STATEMENT AT THE 2194^TH MEETING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

31 January 1980¹

Mr. President, we thank you most sincerely for giving us this opportunity to speak.²

The African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) attaches a great deal of importance to the debate now being held in the Security Council, for we are convinced that the explosive situation prevailing in Zimbabwe has a direct bearing on the permanently explosive situation obtaining in South Africa.

We commend the African Group on the speedy implementation of the resolution on Southern Rho­desia taken at the recent session of the Liberation Committee of OAU that called for the urgent convening of the Security Council. The unfolding situa­tion in Southern Rhodesia has been aggravated and rendered more explosive by the numerous violations of the Lancaster House Agreement being committed by the Government of the United Kingdom.

We salute the African Ministers who have taken the time to come here and present the African view­point - a viewpoint that is shared by all the African leaders and peoples, as well as the rest of progressive mankind. The urgency with which they have reacted to this prevailing situation is eloquent testimony to independent Africa's loyalty to the sacred objective conceived by the founding fathers of OAU - that is, the total liberation of the African continent, including South Africa. It inspires us with the hope that, despite the highly orchestrated campaign waged by the Western media to derail the struggle for liberation and genuine independence in southern Africa, the vigilance manifested by OAU will help foil all the imperialist manoeuvres designed to perpetuate the plunder of Africa's riches and the exploitation of its peoples in southern Africa.

The international community recalls that it was in the wake of the dissolution of the Federation of Rho­desia and Nyasaland and the accession to indepen­dence by Zambia and Malawi, which ensued after a bitter struggle, that the die-hard racists proclaimed the so-called unilateral declaration of independence in Southern Rhodesia. It will also be recalled that in the face of that rebellion, characterized as "treason", the British Government stubbornly refused to use force against its "kith and kin". It was then that the people of Zimbabwe took up arms and appealed for support from the independent African countries and other justice-loving nations. In their wisdom and magnanimity, the independent African countries, which had correctly seen the birth of Ian Smith's creation as the extension of the fascist Pretoria regime - and at that time that regime was rearing its ugly head with impunity, as it continues to do - decided against mobilizing the international community to join them and wage war to crush that illegal regime. Instead, they supported Britain's initiative towards the imposition of sanctions, on the basis that the Ian Smith regime constituted a threat to peace and inter­national security. Today it is common knowledge that the South African regime systematically flouted the Security Council decision by bolstering Ian Smith's regime economically and militarily. The apartheidregime made no secret of its strategy. It declared that the white man was to remain "master" for ever in South Africa. Mindful of the fact that it was sitting on a powder-keg, it lent its military support not only to the Smith regime, but also to the erstwhile Portuguese colonial empire in Mozambique and Angola. Its aim was to help perpetuate the status quo in those terri­tories which served as protective belts around South Africa.

In the wake of the collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire, thanks to the heroic struggle waged by the people of Guinea-Bissau, Angola and Mozam­bique, the struggle in Zimbabwe entered a new stage of ever-escalating armed conflict.

Convinced of the correctness of the position taken by the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana from 3 to 9 September 1979, which declared that "southern Africa as a whole constituted one single theatre of operations, in which apartheidSouth Africa was the central strategic issue", the ANC decided it could not stand idly by and watch the people of Zimbabwe fight the combined Rhodesian and South African forces. In its efforts to wage the armed strug­gle recognized as legitimate by the United Nations, it ordered its armed forces not to surrender when and if they made contact with the Rhodesian troops in transit on their way to South Africa. Some of them were captured on the battlefield and sentenced to death by the Smith regime, which later commuted those sentences to life imprisonment. They remain imprisoned in Southern Rhodesia to this very day.

In his statement to the Council yesterday, Sir Anthony Parsons, the representative of the United Kingdom, said: "An amnesty has been granted for all acts in furtherance of, or resistance to, the illegal declaration of independence".  The 18 or 20 ANC members - two are believed to have died in prison - were captured while participating in the struggle of resistance to the uni­lateral declaration of independence. And only the day before yesterday we received information that they were about to be deported to South Africa, where they would certainly be prosecuted and possibly executed. We call on the British Government, which has fully assumed administrative authority in Southern Rhodesia, to take appropriate action to secure the release of these men.

I must add that the message from our President, Oliver Tambo, also instructed me to request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to persuade the British Government to secure the release of our compatriots. I am encouraged by the report I received from the office of the Secretary-General that the representative of the United Kingdom has given the assurance that these freedom fighters will in no circum­stances be sent to South Africa. In expressing our appreciation for that assurance, we should like to appeal for the speedy solution of this problem.

A number of speakers have expressed indigna­tion at the presence of South African troops in Southern Rhodesia. We join them in condemning this as a violation of the Lancaster House Agreement. It is common knowledge that at the Lancaster House Con­ference, the British Government opposed the use of United Nations or Commonwealth forces. It also opposed the use of a sufficiently big force to monitor effectively and enforce the cease-fire.

Today, a country that has distinguished itself by its systematic opposition to and violation of United Nations decisions is being unilaterally assigned the role of gendarme in Southern Rhodesia on the basis that its troops are present to protect the vital lines of communication. That is not only unacceptable to the African people as a whole, but also makes us suspect that it is part of the global South African strategy to ensure the imposition to power of the Smith-­Muzorewa axis, whose military pact with the apart­heidregime of South Africa is intended to constitute the basis for the formation of the so-called constel­lation of States of southern Africa. The recent bombing and destruction of Zambia's bridges and rail links, except the one linking it with Southern Rhodesia, must be seen as part of this strategy.

All the speakers who preceded us stressed the fact that the small contingent of troops reported to be protecting the Beit Bridge was but an insignificant part of the larger South African force deployed all over the country and integrated into the Rhodesian army. When we listen to the South Africa Radio propaganda, it becomes clear that the presence of South African troops in Southern Rhodesia is viewed by Pretoria as legitimate and that it is part of South Africa's role as an ally of the Western world to prevent the assumption of power by the Patriotic Front. We must not forget that South Africa has arrogated to itself the right to intervene militarily in all African countries south of the equator. We must not forget that not long ago, Botha declared that, if the Patriotic Front were to win the elections in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa would intervene.

Finally, it is our humble submission that the call on the British Government to secure the imme­diate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of South African troops and strict adherence to the Lancaster House Agreement is a friendly act towards Britain. Those of us who read the Washington Post yesterday will agree that the danger to peace and international security which the apartheid regime constitutes has today reached the point where it calls for immediate action in the form of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions. It is in the long-term interests of Britain and its allies to join Africa and progressive mankind in helping eradicate this inhuman system from southern Africa.