March 25, 1977(1)
I should like to thank the African Group and the three African members of the Security Council for having once again sponsored me to take part in the debate on South Africa. For me, as a South African and as one involved in the international campaign to end collaboration with apartheid, it is a special pleasure and honour to appear once again, for the third time, before the Council and provide it with information which may enable it to discharge its solemn responsibilities more effectively.
Mr. President, most of us who have known of your record of personal involvement in the struggle to combat racism were pleased to hear of your appointment as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, since it signifies the new importance placed by President Carter on the problem now under consideration by the Security Council.(2)
The fact that these meetings of the Council are presided over by you is also of special significance, and with these favourable portents it should not be too difficult for the Council to reach meaningful decisions which will result in the strict implementation of the international arms embargo and the cessation of all future loans to and investments in South Africa. In saying this, I do not underestimate the difficulties involved, but I am mindful of the ever threatening situation in southern Africa, which could so easily erupt into a major racial conflagration with menacing implications of a wider global confrontation. The responsibility of the international community to avert such a catastrophe has never been greater than it is today.
The international arms embargo against South Africa has been considered to be the only effective action taken so far by the United Nations to counteract apartheid. It is essentially a voluntary embargo relying on the goodwill and national discretion of Member States. Even a cursory examination of the operation of that embargo reveals its only partial implementation and the danger of a gradual erosion.
South Africa is able to obtain a wide range of military equipment directly from several countries and it continues to expand its domestic arms industry with the active and often enthusiastic cooperation of certain Western countries and their arms firms. It is therefore inevitable that all those concerned at South Africa's rapid military build-up and the threat which this poses to the peace and security of Africa and the world should call for a mandatory and comprehensive arms embargo. But the growing demand for a mandatory arms embargo has been firmly resisted by the principal Western Powers, with triple vetoes being cast in the Council to block such action, thus giving encouragement to the Pretoria regime.
The international arms embargo is being evaded in a number of ways. Let me explain. Prior to the United Nations embargo decisions, the United Kingdom was South Africa's major arms supplier and close ally. Since then, successive Governments have observed the embargo in different ways, and it would be true to say that, in the main, the United Kingdom does not supply any combat equipment directly to the Pretoria regime today. The United Kingdom claims to implement the arms embargo: yet the way in which it interprets and applies it leaves gaping loopholes which permit the apartheid armed forces to obtain a wide range of British equipment.
The following are examples of this. First, the Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1970, prohibits the export of certain specified strategic items to other countries listed in a schedule, but those items may be exported without licence to any "port or destination in the Commonwealth, the Republic of Ireland, the Republic of South Africa or the United States of America". It is remarkable that South Africa should be accorded a special favoured-nation status, which is denied to most Western European countries, including members of the European Economic Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Thus, a wide range of equipment may be and is supplied to the South African armed forces by British companies without a licence being required. In one example last year, we drew the attention of the Foreign Secretary to this gap, an action which resulted in a licence being required for the Marconi tropospheric scatter system. However, subsequently, despite the control exercised by the Government, that licence was granted and Marconi is now installing such equipment in South Africa. We are requesting that the British Government take away this favoured-nation status from South Africa.
Second, even in the case of goods which do require a licence, it is not clear which items are considered to be of military significance and covered by the embargo. For example, the tropospheric scatter system which I mentioned, ordered by the South African Armaments Board, was granted a licence last October, and Her Majesty's Government claims that this does not violate British undertakings in relation to the arms embargo. There is a whole problem here of ascertaining what those undertakings amount to, since it appears that they limit the scope of the existing embargo.
Third, there is the whole question of the supply of spare parts for equipment already sold to South Africa -- a clear violation of the embargo perpetrated in virtue of the claim that the country is bound by honour to discharge its obligations arising out of old orders.
Fourth, an indirect method of providing South Africa with military equipment is to send it via another country. A recent example was the export of British rocket motors transported by Martin Baker Limited to France and then exported to South Africa.
Fifth, British-designed equipment is made under licence in a third country and then exported to South Africa. The most flagrant example in this area involves Rolls Royce engines made under sub-licence in Italy and then either fitted to Italian aircraft sold to South Africa or exported to South Africa to power Italian-designed Aermacchi planes which are made in South Africa.
Sixth, there is the whole question of British-designed equipment made in South Africa under licence, which also assists in building up the internal armaments industry in South Africa.
Seventh, British companies have established subsidiaries and invested in South African companies in order to make weapons there which might otherwise be prohibited for export by the embargo. Such equipment made in South Africa is supplied to the illegal Smith regime to increase its suppression of the people of Zimbabwe and to carry out attacks on neighbouring countries. For example, Racal "Transcriver" equipment made by a British subsidiary in South Africa, was captured by the Mozambique authorities following one of the attacks by Rhodesian forces against that country. All the relevant information was provided by us to the British Government, since it also involved a breach of sanctions against Rhodesia, and I have now been assured by Mr. Ted Rowlands of the Foreign Office that sanctions have in fact been broken in this case, that the equipment is of a type designed, developed and manufactured only in South Africa by Racal but that Racal there claims that it would not be a party to the supply of such equipment to Rhodesia. We find it difficult to believe that Rhodesia could receive such equipment except from South Africa.
I have spoken at length about the United Kingdom, but that is not because we feel that it is the major culprit, since the United Kingdom in fact is not now the principal supplier of arms to South Africa. That role has been taken over by France. But what is true of the United Kingdom in these cases and in the categories which I have mentioned is also equally true of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany - all three countries claiming to observe the arms embargo. Those countries also supply a wide range of non-combat equipment under the general policy of not interfering with trade in industrial or commercial items even when such items are purchased directly by the South African military.
German firms have helped to construct the Advokaat naval communications system based near Simonstown, but this is considered not to be a violation of the embargo.
There is also the case of the Transall military transport aircraft supplied to the South African armed forces, which is a joint French-German plane being sold to South Africa via France without the German Government vetoing its sale.
In the case of the United States, a wide range of radar and other communications equipment as well as aircraft described as civilian are sold to South Africa. The United States claims to implement the arms embargo and declares that no aircraft are supplied to the South African armed forces. How has it come about then, we wonder, that South Africa has received Merlin aircraft for its air force? The South African Air Force has received twin-engined Swearingen Merlin 4As from the United States. The August 1976 issue of the South African aviation journal Wings reported that the aircraft were acquired by 21 Squadron a year ago, but that Commandant Robert Blake, South African Air Force public relations officer, said it was decided not to publicise the addition until the order was completed. One of the Merlins is equipped as an ambulance aircraft and the others are secret. The exact number of Merlins supplied directly to the South African Air Force is not even known. Here is a case of equipment which directly violates the United States interpretation of its own embargo.
The two countries which are now the most blatant in their violation of the embargo are France and Italy. France has replaced Britain as South Africa's major arms supplier and there is virtually nothing needed by the apartheid regime which is prohibited by France. Sophisticated helicopters and other aircraft, including alouettes and Mirage F-1 planes are sold to South Africa, and many are now being made in that country. An examination of South Africa's military hardware bears dramatic testimony to France's role in strengthening the apartheid forces. Indeed, military collaboration between those countries is so intimate and close that South Africa funded the initial development of the Crotale missile system made in France which is now being passed on by France to other countries as if it were a wholly French product. Despite repeated appeals, France remains adamant and continues to increase its military collaboration with South Africa.
Italy is the other major violator of the arms embargo. It has supplied the Aermacchi MB326Ms and provided a licence for over 200 of them to be made in South Africa under the name Impala I. The more modern Aermacchi 326K has also been sold to South Africa, and a version of it is now being made in South Africa under the name Impala II. AM3Cs have also been sold to South Africa, and more are to be made locally under the name Bostock. The Aermacchi-Lockheed AL60C5, a United States-designed light plane produced in Italy, is being made in South Africa under the name Kudu. Those are all aircraft particularly suited to counter-insurgency operations. The Italian Government denies at the United Nations and elsewhere that it sells aircraft to South Africa or sub-licences them for manufacture in that country. In a meeting I had at the Foreign Ministry last October, those denials were once again repeated to me. How is it possible, we wonder, that hundreds of aircraft of Italian origin should have been delivered to and should be in the hands of the South African regime - and that hundreds more should be manufactured there under licence - without the knowledge of the Italian Government?
From all this it becomes clear that the arms embargo is not being strictly implemented by several Member States and that there is need for a mandatory and all-embracing embargo.
The United Kingdom, the United States and Germany claim to adhere to the embargo, but as a result of the narrow way in which they interpret and implement that embargo there are major loopholes that need to be closed. France and Italy openly violate the embargo. Canada, which once supplied arms to South Africa, now operates perhaps the strictest embargo, having decided in 1970 to stop all sales of spare parts as well. But, in the absence of a mandatory embargo, there are other countries, such as Israel, which are embarking on arms sales to South Africa. So far, Israel has contracted to supply fast naval patrol boats equipped with Gabrielle missiles, some of which are now to be made in South Africa, and it is likely that there will be further equipment delivered to the Pretoria regime.
The need for a mandatory arms embargo thus becomes clear. But the Security Council should ensure that such an embargo will be comprehensive and cover all forms of military collaboration. There is no ban at present on the exchange of visits between South African defence officials and those of several Western countries. In 1974, a certain Mr. van Zyl, a senior South African defence official, secretly visited defence establishments and arms firms in France, the Netherlands, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. Following representations made by us in the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence stated that he had discussed procedures for placing research contracts and methods and procedures. South Africa needs to obtain considerable information on counter-insurgency techniques and operations, including surveillance techniques, and visits such as those enable them to acquire it with ease. That must be stopped.
In June 1975, when I appeared before the Council, we provided evidence which proved beyond doubt that the NATO Codification System for Spares and Equipment had been provided to South Africa. Since then, I have taken the matter up with all members of NATO, as well as with its Headquarters at Brussels. Last May, when the NATO Ministerial Council met at Oslo, we called upon NATO to withdraw the Codification System from South Africa and to cease providing it with classified or unclassified information. Several friendly countries, including Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, responded favourably, but some of the other members of that alliance maintain that this is an open system and that they see no reason for withholding it from South Africa. Among those countries which provide information about that codification system to South Africa are the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Germany. In May of this year, the NATO Ministerial Council is due to meet in London just prior to the Commonwealth Conference in June, and we shall repeat our appeal to the NATO Ministers. We hope that the United Nations will be able to assist us so that the stand already taken by some of the friendly countries within that alliance may be supported by other NATO members.
Another area which needs to be covered is that concerning South African nationals who leave that country in order to avoid being conscripted or serving in its armed forces. There are today a number of such persons who are beginning to reach the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States. Two of them in the United Kingdom applied for political asylum last year and, to our surprise, we learned only a few weeks ago that they had been refused asylum by the British Government on the grounds that their fear of being persecuted in South Africa was not well founded. Those two persons have appealed and a number of parliamentarians have taken up their case and I hope that the British Government will not repatriate them. But, as the conflict sharpens in South Africa and more and more persons desert from the service of the apartheid forces, it is vital that Member States afford full and proper protection to such persons.
It has been claimed by the Western permanent members of the Council in the past that the situation in southern Africa does not amount to a threat to peace. I would submit that since those Powers concluded in 1960, immediately after Sharpeville, that the situation at that time did constitute a disturbance of the peace, we have now, after 16 years, come to a stage where all the objective evidence points to more than adequate grounds for determining that there is a threat to peace under Chapter VII of the Charter.
First, apartheid, a doctrine which insults the dignity and worth of dark-skinned people all over the world, is an affront to mankind as a whole, and in itself constitutes a grave threat to a world in which there are peoples of many colours.
Second, the persistent repression of the oppressed people in South Africa has created an explosive situation to which Mr. Palme referred earlier(3) and which is likely to lead to a major conflagration in that area.
Third, South Africa's rapid arms buildup and its threatening military posture towards neighbouring African countries reveal its true aggressive ambitions.
Fourth, South Africa has militarised Namibia, created military bases in that international Territory and refuses to end its illegal occupation. That amounts to a threat to the peace as well as an act of aggression against that Territory and the world community. And while we at the United Nations are talking about the Turnhalle agreements, the South African Government has just announced that it is going to introduce legislation to take over Walvis Bay and make it an integral part of the Cape province.
Fifth, South Africa sabotages United Nations mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia and provides it with military assistance, thereby perpetuating Rhodesia's threat to the peace. Indeed, it was the United Kingdom which brought the Rhodesian issue to the Security Council and asked that it be declared a threat to the peace. If South Africa does not comply with the sanctions against Rhodesia, then the Council has a clear duty to apply mandatory sanctions against the major sanctions buster.
Sixth, South Africa has attacked and invaded neighbouring African States and threatens to continue to do so.
Seventh, its defence laws now permit its armed forces to operate freely in all territories south of the equator.
Despite all this, some Powers refuse to accept that South Africa is a threat to world peace, and one wonders what else South Africa has to do before that determination is conceded.
Most of the major Western Powers claim that they do not support the African liberation struggle in southern Africa because of their commitment to peaceful change in southern Africa. Those countries are entitled to that view and indeed bear the consequences of such a policy. But what in my view is impossible to accept is a peaceful change thesis which involves supplying military weapons and technology to one side of that confrontation in southern Africa, namely the racist apartheid side. Those Western countries should not wait for mandatory arms embargo decisions in order to cease their military collaboration with apartheid. Indeed, the United States, in 1963, informed the Council that it had already decided to implement an arms embargo before such a decision was adopted by the Council. Yet it is those Western Powers which use their veto power in the Council to facilitate military collaboration with South Africa.
Now with the rapid transfer of nuclear technology and equipment to South Africa by several Western countries, it has been confirmed by Prime Minister Vorster as well as by overseas sources that South Africa has a nuclear capability, and if South Africa does not already have atomic weapons it can produce them very quickly. With its modern aircraft it has the means of delivery. We have, therefore, the prospect of an apartheid bomb in the hands of a desperate regime. Yet it is claimed that there is no threat to peace.
There is widespread international concern at the growing threat posed by South Africa, and that is why tens of thousands of British citizens have signed a petition calling for a mandatory arms embargo. We handed this petition to the new Foreign Secretary on Monday of this week when the Council began this debate. Incidentally, the Council may be pleased to hear that Mr. Owen gave us the assurance that some of the loopholes to which I have referred under the Export of Goods (Control) Order would be looked at afresh with a view to ensuring that they would be closed. We hope indeed that this kind of action will be supported by other Western Governments as well.
In our view, a mandatory arms embargo is long overdue. The growing war situation in southern Africa requires even more decisive action if we are to avoid a catastrophe described by Vorster as being too ghastly to contemplate. He should know what he is planning. It is therefore vital that the Security Council impose mandatory sanctions against South Africa. Nothing short of that action will serve to avert the impending disaster. However, the permanent Western members continue to oppose such action. Their policies have always been based on the consideration that there must be no confrontation with South Africa. Whether we look at their policy with regard to Namibia or Rhodesia or other Territories in that region, the primary consideration seems to be that there must be no confrontation with apartheid. This no confrontation policy emanates precisely from those countries with substantial economic interests in South Africa and it is they who also argue that increased investment in apartheid will somehow bring about our freedom. We reject that contention.
It is time for the Western permanent members of the Security Council to decide which side they are on. Last year in March, the Prime Minister of Norway warned the Western world that, with regard to southern Africa, it had too often been identified with the wrong side and that it was time for it to change sides. At the opening of the NATO Ministerial Council meeting at Oslo, he gave the same warning and stated that there should be no doubt as to where the alliance members stood in the battle between the white minorities and the overwhelming black majorities in southern Africa. Yet this is a lead which is not yet being followed by most of the Western Powers. If the Western countries are on the side of freedom, they can agree to a number of initial steps to be adopted by the Council immediately.
The first would be to enforce a strict arms embargo and vote in favour of its being made mandatory by the Security Council; the second, to ban all future loans to and investments in South Africa. If those two minimal measures are supported, then one can at least hope that there will be further action on the part of the Council to take decisive measures against South Africa. But the key question is whether the political will exists to confront apartheid. This debate and the decisions taken here will give an indication to the world of the degree of change that we can expect from Western policy. South Africa is immensely encouraged when vetoes are used in the Council to protect it from international action.
Mention has already been made of the fact that today the problems of race and colour present perhaps the greatest single threat to world peace and security. The policy of the new Administration in Washington gives us considerable grounds for hope and we trust that it will be able, under your leadership, Mr. President, to give a decisive lead to other Western Powers. We are indeed at a turning point in the affairs of southern Africa in so far as the United Nations is concerned. If no firm action in the form of the minimal steps that we have indicated is taken at this moment, then South Africa will go on feeling encouraged and interpreting opposition to mandatory action in this chamber to mean support for its policies in that region. The South African apartheid policies are bound to lead to disaster. But the greater danger is that that conflagration will extend to other territories in the region and will bring forward the prospect of a global racial confrontation. If that occurs, it will create a catastrophe of a kind from which it will take the world much longer to recover than it took from the last war. If that should happen, then the guilty elements will not be only the white rulers of South Africa.
We hope, therefore, that the expectations the world's peoples have placed in the Security Council will not be betrayed and that the Council will take decisive action to signal to the Pretoria regime that it can no longer go on ignoring debates and discussions at the United Nations and that we are seriously concerned to avert a racial disaster which looks almost inevitable in southern Africa.
(2) Andrew Young of the United States, a close colleague of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the civil rights movement, was President of the Security Council for the month of March 1977.
(3) Olof Palme, former Prime Minister of Sweden, spoke earlier atthe same meeting of the Security Council.