writing love poems to our continent with one hand while with the other they engage
in the most impious acts in association with the
enemies who, openly in the face of the world, avail
themselves of the most contemptible principles and
methods on which their world is built. Each should
henceforth align himself on the side of victory.”’!

21. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is the representative of Mali, whom
[ invite to take a place at the Council table and to
make his statement.

22. Mr. KANTE (Mali) (interpretation from French):
Mr. President, my delegation is pleased to see you
presiding over these meetings of the Security Council
called for by the African Group to consider this painful
question of the armed aggression perpetrated by the
followers of apartheid against the People’s Republic
of Angola. Indeed, we have no doubt that you, as the
worthy representative of a country and a people that
have contributed with steadfast militancy to the liberation of our continent, will conduct this important
debate with the firmness and honesty which are typical
of the dynamic revolution of Benin.

23. In response to your appeal, my delegation will
willingly and strictly keep to the item on the agenda.
However, we reserve our right to speak again should
the course of the debate require it.

24. My delegation, which assures you of its fraternal
co-operation, is certain that the conclusion of these
meetings of the Council will fulfil the expectations
not only of the martyred people of the People's
Republic of Angola but also of Africa.

25. Allow me, before taking up the problem which
is before us, to extend a welcome to the delegation
of the fighting people of Angola, headed by my
eminent colleague Ambassador Pascal Luvualu. This is
an historic moment for us, and we cannot fail to
welcome the event. We are certain we voice the
profound feeling of all those throughout the world
who are struggling for freedom, peace and progress.

26. Mali had no doubts about the victory of the
MPLA. Following the tide of history, its Government
from the very start supported that national liberation
movement, and our head of State, Colonel Moussa
Traoré, in the early hours after the proclamation of the
People’s Republic of Angola on 11 November 1975,
sent a cordial message to his brother and friend
Mr. Agostinho Neto to hail the event and extend his
congratulations. Subsequent events today confirm the
correctness of that position.

27. We bow humbly before the memory of ail the
patriots who gave their lives that Angola might regain
its independence. The sacrifice of those heroes was not
in vain because the People’s Republic of Angola has
been established, under the dynamic leadership of its
prestigious party, the MPLA. Although independent
Africa hails that victory, it is not a cause for frivolous
celebration; we accept it with a sense of profound
responsibility. That is why the People’s Republic of
Angola and independent Africa dedicate that victory
to all those who have given their lives throughout the
ages and the centuries for the cause of liberty and
justice. Those heroes belong to all continents and all
races. The People’s Republic of Angola and independent Africa dedicate that victory also to the United
Nations, which was created for the protection of peace,
freedom and justice in the world. And finaily, they
dedicate it generously to all of you, regardless of your
basic positions, Africa has no rancour, because for
us what matters in the final analysis is not men,
who come and go, but peoples, who make history.
As 1 stated in the General Assembly debate on the
Cambodian situation in 1973, each one of our countries
has had its Glaouis, its Ben Arafats, its Ngé Dinh
Diems, its Thieus, its Kys, its Syngman Rhees, its
Pak Cheng His, its Savimbis and its Roberto Holdens.
And although the views of men like ourselves around
this table may differ on crucial problems, I have no
doubt that the fundamental interests of the various
countries which we represent, and the fate of our
peoples, must converge.

28. History has just provided us once again with
proof that the last word belongs to the just, that is, {0
the peoples. Today those who laid their wagers—for
reasons that we shall willingly refrain from describing
here—on puppets and Trojan horses must overcome
their bitterness and recriminations and assess the situation objectively; because what is actually in danger
is international peace and security, our raison d'gtre.

29. We cannot fail to recognize that the aggression
perpetrated by the proponents of apartheid against the
valiant people of Angola was premeditated, cowardly
and barbarous. Premeditated, because it was meticllously prepared over a long time; cowardly, because
it came about without a preliminary declaration of war;
and barbarous, because it decimated innocent populations and sowed desolation and death in the south of
the country. Nothing could have led us to foresee this
odious crime, because Angola has no common border
with the closed world of apartheid and also because
no tension existed between the two countries. We
would certainly have to go back to Hitlerian fascism
to find a similar offence.

30. While the Angolan people were preparing to
celebrate the independence they had won after an
arduous struggle, Vorster’s clique was actively
organizing an armed expedition against it from the
international Territory of Namibia. A plan of attack
had been worked out and the armed forces of Pretoria
were waiting for D-Day in order to carry it out. On
9 August 1975 the signal was given and Angola was
treacherously invaded by a heavily equipped expeditionary army which destroyed everything in its path.
Emboldened by the silence of its allies, the Pretoria
régime decreed a partial mobilization and placed the
reservists on a state of alert in order to ‘‘bar the route
to communism’’, to ‘‘save Christian and Western
civilization’’, and who knows what else. Innocent
civilian populations were massacred, bridges and roads
were ruined, the economic infrastructure was
destroyed and livestock was killed. It was a war with
no holds barred. What mattered for those freebooters
of the twentieth century was to sow terror and reduce
the brave Angolan people to the slavery of hideous
apartheid in order to preserve the safety zone which,
with the complicity of the fascist régimes of Salazar
and Caetano, they had cleverly created north of the
Limpopo. The cruelty of it could be matched only
by the ignominy.

31. The world could not remain indifferent to such a
crime. Everywhere voices were raised to condemn
that criminal aggression. Shaken by everyone's
censure and harried by the popular armed forces for
the liberation of Angola, Vorster’s hordes beat a
retreat, mined the lost terrain and pillaged the country,
carrying out a scorched-earth policy and dragging off
the able-bodied inhabitants to a forced exile. They
installed themselves in the extreme southern part of the
country, which they occupied until 27 March. And
in order to legalize this aggression in their own way,
the white Power, on 28 December 1975, presented
to its pseudo-parliament a cynical and iniquitous bill
which would authorize it to undertake military operations beyond the borders of South Africa.

32. That was how the abject apartheid régime conducted itself in the Angolan crisis, in contravention of
international order represented by members of the
Council. The fallacious arguments it advanced to
justify its crimes were rejected by the international
community. Portugal, which had assumed joint
responsibility with the national transitional Government for the administration of Angola, strongly condemned the aggression and thus proved that its country

had concluded no agreement with Pretoria concerning.

the protection and security of the Cunene dam. Even
if such an agreement existed it could not justify under
international law an aggression against Angola,
because the works in question had been erected on

the territory of that country and are part of its national
heritage. Their security is the exclusive responsibility
of its people, that is, the Government which it freely
elected on 11 November 1975. No one can and no one
must take its place to protect that national heritage.

33. The Portuguese Government, as the administering Power had to protest against South African
aggression three times, but in vain: the first time was
12 August, the second, 18 August, and the third,
3 September 1975. Things are very clear, the proof is
evident and the accusations are overwhelming. The
eloquent testimony we had this morning from the
representative of Portugal [/905th meeting) leaves no
doubt about Pretoria’s culpability.

34. Under the Definition of Aggression annexed to
General Assembly resolution 3314 (XX1X) of 14 December 1974, the proponents of apartheid are guilty
of three acts of aggression, three crimes against the
peace: first, the invasion by force of the territory of
Angola—article 3, paragraph («); secondly, the utilization of the international Territory of Namibia to
invade Angola—article 3, paragraph (e); and, thirdly,
military occupation of the south of Angola—article 3,
paragraph (a). It should be recalled here that article 5
of that text, which is a fundamental law of the
Organization, states:

““No consideration of whatever nature, whether
political, economic, military or otherwise, nay serve
as a justification for aggression.”

and

““A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international
responsibility.”

35. The Council has before it a well-known repeated
offender, a rebel—in a word, one beyond redemption,
The Council's responsibility is all the greater because
it is now facing the first act of premeditated aggression since the adoption of the historic resolution 3314
(XXIX), which gives the definition arrived at after more
than 10 years of difficult negotiations. The future of
peace in the world depends upon the Council’s decision, because the judgement it renders will create a
precedent.

36. My delegation had occasion during a previous
series of Council meetings [/885th meeting] to make
clear the Government of Mali's feelings on the invaluable and effective aid that the Soviet Union, the
revolutionary Government of Cuba and all progressive
forces gave the MPLA in its national liberation
struggle. I shall not, therefore, revert to that. I mention
it simply to point out that it is not possible with
honesty to place this internationalist duty, which is
moral in every respect, on a part with the criminal
aggression perpetrated against Angola by the racist
régime of Pretoria. Nor is it possible to condemn

the crimes committed in Europe in the years 1939 to
1945 by Hitlerite fascism and its collaborators yet
endorse those committed in 1976 in Africa by the
adherents of apartheid, because in both instances it
is the same evil born of the same motives. Our
European friends will surely be careful not to fall into
that contradiction.

37. The crime, wherever it may have been committed
and whatever may be the colour of the victim, must
be acknowledged as such, and its perpetrator punished
accordingly. In the case we are considering, the guilt
of Vorster's régime is evident, and its representative
has confessed, as well. Moreover, the file presented
by the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola
offers more than enough proof, The racist authorities
of Pretoria must therefore be strongly condemned for:
first, its armed aggression against Angola without a
prior declaration of war; secondly, the military occupation of that country; and, thirdly, the utilization of the
international Territory of Namibia as a base for aggression against Angola. In addition, that racist régime
must be condemned to pay damages and interest to the
People’s Republic of Angola for all material and moral
damage it has caused to it. All the Angolans it has
forced into exile must be repatriated, including the
100 workers from the construction site of the Cunene
dam whom it dragged along with it when it withdrew
from the Namibian border. Any other decision would
weaken the authority of the Organization. At the same
time it would destroy the fragile structure of peace
which it has for 30 years worked so hard to establish
for the survival of mankind.

38. The racist régime of Pretoria has not relinquished
its expansionist designs. Has it not just incited the
so-called Constitutional Council of Namibia, another
of its artificial creations, entrust to it by a “‘resolution’ the defence of the borders of that Territory
under international trusteeship? The Council's verdict
must serve as an example to nip in the bud any
leanings towards hegemony and to discourage all
potential aggressors.

39. The withdrawal of the South African army from
the People’s Republic of Angola on 27 March could
not be invoked as an extenuating factor in favour of
the racist Vorster régime, nor could it erase the crimes
that régime committed in Angola.

40. As I stated in the Council on 30 January [ibid.],
the threat of a racial confrontation weighs over
southern Africa because of the expansionist whims
of the minority régimes which have usurped power in
Rhodesia, in Namibia and in South Africa. Thus the
stakes are very great.

41. My delegation has no doubt that the decision
the Council will take at the end of its debate will
respond to the expectations of the international community and will deter all the warmongers who are
preparing to endanger peace. Therefore we trust in the

wisdom of the Council’s members, in their keen
awareness of their international responsibilities and,
above all, of their duty towards succeeding generations
which their countries and Governments have solemnly
undertaken through the Charter the Organization,
““to save... from the scourge of war’.

42. 1 could not conclude without thanking, on behalf
of my delegation, the Secretary-General for the untiring
efforts he has not ceased to make within the limits of
his delicate functions to constrain Vorster’s forces of
aggression to withdraw unconditionally from the territory of the People’s Republic of Angola.

43, The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is the representative of Guinea-Bissau. I invite him to take a place at the Council
table and to make a statement.

44, Mr. FERNANDES (Guinea-Bissau); It is an
honour for me, Sir, to address the Council while you
are still its President. You have discharged your
responsibilities in a very able manner in the month
now coming to a close. You have shown skill and
leadership on issues which have been very complex
indeed, and I take this opportunity to congratulate you
and to express my appreciation.

45. If you would allow me, I should like to welcome
to the Council and to the United Nations in general
the newly appointed representative of a permanent
member of the Council, the representative of the
United States. I wish him a good tenure, and I hope
that the daily contact with the rest of the world,
particularly with the third world, will bring a better
understanding and promote a better climate between
the majority of the Members of the United Nations
and his country.

46. Permit me also to welcome here an old friend
indeed, an old fighter for Angola, Mr. Pascal Luvualu,
who is now Ambassador at Large of the Government
of Angola, a country which we are quite sure will
be the pride of the Africa of tomorrow, a nation
enriched by the blood shed by many of its best sons,
a country which will live up to the ideals of those
who have given their lives for the dignity of our
continent.

47. We asked to be allowed to participate in this
debate because Angola is very dear to us and we
therefore felt compelled to state our views on this
issue for the record. Our association with Angola, and
specifically with the MPLA, did not start just recently.
Instead, it can be traced back to more than 20 years
ago, and even before the founding of the MPLA
itself. In fact, our late leader Amilcar Cabral was
himself one of the founders of the MPLA. Our party,
our Government would have neglected the teachings of
Cabral if we had not made the catse of Angola our
own cause. Whatever the consequences, whatever
the price we have to pay, our Government will
stand firm, side by side with the Angolan people.
For us, the problem of Angola goes beyond the borders
of that country, because for us Angola is the cause of
Africa itself.

48. Mr. President, since you and the Chairman of the
African Group have appealed to speakers to confine
themselves to the item on the agenda, I will heed
your appeal, since I understand perfectly well the
reasons behind such an appeal. Nevertheless, if you
will allow me, I will make a few comments of a general
nature which will be brief and to the point.

49. First of all, we have always recognized and will
always recognize MPLA as the only movement and the
only party genuinely representing the interests of the
Angolan people as a whole. From the very beginning
for us it was never a question of supporting FNLA
[National Front for the Liberation of Angola], whose
dealings with foreign intelligence services were evident
to us; nor of recognizing UNITA [National Union for
the Total Independence of Angola], whose very
leader, Savimbi, was implanted in Angola by the
Portuguese secret police, the famous PIDE, with the
sole purpose of destroying MPLA and slowing down
and even inhibiting the full realization of the aspirations
of the Angolan people. The collusion of UNITA with
the Caetano régime was so close that when Savimbi
became sick he was taken to a Portuguese field hospital
for treatment and then sent back to the countryside
to continue relentlessly his attempts to destroy
MPLA. These facts can be confirmed by any senior
Portuguese officer today, and the only reason I am not
mentioning names is that it is irrelevant to the current
discussion; otherwise I could have supplied the
Council with the names of very high-ranking men in
the Portuguese leadership who could easily confirm
them,

50. Another point which I should like to emphasize
and forcefully state in this Council is that my Government does not regard the Cuban troops in Angola as
mercenaries; nor do we categorize Soviet material help
with arms as ‘‘adventurism’. To do so would be to
negate the long history of support and involvement
on the part of the socialist countries in the struggle
for the liberation of Africa. The Organization of
African Unity itself has over many years passed a
number of resolutions praising this international
solidarity. My Government is convinced that, as it has
stated on many occasions, without the support of our
friends in the socialist countries our own liberation
would have taken many years indeed. In fact our only
regret concerning this question of support in assisting
the Angolan people in their just struggle for independence is that Guinea-Bissau is too small and too poor;
otherwise I can assure you that, if we had had a larger
population and greater resources, for every Cuban
soldier in Angola there would have been two from
Guinea-Bissau.

51. Last October, less than a month before Angola
wis scheduled to become an independent country

after having been subjected to five centuries of subjection, the Government of South Africa, which
exploits its own people under the vicious and inhuman
system of apartheid, invaded Angola in a hostile, yet
futile, effort to prevent the Angolan people from
achieving their national independence. This act of
aggression on the part of the Boer Government shows
clearly the contempt, the disrespect and the disregard
of the Government of Pretoria for Africans, for,
believing in the superiority of the white man, they
thought that a few thousand white soldiers, backed by
some 150 tanks, in collusion with African traitors
and a handful of mercenaries, would be enough to
subjugate the entire people of Angola. For the sake of
peace and racial harmony in that part of the world we
hope that the South Africans have learnt a lesson in
Angola.

52. Last week the Government of Pretoria informed
the Secretary-General that the South African forces
were pulling out of Angola. It is the view of my Government that the whole question cannot be simply reduced
to a withdrawal from the area of the Cunene. During
the brief period of South Africa’s penetration into
Angola, its forces caused extensive damage to the
transportation system of Angola, destroying bridges,
roads and railway lines and even confiscating small
aircraft and fishing boats. The Council should address
itself to the question of compensation to the Angolan
people for the material losses which they have suffered
as a result of the invasion of their sovereign country.

53. The South African Government has asked for
guarantees from the Government of Angola that the
Cunene River hydroelectric scheme in Angola will be
protected and that the power derived from this complex
will not be diverted from its original purpose of
providing irrigation and energy for Namibia. The
question then arises: after invading Angola, causing
the death of countless Angolans and removing property
belonging to the people of Angola, after refusing to
comply with countless resolutions of this body asking
the South Africans to leave Namibia, after extending
their abhorrent system of apartheid to an illegally
occupied Territory and after defying international
public opinion, what kind of guarantees does South
Africa want? What kind of guarantees should be given
to a country which invades another one from a Territory over which it has no jurisdiction?

54. South Africa is illegally occupying Namibia in
violation of a Mandate. The United Nations is the legal
administrator of the Territory of Namibia and, until
such time as Namibia becomes a free and independent
sovereign State, negotiations or the provision of guarantees concerning the use of water or power from the
Cunene River dam, should they become necessary,
should take place between the United Nations Council
for Namibia and the Government of Angola. South
Africa has no legal or moral voice in this matter; it
has even forfeited its economic rights with this naked
invasion.
55. My Government holds the view that this Council
should pass a strong resolution which should include
the following four essential elements. First, South
Africa should be condemned for entering a sovereign
territory and carrying on acts of aggression; secondly,
South Africa should be condemned for using the
international Territory of Namibia to perpetrate such
aggression; thirdly, the Council should demand that
South Africa pay compensation for the damages
resulting from its acts of war and aggression in Angola;
and, finally, all the property illegally removed from
Angola should immediately be returned to Angola.

56. In conclusion, let me state once more that we
sincerely hope that Angola was an example for South
Africa. If South Africa was not able to trample under
foot the aspirations and wishes of the people of Angola,
it will not be able to do it in Zimbabwe or in Namibia
and certainly much less in South Africa itself.

57. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is the representative of Mozambique.
I invite him to take a place at the Council table and
to make his statement,

58. Mr. LOBO (Mozambique): 1 should like first of
all, Mr. President, to congratulate you on your
excellent performance and great achievements during
the term you have presided over the Council. It has
been been quite a historic term indeed, and my delegation has every reason to believe that the international
Organization will record it in the book of its best
memories, while Africa will recall it with much pride
for many years to come, in view of the important
nature of the problems with which the Council has
had to deal this month under your guidance.

59. Two weeks ago [890th meeting] the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of my country, Comrade Joaquim
Alberto Chissano, had the opportunity to express in
this same chamber, in the name of my people and
Government, the esteem and high consideration that
we Mozambicans have for the people of Benin, your
country, Mr, President, for its Government and for the
progressive stand that your people have taken
throughout the long and difficult years of national
struggle for Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau,
Cape Verde and Sao Tomé and Principe. Today I can
only remind you of our sincere gratitude. I should
also like to extend the same gratitude to all those
members of the Council who, in one way or another,
have contributed to the freedom and well-being of my
people.

60. I should like to congratulate our brothers from
the People’s Republic of Angola, who have for the
first time been invited to participate in a Council
debate. The delegation of the People’s Republic of
Mozambique salutes, through Ambassador Luvualu,
the heroic people of Angola, which conquered its independence under the leadership of Comrade Agostinho
Neto, President of the MPLA and President of the

People’s Republic of Angola. The people of Mozambique hails the victorious people of Angola, to whom
we are related by virtue of long years of resistance
and the difficult years of the common struggle against
Portuguese colonialism and fascism.

61. For a long time the South African racist régime
has been misbevahing in many irresponsible ways in
southern Africa and in the entire international community. The systematic and stubborn way in which
South Africa has been defying the resolutions of the
United Nations is something known to every Member
of the Organization. South Africa is the leading country in the world in which racism is not only advocated
but encouraged and openly practised under the
repulsive and inhuman policy of apartheid. South
Africa is the country which insists on the illegal
occupation of Namibian territory in complete disregard
of world opinion and total disrespect for all resolutions adopted by international organizations and bodies
such as the Organization of African Unity and the
United Nations.

62. In Africa the Republic of South Africa on various
occasions has acted as a real policeman for international imperialism. The aggression of South Africa
against the People’s Republic of Angola reflects this
role of the racist régime of Pretoria. This time South
Africa committed naked aggression against the
People’s Republic of Angola on the pretext of
protecting the hydroelectric complex of the Cunene
and the Ruacani and Calueque pumping stations.
Moreover, not long ago the same forces of the Pretoria régime, attracted by another dam at Cabora
Bassa, also occupied part of the north-western province of Tete in Mozambique. The South African
régime sent some of its élite troops to Chioco and
several companies to Chicoa, Magoé and Zumbo,
which are located along the Zambezi River. That
attitude alone shows how dangerous the racist régime
of Pretoria is becoming for the nations of that part
of the world.

63. For a long time South Africa has been a threat
even to the countries having no frontier with it, as is
the case of Angola. Those countries sharing common
borders with South Africa live in an atmosphere of
constant terror of the racist régime. Finally, the people
living under South African control in Namibia or
Azania have become the victims of oppression and
discrimination. It is quite clear that the racist régime of
South Africa is a dangerous threat to all the neighbouring countries. Through its own attitude, South
Africa has demonstrated that it cannot conceive of the
idea of good neighbourliness, except within the framework of master-slave, exploiter-exploited and superior
inferior relationship.

64. Despite all this, my delegation would like to
repeat the support the People's Republic of Mozambique for the brotherly people of Angola by using the
same words as those used by Comrade Samora Moises

Machel, President of FRELIMO [Front for the Liberafon of Mozambique) and of the People’s Republic of

Ozambique, during his closing address at the recent
CXtraordinary meeting of the Organization of African
Unity on Angola held at Addis Ababa. He said:

“We are Africans, Africans under attack, Africans who refuse to let themselves be intimidated in
the defence of the dignity of Africa. ... Therefore,
we are with the people of Angola. We are with the
Angolan people who in blood continue to affirm
their right to independence, to territorial integrity,
to choose without any interference their alliances
and the political, economic and social system that
corresponds to their interests.

“We are with the Angolan people who, arms in
hand, affirm their right to support the struggle of
Namibia and the liberation struggle of southern
Africa. In all circumstances we are the same. We
earned this right with our blood.

“We are absolutely with the Angolan people,
with the People’s Republic of Angola, which defends
its right not to become a new bantustan.’’

65. That is still the position of the People’s Republic
of Mozambique with respect to the question of aggression committed by South Africa against the People’s
Republic of Angola, and that will continue to be our
position as long as the South African racist régime
refuses to change its attitude and arrogance in regard
to international public opinion and as long as it insists
on maintaining its policy of aggression, occupation,
repression and discrimination.

66. We hope the Council will issue a vigorous condemnation of South Africa’s aggression against the
People’s Republic of Angola, one which will make
South Africa respect in future the independence,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s
Republic of Angola and of all other African countries.

67. Mr. KANAZAWA (Japan): Allow me, first of all,
Mr. President, to extend my delegation’s hearty
welcome to the representative of the People’s Republic of Angola, Mr. Pascal Luvualu, on his participation
in the consideration of the question before us.

68. The recent developments in Angola, in particular
the armed strife since the withdrawal of the Portuguese
authorities, had greatly concerned my delegation. We
had wanted to see the prompt establishment of a
national Government of Angola based on unity and
national harmony and representing all the liberation
movements, in full compliance with the Alvor
agreements. Indeed, the peaceful transfer of power
from Portugal to the people of Angola and an orderly
accession to independence, such as took place in other
former Portuguese territories in Africa, was the hope
of all the people of Angola and the rest of the world.

69. To our regret, however, immediately before its
independence and for months thereafter, Angola
became the scene of large-scale fighting, which cost
the lives of many innocent Angolans. After months of
tragic fraternal fighting, the Government of the
People’s Republic of Angola, under the leadership of
President Agostinho Neto, has established effective
control over virtually the entire country and has won
the recognition of most of the international community
as the sole legitimate Government of Angola. Under
these circumstances, all States are obliged to respect
the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity
of this new State. We are confident that the people of
Angola will soon restore complete unity and national
harmony throughout the country and consolidate
its independence and sovereignty, free from outside
interference, thus making possible the reconstruction
and development of this war-devastated but potentially
rich country.

70. The delegation of Japan considers that no intervention of South African forces in Angola, in violation
of the independence and sovereignty of Angola, can
be justified. Hence we were opposed to the intervention of South Africans in Angola, whatever the reasons
given by the Government of South Africa, and we
consider that they should have been withdrawn
immediately and unconditionally.

71. In this connexion, we have taken note of the
assurances given by the representative of Angola in
his statement to the Council that his Government
has no intention of depriving the people of Namibia
of the electricity and water they need and is prepared
in due course to discuss with the people of Namibia
the use of electricity and water from the Cunene
project.

72. My delegation has noted also that the representative of South Africa, in a letter to the Secretary-General dated 25 March [5/7/2024], stated that South
Africa had decided to withdraw its forces from Angola
by 27 March, after having obtained the necessary
clarification from the People's Republic of Angela
through the Secretary-General. Subsequently, South
Africa announced that it had completed the withdrawal
of its forces from Angola by 27 March, as confirmed
in the letter dated 28 March from the representative
of South Africa to the Secretary-General [S//2026].

73. We are relieved by this action. But at the same
time we wish to reiterate our view that the withdrawal
of South African forces should have been without
any conditions. We urge South Africa to respect the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Angola in accordance with the principles of the Charter
of the United Nations and not violate them in the
future.

74. As regards the request by the Angolan representative for the return of property removed from
Angola by the South African forces and for full
compensation for the injury to the people and the
economy of Angola, we sympathize with the People’s
Republic in its claim. We hope that this problem
will be settled in a manner satisfactory to the parties
concerned in accordance with international law.

75. Now that South African forces have been withdrawn from Angola, the main objectives for which the
Council is meeting have been achieved. Therefore,
we urge the Council to follow a realistic and constructive course which will win wide support here.

76. Asthe Council has been called into session to take
up the complaint of the People’s Republic of Angola
concerning ‘‘the act of aggression’ by South Africa
against Angola, I have deliberately confined myself to
this question and not commented on other aspects
raised during the debate. I wish merely to say that we
consider it desirable for all African States to safeguard
their independence and sovereignty, to solve their
internal affairs and to establish an African continent
with peace, freedom and progress without outside
interference.

77. Mr. JACKSON (Guyana): Within the last two
weeks the representative of the racist régime in Pretoria has circulated as official documents of this Council no less than four letters concerning the presence of
South African troops in the independent State of
Angola. The most recent, contained in document
S/12026, purports ‘‘to confirm that the withdrawal of
South African troops from Angola was completed by
27 March 1976°'. Thus, on the basis of the evidence
which South Africa itself has given the Council in
these documents, its troops were in Angola from
9 August 1975 to 27 March 1976. This is a simple
statement of fact. A closer examination of the documents which the racists in South Africa have circulated
here would, however, reveal the contempt in which
they hold the international community and the deliberate deception they practise in seeking to delude it.

78. In a statement made on 21 March [$//2019,
annex 1}, Vorster, as if asserting an inalienable right,
proclaimed that South African troops occupied the
Calueque dam site in Angola allegedly on the grounds
of ‘the complete breakdown of law and order’ and
with the sole purpose of ‘‘protecting the lives of the
workers and of safeguarding the installations’’. That,
he said, occurred on 9 August 1975. He went on to
assert that it was ‘‘not for any ulterior motive that
we are still there’. That statement was made in an
interview with the British newspaper, The Sunday
Telegraph, on 14 March. Was this the only violation
of the territorial integrity of Angola by South Africa?
Did the troops of that fascist régime remain within
the vicinity of the Calueque dam site between 9 August
1975 and 27 March 19762 On this question Vorster is
strangely silent—silent to the international community and silent to his own racist electorate. Yesterday, however, Vorster's representative here sought, in
a manner as twisted in logic as it was incorrect in
substance, to fill the missing gaps.

10

79. It is true that some sections of the international
press are not always reliable for analyses of events in
some countries, Indeed, recently my own country
has been the victim of some of the most deliberately
malicious and despicable reportage. 1 venture to
suggest, however, that the South African régime, which
mounts one of the biggest propanda campaigns in the
world to misrepresent reality, is, for reasons which
should not detain us here, not without friends in that
section of the international press. It is to that press that
I will now turn.

80. Two points of significance emerge from a perusal
of press reports on South Africa’s intervention in
Angola. The first is that, starting with a force of about
30 men in August 1975, South Africa increased that
force to about 1,500 in November, at the time of
Angola's independence, and rising to approximately
5,000 by mid-December. The second point is that,
despite the impression Vorster tries to give, the
unchallengeable fact is that his troops, some of whom
were captured, moved deep into Angolan territory
with modern sophisticated weapons and with their
sights set on Luanda. Confirmation of these reports
was given repeatedly by the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola in its own press releases.
It is apposite to observe that, judging from press
reports, statements by spokesmen of the racist
minority régime concerning the operational activities
of South African forces in Angola changed over time.
In September 1975 Botha, the so-called Minister of
Defence, asserted that South African troops had gone
into Namibia to protect the pumping station on the
Cunene River. One month later, in October, troop
incursions—it was said—were made to attack SWAPO
[South West Africa People’s Organization] bases in
keeping with a policy of ‘*hot pursuit’’. By November
the racists began to talk of the ‘border operational
area’. By December the war-zone was euphemistically
described either as the ‘‘number one military area”
or as the ‘‘operational area’. Before the close of 1975,
sensing impending defeat, Botha, the Minister socalled, reassured his racist colleagues that South
Africa would not fight *‘to the last man’.

81. As regards the habitual practice of deliberate
deception by the Pretoria régime, 1 need only draw
attention to Vorster’s assertion on 21 March that in
August 1975 the Portuguese Government requested
South Africa to continue its so-called ‘‘protective
measures’, an assertion which the Portuguese Government has categorically refuted.

82. From the outset of the racist misadventure in
August last year, Portugal—then the administering
Power in Angola—vigorously protested the territorial
violation of Angola by South African forces. And
when the people of Angola, under the dynamic-leadership of the MPLA, proclaimed their independence in
November 1975, they expressed their condemnation
of the military intervention by South Africa. On
12 December 1975 the Co-ordinating Committee of
Non-aligned Countries, in accordance with the nonaligned’'s well-known position on South Africa’s
aggressive designs, issued a declaration condemning
most emphatically the flagrant acts of aggression of
the South African racist régime against Angola. In
February 1976 the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity strongly condemned South
Africa for its naked aggression against the People’s
Republic of Angola and its occupation of part of its
national territory. To these voices of condemnation
must be added those of all the other progressive forces,
including the militant anti-apartheid and pan-Africanist
movements and peoples the world over who cherish
freedom and oppose aggression, racism and apartheid—
all so characteristic of the fascist régime in Pretoria.

83. That South Africa has committed acts of naked
aggression against Angola is crystal-clear. South
Africa's aggression is a matter of pre-eminent concern
to the brotherly States and fraternal peoples of Africa,
who have expressed their determination not to be
deflected by considerations external to that central
reality. It is a matter on which many people-—numbering not least among them those influenced by
ancestry and history—feel the anguish and share the
pains of the people of Africa. It is a matter on which
the progressive forces stand four-square behind the
oppressed people of Africa who valiantly soldier on
to those inevitable fruits of victory—freedom and
independence.

84. But the aggression of South Africa against Angola
is only the most recent manifestation of the strategy
of survival through aggression and domination which
is the essential hub around which white racism based
on apartheid is structured. It is the hub around which
white economic prosperity in South Africa is built,
premised, as such prosperity is, on the theory of
forced and cheap labour.

85. We all know, as my brother Ambassador Salim,
the representative of Tanzania, reminded us on
12 March [/900th meeting], that the racist régime of
South Africa daily commits aggression against the
black population of that unfortunate territory. Ambassador Salim reminded us as well that the racist régime
had in the past committed aggression against Zambia,
that the forces of that régime had worked hand-in-hand
with their erstwhile colleagues from Portugal in
suppressing the people of Mozambique, and that with
its racist cousins in Salisbury the Pretoria régime
collaborated in treading underfoot the legitimate aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe.

86. My delegation is in no doubt about the aggressive
intent of the South African régime. The apex of its
strategy of survival lay in the once-held hope of an
impenetrable cordon sanitaire based on the Lisbon-Salisbury-Pretoria axis. Now that that axis is shattered,
the second stage of that strategy has been reached.
It is a defence perimeter of deep political and economic
significance for South Africa, having as one of its outer

11

limits the Calueque dam. The final battle begins when
that perimeter is smashed, for there is no gainsaying
the fact that the racist régime in Pretoria is the bére
blanche of the African continent.

87. If one were to focus intently on the recent South
African aggression against Angola, there is an aspect
which could have implications of an extraordinary
nature even beyond the boundaries of the African
continent. I refer to the asseverations of Vorster
attempting to explain the presence of his forces in
Angola—the safeguarding of installations and the
alleged breakdown of law and order in someone else’s
country. Can we, as a responsible organ of the United
Nations, give any semblance of legitimacy to such
outmoded and outdated concepts? Guyana, for its
part, categorically and emphatically rejects the South
African contention. No State, whether neighbouring or
not, has any such right, and the Council should leave
the racists in South Africa in no doubt of its stand
on this issue.

88. There are many other aspects of the South African
aggression against Angola which merit comment. My
delegation will, however, confine itself to two. The
first concerns the utilization by South Africa of the
international Territory of Namibia, which South Africa
occupies illegally. The second relates to the assurances
which the Pretoria régime was presumptuous enough to
seek as a condition precedent to the withdrawal of its
forces occupying part of the territory of Angola.

89. We will have occasion in the months ahead to
review the activities in Namibia of the illegal South
African racist régime. Suffice it to say two things
at this stage about the blatant and callous manner in
which a territory, legally the responsibility of the
United Nations, has been abused by South Africa
in mounting a massive invasion of the neighbouring
country of Angola. Such action should be forthrightly
condemned by the Council, and when we meet to
consider Namibia specifically, this recent unpardonable action by South African—the utilization of
the Territory of Namibia for aggressive purposes—will
be part of the matrix informing my delegation’s
position.

90. The matter of assurances is not in essence
separate from the question of Namibia. It is really
paradoxical, if not ludicrous, that the racist régime in
South Africa, which acknowledges rights only for its
white population, a régime which violates the decisions
of the Organization in defiance of world public opinion and of the views of the overwhelming majority
of the people of Namibia, should contemplate, let alone
require, assurances concerning property in which it
professedly has no self-interest and regarding people
whom it despises. Is that not beyond the bounds of
credibility?

91. This debate began on a sober note last Friday,
when the representative of the People’s Republic of
Angola, Mr. Luvualu, described in a measured way the
effects on the patriotic people of Angola of South
Africa’s brutal and premeditated aggression as the
Angolan people approached the dawn of the recovery
of their liberty. He spoke graphically of the havoc and
-destruction wreaked on Angola by the invading forces
of those racists. Guyana salutes the victorious struggle
of the Angolan people and remains committed to them
as they seek to consolidate and secure the results of
that struggle.

92. The ties which bind our two peoples are rooted
in history. For many of us in Guyana, indeed in the
Americas, Angola was the starting point of a long
and painful journey. Strong links of empathy and
understanding between our peoples have been forged,
not only by a shared history of suffering through
slavery, indenture and colonial depredation. The
continuing struggle for the full development of our
peoples has strengthened those bonds.

93. We look forward to intensifying our co-operative
efforts when Angola takes its rightful place in the
Organization.

94, Mr. BOYD (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): On behalf of the delegation of Panama I have
the honour to extend a cordial welcome to Ambassador Pascal Luvualu, representative of the People’s
Republic of Angola, who is honouring us with his
presence. 1 hope that Panama will soon join those
countries of Latin America—Brazil, Cuba, Guyana,
Jamaica, Mexico and Peru—which have already recognized the People’s Republic of Angola as a free,
independent and sovereign country. We hope too that
we shall soon see the People’s Republic of Angola
occupying the seat reserved for it as a full-fledged
Member of the United Nations, thereby crowning
the historic episode which will open up new horizons
of progress and well-being for that great people of
Africa.

95. During the meetings held by the Security Council
in Africa in January and February 1972, 1 had the
honour to say the following:

**... my delegation wishes to state that it will vote
in favour of [the draft resolution in document
S/10607/Rev.1] since the text is designed to lend
support to the independence movements of the
Portuguese colonies in Africa. Panama states
decisively and unequivocally that it sympathizes
with the peoples that are fighting for their independence from colonial domination in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau). Portugal's policy concerning the colonial Territories that it controls is not
shared by my Government, which on various occasions has expressed itself in favour of self-determination and freedom for these peoples.” [/639th
meeting, para. 150.]

96. 1 shall now refer to the item on our agenda, the
question of the aggression committed by South Africa

12

against the People’s Republic of Angola, and to the
support given by Panama to the wishes expressed by
the members of the Organization of African Unity that
we should formulate a constructive draft resolution
that could be unanimously adopted. Panama, in
association with the non-aligned countries and other
members of the Security Council, has had circulated
the draft resolution contained in document $/12030,
the operative part of which would unequivocally: first,
condemn South Africa's aggression against the
People’s Republic of Angola; secondly, demand that
South Africa respect the independence, sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Angola; thirdly, demand
that South Africa desist from the utilization of the
Territory of Namibia to mount any kind of new aggression against Angola; and, fourthly, call upon South
Africa to pay compensation for the damage inflicted
on Angola through the aggression that was committed,

97. It is no accident that the Council has met twice
during the month of March to examine acts of aggression committed against Mozambique and Angola,
independent African States that have been attacked
by the racist and minority régimes of Southern
Rhodesia and South Africa which desire at any cost
to maintain the status quo in that part of the world,
South Africa intervened in Angola with the deliberate
purpose of extending the pernicious policy of apartheid to a region of southern Africa where it could
not succeed, owing to the great nationalist forces
opposing it. The Salisbury and Pretoria régimes have
in recent days been given very clear lessons that the
time is drawing near when the policy of racial discrimination to which they are clinging will disappear once
and for all. :

98. Despite the announcement that South Africa has
withdrawn its forces from Angola, we wish to place
on record our view that the pretext that it was there
to protect the Calueque dam on the Cunene River gives
no justification for the act of aggression. In my delegation's view, the problem of the benefits that may be
derived from that dam is a question which, in the
final analysis, will have to be negotiated between
Angola and Namibia, once the latter has been freed
from the South African yoke. That is why it is
extremely important for the Council expressly to
demand that South Africa withdraw not only from
Angola but also from Namibia, so that Namibia may
exercise its right to self-determination and independence.

99. The defeat suffered by the colonialists in southern
Africa with the independence of Angola and Mozambique serves as encouragement to the oppressed
peoples still struggling to ensure respect for their territorial integrity.

100. Even though our friends from Africa have asked
us not to depart from the specific item under discussion—that is, the question of South Africa's aggression
against Angola—we have seen that China, Cuba, the

E
El
S— |

Soviet Union, Nigeria and other delegations have given
their views on the general situation in Angola. Hence,
the delegation of Panama, without going into a thorough
historical review, wishes to express some opinions
that it considers to be of interest to its country and
Latin America.

101. As 11 November 1975—the date decided upon by
Portugal for Angolan independence—drew near, the
Angolan liberation war turned into a conflict of international proportions. The United States accused the
Soviet Union and Cuba of intervening, and, in a
simplistic manner, Western propaganda informed us
that the struggle was really between communism and
anti-communist forces. Nevertheless the United
States, since December 1975, has had diplomatic relations with Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau, the two
other former Portuguese colonies, whose liberation
movements follow a socialist policy analogous to that
of the MPLA. The truth is that for more than 10 years
the liberation movements of those peoples in the
Portuguese colonies received assistance from the
socialist countries, for the most part, with little or no
help from the United States.

102. On 6 November 1975, in the Foreign Relations
Committee of the United States Senate, the fact
emerged that through the CIA [Central Intelligence
Agency] that country had given $25 million in weapons
to Angola and that it intended to contribute $25 million
more to other factions vying for power with the MPLA.
By that time South African forces were already well
within Angolan territory, where they were operating in
conjunction with those anti-MPLA factions. It is a
fact well known to all that, although to a lesser extent,
there were also Chinese instructors, British mercenaries and volunteers of African and other nationalities operating in Angola at that time. In the United
States, public opinion and Congress were opposed
to the United States embarking on an anti-communist
crusade in Angola that could have turned out to be
more costly than that in Viet-Nam.

103. The MPLA has triumphed, thanks to the
sacrifice of its martyrs and the efforts of its many
followers, as well as the timely assistance given to it
by the Soviet Union and the internationalist fighters
from Cuba.

104. Angola has been accepted as a member of the
Organization of African Unity, and apparently the
quarrels aroused by the war of independence among
African countries have now been forgotten. The Unity
of the African continent against racism, colonialism
and apartheid is sound and is greater than any differences of political ideology or problems of economic
development.

105. All wars and revolutions that take place in our
day have repercussions throughout the world. The
Angolan liberation struggle, according to the Soviets,
is not inconsistent with détente in the world. For his

part, President Ford has been so displeased that he has
asked his followers not to use the word ‘‘détente’’
any more in the context of the foreign policy pursued
by his country vis-a-vis the other super-Power.

106. Since the Soviet-Cuban intervention in Angola,
the United States has feared that those forces may
intervene in Rhodesia and Namibia. The Executive
Secretary of SWAPO has stated to The Times of
London that, since ‘‘the Cubans are ready to assist
us in our struggle to liberate Namibia’, the Executive
Committee of SWAPO will decide in due course
whether or not it will invite the Cuban forces in Angola
to join them in the armed struggle in Namibia. He went
on to say that “The Cubans are already co-operating,
with assistance, training and other types of aid™’.

107. In recent days, Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger has unleashed a campaign to warn Cuba and
the Soviet Union that the United States will not accept
future military interventions by those communist countries in Africa. Even though spokesmen from the
United States Congress have shown themselves
reluctant to allow their country to move towards a
confrontation with Cuba over possible Cuban intervention in Rhodesia, Mr. Kissinger has insisted, with
rather belligerent threats.

108. The truth is that because of the forthcoming
presidential elections in the United States, to be held
in November of this year, the matter of the famous
détente has now become one of the most important
items in the political debate, and the officials of the
present administration have been making every type
of rhetorical effort to show that the agreements recently
concluded in Moscow and Helsinki to alleviate tensions and improve relations between the two countries
in no way mean that the United States is willing to
capitulate to the Soviet Union.

109. It may be that after the resounding triumph
in Angola the Cuban fighters feel like the leaders of
the troops which the non-aligned countries might send
to any part of the third world where injustices exist
and where their assistance is requested. But it would be
well to clarify that in our case, the process of national
liberation in Panama follows a course different from
the African one. As was said by General Torrijos,
“We have our own brand of aspirin for our pains’’.

110. The vast majority of the countries of Latin
America respect the principle of non-interference, as
enshrined in article 15 of the Charter of the Organization of American States,? amended by the Protocol of
Buenos Aires in 1967,% which reads as follows:

“No State or group of States has the right to
intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any
other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not
only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality

of the State or against its political, economic and
cultural elements.”

111. We believe that the President of Venezuela,
Carlos Andrés Pérez, in his address to the Congress
of the Republic of Venezuela on the second anniversary
of his Government, faithfully interpreted the feeling
of the majority in this continent when he said:

“I must affirm once again our absolute and
categorical opposition to intervention on the part of
any country of this hemisphere, not only in internal
problems of the area but in extracontinental
disputes as well. Every country in Africa, as well
as in Asia, America, Europe or any other part of
the world has the right to make its own internal
decisions in a clear, autonomous manner, without
any kind of interference.”

112. The Government of Panama has taken due note
of all that has been said by the mass media which
speculate on the idea that, after Angola, Cuba might
intervene in Panamanian affairs.

113. Last Sunday, Senator Dick Clark—Democrat from the state of Iowa and member of the Senate
Foreign Affairs Committee—speculating, during an
interview, on future Soviet-Cuban interventions and
the extent to which the United States would tolerate
such interventions, replied:

“I think that you can draw the line at another
level beyond which we could not be successful;
and I think that in the case of Namibia or Rhodesia,
which is now before us, we could not be successful.

“I would say, for instance, that if Cuban troops
are taken in Soviet aircraft some place in this
hemisphere, then certainly, in my view, we should
take some action against that, assuming that in our
view of the situation some injustice is being
perpetrated.”

114. Last week the United States Chiefs of Staff
participated in a meeting of the National Security
Council to review ‘possible actions to be taken concerning Cuba’. The New York Times, in an editorial,
remarked, and accurately so, 1 believe, that if the
United States were willing to impose a blockade of the
island it would not find support for doing so in many
Latin American countries. That editorial concluded
by stating:

“If Fidel Castro has started once again to export
his revolution in the hemisphere—as Administration
spokesmen have recently hinted—it is a matter of
concern to all the American States; it is even covered
by the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro.# There are obvious
targets of opportunity for the Cuban régime to exploit
in the restless and poverty-stricken Caribbean countries—though a more active policy of United States
assistance in that area might diminish Mr. Castro’s
prospects.”

14

Some publicity media in the United States have stated
that the clear precedent established by Soviet-Cuban
intervention in Angola paved the way to similar
ventures in the Caribbean, from Puerto Rico to Panama
and Venezuela.

115. I declare that Panama, in its international
relations, will always refrain from resorting to the
threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity
or the political independence of any State and that,
consequently, it will never accept intervention by the
United States, Cuba or any other State in those
matters which fall within the internal jurisdiction of the
Panamanians,

116. In the United Nations, in addition to the countries which comprise the Latin American Group,
the countries of the third world and others support the
Panamanian cause, which demands recognition by
the United States of the effective sovereignty of my
country over its territory, including the so-called
Panama Canal Zone.

117. The truth about what has happened and is
happening in Africa is that the colonialist Powers
have, in a selfish manner, for such a long time denied
the basic rights of the majorities that the oppressed
peoples, in their despair or impotence, have been
compelled to accept any type of assistance—coming
from Heaven or from other countries—for the purpose
of attaining their goal, which is freedom, independence,
sovereignty and the right to be masters of their own
destinies.

118. Panama has been negotiating with the United
States for more than 11 years a treaty to put an end
to that colonial enclave known as the Panama Canal
Zone, which divides our territory in two and which
constitutes a colonial situation that is contrary to the
Charter of the United Nations. At present, the most
difficult question which remains to be resolved is the
time period during which North American troops cin
continue to occupy my country’s soil. Panama would
be willing to accept a reasonable period of time, not lo
extend beyond the year 2000. With regard to this
particular question, the Congress, the Pentagon and
the present United States Administration have not
been able to come forward with a proposal acceptable
to my country.

119. The solution to the Panama Canal problem is
today the most serious and inflammatory point of
conflict that the United States has in Latin America.
The wise thing would be to find an early solution to
it and not to speculate here about what could happen
in my country if that arrangement was not achieved
in a satisfactory manner. It is to be hoped that the
United States will not forget the lesson which it has
had in Angola, which, despite all the colonialist forces
opposed to it, has achieved its complete liberation.

120. Mr. SALIM (United Republic of Tanzania): It
is, obviously, difficult to speak at this stage, when

so many of my colleagues, both members and nonmembers of the Council, have preceded me with such
forceful and eloquent statements in support of the
legitimate struggle of our brothers in Angola against
South African aggression. It is even more diffiqult to
do so since a number of my brother African colleagues
have already effectively stressed Africa’s position on
this matter. For it is important to emphasize that what
we are discussing here is Africa’s complaint. It is free
Africa as a whole which wishes the Council to face
up to its responsibilities squarely in the face of a blatant
and perpetual threat to Africa’s freedom and Africa’s
dignity perpetrated by the South African racists.

121. The aggression against Angola must be seen in
its proper perspective. It is not simply an isolated
act on the part of the South African apartheid régime.
South Africa’s actions in Angola follow the systematic
pattern and scheme of that régime’s policies of oppression and suppression from within and expansionism
abroad. Thus, in bringing this complaint to the Council,
the African States are not simply acting out of solidarity
with Angola. Nor are we simply doing so because the
Charter of the Organization of African Unity obliges
us to defend the sovereignty, the territorial integrity
and the independence of African States; nor, for that
matter, simply because the charter also commits member States to fighting for the eradication of all forms
of colonialism in Africa. These three factors are all
important in themselves, and all are involved in
Angola's struggle against the adventurers of Pretoria,
but they are not exclusive factors. Of no less importance for an understanding of Africa’s preoccupation with South Africa's blatant violation of the
territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of
Angola is a collective awareness, reinforced by
practical experience, of the fact that the South African
régime is determined by its action not only to stem
the tide of freedom in our continent but also to
undermine and possibly eliminate the freedom already
achieved by many of the currently independent
African States.

122, We do not, therefore, consider lightly South
Adfrica’s aggression against Angola. Our call for the
condemnation of that aggression is not a mere academic
exercise. We are not here to seek debating points;
we view the situation seriously. We consider South
Adfrica’s actions ominous and dangerous, and we
believe that it is the clear responsibility of the Council
to take concrete actions to put an end to the dangerous
and extremely hazardous policies of expansionism,
harassment, provocation and aggression which now
seem to be part of the grand arsenal of the apartheid
régime of South Africa.

123. Never before has the Council been confronted
with a clearer and less ambiguous case of aggression,
and never before has an aggressor so publicly and
pompously prided itself on its actions. I do not believe
that there is anyone in the Council who would entertain
any doubt as to whether the South African régime

15

has committed an aggression against the People’s
Republic of Angola. The nature of this aggression was
as cowardly as it was unprovoked. It was deliberate,
calculated and premeditated. Indeed, the representative of South Africa has not even taken the trouble to
provide a semblance of legitimacy for his country’s
actions. Rather, he has sought constantly to justify
the incursions into Angola as if it were a matter of
right. Such justifications have been self-righteous and
arrogant. A classic example occurred yesterday in the
presentation made before the Council [/904th meeting]
by the South African representative, Mr. Botha.
I shall have more to say on Mr. Botha's absurd and
ridiculous assertions later.

124. The representative of Angola, my brother and
comrade of long standing Pascal Luvualu, has gloquently explained the nature of his people’s struggle
and has exposed the motives of South African aggression. I shall therefore refrain from going into the
details. I shall venture to make only a few observations.

125. The struggle of the Angolan people against
South Africa is an extension of their long and heroic
struggle against Portuguese colonialism. The South
African racists, through their intervention in Angola,
attempted to rob the gallant people of Angola of the
victories they had won after centuries of brutal colonization by Portugal and after 15 years of unceasing
armed struggle ably and dynamically led by the MPLA.
In the long struggle against Portuguese colonialism,
the Angolan people made untold sacrifices, both
human and material, to regain their lost freedom and
dignity. The struggle in Angola has always been a
struggle for freedom, a struggle for human dignity and
a struggle against colonial domination. The South
African racists, who cannot be expected to coexist
with freedom, know this very well. They also know
perfectly well that the struggle there has nothing to do
with being for or against communism. It is because
South Africa felt threatened by every additional
African country that regains its freedom that it took the
desperate step of attempting to prevent the final
triumph of the liberation forces in Angola.

126. Put succinctly, South Africa's invasion of
Angola was an attempt to perpetuate, perhaps in
different forms and styles, the enslavement the
Angolan people had suffered during the hundreds of
years of Portuguese colonialism. Alt the talk, whether
by South Africa or by those who think like South
Africa or those who have sympathies with the South
African position concerning the bogy of communism,
is utter nonsense. South Africa’s main objective in
invading Angola was a desperate last-minute attempt
to rob the people of Angola of the victories they had
won after their heroic armed struggle led by the MPLA.

127. 1 realize we are not here to discuss Angola’s
foreign policy or, for that matter, to discuss its internal
political situation. That is a matter entirely within
the jurisdiction of the Government of the People’s
Republic of Angola. But if I have alluded to the
convenient labels that are given to the Angolan people’s
struggle, it is to dismiss once and for all such deliberate
distortions. Often in the past, African representatives
in the General Assembly, the Security Council and

other international forums, have painstakingly
emphasized the importance of properly understanding
the nature of the struggle in southern Africa.

128. We have sought to solicit the sympathy, if not
the support, of those members of the international
community who, for reasons best known to themselves, have chosen to adopt policies detrimental to
the liberation struggle. Regrettably, such appeals
have yet to be heeded by some. This is neither the
time nor the place to start a retrospective, though
justifiable, accusation against those countries which
had pursued policies in support of Portuguese colonialism in Africa and other minority régimes there.
While we do not see the need to repeat those criticisms at this point, we certainly have a sight to demand
that they not distort the essence of the African people’s
struggle for freedom and dignity. Indeed, we have
every right to take the strongest exception when
further attempts are made to distort the perspective
and the sacrifices of those countries which have
successfully fought for their liberation. The sacrifices
of the Angolan people, as well as their victories,
deserve no less. Those who still refuse to understand
and appreciate the real nature of the Angolan struggle
and its victories under the leadership of the MPLA
and its esteemed leader, President Agostinho Neto,
would be well advised to take into account the very
pertinent remarks made by an esteemed and outstanding Western statesman. The Prime Minister of
Sweden, Mr. Olof Palme, a Western leader with a
clear sensitivity to Africa's legitimate struggle for freedom and a clear perception of the nature of Africa's
struggle, recently made the following observation in
a Swedish newspaper:

“1 see in the press the MPLA practically always
is depicted as Marxist’, pro-Soviet or even communist. This is propagandistic simplification...

“There is, of course, a reason for these labels;
it is more legitimate to attack ‘communists’ and
“terrorists” and to support their opponents.”

The only additional comment I should like to make
in respect to the candid remarks made by the Swedish
leader is to point out the obvious, namely, that there
is nothing new in these attempts to confuse on the
part of those who detract from African freedom. The
history of the decolonization struggle fully testifies
to the campaigns launched against the liberation
movements by the opponents of freedom. Thus, the
systematic campaigns against the MPLA Government
are only part of the general campaign against African
freedom fighters in general.

129. I have already stated that South Africa's aggression against Angola was designed to stifle the tide of

16

freedom. In brief, it is clear that the South Africans,
in the hope of realising that objective, had aimed at
the liquidation of those forces in Angola which were
genuinely fighting for freedom. South African aggression was geared to the creation of a clientele régime
in Luanda which would be subservient to the apartheid régime’s ambitions of continued subjugation and
degradation of the African people. At the same time,
the South Africans were attempting to liquidate the
fighters of SWAPO. It is not difficult to understand
South Africa’s objective in committing aggression
against Angola, because, as I said, the actions against
Angola are only part and parcel of the systematic,
aggressive ambitions of the apartheid régime against
free Africa. Nor is it difficult to understand why such
aggressive measures were resisted fiercely and
eventually overcome by the Angolan people under the
leadership of MPLA and supported by the traditional
allies and supporters of the African liberation, for
Angola’s resistance to South African aggression is an
extension of its history of resistance to colonial
domination. At the same time, the support given to the
Government of the People’s Republic of Angola to
resist South African aggression is an extension of the
support that MPLA had traditionally received in its
struggle against Portuguese colonialism.

130. What is difficult to understand, however, is the
reluctance on the part of those who continue to
ignore Angola's legitimate struggle and hesitate to
condemn South Africa's aggression. Is any member
of the Council, or for that matter any Member of the
United Nations, going to allow itself to be so naive
as to accept South Africa's pompous, ridiculous
proposition articulated here yesterday by Mr. Botha
that the apartheid régime’s sole interest in Angola
was philanthropic? Can any Council member now fail
to see the serious threat to international peace and
security posed by South Africa’s systematic aggression
against African States and the utilization of the
international Territory of Namibia to mount that
aggression? Is any Council member ready to accept
the proposition that the incursion of South Africa's
regular armed forces hundreds of kilometres into
Angolan territory was calculated solely to protect the
Cunene dam and that such aggression was motivated,
to quote Mr. Botha's words, purely by *‘humanitarian
considerations’?

131. The South African representative yesterday told
the Council that his country’s intervention jn Angola
had been limited. Besides the fact that international
law and this Organization have never sanctified the
theory or practice of limited intervention, the very
assertion of the South African régime is nonsense,
as it does not conform to realities. How could South
Africa's spokesman come to the Council and subject
us to such ridicule? What sort of limited intervention
is that, involving as it did a massive deployment of
South African regular forces with sophisticated equipment of all kinds, hundreds of kilometres into the
heartland of Angola? How can the South Africans

be so bold as to ask the Council to disregard the
havoc, damage and destruction, both human and
material, that their invading forces have caused in
the People’s Republic of Angola?

132. Mr. Botha believes that he can create jokes out
of serious situations. Confronted with the overwhelming condemnation of South Africa's plunder and
pillage of Angolan resources in the course of its
aggression, and confronted with the demand for restitution of the equipment and materials that the South
African forces have looted from Angola, Mr. Botha
tries to be cynical, and perhaps in his own way
humorous, by asserting that they have been accused
of removing hotels. What arrogance, what crude
falsification of facts. What a callous disregard for the
solemnity of the Council's deliberations. 1 say to
Mr. Botha that Angola and Africa demand that
South Africa should not be allowed to get away with
the looting it has committed. Angola and Africa
demand that it should not be allowed to act with
impunity as an international outlaw. Angola and Africa
demand that, as a Member of the Organization, it
should observe the rules and regulations of the United
Nations as enshrined in the Charter. These are some of
our charges and these are our demands, and the Council will not have failed to take note that on all of
them Mr. Botha has demonstrated beyond a shadow
of doubt his country’s guilt and has done so in the most
arrogant manner.

133. The South African régime has also continued to
subject the Council to lies. Thus the South Africans,
who have now admitted that they invaded Angola
long before that country’s independence, again through
their representative yesterday sought to justify that
that act had been sanctioned by the then administering
power of Angola. Perhaps Mr. Botha believes that
Council members do not even take the trouble to read
Council documents. Unless he so believed, it is dilficult to comprehend how Mr. Vorster’s régime can
repeat the nonsensical claims in the light of the clear
rebuttal made by the Portuguese Government as
recently as the letter from the Portuguese representative of 23 March, which clearly asserts that

“the affirmation that the Portuguese Government
had asked South Africa to remain in the Calueque
area and to continue to assume the safety work in
progress at the dam, is completely without foundation’ [512023].

134. We are now told that the South African forces
have withdrawn from Angola, yet the reported withdrawal of South African forces has not been to South
African territory. Rather—and the South Africans
themselves openly confirm this—those troops have

been withdrawn into the international territory of

Namibia. Thus what the South Africans have done is
to move from one illegal situation to another illegal
situation. The South African forces have now been
massively deployed in Namibia to consolidate the

17

apartheid régime’s illegal occupation in defiance of the
international community. Quite clearly, besides the
serious implications for the Namibian struggle that the
withdrawal of South African armed forces into Namibia
will entail, we must in the strongest terms express
our serious concern at these developments, for as we
know from experience, Namibia has been used by
South Africa as a springboard for aggression against
independent African States. The utilization of that
international Territory to commit aggression against
Angola is not the only example; it is just the most
recent one. The People’s Republic of Angola has
every reason to feel threatened by the presence of
South African forces in Namibia. Moreover, I believe,
in respect to this question, the 20 March statement of
the Political Bureau of the MPLA succinctly sums up
the problem as follows:

“‘South Africa, with which Angola has no common
borders is illegally occupying Namibia in violation of
United Nations and Organization of African Unity
resolutions and is imposing on its people a racist
minority régime in contradiction with the interests
and legitimate aspirations of Africa.”

135. In his intervention yesterday, the representative of South Africa also sought to convince the
Council that South Africa is a peaceful country, that
it desires nothing but peace and security in southern
Africa, that it has never committed any aggression
and that it harbours no aggressive intents against its
neighbours, that in respect to Angola all that it was
interested in besides the so-called protection of the dam
was to see that the Angolan people had the Government
of their choice. But Council members are aware of the
emptiness of those propositions. South African
actions in the last several years have been repeatedly
condemned by the Organization and the Council.
Those condemnations have not just been confined to
the abominable system of apartheid but also relate to
the series of actions committed by South Africa
against the freedom and independence of Africa.

136. Need I remind the Council that it is South
Africa which has sent its forces into Zimbabwe to
bolster the forces of the minority régime and to defy
not only the will of Her Majesty’s Government, but
indeed the will of the international community? Need
I remind the Council that it is South Africa which
committed aggression against the Republic of Zambia?
Need I remind the Council of its condemnation in its
resolution 326 (1973) of the acts of provocation and
harassment against the Republic of Zambia by the
alliance of the Smith régime and the racist régime
of South Africa? Need I remind the Council of its own
resolution of 30 January [385 (/976)], in which it
expressed its grave concern at South Africa’s aggressive military build-up in southern Africa? And what
of South Africa's persistent and systematic violation
of the resolutions of the Council and the General
Assembly? Yet, Mr. Botha has the audacity to come to
the Council and project an image of his country as
being peace-loving. Deeds speak louder than words.
137. Africa is indeed preoccupied with the aggressive
ambitions of the régime in Pretoria. Our preoccupation
is not lessened by the monstrous legislation of which
Mr. Botha tried yesterday to paint a rosy picture in
the Council, authorizing South African defence forces
to operate with impunity in Africa, in defence of
South Africa’s supposed interest and security. Clearly
also, the fact that the initial legislation tended to
define South Africa’s borders for military purposes as
“Africa south of the equator’’—a definition which
would include a number of independent African States,
including my own—serves to illustrate the aggressive
ambitions of the authorities in Pretoria,

138. As to Mr. Botha's preoccupation with the rights
of the Angolans, one can only say that such cynicism
must be treated with the contempt it deserves. They
say, ‘‘charity begins at home’. How can the representative of South Africa in this year and age come
to the Council and claim to be preoccupied with the
rights of the people of Angola to choose a government of its choice, while as the world knows the
whole essence of the problem of apartheid is the
continued denial by the minority régime of South
Africa to 20 million Africans of their fundamental
rights, including the right to have a government of
their own. Mr. Botha seems to have forgotten that
the fundamental reason behind the General Assembly's
decision to reject the credentials of South Africa in
1974 was that that régime did not represent the people
of South Africa. And yet the representative of the
apartheid régime wants us to believe that South Africa
has now been converted to accepting the rights of the
people to have the government of their choice. If the
South African régime is really interested in having
peace and security in southern Africa, there would be
no better way to demonstrate that intention than to
practise what Mr. Botha desperately tried to profess
in the Council: let the South African Government
create conditions permitting the African people in
South Africa to have the same rights—not more rights,
but the same rights—and the same privileges
possessed by the white minority and thus allow the
majority of the African people in South Africa to have
the government of their choice.

139. One other observation in respect to Mr. Botha’s
statement. He tried to question the justification under
the Charter of the Security Council deliberations concerning his country’s aggression against Angola.
Obviously, it is not difficult to understand that type of
mentality. For as we know, Mr. Botha’s régime and
the Charter are strange bedfellows indeed. It would
be too much to expect the representative of South
Africa even to bother to go through the Charter provisions. For if he did, he is obviously not blind and
he would see that Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter
clearly stipulates that:

“*All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any

18

state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.”

Thus for Mr. Botha to be wondering why the Security
Council is meeting serves only to underscore the
degree of contempt they have for the Organization,
It also shows that the authorities in Pretoria have their
own moral values, their own laws and their own
standards which are totally alien to those held by the
rest of the international community.

140. One final observation concerning Mr. Botha's
statement yesterday. As he did in January, he again
tried very eloquently, very desperately, to convince
us that he is an African, that he represents an African
State and so on. Perhaps the only new thing yesterday
was his excessive references to the Organization of
African Unity.

141. We want to make clear that we have never
questioned and that we do not now question whether
the whites in South Africa are Africans. What we
have questioned, what we do question, what we shall
continue to question is that they are superior beings,
and until such time as the South African white minority
régime comes to its senses and understands that they
cannot be Africans and superior beings too, they will
be wasting the time of the Council and the Organiza
tion by repeating nonsensical assertions which no
one really wants to hear. Secondly, we have never
said that South Africa is not an African State. In
fact the whole purpose of our struggle is to ensure that
that African State legitimately chooses its rightful
leaders and its rightful Government.

142. We are faced with a very serious problem, The
African position has been articulated by many of my
colleagues. In the course of the last few days we have
been involved in intensive consultations with a number
of colleagues in the hope of arriving at a draft resolution which would command, if not the unanimous
support of the Council, at least its overwhelming
support. In the process we have tried to take into
consideration certain aspects, certain proposals which
have been made to us. We believe that this draft
resolution—which I am about to introduce on behalf
of Benin, Guyana, the Libyan Arab Republic, Panama,
Romania and my own delegation—succinctly meets
the problem before the Council.

[The speaker read out the draft resolution, contained
in document §/12030.]

143. In commending this draft resolution to the
Council, I should only like to stress that it is clear-cut
and unambiguous and that it addresses itself to the
specific problem of South African aggression against
Angola,

144. The Council may not have been able to take
the necessary measures to prevent South African
aggression against Angola; it might have hesitated t0

take prompt action to support the Government of the
People’s Republic of Angola against South African
aggression. But let it not be said that South African
aggression was in any way condoned by the Council,
for 1 submit in all solemnity that if the Council were
to reach the stage where an aggressor could get away
with his aggression, not only would the purposes of the
Organization have been eroded but members of the
international community—particularly the people of
the world—would have every justification to question
the Organization’s moral authority, strength and
capacity to meet threats to international peace and
security.

145. In commending this draft resolution the African
members and the non-aligned members, together with
our colleague from Romania, are only requesting that
justice be done to the victims of aggression and that
the Council send a message to the world that aggression does not pay, strengthen the forces of freedom and
reason in Africa and by its action demonstrate its
clear determination in favour of justice, freedom,
reason and the Charter of the United Nations. To do
less, I submit, would be doing injustice not only to
Angola and Africa but also injustice and damage to
the Organization.

146. Mr. RICHARD (United Kingdom): I do not
propose at this stage of our debate to comment in
detail on the draft resolution just introduced by the
representative of Tanzania. 1 will only say that for
reasons which I have explained to him and his colleagues at length in the course of the last day or two,
it is a draft resolution which is unacceptable to Her
Majesty's Government. I would propose to explain
the reasons for my vote on this draft at the appropriate
time,

147. This is now the third debate in the Security
Council on a southern African question in the last
three months. It is hardly accidental that we have
devoted so much time to the problems of southern
Africa. If 1 may adopt a phrase from a previous
British Prime Minister: The wind of change is now
blowing faster than ever in that region of the world.
The collapse of the old régime in Portugal has brought
five new independent African nations into being. [ have
already had occasion earlier this month to greet the
Foreign Miniter of Mozambique, Mr. Chissano.
I should now like to greet warmly the representative
of Angola, Mr. Luvualu. Both Angola and Mozambique
are destined to play an important part in the situation
which is developing in southern Africa.

148. My own Government recognized the People’s
Republic of Angola on 18 February, and we wish
President Neto and his Government well. There can be
very few newly independent countries which have
faced, and still have to face, such enormous problems.
Theirs is a legacy of past wrongs which cannot be
transformed overnight. The recent fighting in Angola
has ravaged the country and gravely affected its

19

economy and communications. We wish the Government of Angola all possible success in the task which
now lies before it of rebuilding the country. There
is a clear case, in our view, for generous assistance
by the international community to the Government
of Angola and to the region as a whole, and we for
our part stand ready to do what we can,

149. My Government’s position on the recent tragic
events in Angola has been clear and consistent throughout. We have refused to intervene in any way in the
internal affairs of Angola. The British Government
provided no assistance to any of the rival political
groups. My Government condenined the use of
mercenaries on any side, and we for our part did what
we could to discourage it. But in my country, at any
rate, as is not the case in some whose representatives
are sitting around. this table or among some of their
closest allies whose representatives we have had the
opportunity of listening to in the last few days, a person
who has not committed a criminal offence is entitled
to leave the United Kingdom if he so wishes. It is
one of the penalties of being a free society.

150. We have also consistently held the view that the
question of Angola is an African question, and we
warmly supported all efforts made by the Organization
of African Unity to bring the fighting to an end and
to allow Angolans to live in peace, free from all outside
interference. We have maintained, and still maintain,
that the future of Angola is for the people of Angola
alone to decide, We intend to conduct our future
relations with the People’s Republic of Angola on the
basis of mutual respect, sovereign equality and noninterference.

151. The immediate question before the Council is
that of South African aggression against Angola. Here,
again, my Government's position has been clear-cut
all along. We have consistently stated that South
African troops have no right whatsoever, morally or
legally, to intervene in the affairs of Angola. We
therefore associate ourselves with those speakers who
have condemned South Africa’s role in Angola,
which, to put it mildly, has not enhanced the prospects
for peaceful change in souhern Africa as a whole.
Roth. bilaterally and in conjunction with our partners
in the European Community, we urged the South
Africans to withdraw their forces from Angola
immediately. In this connexion, may I note that on
16 March the nine countries of the European Community made a formal démarche to the South African
Government on this matter, My colleague from Italy
has already referred [/905th meeting] to the statement made by the Foreign Ministers of the Community
on 23 February. Since it is now common knowledge,
may I also add that my Government, in company with
others, was able to be of some assistance in acting
as a channel of communication during the last few
weeks. I do not wish to go into details of those
exchanges, but members of the Council will be aware
that South African troops finally left Angola on
27 March. It is essential, in our view, that members
of the Council should bear that important fact in mind.

152. 1 do not think it would be helpful if the Council
were to get involved in debate about who in Angola
was entitled to call for foreign assistance before 11 November 1975 and who was not. The People’s Republic
of Angola is now a sovereign and independent State
which many countries in the world, including my own,
have recognized. No one questions the right of a
sovereign State to receive aid from its friends so long
as this does not carry implications for the security of
other countries.

153. 1 must, however, voice a wider and more general
concern about what is happening. In this connexion
may I say that I agree with what the representative of
the Soviet Union said yesterday, that ‘the question
raised by the Group of African States before the
Security Council goes far beyond the framework of a
local question concerning South Africa’ [/9041h
meeting, para. 38). As the Minister of State in the
Foreign Office, Mr. Ennals, said recently:

“We must be frank and direct in our criticism of
all those —all of them—*"who have sent foreign
troops on to Angolan territory. We have insisted
from the beginning that it would have been better
if no foreign troops had been present in Angola...
Let me stress again that it is our hope, now that
the People's Republic of Angola has been recognized
in Africa, Europe and elsewhere, that all foreign
troops will be rapidly withdrawn.’

154. The Cuban Government has stated that the
introduction of its troops was the result of armed
intervention by the South Africans. We know that the
South Africans have now left Angola. What of the
others? We believe that the continued presence of
foreign troops anywhere in southern Africa can only
make it more difficult to achieve an African solution
to an African problem and can only make the white
minority régimes of Rhodesia and Namibia still more
stubborn in their resistance to international opinion.
1 do not want there to be any misunderstanding.
The responsibility for what is happening must rest
with those in southern Africa who have consistently
denied to Africans their basic human rights, but it
remains our view that African questions are best
settled by Africans and in an African context. My
own Government has learnt this lesson in the past. No
doubt others will have to learn it in the future. As
far as the United Kingdom is concerned, Western
imperialism is dead, and a good thing too. It would be
a tragic irony if new imperialisms were now to arise
in its place.

155. Mr. SCRANTON (United States of America):
The United States delegation has listened with deep
interest to the statements made in the Council on the
agenda item that is before us. Our delegation welcomes
the withdrawal of the South African troops from

20

Angola. The exchanges which resulted in this announcement are encouraging, both because they
suggest that the situation on the frontier can be dealt
with by peaceful means and because they mark the
withdrawal of a foreign military force from an area
where it does not belong.

156. The withdrawal of South Africa from Angola
can only serve to highlight for the international community the tragic fact that there remain other, even
larger, foreign interventions in southern Africa. I fully
understand, Mr. President, the appeal you have made
and the appeal that has been supported by the representative of Tanzania and others, that the Council
remember the subject of our agenda and focus attention
thereon. We do not, of course, interpret this appeal to
mean that the debate should proceed as if the end
of one case of wrongful international behaviour in
southern Africa should somehow blind us to others.
A number of speakers have already referred, quite
rightly, to another case of such wrongful behaviour:
the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South
Africa. The United States, for its part, continues
strongly to support the Council's resolution on this
subject [385 (1976)], unanimously adopted on 30 January. The United States holds firmly to its policy of
support for majority rule in southern Africa.

157. But there is still another case of unacceptable
international behaviour which must be brought to an
end. I refer of course to the presence in the African
continent of a large Cuban expeditionary force now
numbering over 13,000 men, an adventure which could
never have been begun and could not be continued
now without the support of the Soviet Union, a
permanent member of the Council. It is an adventure
which is based on the assumption that Cuba can
introduce itself as an arbiter of intra-African affairs,
using the most modern weapons and a trained expeditionary force to that very end. This is a peculiarly
and particularly dangerous precedent, not only for
Africa but for the entire world.

158. The attempt by the Cuban representative to
distort the tragic history of foreign intervention in
Angola's civil war is a self-serving misstatement of
the facts, which are themselves by now well known to
many of the members and observers at the Council.
Cuban armed intervention in Angola began long before
the date cited by the Cuban representative, that is,
5 November 1975. Regardless of how one judges the
Cuban intervention one cannot ignore the public
statement of the Cuban Deputy Premier, Carlos
Rafael Rodriguez, that Cuba dispatched 250 military
advisory personnel to Angola in the “late spring” of
1975. This move coincided with the arrival of massive
amounts of weapons supplied by the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the available evidence indicates that
Cuba decided no later than mid-August 1975 to commit
sufficient numbers of combat troops to Angola to
impose the movement they supported as the only
Government of Angola. I state this with confidence,
since we know that during September 1975 five Cuban
vessels transported about 1,500 combat troops from
Cuba to Angola and that by late October at least
2,000 Cuban combat troops were deployed inside
Angola. This intervention into an indigenous African
struggle was occurring at the same time that the Conciliation Commission on Angola of the Organization
of African Unity was calling for all States to refrain
from intervention in Angola, a call that my Government supported.

159. From the beginning of the struggle in Angola
the United States Government sought three principal
goals: an end to bloodshed, the opportunity for all
competing factions through their own efforts to be
represented in the Government of an independent
Angola, and the cessation of all foreign military
involvement. And just as the end to South Africa’s
wrongful intervention is very welcome, so the continuing Cuban and Soviet intervention is wrong: wrong
because it deprives the Angolan people of the ability
to exercise self-determination freely, uncoerced by
foreign military intervention; wrong because of its
massive size—Soviet aid to Angola in 1975 and carly
1976 far exceeded the entire amount of military aid to
sub-Saharan Africa from all sources in 1974—wrong
because it can no longer be related to any of the
alleged purposes it pretended to serve; and wrong
because of its implications for the future in Africa and
elsewhere in the world.

160. What are the implications of the presence of such
combat forces in Africa, supplied and equipped by a
great Power?

161. First, the central development in the entire
history of modern Africa has been the emergence
of African nations from colonial status to independence. In area after area, in country after country of
Africa the end of foreign domination has resulted
in the removal of foreign troops. Proudly—and rightly
proudly—independent Governments have arisen in
their place. This has been a powerful trend in modern
African history, a trend which all friends of Africa
welcome and support. Thus in Angola the Cuban
military presence in large numbers has been and
continues to be inconsistent with this history, with the
great traditions of modern Africa and with the firmly
stated convictions of Africa's leaders.

162. Secondly, the radical departure from modern
African tradition represented by the massive Cuban
movement in Angola must be terminated. The continued presence of Cuban combat forces in Africa
risks establishing a pattern of action and competition
for foreign sponsorship which can fundamentally
undermine what has been achieved in Africa over these
past 20 years. The involvement of Cuban troops in
Angola, if not terminated, can only serve to turn
back the clock of history to an earlier epoch.

163. 1 say this because the United States supports
African independence. We support the principles of

21

non-intervention, territorial integrity and the non-use
of force in Africa. President Ford has made clear
that rapid change is required in southern Africa and
that the opportunity for negotiated solutions must be
seized and moved forward. The United States supports
majority rule in southern Africa. Our dedication to
these objectives and our friendship for Africa impel
us to point to this continuing anomaly of the Cuban
presence.

164. We believe the African nations are aware of the
threat to their independence and sovereignty posed
by the presence of those who profess to be their
disinterested friends. We believe they recognize that
Cuban and Soviet actions are designed to serve
Cuban—and Soviet—global objectives which have
nothing to do with peace and progress in Africa. We
believe the African nations and all members of the
Council know what is required: the immediate and total
withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Angola.

165. The United States strongly supports the motivation for African independence inherent in the draft
resolution before the Council [§/12030]) but will abstain
in the vote on the draft resolution because of its failure
to apply to other continuing foreign interventions.
The draft resolution purports to reflect a conclusion by
the Council on the situation in Angola and asks for
responsive action by South Africa. It says nothing
whatsoever about the irresponsibility of those who
employed by far the most destructive weaponry there.
Furthermore, the operative part of the draft resolution
unaccountably fails to set forth what should be a key
requirement: that all States refrain from intervening in
the affairs of Angola.

166. Thus, to the extent that the draft resolution
reflects the Council's efforts to deal with the problem
of foreign involvement in Angola, in our judgement
it falls badly short of that mark. It cites South Africa’s
unwarranted violation of Angola's territorial integrity,
yet it is totally silent on the continuing presence of the
Cuban expeditionary force in Angola. Such a blatant
disregard of facts, such a double standard, such
hypocrisy cannot further, in our judgement, the Council’s discharge of its own responsibilities. Accordingly,
the United States will abstain in the vote on this draft
resolution, strongly as we feel about the independence
of African States.

167. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) {interpretation

from French); First of all, my delegation wants to

welcome amongst us Ambassador Luvualu, the special
envoy of the Angolan Government. We have already
had the privilege of hearing his two statements. We
want to confirm right now that France will be pleased
to maintain the best of relations with the People’s
Republic of Angola, a new important State on the
African continent, whose history binds it in many ways
to Europe and which has just emerged from a great
national trial. We noted with great interest the statement by which Ambassador Luvualu informed the
Council that his country was determined to respect
the Charter of the United Nations and to have relations of friendship and co-operation with all States and
to observe the fundamental principles of nonalignment.

168. Through its President, the representative of
Kenya, the African Group has submitted to the Council a complaint against South Africa. My delegation
feels that that complaint is legitimate, and we deplore
the behaviour of the Government of South Africa
towards Angola. France, which is very attached to
the principles of independence, sovereignty and the
territorial integrity of States, can find no excuse for
those who, under the pretext of a civil war and the
weakening of sovereignty resulting therefrom, have
violated the territory of a country. It is undeniable
that South Africa has intervened in a region where it
had no business at all and where apparently no one
had requested its intervention. By prolonging its
occupation beyond the time when the Government of
the People’s Republic of Angola controlled the majority
of the country, South Africa aggravated its case in a
regrettable way.

169. Extremely concerned and even alarmed by the
extension of such a state of affairs, France and its
eight partners in the European Community, on
16 March, as my colleagues from Italy and the United
Kingdom have already pointed out, urged the South
African authorities to withdraw troops immediately
and unconditionally, That approach was not without
effect, yet it was necessary to wait until 27 March
to obtain a promise of withdrawal. If [ can believe a
recent press release, yesterday or the day before the
secretary of the Political Bureau of the MPLA,
Mr. Lucio Lara, announced in Luanda that South
African troops had left their last positions in the
province of Cunene. Certainly we must take note of
that.

170. Although South Africa’s intervention in Angola
is now a thing of the past, the Council has decided to
inscribe the African complaint on its agenda. This was
inspired by many motives, in particular the seeming
trend of South Africa to consider itself as a sort of
gendarme in the region. Three years ago in the Council
we condemned the sending of South African troops
to Rhodesia. Every year we pass a severe judgement
on South Africa’s continuing domination of Namibia,
a Territory which does not belong to it and which
should have been allowed to accede to independence
long ago. It is undeniable—and this is one of the
greatest concerns of the United Nations—that the
political behaviour of South Africa correspond neither
to the historical requirements of decolonization, as
France understands and practices them, nor to the
indispensable restraint of a State that wishes to live
in good neighbourliness with other countries of the
region.

171. During the long and interesting debate which
began last Friday at this very table, many speakers

22

transcended the subject of the invasion of South Africa
and mentioned the Angolan civil war. We have heard
many eloquent words concerning what has been
happening in Angola in the Cunene area and elsewhere,
in descriptions more detailed even than that of the
representative of Angola.

172. 1 should like to make few brief comments in this
connexion. First of all, I would stress that it is,
naturally, up to the authorities of the People’s Republic
of Angola to define for themselves the policies of
Angola. It is true that the international community is
very concerned about seeing a matter which is the
business of Angolans, Africans and the administering
Power to resolve becoming, or running the risk of
becoming, a source of a larger conflict. In a statement
dated 23 February, the nine countries of the European
Community expressed their concern about all foreign
military interventions in Angola as well as all attempts
to establish a zone of influence in any part of Africa
whatsoever. France, which has strictly abstained from
any interference in the affairs of ex-Portuguese
colonies in general and Angola in particular, feels that
the responsibility for resolving African conflicts
is first and foremost incumbent upon the Africans
themselves.

173. At this time I should like to welcome the
courageous efforts made by the Organization of
African Unity in the difficulties which arose in Angola
as a result of a process which the administering Power
could no longer control. In speaking on behalf of a
country that has also experienced many invasions
and has struggled against many attempts at influence
and division, I should like to state my Government's
support for any policy that allows the peoples of
any continent to be masters of their own destiny.
Obviously, it is up to them to define that destiny
without any interference in the exercise of their
sovereignty. I repeat that Africa belongs to Africans.

174. There was a civil war in Angola; that is a fact.
But that is no excuse for the Pretoria authorities
or for others. The future belongs to the Government of
the People’s Republic of Angola, which has stated
here through its representative that it intends to respect
all the principles of international law—that is,
sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in
the internal affairs of other countries, and reciprocity
of benefits.

175. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
Since no other member of the Council has asked to
be allowed to speak at this stage, I shall now make a
representative of

statement in my capacity as
BENIN.
176. As soon as the invasion of Angola by the South

African troops in September 1975 was announced, the
people of Benin mobilized to defend Angola and
Africa. Later, responding to the appeal of the Central
Committee of the Revolutionary Party of the People's

Cd

Republic of Benin, the militants of Benin volunteered
en masse to go and fight in Angola side by side with
the patriots of the Angolan people’s liberation front.
That is to say that had ‘the political situation not
been favourable to the worthy son of Angola and
Africa, President Neto, and had it not been for his
insistence that the troops of Benin wait and remain on
alert ready to intervene in case of need, they would
certainly have found themselves in Angola. And had
this been the case, my delegation would have been
curious to know whether its country would have been
considered an invader or not.

177. Having said this, I am sure that members of the
Council will understand that in my capacity as representative of the Military Revolutionary Government of
the People’s Republic of Benin I can now intervene
and outline the point of view of my delegation on
the question under discussion.

178. In my delegation’s view, the question now
before the Council has very definite outlines and
consequently is clear. It can be summarized in the
following way. Can a disgusting, racist and backward
régime that has been set down in the southern part
of Africa and, furthermore, has been outlawed by our
community for its illegal occupation of the international Territory of Namibia, use that Territory as a
base to commit aggression against a five-month-old
State and, through that insane act, threaten the independence and territorial integrity of that State? If the
answer is “‘No’’, one must ask what punishment that
régime deserves when its case is brought to the Council.

179. The delegation of Benin has been astonished by
this orchestrated campaign of poison carried out here
and elsewhere for the unavowed purpose of torpedoing
the present series of meetings. It is true that that
campaign has been undertaken and maintained by the
Yorster régime, which has constantly increased the
number of its press communiqués and statements
announcing the withdrawal of South African troops
from Angola on 27 March. The result of all that has
been that some delegations—certainly with the best
of intentions—began to harass the African delegations
with the question whether meetings of the Council
were really necessary since South Africa had decided
to withdraw its troops from Angola.

180. To put such a question amounts to saying, if
not that the Africans carrying out instructions from the
Council of Ministers of the Organization of African
Unity acted too hastily, at least that their request now
had no purpose. In the light of all that, my delegation
can only feel pleased that we have had present at
the debates Comrade Luvualu, a member of the
Central Committee of the MPLA and Angola's roving
Ambassador. By coming here to present his country’s
case personally, he has given striking proof that the
request of the African Group was justified and that
there could be no doubt whatever that it was necessary
for the Council to meet.

23

181. In bringing the South African case before the
Council, the African Group has given definite proof
that it can assume its responsibilities. It knew that,
despite the clear and specific outlines and the concrete
aspect of the question before the Council, some delegations would not fail to take the opportunity to air
their hatreds and resume the cold war. None the less, it
decided to go forward because it was convinced
that—and no one can contradict this—the fact that
South Africa had announced a withdrawal, or even that
it had indeed withdrawn its troops, took nothing away
from the very nature of the aggression. For, after all,
what could be the fate of the small and weak countries if the case of South Africa were permitted to
constitute a precedent? Would that not open the door
for future abuses of all kinds, since it would appear
to be sufficient, after having committed aggression
and pillaging a country, to announce a withdrawal
upon the convening of the Security Council, in order
for the act of aggression to be wiped out and given a
facade of legality?

182. It is sad to note that in the face of a selfevident fact—South Africa has, after all, admitted that
its troops entered Angola and occupied a part of that
State—international hypocrisy tries to place on a
footing of equality the heinous crime committed by the
disgusting apartheid régime and the presence in Angola
of troops invited by the lawful Government of Angola
at Luanda to, come to its assistance. In any case, one
is greatly tempted to ask those who uphold that thesis
whether the presence of American troops in one or
another part of Europe during the Second World War
could be regarded as aggression, when we know very
well that, faced with the danger of Hitlerism, certain
nationalist Governments of the time had felt it
necessary to appeal for those troops? That question
should be sufficient to ask those who hold this thesis
to reflect and make an objective judgement, and not
to bring grist to the mill of South Africa. Although,
taking advantage of a Council debate on the international Territory of Namibia, Botha had the audacity
to come here to justify the presence of South African
troops in Angola by that disgusting régime’s desire to
protect Africa from the danger of communism and who
knows what else, I do not think that there is a single
delegation in the Council prepared to believe the South
African thesis.

183. It is also sad to note that in an attempt to justify
what cannot be justified, the racist Vorster gang does
not even take the pains to remember things correctly.
Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that after the
grotesque scene which the Council witnessed in
January, the representative of the Pretoria racists
dared to communicate to the Secretary-General the
statement by Vorster from which I quote the following
passage:

“Immediately thereafter, the South African
Government informed the Portuguese Government
of the steps taken and urged them to take over this
eg

task. The Portuguese Government could not do so
at the time and requested South Africa to continue
its protective measures and to remain in situ until
such time as they could assume this responsibility.”
[S/12019, annex 1.]

184. Having done that, South Africa mantained that it
had received the prior authorization of the Portuguese
Government. Now, if we refer to the 23 March letter
from the representative of Portugal to the Secretary-General [$//2023] and to the refutation made this
morning by that same representative [/905th meeting],
we can only note the wholly imaginary nature of the
statement by Vorster, who clearly has no inhibitions
at all any longer about taking serious liberties with the
truth and the facts.

185. In my delegation’s opinion, all this hotchpotch
proves only one thing: the South African act of aggression against Angola was committed deliberately. That
is not difficult to understand. After the failure of the
Caetano régime, swept out on 25 April 1974 by the
young elements of the Portuguese army, and confronted by the forthcoming collapse of the Portuguese
colonial empire and the successive proclamations of the
independence of the territories formerly under
Portuguese domination, whose courageous liberation
movements had been struggling for many years, the
disgusting apartheid régime nourished the hope of
being able to replace Portugal with impunity, convinced that its military force was invincible. Thus,
having seized the international Territory of Namibia,
South Africa wanted to use Angola as a bridgehead to
carry out its expansionist and provocative aims in
Africa. That design was encouraged, indeed even conceived, by international imperialism, which could not
resign itself to seeing that country follow a normal
development towards independence—because, of
course, of the great wealth in its soil and subsoil.
But imperialism and its lackeys had not counted on the
vigilance and determination of a people in arms.
The progressive Angolan forces inflicted crushing
defeats on the South African military forces. They
obliged those forces to withdraw rapidly and to take up
a defence position around the area of the Calueque
dam, whose interests they claimed they were
protecting. It is not necessary to recall that at one time
the General Assembly was very concerned about the
consequences that the construction of that dam could
entail and condemned the plan and its execution. That
means that for the Council the dam could not in any
case serve as a pretext to justify the South African
aggression, because the dam was planned and built
despite the objections of the international community;
nor can the alleged South African humanitarian feelings
serve as a pretext.

186. An even more aggravating circumstance is the
fact that South Africa has no common frontier with
Angola, and in order to accomplish its crime it had to
use the international Territory of Namibia, which it
continues to occupy illegally. That is why the aggres-

24

sion itself must be condemned. Moreover, the Council
must now seriously. warn South Africa and require’
it to respect scrupulously the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic
of Angola and to desist from using Namibia to stage
provocative and aggressive actions against Angola or
other neighbouring States. Finally, South Africa must
be invited immediately to return everything that was
looted before its withdrawal, or to pay compensation
to the People’s Republic of Angola for the damages
and losses inflicted.

187. Thatis the minimum which Africa, united around
Angola, can demand. However, nothing leads us to
believe that the racist South African régime will
accede, especially if one refers to the statement by
Mr. Botha reproduced in The New York Times of
Sunday, 28 March, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We want peace, but until peace exists properly
we shall be on the alert and shall remain on our side
of the border to protect the interests for which we
are responsible.’ *

One may well wonder what kind of peace Botha
means, and whether the much talked about withdrawal
is actually anything more than a deceptive manceuvre.

188. As you will see clearly, my Head of State,
Comrade Mathieu Kérékou, was right when,
addressing the workers on 29 January following a
march in support of the Angolan people, he declared:

“The Angolan question is nothing other than the
question of the genuine independence and unity of
Africa. That is why the African peoples must today
understand that after the stinging setbacks to imperialism in Asia and elsewhere, the future of our
beautiful and rich continent is at the heart of the
preoccupations of the imperialist Powers."

189. This is a question of vital interest to Africa,
which must close ranks in order to block any paternalistic or imperialist initiatives. The time has passed
when one could dictate to the African what he must
do, what friends to choose and which ones to avoid.
It is time we recognized the obvious fact that Africa
is now an adult and cannot concede to anyone, no
matter how powerful, the right to dictate its conduct.

190. The people of Benin, which is engaged in the
same revolutionary struggle as the Angolan people,
faithful to the policy outlined by its Head of State
in his programme statement of 30 November 1972, will
lend its active and militant support to the peoples
struggling for their liberation. We know that struggle
pays off when the cause is just and noble. That is
why, as we hail the heroic struggle of the people of
Angola under the direction of the MPLA, Benin
energetically denounces all of the crimes and atrocities

* Quoted in English by the speaker.

committed against the people of Azania by the racists
of the shameful apartheid régime of Vorster. As | have
already stated, Benin’s support of Angola is total. It
is not dictated by circumstances or by any immediate
interests. It is based on the policy of its revolutionary
Government resolutely to defend its principles and to
combat imperialism in all its forms and manifestations.

191. 1 could not conclude without recalling what
my delegation has repeatedly had occasion to declare
here: it is high time that those who support the régime
which has been rejected by the international community realized that profound political changes are
taking place in southern Africa and that the Africa of
“Papa’’ and of the well-behaved child of “‘the good
old days’ is gone forever. In these conditions, what
could be more normal and more rational than to give
up the anachronistic policy of supplying arms to the
Vorster gang to perpetuate that régime? What could
be more logical than not to keep trying blindly to stop
the wheel of history, which is turning implacably and
inexorably? And what could be more normal than to
utilize the means at our disposal to make South Africa
listen to reason? Today, more than ever, it is clear that
if we really want to we can break the backbone of that
racist apartheid régime. Under these circumstances,
why then wait any longer?

192. Finally, I should like to invite certain friendly
countries which have never refused their material,
military and other support to the African liberation
movements to ponder this anecdote told in Benin: a
couple sitting in a house was suddenly surprised by a
snake. While the man hurried to find a weapon in the
bedroom the woman took up a stick that was lying
nearby and killed the snake before her husband had a
chance to return. The husband’s pride was a bit
wounded, but he nevertheless drew the following
wise conclusion: ‘What did we really want anyway?
To kill the snake. It doesn’t really matter whether the
credit goes to my wife or to me.”’ Let everybody
understand us well: as far as Benin is concerned, the
shameful apartheid régime in South Africa is a snake
that must be killed at all costs, and we would truly
and warmly applaud our traditional friends if they could
decide, one day, to help us administer the coup de
grace to that abject régime.

193, In my capacity as PRESIDENT, I invite the
representative of Cuba, who has asked to speak in
right of reply, to take a place at the table, and I give
him the floor.

194, Mr. ALARCON (Cuba) (interpretation from
Spanish): Since it is already late, my delegation is
going to be very brief, although we have to reply to
more than one statement.

195. Yesterday the representative of the racist régime
of South Africa tried in vain to sow confusion in the
debate in this Council, but the ineffectiveness of his
action is illustrated perhaps better than anything else

25

by the fact that that was his last appearance in this
chamber.

196. The statement this morning by the representative of the People’s Republic of Angola showed
beyond a shadow of a doubt how South African
troops had not only occupied the southern part of
Angolan territory but also advanced with armored
tanks as far as an area near the very capital of Angola,
with the clear intention of preventing the independence of that country and of occupying the entire
territory. The representative of Portugal, for his part,
clarified events related to the beginning of the entry
of South African troops into Angola and clearly
refuted the fallacies of the delegation of Pretoria.
Later some African colleagues replied adequately to
that representative, and therefore my delegation does
not feel it is necessary to dwell on the statement he
made yesterday.

197. A few moments ago the Council had the
opportunity to hear the delegation of the United
States. One had the impression that we were hearing
the representative of a State that had no experience
whatsoever in sending troops abroad and in activities
of interference throughout the world. Frankly, I feel
that it is very late for me or for any representative to
try to demonstrate the obvious. From the Far East
to areas closest to the United States, the Government
of that country has been characterized precisely by a
policy of interference and aggression throughout the
world and has had no concern whatsoever for the
thoughts of the Governments and peoples involved.

198. One also had the impression that Mr. Scranton
supposes that the United States has considered the
problem of Angola from outside and that it had no
participation in the imperialist and racist intervention against that country. Allow me to recall that
on 10 December, last year at the morning meeting of
the General Assembly,” 1 read for the benefit of
Mr. Scranton’s predecessor what had been published
in The New York Times of 25 September, in the first
column on the left on the front page, in connexion
with activities of the United States in Angola. Since
then the delegation of the United States has not
bothered to refute that information. What did The
New York Times say at that time?

“... William E. Colby, the director of the [CIA],
had notified members of six Congressional subcommittees several months ago of the covert operations in Angola and... no serious objections had
been raised.”’

If on 25 September the director of the CIA was
announcing that several months earlier his agency had
notified six Congressional subcommittees of covert
CIA operations in Angola, then we can assume that
the imperialist intervention in that country began
even earlier than the time when South African troops
crossed the international border of Namibia. But we

iil
might say that much earlier the United States Government had participated actively in the life of the
Angolan people and in its struggle for independence.

199. I do not think it is necessary to remind the
Council of the agreements signed in December 1971
between the United States Government and the
fascist Government then in power in Portugal, through
which the United States gave substantial financial
assistance—if my memory serves me aright, it was
approximately $400 million—to the Portuguese régime,
certainly a very important means of allowing it to
continue its colonial war against the people of Angola
and against other African peoples oppressed by
Portugal at that time.

200. This conclusion that United States financial
assistance was important for the régime of South
Africa is not something I have invented. It is not at
all difficult to find in any United States publication of
the time the statements made by Prime Minister
Caetano, head of the fascist Government of Portugal
at the time, thanking the United States for its cooperation and stressing that Portuguese efforts in
Africa, after all, coincided with the general interests of
the policies of the United States and nothing was more
logical than if Portugal was helping the United States
the United States should also help Portugal.

201. I am not going to dwell on the arguments that
demonstrate this United States participation in the
Portuguese colonial war. I should simply like to
recall that it had more concrete expression, as the
MPLA has informed us for years. At least in the
province of Cabinda, it seems that some American
officers and soldiers carried their solidarity with
Portugal a bit further and it was actually expressed
on the battlefield, but, even closer to New York, in
Fort Bragg, 5,000 soldiers of the Portuguese special
forces learned methods of warfare against African
liberation movements.

202. Moreover, you will recall that I brought here a
magazine last Monday [/902nd meeting}, and 1 still
have it with me. While the representative of the
United States was speaking I glanced through a few
of its pages. I repeat that this magazine is a sort of
official organ of white mercenaries in this country.
It is published freely in the United States—of course,
this is a country where there is freedom of the
press—and in its last issue it published an interesting
report on the Angolan situation. This report was
prepared by a South African newspaperman several
months before the independence of Angola, and in it
he describes the activities of mercenaries in that
country. It is certainly worth while for the Council
to take note of what this South African pointed out
about the sort of payment that these mercenaries
could receive. In this report on the war in Angola
we read the following on page 23:

“A new recruit’ —thereafter it refers to a new
mercenary—-* ‘cannot expect to earn more than a few

26

hundred dollars, although this is supplemented by
booty along the route.”

In another part of the article the South African
gentleman, apparently trying to attract candidates in
the United States for the invasion of Angola, points
out that:

“The region’’-—he means Angola—"will see
considerable military escalation before the end of
the year and promises to be good hunting ground
for mercenary activity.”

Details concerning mercenary recruitment in Los
Angeles, New York and Chicago are given on page 6
of the magazine. We note that David Bufkin—I suppose that he is an American citizen—{rom Kerman,
California, is in charge of those recruitment activities,
It states that the salary to be paid to mercenaries who
sign up for activity against the people of Angola will
be $800 per month for a six-month contract and
$1,200 per month for a 12-month contract. The rest of
the publication confirms that the Government of the
United States and its agencies which are devoted
to this activity of promoting imperialist interests on
all continents do not deal only with the question of
Angola but with many other questions. Anyone who
examines this issue might find it a bit surprising that
those activities are so wide-ranging. I shall point out
just one more detail which appears on page 2, where
the magazine pays tribute to Corporal John Alan
Coey, an American who died in Rhodesia fighting
against the guerrillas of the national liberation
movement of that country. He was with the Rhodesian
light Infantry.

203. But I repeat that it is not my intention to
belabour United States policy on Angola. In my statement I said that neither the Angolan people nor its
Portuguese oppressors were alone during that
country’s decade of armed struggle. They had the
assistance of their natural allies from abroad. Cuba,
from the outset, from the time it attained full independence in 1959—and we have never concealed
this fact—in so far as possible has helped the Angolan
patriots in their struggle for national independence.
The United States sustained, and not gratuitously,
Portuguese fascism militarily, diplomatically,
politically and financially, while its monopolies
obtained vast profits from Angola as well as from the
rest of the oppressed territories in southern Africa,
which explain North American interest in the area.
That is a fact of history, a fact reflected in the
documentation of the United Nations where, as all
representatives know, the United States with its vote
or with its veto from the beginning to the very last
moment supported the racist and colonialist régimes
of Africa, and where it continues to do so now.

204. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I call on the representative of the United States, who
wishes to speak in exercise of his right of reply.
nia

205. Mr. SHERER (United States of America):
Whatever ancient history may be asserted by the
Cuban representative, the fact is that more than
13,000 Cuban soldiers remain in Angola. We ask
again: What are they doing there? Against what threat
are they staying there? Who are the real imperialists?
These questions cannot be answered by distortion of
history and quotations from newspapers and private
publications of which it is said, perhaps jealously,
that they are the products of a free press.

206. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The representative of Cuba wishes to speak in exercise
of his right of reply. I invite him to take a place at
the Council table and to make his statement.

207. Mr. ALARCON (Cuba) (interpretation from
Spanish): The presence of Cubans who went to Angola
to struggle together with the Angolan people against
the invasion by the racists and. mercenaries who had
the moral and material support of the United States
Government is a matter which concerns the People’s
Republic of Angola alone. The Cubans went to that
country at the request of a sovereign Government, an
independent Government, which has the same rights
and the same attributes as any other independent
sovereign State, regardless of the opinion of a racist
about this matter in the western world.

208. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I call on the representative of the United States, who
wishes to speak in exercise of his right of reply.

209, Mr. SHERER (United States of America): The
invasion is over. The South African troops are gone.
When are the Cuban soldiers leaving?

210. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The representative of Cuba wishes to speak in exercise
of his right of reply. I invite him to take a place at
the Council table and to make his statement.

211. Mr. ALARCON (Cuba) (interpretation from
Spanish): The representative of the United States is
very interested in giving the impression that the invasion is over, that the threats have disappeared and that
the dangers for the People’s Republic of Angola no
longer exist, None the less, the authorities of South
Africa themselves, when they announced that they
were withdrawing, said that they were crossing a
bridge over a river and that they would stay on the
other side of the bridge to protect their interests. They
feel that they have interests on the side of the river that
belongs to the People’s Republic of Angola.

212. Ofcourse, I might return the question and ask the
representative of the United States whether he feels
that South African troops now are located where
they should be, whether it is satisfactory to him that
there should be South African troops occupying the
Territory of Namibia, or whether he is going to urge
them—which he did not do in his statement—to leave

27

that Territory immediately, in accordance with the oftrepeated opinion of the General Assembly, the Security
Council and the International Court of Justice, in a
word, of public opinion throughout the world.

213. The Government of the People’s Republic of
Angola has come to the Council to denounce an aggression which has not ended, to denounce the fact that
the Government of South Africa invaded it, committed
innumerable acts of plunder and pillage against its
people and that, moreover, at no time, in no statement
and in no written communication did the representative of South Africa announce that his country would
not continue its aggressive attitude to the People’s
Republic of Angola.

214. Inthe United States, there is freedom of expression, as the representative of the United States likes to
stress. That freedom includes his right not to recognize
the sovereign powers of a sovereign and independent
State of Africa. Perhaps he does not like the fact that
in Angola there is today a Government of the Angolan
people. Unfortunately, however, international law
and the opinion of many countries outside the United
States stress and express the belief that that Government has the same rights as any other Government
and that through its sovereignty it can decide whether
it needs foreign assistance. That is up to the Angolans
to decide and not to the representative of the United
States, even with all the freedom of expression that
exists in his country.

215. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I call on the representative of the United States in
exercise of the right of reply.

216. Mr. SHERER (United States of America): I am
very sorry that we have got into this rather extended
debate, but I should like to point out to the representative of Cuba that Ambassador Scranton in his statement did refer to Namibia. Just to refresh the recollection of the representative of Cuba, I should like to
quote from that statement. Ambassador Scranton said:

“A number of speakers have already referred,
quite rightly, to another case of such wrongful
behaviour: the continued illegal occupation of
Namibia by South Africa. The United States, for its
part, continues strongly to support the Council's
resolution on this subject, unanimously adopted on
30 January [385/1976]. The United States holds
firmly to its policy of support for majority rule in
southern Africa.” [See para. 156 above.]

217. Mr. SALIM (United Republic of Tanzania): It
is the desire of the sponsors of the draft resolution
that it be voted upon in the course of this evening
—which is fast becoming tonight. In view of the
specific request made to us by some of our friends,
I should like to propose that we suspend the meeting
and resume at approximately 10 o'clock.
218. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania
has proposed, in accordance with the provisions of
rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure, the
suspension of this meeting for approximately one and
a half hours. Are there any objections? Since there are
none, it is so decided.

The meeting was suspended at 8.25 p.m. and
resumed at 10.25 p.m.

219. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
Before the Council proceeds to the voting on the draft
resolution, 1 shall call on any representative who
wishes to explain his vote at this stage.

220. Mr. SUNDBERG (Sweden): Once again the
Security Council has been seized of a problem connected with the situation in southern Africa. Once
again the roots of the problem lie in the unacceptable
policies of South Africa under its racist and repressive Government.

221. As early as August 1975, South African troops
from bases in Namibia invaded Angola and took
control over parts of Angolan territory. In the autumn
South African regular forces were operating deep
inside Angola. South Africa has tried to justify this
armed incursion by referring to an alleged invitation or
silent acceptance on the part of the then administering
Power, Portugal. Portugal's delegation has clearly
refuted this claim and pointed out that Portugal had
protested this action repeatedly to the South African
authorities.

222. The most prominent of the arguments used by
the South African Government has been the defence of
a hydroelectric and irrigation project in the south of
Angola. Such arguments, however, cannot serve as a
justification for the occupation of areas in Angola.

223. It is also specially noteworthy that, as was the
case of the South African statement in this debate the
other day, South Africa has invoked the argument that
the military operations in Angola were motivated by
an effort to balance the struggling factions within the
country. This in fact amounts to a clear admission of
interference in the internal affairs of the country.

224. Military attacks of such magnitude and duration
by South African forces against Angola's territory
must clearly be characterized as aggression. The fact
that this time South Africa used its illegal occupation
of Namibia for aggressive purposes is a further
aggravating factor.

225. The Swedish delegation will cast an affirmative
vote for the most unequivocal condemnation by the
Security Council of this South African aggression.
South Africa's action was clearly inadmissible under
international law and under the Charter of the United
Nations.

28

226. Angola’s achievement of independence was
preceded by a factional struggle within the country,
resulting in a devastating civil war. Outside interests
have used that division to intervene in various ways
in the country. The Swedish Government has rejected
all foreign aspirations to limit the right of the Angolan
people freely to decide their own future. The principle of non-intervention must be respected by all and
every one. But nothing can under any circumstances
serve as justification for the clear and flagrant aggression by the Government of South Africa against this
newly independent country, something to which my
Government has particularly objected.

227. My delegation would like to express the hope
that the Angolan people may now have the opportunity of building their country in peace and through
conciliation, without foreign interference. May 1 also
add that my delegation is looking forward to the
moment—and we hope that it will be soon—when we
will be able to welcome Angola as a valued Member of
the world Organization, and we greet warmly here
today its representative, Ambassador Luvualu.

228. Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (translation from
Chinese): The Chinese delegation wishes to make the
following observations on the draft resolution in document S/12030.

229. China has always supported the people of Angola
in their national liberation movements against the
Portuguese colonialists, and we gave assistance,
including military assistance, to all three liberation
organizations.

230. With regard to the differences among the three
Angolan liberation organizations, we have always
urged them to take to heart their common interests of
national liberation and to unite against the common
enemy. In particular, the following fact should be
pointed out. Since the Alvor agreements were reached
between the Angolan national liberation movements
and Portugal in January 1975, confirming the independence of Angola, China has refrained from
providing new military assistance to the three Angolan
liberation organizations.

231. Delegations headed by the leading members
of the three organizations, namely, UNITA, MPLA
and FNLA, visited China on 19 March, 29 May and
10 September 1975, respectively. During the talks
the Chinese side repeatedly expressed the hope thatthe
leaders of each liberation organization would solve
their differences through peaceful consultation by
holding high the banner of independence, unity and
progress, so that they could achieve their independence at the earlierst possible date.

232. The three organizations asked us to provide them
with military assistance. In view of the existing
situation of conflict in Angola, we did not agree to
those requests. We hoped that they would take to
heart their national interests, do away with super-Power meddling and intervention and join in a common
effort to build a truly independent and united Angola
of national harmony.

233. We have always supported the Organization of
African Unity in its tremendous efforts to mediate
among the three liberation organizitions. We have
supported its positive proposals for the immediate
cessation of conflict among the three organizations
and the formation of a Government of national unity,
and we consider this just position entirely in the
interests of the people of Angola and the whole of
Africa.

234. We strongly condemn the South African
authorities for their armed aggression and intervention
in Angola, and we firmly support the people of Angola
and the rest of Africa in their just struggle against the
aggression by South Africa in Angola.

235. We cannot remain deaf and silent to another
serious fact in Angola. We likewise strongly condemn
Soviet social-imperialism for its aggression and intervention in Angola, and we firmly hold that Soviet
military personnel and its foreign mercenaries must
also withdraw from Angola immediately and completely. This is the strong and righteous demand of
the world opinion and the Governments of many
countries.

236. Angola belongs to the people of Angola, who
have the full right to solve their own problems free
from outside interference. Anyone who respects the
facts and upholds justice can see that our position
stems from the basic interests of the'people of Angola
and the rest of Africa, and from the basic interests of
the struggle of the people of the world against the two
Powers striving in Angola for supremacy in southern
Africa. The Chinese Government and people adhere
to such a principled stand. Our words and deeds are
open and above-board and consistent, and they can
stand the test of the facts and time.

237. The serious situation in Angola was created by
the fierce rivalry between the two hegemonic Powers.
Now, their rivalry has been brought to southern
Africa and is growing in intensity. We are duty-bound
to stress that the aggression by Soviet socialimperialism and its mercenary troops against Angola
is a serious event unprecedented in the history of
African national liberation movements since the
Second World War. This is part of its fierce rivalry
with the other super-Power for world hegemony and for
the South Atlantic, and it constitutes an important
plan in its global offensive strategy. To this end, the
Soviet Union is spreading the lie of supporting the
liberation movements, while insidiously sowing
discord and creating dissension among them. It has
meddled directly in the internal conflicts in Angola
and even launched aggression. In addition to using
large numbers of mercenaries it has resorted to the

29

criminal tactics of making Africans fight Africans.
Flaunting the tattered banner of ‘‘selfless socialist
aid’, it is shipping in large quantities of weapons for
the very purpose of carrying on plunder and control
and expanding its spheres of influence. Quite a number
of Asian and African countries have had bitter
experience in this respect. The facts have proved and
will continue to prove that the nature of Soviet socialimperialism will not change. It can deceive people and
run amok for a certain period but cannot remain
successful for long. It can be said with certainty that
its aggression and expansion in Angola are bound to
meet with the strong resistance of more and more
Angolan people and of the African countries and
peoples. It will come to a more ignominious end than
the old colonialists.

238. The Chinese delegation strongly condemns the
South African racist régime’s aggression against
Angola, demands respect for the independence,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola by all
States and condemns South Africa for the utilization
of Namibia to mount provocative or aggressive acts
against Angola or any other neighbouring African
State. The people of Angola are entitled to demand
compensation for the damage caused by all foreign
aggression.

239. However, it must be pointed out that the draft
resolution has failed to condemn Soviet socialimperialism and its mercenaries for their intervention
and aggression against Angola, nor has it reflected the
just demand for their complete and immediate withdrawal from Angola. The third preambular paragraph
recalls ‘‘the principle that no State or group of States
has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for
any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs
of any other State’, but immediately after that the
fourth preambular paragraph refers to ‘‘the inherent
and lawful right of every State, in the exercise of its
sovereignty, to request assistance from any other State
or group of States’’. The simultaneous application of
these two paragraphs to the question now under
discussion in the Council means the negation of the
former by the latter. The fourth preambular paragraph
is bound to be utilized by Soviet social-imperialism
to legalize its aggression and intervention in Angola.
This will bring serious and unfavourable consequences
to the just cause of the Angolan and other African
peoples in achieving their liberation, defending their
State sovereignty and national independence and
opposing super-Power intervention. This has set a
dangerous precedent for the super-Powers to create
pretexts to commit aggression and intervention
against other sovereign States. We absolutely cannot
agree to it. Therefore, the Chinese delegation has
decided not to participate in the voting on the draft
resolution contained in document S/12030.

240, The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French).
The list of speakers is exhausted. May I take it that
the Council is ready to vote on the draft resolution
in document S/120307 As there are no objections,
1 shall now put the draft resolution to the vote.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Benin, Guyana, Libyan Arab Republic,
Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania.

Against: None.

Abstaining: France, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America.

The draft resolution was adopted by 9 votes to none,
with 5 abstentions .®

One member (China) did not participate in the
voting.

241. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I shall now call on those representatives wishing to
explain their votes after the vote.

242. Mr. KANAZAWA (Japan): As I stated in my
intervention this afternoon, my Government was
firmly opposed to the military intervention in Angola by
the South African forces. My delegation, therefore,
studied the draft resolution presented by the members
of the non-aligned group and other members with the
utmost sympathy. In considering the action to be taken,
my delegation wanted to see the Council take a
realistic and constructive course, taking fully into
account the situation as it has developed, including the
complete withdrawal of South African forces from
Angola by 27 March. We suggested several alterations
to the draft text along those lines, and we are indeed
grateful to the sponsors of the draft resolution for their
understanding and co-operative attitude in accommodating some of our suggestions.

243. While my Government fully appreciates the
position and the feeling of the people of Angola and
the peoples of African States on this matter, as
expressed in paragraph 1 of the resolution, my
Government entertains reservations on the advisability
of the Council's approving this paragraph at this time,
with all its legal implications under Chapter VII of the
Charter. My delegation regrets that an alteration
suggested by some members of the Council, including
my own country, was not accepted and that therefore
my delegation was constrained to abstain.

244. I should like to address a few words to the
representative of the Government of the People’s
Republic of Angola. The Government and people of
Japan have high esteem for that country’s untiring
struggle for freedom and independence. We give our
whole-hearted support to the realization of its aspirations for nation-building. We wish to confirm our firm
intention to establish relations of friendship and

30

co-operation with the People’s Republic of Angola,
as was expressed in our prime Minister’s message to
the President of that Republic when he communicated
the recognition of Angola by my Government.

245. Mr. RICHARD (United Kingdom): My delegation abstained on the draft resolution contained in
document S/12030, and I should like to explain why.

246. In my statement this afternoon I noted that my
Government had consistently opposed all forms of
external intervention. One such intervention, that of
South Africa, is mentioned and rightly condemned
in the draft we had before us. It is our view, however,
that all foreign intervention in Angola is wrong and
should be condemned. We therefore found the draft
resolution unbalanced.

247. We welcome, of course, the reference in the
third preambular paragraph to the principle of nonintervention as set out in the Declaration on Principles
of International Law concerning Friendly Relations
among States in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations. We believe, however, that it would
have been more logical if the text before us had applied
this principle in its operative paragraphs. What is more,
the juxtaposition of the immediately following
paragraph, the fourth preambular paragraph, can be
construed, and perhaps it is intended to be construed,
as some kind of qualification of this important principle,
a principle which in our view is subject to no qualification whatsoever.

248. Furthermore, a number of references are made
throughout the text to South Africa’s aggression against
Angola. In my statement I condemned South Africa's
military intervention in Angola, but South African
troops have now withdrawn from the country. We
take the view that it is not the Councils task to sit in

judgement on what has happened in the past. Its role,

as defined in the Charter, is the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. To that extent
we believe that some of the language in this text
has now been overtaken by events.

249. We do not find the holding of an inquest by the
Council to be a particularly profitable enterprise. We
for our part would have found it more logical if the
Council had insisted that all States should respett
Angola’s independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity. In other words, we should have preferred
language that looked to the future rather than to the
past.

250. 1 would add, with reference to the seventh
preambular paragraph, that infringement of Angolan
sovereignty from any departure point is reprehensible
as far as we are concerned.

251. We find the language of paragraph 4 equally

unsatisfactory. It does not meet our preoccupations,
which are concerned as much with the general principle

3

underlying this paragraph as with the specific question
to which it relates. The Security Council is not a court
of law, nor is it the appropriate forum to determine
questions of restitution and compensation for damages.
As Article 36 of the Charter indicates, the Council
should bear in mind, in our view, that legal disputes
should as a general rule be referred by the parties
concerned to the International Court of Justice. In
saying this, we are in no way questioning what the
Angolan representative has told us. There may well
have been extensive damage to installations and equipment; there may well be grounds for claims for
compensation; but we sincerely believe that the
Security Council is not the right place for consideration of questions of that sort.

252. Members of the Council will know that some of
us proposed an alternative text which would have
overcome the difficulties that we see in the present
text and, at the same time, would, in our view, have
maintained its essential principles. I regret that no
common position could be found.

253. Mr. de GUIRINGAUD (France) (interpretation
Jrom French): The French delegation wishes to pay a
tribute to the most deserving effort made by the
sponsors of the draft resolution to include in it the
various elements which are characteristic of the situation that has been brought to the attention of the
Council. My delegation has not been able, however,
to its regret, to vote in favour of the text because, in
ils view, it was still very unbalanced. I must repeat
what I said in my previous statement when referring
to the declaration of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs
of the nine member countries of the European
Community on 23 February. France condemns all
foreign military intervention in the domestic affairs
of any State. In this connexion we would have wished
to see the resolution of the Council take into account
more objectively the circumstances which surrounded
the birth of the People’s Republic of Angola. In
addition, we have reservations concerning the term
“aggression” which is used twice in the text of the
resolution and which is applied to a situation that now
belongs to the past. What is more, we have doubts
about whether it was timely to recall in the context
that we are discussing and without precise juridical
precautions a principle of assistance which may give
rise to wrong interpretations. Finally, as has been
pointed out by my colleague from the United Kingdom, the Security Council is not a court of justice
and does not seem to us to be qualified to judge
whether or not claims for damages are well founded.

254. For all these reasons, the delegation of France
was not able to vote in favour of the draft resolution
Just adopted.

255. Mr. VINCI (Italy): 1 shall be brief, since I do not
need to say much in order to explain the abstention of
my delegation in the vote which has just taken place.
Our position was defined this morning in my statement

[1905th meeting], a position consistent with the five
basic principles contained in the declaration on Angola
made by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the
nine member countriés of the European Community on
23 February, which I had the opportunity to read out to
the Council.

256. Inall fairness I wish to acknowledge with sincere
appreciation the efforts made by the six sponsors of the
revised text of the draft resolution in document S/12030
in order to meet some of the main points put forward
by my delegation. We have noted, in fact, the introduction of some of the main principles for which we
stand. But apart from the introduction in the text of a
new preambular paragraph which had never been
discussed in private consultations and which we had no
time to study to determine whether it was consistent
with the Charter, one of the essential elements for
which we stand is still missing in the text. Besides,
we feel that the text of the resolution has not been
brought up to date with present realities.

257. For all these reasons the Italian delegation
regrets that it was not in a position to support the final
text submitted to the Council.

258. Mr. KHARLAMOV (Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics) (interpretation fram Russian): 1 should like
to congratulate the sponsors of the draft resolution
for the extremely arduous and difficult work they have
done, although it may not satisfy certain countries.
However, it seems to me that it is very close to
satisfying the interests of the group of African countries
which submitted that draft resolution. We can
congratulate the People’s Republic of Angola on
the adoption of that text. It is the first time that the
delegation of that country has appeared in the Security
Council, and it is a very good sign that in the future
it will be able to make its positive contribution to the
work of the United Nations.

259. In connexion with certain statements made here
in explanation of vote before the vote, I should like to
say afew words which relate primarily to the statement
of the representative of China, who repeated again
everything that he had said earlier. Unfortunately
the situation is that everyone here can speak and the
representative of China can listen, but he still continues as if no one had ever said anything to him.
Let us analyse the situation. I shall be very brief.

260. China once again is repeating its old thesis about
the super-Powers fighting tor zones, for spheres of
influence, for the wealth of other countries, for hases
and so on and so forth. I have already said that that
is nonsense, because we do not need spheres of
influence or bases or the wealth of other countries or
anything else referred to by the Chinese representative.
I think the United States can answer for itself, and
I do not need to go into that.

261. At one time our country was considered weak.
Preparations were made to divide it up, and maps
indicating which country was going to possess which
region were already distributed. We were indeed weak
after the Revolution. But now we are strong and we
are called a super-Power. Well, can we be proud of
that or not? Yes, I repeat, we can be proud that
we are called a super-Power, because our strength and
our resources are used not to the detriment of peoples
but in favour of peace and in the interests of peoples.
And let the representative of China say as much as he
likes about that.

262. China does not number itself among the super-Powers. I apologize to everybody else here, but
I simply cannot pass over this matter in silence. Let
us look at what China is doing. In terms of territory
it is a colossal country. In terms of armaments, the
whole country has been converted into an armed
camp. There are all kinds of bunkers and dug-outs
everywhere. It produces more arms than almost any
other country and it interferes literally in all affairs in
every corner of the world—and here it accuses the
two super-Powers of doing just that!

263. All the efforts of the Soviet Union in its contacts
with other countries are aimed solely at preventing
war, at preventing a new world war. But what is
China doing? 1 do not have any quotations with me
now but 1 shall produce them some other time for
Mr. Huang Hua. All they talk about in China is preparations for war, about saving the world through war.
After that, how can one take seriously his words about
the super-Powers.

264. Now let us take Angola. Our African friends
and the President of the Council requested us to
confine our remarks to one question, namely, the
question of the aggression of South Africa against
Angola, and I really wanted to talk only about that.
It wasn't I who started the polemics or who started
talking about other things. I did not even answer all
the points raised by the Chinese representative; I just
spoke on what concerned South Africa.

265. Today we again heard that China ceased to
help whoever it was helping in Angola even as far back
as January last year. That is not true. If you really
want to know, read the statement of Roberto Holden,
who only recently said that the Chinese not only trained
his gangs but even gave them arms. This happened
not only in the past but also after all these agreements.
So why, when in Angola a republic was proclaimed
and an independent State founded—the People's
Republic of Angola—did they not do anything to help
that State? Why did they not come to its assistance?
Why did they not help it to drive out the South
African aggressors and their accomplices? Perhaps,
if they had assumed this noble mission, Angola would
have been delivered from its enemies more guidely.
But when the People’s Republic of Angola asked us for
help, we gave that help. This is not news to you. For
fifteen years before the formation of the People’s
Republic our country was giving help to the liberation
movement in Angola.

266. Ninety-four States have recognized the People's
Republic of Angola. Who here has not recognized it?
China. These are your friends? No, you are not among
friends. Just think about that; you still have time, You
may forget your injury. Help the Africans put an end
to colonialism forever, and then everyone will understand that you really are the people you say you are;
but in fact this is not the case at all.

267. The Angolan people acted nobly recently by
allowing the troops of South Africa quietly to leave the
country. That was an extremely noble act, because
the Angolan people could have used military means to
drive them out and increased the number of human
casualties. No, the People's Republic of Angola stated
that it would adhere to a policy of non-intervention.
This confirms its sovereignty and independence.

268. Can we agree that now the People’s Republic of
Angola is enjoying security? It is difficult to say that.
Where did the South African troops go? Today here
we heard dozens of times that they went to Namibia.
And does Namibia belong to them? Is the frontier of
Namibia with Angola really the Angolan frontier with
South Africa? No, Namibia is a Territory which
should be controlled by the United Nations until it
receives independence. But who does control it? The
racists, the colonialists. But you do not want to see
that. Have you really condemned South Africa? In
words, yes, but what do your actions confirm? You
said that the aggression of South Africa came about
because there were Soviet troops there. Bul you are
lying. Tell lies if you want to, but do not expect to
be believed. Did you listen to the statements of 20 or
30 delegates? Do you think when you speak, or not?
We heartily recommend to you to think.

269. Our policy with regard to China is honourable
and direct. Regardless of what policy is pursed now
by China, regardless of what its representatives say in
the United Nations, we want to normalize our relations
with China because we respect the Chinese people.
I myself have been in China. 1 have scen a greal deal
in China. I have met many political leaders who are
still in office now.

270. At the twenty-fifth Congress of our Party
General Secretary Brezhnev said with regard to
China's policy:

**The policy of [China's] present leaders is openly
directed against the majority of the socialist States.
More, it merges directly with the position of the
world's most extreme reaction—from the militarists
and enemies of détente in the Western countries to
the racists of South Africa and the fascist rulers of
Chile. This policy is not only entirely alien to socialist
principles and ideals, but has also, in effect, become
an important aid to imperialism in its struggle against
socialism.”

Well said, accurately said; you could not find a better
statement. He added:

en—

“Peking's frantic attempts to torpedo détente, to
obstruct disarmament, to breed suspicion and
hostility between states, its efforts to provoke a
world war and reap whatever advantages may
accrue, present a great danger for all peace-loving
peoples.”

271. This is undeniable. At some meeting or other
I shall read out all the things you published and the
speeches you made which you have not yet published.
Such a policy on the part of Peking is fundamentally
contradictory to the interests of the Chinese people
and of all peoples, and we shall resist such incitement
as a policy because we honestly, justly and willingly
are fighting for peace, to prevent a new world war.

272. The discussion of the question of aggression by
the Republic of South Africa against Angola and the
position of the representatives of Peking in this matter
have quite obviously confirmed the correctness of our
assessment of the actions and policy of Peking which
were analysed at the twenty-fifth Congress.

273. But as everyonc knows, we were not and are
not the initiators of polemics with you. Let us take the
meetings of the General Assembly, of all the committees in the United Nations. It is always you, the
Chinese, who start quarrelling. Is this really the place
for an ideological struggle? We have other forums for
that. Let us talk about that at those forums. As
Mr. Baroody said, ‘‘let us get together and talk.”
You do not want to talk or to listen, We have proposed
to you that we conclude an agreement on the basis
of the principle of peaceful coexistence, that we
conclude a treaty on non-aggression. You refused to do
that. You want to fight? Well, that’s your affair.

274. Our policy with regard to China has been very
clearly defined and confirmed by the twenty-fifth
Party Congress. We stated and we continue to state
that the Soviet Union is ready to normalize relations
with China on the basis of the principles of peaceful
coexistence. Comrade Brezhnev said:

“We can say with assurance that if Peking returns
to a policy truly based on Marxism—Leninism, if it
abandons its hostile policy towards the socialist
countries and takes the road to co-operation and
solidarity with the socialist word, there will be an
appropriate response from our side and opportunities
will open up for developing good relations between
the USSR and the People’s Republic of China
consonant with the principles of socialist internationalism. The matter rests with the Chinese side.”

275. In conclusion, I should like to say on my own
behalf that the Americans had a very clever President,
President Lincoln. He said some good things, and
I should like to recall for you today: “You can fool
all the people some of the time, and some people
all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of
the time’. You will soon realize this.

33

276. Mr. AKHUND (Pakistan): I do not know if I am
one of those who can be fooled all the time, but having
voted in favour of this draft resolution, it is probably
not necessary for me to explain my vote, especially as
at this late hour I cannot muster the passionate
eloquence of the preceding speaker. However,
I thought that one or two words might. be in order.

277. We voted in favour of this draft because we
think that it contains nothing to which we can raise any
objection. On the contrary, everything that is said in
it meets with our approval and our endorsement.

278. We think that when the military forces of one
country invade another, for whatever reason or with
whatever excuse, that is aggression, and we do not
believe that the Security Council should be chary of
calling a spade a spade. We do not have to dress up
the facts in needless euphemisms,

279. It has been stated that this is not a court of law,
that we cannot demand compensation. I do not think
that the Council has set down the amount of the
compensation or the manner in which it should be
paid and so on. This is the duty of a court of law.
We are here a political body; we have taken cognizance of the fact that South African forces went into
the territory of Angola, went a great way into it and
occupied it for a period of time. And I think that that
fact alone, irrespective of the damage they may or may
not have done or the extent of the damage they may
have done, calls for compensation. We have had no
trouble whatsoever on that score.

280. On the substance of the matter that has been
under discussion, I had the opportunity to state my
views in the Council this morning [/905th meeting]
and my friends and colleagues are aware of my views
from the discussions they allowed me to have with them
in the lobbies. We welcome the independence of
Angola, for which its people have fought so hard.

281. 1 said that I should be lacking in frankness—and
1 say it again—if [ did not express our concern at the
role of foreign intervention in the outcome, an outcome which in any case was predetermined by
history. There was no doubt whatsoever that Angola
was on the road to freedom and that the time for
freedom had come. But we must express, and we did
express, our disquiet at the introduction of foreign
military forces into the situation. We are very grateful
to our friends and colleagues with whom, in the short
period that we have been on the Council, we have
worked on other issues. We appreciate the hearing they
gave us. We indeed appreciate the account they took
of our views, and I am particularly appreciative of the
fact that in the third preambular paragraph some of the
concern that 1 expressed to the sponsors on behalf of
my delegation has been taken care of. Yet we feel
that the draft resolution as a whole, while it is appropriate, apt and opportune in every way, does not
deal with the situation which prevailed in Angola in all
its complexity and totality. Had it been otherwise, my
delegation would have been honoured, as we have
been in other cases, to be a sponsor of this draft.
I am offering this word of explanation not to explain
why we voted in favour of the draft resolution but
why we were unable to sponsor it.

282. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
There are no more speakers who wish to explain their
vote after the vote.

283. The representative of Angola has asked to speak
and I now call on him.

284. Mr. LUVUALU (Angola) (interpretation from
French): The work of the meeting is coming to an end.
I feel it is my duty to thank you, Mr. President, and
all the members of the Council, as well as all the
delegations of friendly countries who have helped
us in the objective analysis of this problem. My delegation will take away with it very good memories of the
cohesion of the African Group when it found itself
presented with a just cause such as the one which
the Council has just examined. All have fulfilled their
duties. However, 1 want to thank all members of the
African Group. I leave feeling comforted, for the cause
of the liberation and unity of Africa is in good hands.

285. Throughout this debate we have remained calm,
even when some statements sounded like encroachments on our sovereignty. In the People’s Republic
of Angola we have great respect for the Security
Council and all other bodies of the United Nations.
However, allow me to say to you, Mr. President,
that my country, which has lived through a long
colonial night, holds its independence dear. The help
from friendly socialist countries, and more particularly
from Cuba, was supplied at our request so that we
could face the aggression of which my country was a
victim. That request therefore was made by my country
in full sovereignty. The people of Angola know the
extent of this aid and the time when it can bring it to
an end. I wanted to specify this point.

286. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is the representative of Kenya.
I invite him to take a seat at the table and make his
statement.

287. Mr. MAINA (Kenya): Mr. President, I asked
to speak for a few moments although I realize that the

hour is late and the work of the Council is nearly

complete. But having, on behalf of the Group of
African States at the United Nations, requested you
to call a meeting of the Council, I would be failing
in my duty if I did not take a few moments to express
my thanks to you personally and to the other members
of the Council for taking up the question of South
African aggression against Angola and for having taken
so much time and effort to see the work completed.
[ should like formally to thank the Council and also
all those who have given support in their statements

34

before the Council and particularly those who have
finally found it possible to give visible support through
their votes. I should also like to express thanks on
behalf of the African Group to those who, although
supporting in their statements the issue before the
Council, found it difficult to give support with their
votes. Even if we do not agree in every detail with
their preoccupations, we do take note of their
difficulties, whether expressed or not.

288. There have been plenty of statements here
about a balanced resolution. We have also noted that
preoccupation with balance in resolutions. In this
connexion, I should only like to say that while we
continue to be preoccupied here with balanced
statements and balanced resolutions, the problems
which the African continent faces remain. They will
not be solved by balanced statements; they will be
solved only by concrete actions.

289. We are particularly grateful to those who, while
not supporting the draft resolution, at least refrained
from using the ultimate weapon in this chamber: the
veto. We are grateful the veto was not used. Of
course, we would have liked them to vote in favour,
but at least they studiously avoided a negative vote.

290. This has been a long day. Many questions have
been asked, both outside and within this chamber,
about why it was necessary for us to proceed with the
debate even after the announcements that appeared in
the press on Saturday. I would say, on my behalf
and on behalf of the African Group, that the debate
has been useful; a number of issues have been clarified
and all those who wanted to make their positions clear
have had an opportunity to do so.

291. I must admit that not everything has been made
clear, For some reason—partly, I would hope, because
of our original appeal that the debate not be widened —a
number of questions have still not been answered. It
is our belief that if all the remaining questions had
been answered, we would have found ourselves in a
different situation this evening. Certainly the historians, who do not have to observe the diplomatic
niceties, will reveal what their studies tell them
about the situation we have been discussing. As
diplomats at this table, we have answered those
questions that we dared answer, but there are other:
questions that we dared not answer.

292. Because of the diplomatic niceties we have had
to observe, we had the representative of South Africa
making firm declarations here, which we noted, bul
unfortunately he did not take the opportunity to come
here and listen to some things which we would have
said had he been here but which we did not want Lo
say simply for the record. South Africa knows our
position, and we know South Africa’s position; fromits
statements.

293. One fact cannot be avoided. While all this has
been going on, a sovereign State—Angola—has been

re

J

born. So whatever may be the subject of our concern
in the discussions here, we must not overlook the fact
that another important State of the African continent
has been born. Some who have expressed reservations,
who have opposed this or that, may not like the way
the sovereign State of Angola was born, but the fact
is that Angola was born. It is like the situation when
our wives go to the maternity wards and we wait
patiently for the birth of a child, hoping that everything
will be normal. Whether we are told that our child
was born in a normal way or that the doctor was
forced to perform a Caesarean operation, we rejoice
in the birth—although we may regret some aspects of
the operation.

294. We do hope that the State of Angola will soon

join us as a Member of the Organization, taking its

rightful place and contributing to the welfare of the
people of Angola as a whole. All these preoccupations
will have no meaning in the future; they will be
forgotten if—as we trust—the State of Angola joins us
with no further complications.

295. In conclusion 1 should like to say once again
that we are very thankful that this debate has come to
an end and that a positive resolution on the subject
fias been adopted. The passing feelings and arguments
not really connected with this debate will be forgotten.
I hope, however, that one of the most important
interventions in this debate, an intervention concerning
two super-Powers, will come to the Council or some
other forum for friendly discussion, so that we shall
not have to see the work of the Council and other
United Nations organs constantly interrupted when we
should be directing ourselves to the issues so that
peaceful solutions may be obtained.

296. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):

The representative of Cuba wishes to speak in exercise

of his right of reply. I invite him to take a place at
the Council table and to make his statement.

297. Mr. ALARCON (Cuba) (interpretation from
Spanish): 1 apologize for speaking again. 1 assure
members that it had not been my desire to return to
this table, particularly at this time of night. However,
I must do so because of the statement made by one of
the members of the Council. In that respect I should
like to make some brief observations.

298. In the first place, I wish to take this opportunity
to clarify a situation which could be confusing if in
the future we read the verbatim record of the meeting
held on Monday afternoon [/902nd meeting], when
I spoke and, among other things, quoted part of the
statement made by the representative of China as it
appeared in the Spanish verbatim record. I am referring
to that part of the statement by the representative
of China in which he affirmed, according to the Spanish
version of the record, that what he called the Soviet
intervention and what he described as the Soviet
mercenaries justified the subsequent intervention by
South Africa.

35

299. When the representative of China replied to me

on that occasion he accused me of having altered his

words. Subsequently, in examining the English and

French versions of the verbatim record in which the

Chinese statement appears [/900th meeting], 1 found

that indeed a change had been made in this relation

between socialist solidarity with Angola and the South
African intervention, and in the future it could appear

as if we had changed his words. I repeat that we .
were going by the Spanish text, in which those who
know that language will be able to see that the Chinese
quotation keeps appearing in the form in which 1 used
it. Apparently, someone modified that text in the
English and French versions and we have no objection to that. However, so that it may be clear that we
are not inventing any position for China, I should like
to put on record a brief reference to an article published
by the New China News Agency, Hsinhua, on
21 March last in bulletin no. 44, which was given
ample distribution in this building. In one section of
that statement distributed by the New China News
Agency, which has been neither modified nor
retracted—I have it here in my possession—and which
was published by the Permanent Mission of China to
the United Nations, we read the following:

“Before the scheduled independence day there
were no imperialist troops in Angola; but large
numbers of Soviet military personnel forced their
way in.”"¥

It continues more or less along the same lines,
claiming that South Africa had intervened in Angola
using as an excuse a supposed prior Soviet intervention. Today we have once again heard references to the
so-called Cuban mercenaries in Angola.

300. On an earlier occasion 1 drew the Council's
attention to this little red book containing quotations of
Chairman Mao Tse-tung. Among others, the one
I mentioned recommended to Chinese militants that
they try not to let their positions and expressions
be confused with the positions and attitudes of the
enemy. By ‘enemy’ is meant, of course, imperialism
and reactionary forces, among others.

301. I am compelled to read out some other very
brief quotations from this little book. One of them reads
as follows:

“He who declares himself for the revolutionary
people is a revolutionary. He who sides with impelism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism is a
counter-revolutionary, He who sides with the
revolutionary people in word only but not in deed is
a revolutionary in word only. He who sides with the
revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is
a revolutionary in the fullest sense of the word.”

* Quoted in English by the speaker.
302. 1 was under the impression that in these Security Council debates there was interpretation into
Chinese. Apparently that was not the case, for had
it been so, perhaps our colleague from China would
have been able to learn something from this debate,
which has at least served to identify for the peoples
of Africa who their friends are and who their enemies
are—who are their nominal friends and who are their
friends in word and deed.

303. In any event, like the author of this book and
the author of the foreword to this edition, 1 realize
that it is not always easy to assimilate revolutionary
thought. Indeed, part of the foreword reads as follows:

“To assimilate effectively the thought of Mao
Tse-tung it is necessary to study over and over again
the many basic concepts of Chairman Mao. It is
advisable to memorize his key sentences, study
them and apply them repeatedly.”

304. Frankly, 1 apologize if perhaps the quotation
[ made on Monday—and the one I have just read
now—was a bit too long to be learned by heart so that
the Chinese delegation could assimilate and apply it.
So before concluding, I wish to dedicate one to you
which is brief enough to be memorized. I shall read
it at dictation speed so that perhaps this time 1 will
be more successful with this short sentence than with
the previous ones: “We must support everything that
the enemy fights and oppose everything that the
enemy supports.”

305. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I call on the representative of China, who wishes
to exercise his right of reply.

306. Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (translation from
Chinese): In his statement just now, the Soviet representative levelled vicious slanders against China in a
shameless defence of Soviet aggression, intervention
and contention for world hegemony. He asserted that
China was a super-Power which is preparing for war
and does not support the national liberation movements. These are out-and-out lies. The Chinese
Government and people have always firmly supported
the peoples of Africa and the world in opposing
racism, colonialism and hegemonism. The Chinese and
African peoples have forged profound friendship in
their protracted common struggle against imperialism,
colonialism and hegemonism, The sabotage and sowing
of discord by the Soviet representative can only be
futile.

307. The Soviet representative slandered China as a
super-Power. This is a preposterous fabrication. China
is a developing socialist country belonging to the
third world. Today, China does not have a single
soldier or base abroad. China has long declared to the
whole world that it will never be a super-Power.
Should China really become a super-Power in the
future, the third world countries and peoples could

36

join the Chinese people in opposing it, because it would
be unfavourable to the people of China and the rest
of the world if China should become a super-Power,

308, The Soviet Union was once a socialist State,
but since the late 1950s, it has restored capitalism
internally and has engaged in ceaseless expansion
abroad. As pointed out by Lenin, it is socialism in
words and imperialism in deeds. Therefore, it is called
social-imperialism. How many troops does the Soviet
Union station abroad, and how many bases does it
have abroad? What is the purpose in unleashing your
planes and warships to run amok everywhere? And
how do you explain the fact that the diplomats you
send out have been exposed as spies and expelled
by many countries? Are these facts not clear to
everyone?

309. The Soviet representative asserted that China
is belligerent. This is nonsense. To be sure, China has
repeatedly explained to the people of the world that
so long as imperialism exists in the world, there exists
the danger of war. This is what Lenin taught us. Of
course, this will never be said by the traitors of
Leninism. Loyal to Marxism and Leninism, China has
repeatedly told the people of the world: At present,
factors for both revolution and war are increasing
and the danger of war is growing. Soviet socialimperialism is the major source of danger, The people
of the world must maintain their vigilance against
this, otherwise they will suffer. It will be possible to
delay the outbreak of war if the people of the world
are fully prepared, This is precisely the reason why
the Chinese people are building up their preparedness
against war so as to oppose any aggressive war.

310. The Soviet representative never stops trumpeting the so-called détente, claiming that it has become
a major irreversible trend. Is that really the case?
In fact, you are engaging in continuous arms expansion
in preparation for launching aggressive wars. Why
do you manufacture such a large number of nuclear
weapons? Can these weapons be used for food? Since
you do not have enough grain for food, you are
desperately buying huge amounts of grain abroad,
leading to a sharp rise in the price of grain. All this
is caused by the fact that you have turned your national
economy into a war-oriented one. The so-called détente
that you advertise is merely for the purpose of
deceiving the people and covering up your wal preparations. The gross national product of the Soviet Union
amounts to only slightly more than one half that of the
other super-Power, but its real military expenditure has
surpassed that of the other super-Power. The number
of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles has
increased 14-fold within ten years. In the Khrushchev
days, the nuclear strategy was strongly advocated.
Now you have turned to the simultaneous and intensified development of conventional weapons. Your
annual production of aircraft, tanks and guns has
surpassed that of the other super-Power. The number
of your warships has almost doubled in ten years,

ry

ies

and the total strength of your armed forces has reached
4,200,000 men. Isn't all this for the purpose of
contending with the other super-Power for spheres
of influence and world hegemony? What else?

311. The Soviet Union has deployed in Europe three
fourths of its total armed forces and two thirds of
its medium-range ballistic missiles and is continuously
renewing its arms and equipment. It is building up its
military deployment on the southern and northern
flanks of Europe in preparation for out-flanking
Western Europe and launching a pincer attack against
it.

312. In their contention in the Middle East, the
Soviet Union and the other super-Power confronted
each other with daggers drawn and reached the point
of touch-and-go during the October war of 1973.
Subsequently, they were engaged in fierce diplomatic
and political contention and competed with each other
in large-scale weapons sales, leaving the Middle East
situation in constant tension.

313. The Soviet Union has sent large fleets into the
Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, trying by every
possible means to seize military bases. It energetically
advertises an Asian security system for the purpose of
infiltrating the Asian countries and filling the so-called
vacuum areas left behind by the other super-Power
after its withdrawal. In Africa, the Soviet Union is
likewise feverishly engaged in infiltration, control
and aggression. The events in Angola are the latest
proof, The events in Egypt are another. Your intervention, control and subversion have compelled Egypt
to expel over 10,000 Soviet experts. Recently, Egypt
was compelled to terminate the so-called Egyptian-Soviet treaty of friendship and co-operation in order
to safeguard its sovereignty and independence.

314. These facts have fully demonstrated that while
advertising sham détente, Soviet social-imperialism is
actually preparing for war. The so-called irreversibility
of détente and materialization of detente etc. which
they have fabricated are nothing but deceptive talk.

315. The Soviet representative also has the audacity
to talk about the normalization of Sino-Soviet relations. This is entirely aimed at deceiving the Soviet
people and the people of the world. The basic thinking
behind the Soviet strategy is still to attack in the
West while making a feint in the East. The Chinese
people and the Soviet people are friends, and we have
hope in the Soviet people. We are convinced that
the Soviet people will one day take their destiny into
their own hands and will certainly sweep this super-Power's hegemonism into the dustbin of history.

37

316. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I am in a very difficult position. It is 12.10 a.m. now,
and, strictly speaking, 1 am no longer President of the
Council. So I am really wondering what I should do,
because I have no experience of such matters. Would
it not be right for my successor to take my place?
1 should like to pass the presidency to-him. I do not
know what is the appropriate thing todo. I even wonder
whether I can give the floor to anyone.

317. Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (translation from
Chinese): If anyone asks for the floor, I suggest that
the representative of Benin continue to preside, so that
our work may be smoothly concluded.

318. Mr. RICHARD (United Kingdom): On a point
of order, Mr. ex-President, this is, with respect, not
just a laughing matter and a silly point. There has
been one occasion since I have been on the Council
when it was indeed quite important that the presidency
should change at the appropriate time. The rule is
quite specific Mr. ex-President, you ceased to be
President at midnight. It would seem that the proper
thing for us to do is adjourn for a matter of perhaps
five minutes, or for a sufficient period of time to allow
the nameplates to be changed and the representative
of China to assume the presidency. As I say, the rule
is specific. I can imagine occasions on which it would
be extremely important that the presidency should
change at midnight on the appropriate day. Therefore,
if I might, I would suggest that we do precisely that.

319. Mr. KHARLAMOY (Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics) (interpretation from Russian): 1 will be
100 times briefer than a previous speaker who will
soon be Council President. I take his whole speech
as an April Fool’s joke on the part of the new President.

320. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
[ think we should proceed as suggested by the representative of the United Kingdom and suspend the
meeting. However, as no representative has asked for
the floor, the meeting is adjourned.

The meeting rose on Thursday, | April, at 12.15 a.m.

Notes

VA/AC.115/1L.430, p. 11.

2 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol, 119, p. 3.

3 Ibid. , vol. 721, p. 324.

4 Ibid. vol. 21, p. 77.

S Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirtieth Session,
Plenary Meetings, 2434th meeting.

6 See resolution 387 (1976).
BR KL FREE IAT ITY NOLIN Jey FEVR 0 IER YER EO JO JK
Cir gol apg pelt ede saat YT Ji

fe ERR 4 [EI AR
REE BLEAS Pr 7E SHE 9-8 Ho) SR HOS SESH ALOE, LANE 0K SINTER BS (A EH 4 SE) ON CRG TE SH Eh

HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS

United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the
world, Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva.

COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES

Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences dépositaires du
monde entier. Informez-vous auprés de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section
des ventes, New York ou Genéve.

KAK TOJIYYMTH H3JAHH I OPTAHH 3AIMH OK'BE/IMHEHHbBIX HAILUM

Haganus Oprarnsauun O6beAuHeHHBIX Hauufl MOXKHO KYMHTb B KHHKHLhIX MATa-SHHAX H AreHTCTBAX BO BCeX pafloHax mupa, HaBojuTe Crpaskd of H3JaHHAX B
BalieM KHIDKHOM MATa3HHe HM NHIUHTe no aapecy: Opranusalna OO6bhegHHeHHBIX
Hanuft, Cexuna no npogaxce HanaHui, Huio-Hopk nau XeHera,

COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estdn en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en
todas partes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccidn de Ventas,
Nueva York o Ginebra.

Litho in United Nations, New York 09500 83-60801—August 1984-2200

Voting Summary
Yes: 010 | No: | Abstentions: 005 | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership:
Y BENIN
A CHINA
A FRANCE
Y GUYANA
A ITALY
A JAPAN
Y LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Y PAKISTAN
Y PANAMA
Y ROMANIA
Y SWEDEN
Y USSR
A UNITED KINGDOM
Y UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Y UNITED STATES