STATEMENT AT THE 2037^TH MEETING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

25 October 1977¹

Mr. President, our delegation attaches a great deal of importance to the fact that this session, whose historic task is to choose between action against apartheid, on the one hand, and inaction in favour of that inhuman system, on the other, meets under your presidency.²

The strong ties that bind the peoples of South Africa and India are well known to historians and international statesmen. Our two peoples have for centuries fought against a common enemy and for a common goal - the right to self-determination. As part of the British imperialist exploitation, at some stage, between 1860 and 1866, about 6,300 indentured Indians were transported to Natal, South Africa, from Madras and Calcutta. Little did the British colonialists realize that they were forging a situation that has resulted in the cementing of unbreakable brotherhood and solidarity between our two peoples. This has mani­fested itself in various forms, especially in the active role played by Mahatma Gandhi in the struggle against racial discrimination in South Africa, as well as in the fact that, at the very inception of the United Nations, India requested the inscription on the agenda of the problem of white supremacy in South Africa.

I am pleased to say that the oppressed South African people of Indian origin have remained loyal to this tradition. Under the leadership of the African National Congress, they continue to fight shoulder to shoulder with the African and Coloured peoples, as well with a steadily growing number of white democrats. One of them, Mac Maharaj, a well-known veteran of this struggle, a few days ago had the opportunity to petition the Special Committee against Apartheidon the occasion of the Day of Solidarity with the South African Political Prisoners. This was after his recent escape from restriction following the termination of 12 years of imprisonment on Robben Island, in the same section as such of our illustrious leaders as Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Ahmed Kathrada, the latter also of Indian origin, and Arthur Goldberg, a white, for whom the beginning of the forthcoming General Assembly debate on the question of apartheidon 7 November will mark the fifteenth anniversary of their condemnation to life imprisonment on Robben Island.

Mr. President, because of your country's resolute and unrelenting fight against apartheid, as well as your personal commitment and experience, we are confident that, under your presidency, the Council will adopt prompt and far-reaching punitive measures commensurate with the challenge before the international community today, there­by restoring the waning credibility of the Organization.

At this stage, I should like to depart briefly from my prepared statement. In keeping with African tradition, we have always been brought up to respect our elders. I speak following the representative of Saudi Arabia, who has, I believe, in good faith put before the Council what he considers pragmatic resolutions of the problem.³ I should be failing in my duty if I did not state that for the blacks in South Africa the principle of the right to self-determination was as precious as it is all over the world, and if I did not also recall that this principle of the right to self-determi­nation of the South African people had been endorsed by this Organization on several occasions, in particular by the Council, and, finally, if I did not state that the Organization had correctly rejected the policy of bantustans. To ad­vocate the transfer of blacks from South Africa to Namibia would be tantamount to supporting bantustanization, which we reject since that policy is the cornerstone of apartheid. It seeks to deprive the African people of their birthright, and I will seize the first available opportunity to recommend to my leadership that we discuss this problem with the friendly country that His Excellency represents. I have had occasion in the past of being part of a delegation that met with the late King Faisal, who assured us of his support; I am therefore convinced that the remarks made by the representative of Saudi Arabia today were made in a good spirit, but we should always ensure that our positions harmonize.

This series of Security Council meetings has been convened at the request of the 49 African Member States. We sincerely appreciate this swift action which un­doubtedly is hailed throughout the length and breadth of the African continent and welcomed by the justice-loving forces in the capitalist countries, and which enjoys the active support of the peoples and Governments of the non-aligned and socialist countries. The African National Congress sees it as proof of Africa's determination, at this decisive stage of our struggle, not to remain idle in the face of Vorster's unfolding programme of repression in South Africa and aggression beyond its borders, in preparation for what he described in the ultimatum he put in 1974 to the international community to accept Pretoria's apartheidor face an alternative "too ghastly to contemplate", as well as what he threatened in the wake of the 1967 Israeli aggression, when he declared: "Israel ate up the Arabs before breakfast; we can eat up black Africa before lunch".

The gravity of the subject before the Council today is without parallel. The closest example one can think of can only be of a hypothetical nature: humanity would probably have been saved from the holocaust into which it was plunged during the last world war if, in the 1930s, Adolph Hitler had dared to throw down so open a challenge to the international community as John Balthazar Vorster has done. For the benefit of those who might be inclined to find this equation an exaggeration, it is important to recall not only the ideological affinity and alliance of these racial bigots, but also that, if Hitler was better armed, his arsenal was not half as sophisticated as Vorster's and definitely excluded nuclear weapons. Vorster's internment for his part as the General of the Ossewa Brandwaag, a secret fifth ­column organization with a membership of 250,000, as well as his statement in 1942 that his organization stood for Christian nationalism - called fascism in Mussolini's Italy and national socialism in Hitler's Germany - must be borne in mind in considering the urgency of the action to be taken by the Council.

Like Ambassador Mahmoud Mestiri, the representative of Tunisia and spokesman of the African Group, I do not intend to dwell on the countless barbarous crimes that have been committed and continue to be committed by the Vorster regime in the alleged defence of Christian, Western and white civilization and as the alleged bulwark against the so-called penetration of communism in Africa, as Vorster never tires of claiming. However, it is important to note that this series of Security Council meetings provides the opportunity to those countries - especially the United States, France, Great Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Israel and others whose record of col­laboration with the apartheidregime is well known - to abandon this policy instantly and make common cause with the peoples and Governments of the world, in order to complement the efforts of the liberation movement to crush this cancerous system of apartheidand thus help prevent the poisoning of race relations for decades to come. The time is long overdue for them to demonstrate - not in words, not in rhetorical declarations intended as opium, perhaps, for the exploited, but by immediate and concrete action - that Hitler's erstwhile disciple, today the hangman of the South African and the Namibian people, the co-oppressor of the people of Zimbabwe, the aggressor of the Angolan and other States in the subcontinent, is not their regional gendarme. It is time to renounce by deeds statements made by some Western statesmen and strategists that the West cannot afford to go beyond verbal condemnation of apartheidbecause it is dependent on South Africa for trade, raw materials and strategic arrangements.

In sounding a warning to the Western countries that to this day are still trying to adjust to the situation in Angola and Mozambique, where they backed the losing horses by supporting Portuguese colonialism and later the puppet organizations, I shall quote our President, Oliver Tambo. Addressing the World Conference for Action against Apart­heidheld at Lagos [in August 1977], he declared:

"The racists and fascists in southern Africa for the time being enjoy the support of what they regard as powerful forces. However, we are armed with a just cause and a will to be free. Behind the struggle of our people for the seizure of power we have the peoples of the world represented at this Conference, the invincible concerted international support of the anti-racist, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist forces of the world, composed of the democratic, socialist and progressive peoples and States”.

I should like at this stage to affirm, in the name of the African National Congress, that support of our organization is support for the establishment of a democratic and non-racial South Africa, as enshrined in the Freedom Charter. The Freedom Charter, which I request the permis­sion of the President to circulate to members of the Council,⁴ was adopted by the oppressed people for the establishment of a just and equitable society. It states, among other things, that South Africa belongs to all those who live in it and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people.

If the murder of Steve Biko, the detention of Percy Qoboza and Donald Woods and the banning of all non-violent organizations known to some leading Western diplomats do not prove the fascist character of the Vorster regime, I can only repeat what I once said to Ambassador Andrew Young, that is, that if his activities as a civil rights leader in the South had been carried out in South Africa against apartheidhe would have been incarcerated in Robben Island, convicted under either the Suppression of Communism Act or some other draconian legislation. For, according to the regime’s legislation, any person who strives for social, political and economic change is a Communist.

The United Nations has been paving the way for action against the apartheidregime since 1960 when, in the wake of the Sharpeville massacre, the Security Council called upon the South African regime

"to initiate measures aimed at bringing about racial harmony based on equality in order to ensure that the present situation does not continue or recur, and to abandon its policies of apartheidand racial discrimination". [Resolution 134 (1960).]

In 1963, in its resolution 181 (1963), the Council did not stop at strongly deprecating the policies of South Africa in its perpetuation of racial discrimination but went further and called upon it to liberate all persons im­prisoned, interned or subjected to other restrictions for having opposed the policy of apartheid. It also solemnly called upon all States to cease forthwith the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition of all types and military vehicles to South Africa.

In the same year, in its resolution 182 (1963), the Council expressed the conviction that the situation in South Africa seriously disturbed international peace and security.

In its resolution 282 (1970), after recalling its resolu­tions on the arms embargo, the Council expressed the conviction that the situation resulting from the continued application of the policies of apartheidand the continued South African acquisition of arms and military equipment from a number of Member States and by local manufacture of arms and ammunition under licences constituted a potential threat to international peace and security. Further, it recognized that the extensive arms build-up of the military forces of South Africa posed a real threat to the security and sovereignty of independent African States opposed to the racial policies of the South African regime, in particular the neighbouring States.

In its resolution 311 (1972), the Council recognized the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressed people of South Africa in pursuance of their human rights as set forth in the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and called upon all States to observe strictly the arms embargo against South Africa.

Finally, in its resolution 392 (1976), the Council strongly condemned the South African regime for its resort to massive violence against and killings of the African people including schoolchildren and students and others opposing racial discrimination, and reaffirmed that the policy of apartheidwas a crime against the conscience and dignity of mankind and seriously disturbed international peace and security.

The countless condemnations of and appeals to the South African regime by the international community through the United Nations have been ignored with impunity. The same goes for the appeals to some States which have continued their economic, diplomatic and military collaboration with the Pretoria regime. The result has been the intensification of repression and repeated massacres, as well as the aggression against Angola, the continued occupation of Namibia, economic and military support for the Smith regime, economic aggression against Lesotho, the repeated violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of land-locked States such as Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and the blessing of the repeated acts of aggression committed by the Ian Smith regime against Mozambique and Zambia.

To the overwhelming majority of Member States - except for the major trading partners, some of whom have increased their military collaboration with the Pretoria regime by furnishing it with licences which enable it to be virtually self-sufficient in the production of war equipment and supplying it with the technological know-how for producing atomic weapons - the South African regime constitutes a threat to peace and international security. This position of the Western countries has become inde­fensible in the light of the regime's new Defence Act, in terms of which it arrogates to itself the right to intervene militarily in all African countries south of the equator. Its bellicose position, which went to the extent of dismissing the President of the United States as irrelevant, and indeed saying this of all the countries that have hitherto delayed action by the international community on the basis that they have the collective leverage to exert pressure on Vorster, must be seen against the background of its nuclear capability. It is now up to the Western countries to take the initiative by expanding the punitive measures provided for in the four draft resolutions submitted by Benin, Libya and Mauritius on 29 March this year [S/12309 to S/12312].

We welcome the proposals made by Ambassador Mahmoud Mestiri and other speakers, such as the represen­tative of Benin, that nothing less than the immediate imposition of economic sanctions and a mandatory arms embargo, as well as the oil embargo, would be an adequate response to the challenge facing the international com­munity. As Ambassador Mestiri has correctly pointed out, despite the fact that the Vorster regime has launched a war of aggression against the oppressed South African people, relying upon weapons from the West, we are not asking the Western countries to send troops to South Africa. As our President said at Lagos:

"Our people, under the leadership of the African National Congress, recognize and accept the challenge with which history has confronted us. Our revolution can only be the product of our own efforts and we shall not shirk our duty. The assistance and support we ask of the world, by implementing these proposals, can help create more favourable conditions for victory which cannot be denied our people”.

In conclusion, I wish to say that today the attention of the world is focused on the deliberations at this meeting, and we are confident that the Council will rise to the expectations of progressive mankind.