Page images

about the irresponsibility of those who employed by far the most destructive weaponry there. Furthermore, the operative part of the resolution unaccountably fails to set forth what should be a key requirement: that all states refrain from intervening in the affairs of Angola.

Thus, to the extent that the resolution reflects the efforts of this Council to deal with the problem of foreign involvement in Angola, in our judgment it falls badly short of that mark. It cites South Africa's unwarranted violation of Angola's territorial integrity, yet the resolution 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 an exercise in hypocrisy cannot further, in our judgment, this Council's discharge of its own responsibilities. Accordingly, the United States will abstain on this resolution, as strongly as we feel about the independence of African states.

For the full text of Ambassador Scranton's statement, see U.N. Doc. S/PV.1906, Mar. 31, 1976, pp. 99-100; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1922, pp. 56-561. The text of the resolution follows:

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 the 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;

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 neighboring 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

a 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 this resolution.

France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States abstained; the People's Republic of China did not participate in the vote.

Section 405 of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-329; 90 Stat. 758; 22 U.S.C.2293 note), approved June 30, 1976, sets forth the view of the U.S. Congress toward Soviet intervention in Angola as follows:

The Congress views the large-scale and continuing Soviet intervention in Angola, including active sponsorship and support of Cuban armed forces in Angola, as being completely inconsistent with any reasonably defined policy of détente, as well as with Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, the principle of noninterference in the affairs of other countries agreed to at Helsinki in 1975, and with the spirit of recent bilateral agreements between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Such intervention should be taken explicitly into account in United States foreign policy planning and negotiations. For the principle of noninterference agreed to at Helsinki, see sec. VI of the Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations Between States, Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), 1975 Digest, p. 9; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1888, Sept. 1, 1975, p. 325.

Section 110 of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1976 (P.L. 94-330; 90 Stat. 776), approved June 30, 1976, provides:

None of the funds appropriated or made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly, (A) the planning or carrying out of any assassination, or (B) the financing directly or indirectly any foreign political activity

or to otherwise influence any foreign election in peacetime. Respect for Sovereignty

The United States reaffirmed its adherence to the standard of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states in the debate at the U.N. Security Council following the Israeli rescue of aircraft hijacking hostages at Entebbe airport in Uganda on July 3, 1976. Ambassador William W. Scranton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, defended the action by Israel as an exercise of its right, flowing from the right of self-defense, to use limited force to protect its nationals, although involving a temporary breach of the territorial integrity of Uganda.

For a discussion of the incident and excerpts from statements by Ambassador Scranton and U.S. Representative W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., on July 12 and 14, 1976, respectively, see post, Ch. 3, § 6, pp. 150–153.

On July 30, 1976, the U.N. Security Council adopted by a vote of 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining, Resolution 393 (1976), condemning “the armed attack of South Africa” on July 11, 1976, against a camp in Zambia of a Namibian liberation organization. The resolution, inter alia,

- strongly condemned South Africa's raid as a flagrant violation of Zambia's sovereignty and territorial integrity;

demanded that South Africa stop using Namibia as a base for armed attacks against Zambia and other countries;

- commended Zambia and other "frontline" states for their “steadfast support of the people of Namibia in their legitimate struggle for the liberation of their country” from South Africa;

- declared that the liberation of Namibia and Zimbabwe [Southern Rhodesia) and elimination of a partheid are necessary for the attainment of justice and lasting peace in the region; and

– declared that if South Africa committed further violations of Zambia's territorial integrity the Council would meet again to consider adopting “effective measures” in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

Speaking after the vote, Ambassador William W. Scranton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, unequivocally opposed the violation of Zambia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, deplored the loss of life and destruction of property, and reiterated the U.S. view that South Africa has no legal right to administer Namibia, but he noted that the South African Government said it had no knowledge of the attack on the Sialola village. The United States believed, he said, that the Council could have produced a more careful and authoritative statement on the raid had there been an investigation, and he regretted that there was no inclination on the part of the members to authorize such an investigation. As a result, he stated, several paragraphs of the resolution contained language the United States considered too categorical in light of the available evidence. The United States also felt the resolution should have welcomed the current efforts to find solutions to Southern African problems and specifically encouraged every possible assistance to such efforts.

See Press Release USUN-85 (76), July 30, 1976. For the text of S.C. Res. 393 (1976), and the statement by Ambassador Scranton, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1939, Aug. 23, 1976, pp. 282-284.

Self-Determination General

The Third (Social and Humanitarian) Committee at the United Nations approved in 1976 a resolution on self-determination, calling for action to outlaw the use of mercenaries against liberation movements, demanding French withdrawal from the island of Mayotte, reaffirming the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, and condemning governments which do not acknowledge those rights. The resolution also condemned those governments, including members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which maintained relations with the “racist regimes of southern Africa." On November 30, 1976, in

Resolution 31/34, the General Assembly reaffirmed the committee action by a vote of 109-4 (U.S. -24. The United States in both instances voted "no" on the resolution.

Ambassador Jacob M. Myerson stated the U.S. position on October 26, in Committee III:

We wish first to note our regret at having to vote "no" on a resolution which in its title refers to self-determination. As has been pointed out in our statement under this item, the United States has, throughout its history, been committed to the right of individuals and peoples freely to determine their own destiniesnot least in southern Africa where my government has been making strenuous efforts in this sense. We sympathize with the draft resolution to the extent that it seeks to promote the realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and to express support for those people denied this right. However, in a number of instances the draft contains allegations or incorrect legal conclusions to which we must object, for example:

a. We find the vague and generalized condemnations of NATO allies unacceptable.

b. The resolution as a whole supports the idea that selfdetermination necessarily equates to independence. The United States view is that independence may or may not follow an act of self-determination, depending on what people themselves choose.

c. Operative paragraph one seems to give blanket unqualified endorsement to armed struggle.

d. Operative paragraph six is contrary to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and general international law in suggesting that individual combatants can be treated as “criminals” solely on the basis of the political acceptability of the cause for which they are fighting or the fact that they may be regarded as "mercenaries” by other parties to the issue in questions.

e. Operative paragraph eight tends to politicize, by singling out individual cases and ignoring others, the principle of selfdetermination, a principle that is best stated in completely impartial terms.

f. Finally, preambular paragraph six makes an unacceptable reference to obligation to comply with United Nations resolutions. We wish to note in this connection, that General Assembly resolutions are recommendatory, not mandatory. Press Release USUN-127(76), Oct. 26, 1976. Namibia

The United States joined in supporting Resolution 385(1976)of the United Nations Security Council, adopted unanimously on January 30, 1976, calling on South Africa to take steps for free elections, under U.N. supervision, for the whole of Namibia as one political entity, with the date, timetable, and modalities to be worked out by the Security Council. The resolution set a deadline of August 31, 1976, for reviewing South African compliance with its terms and, in the event of noncompliance, considering measures to be taken under the U.N. Charter. In a statement in the Security Council on January 30, Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, said:

I want to make it clear that it is in the context of Namibia, and in that context alone, that the United States has decided to vote affirmatively on the resolution which the Council has just adopted. . . . had we been discussing Angola, : : . it would have been incumbent upon this Council to examine all foreign intervention, including the non-African forces which are currently fighting there.

The resolution we have adopted reflects the view long held by my government regarding South African presence in Namibia and the view that the Namibian people, under U.N. supervision, must promptly be allowed to exercise freely their right to selfdetermination.

The United States believes ... that the correct interpretation of operative paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 concerning the means of U.N. supervision and control of the free elections in Namibia must be based on a reading of these three paragraphs together, as would be proper. It is clear that the Council is leaving open the exact form of U.N. supervision of these elections, leaving it to be worked out subsequently by the United Nations. We believe in this way the Council wisely avoids prejudging the exact nature of the U.N. role until this matter can be specifically considered. Under the operative paragraphs of Res. 385 (1976), the Security Council

1. Condemns the continued illegal occupation of the Territory of Namibia by South Africa;

2. Condemns the illegal and arbitrary application by South Africa of racially discriminatory and repressive laws and practices in Namibia;

3. Condemns the South African military build-upin Namibia and any utilization of the Territory as a base for attacks on neighboring countries;

4. Demands that South Africa put an end forthwith to its policy of bantustans and the so-called homelands aimed at violating the national unity and the territorial integrity of Namibia;

5. Further condemns South Africa's failure to comply with the terms of Security Council Resolution 366 (1974) of December 17, 1974;

6. Further condemns all attempts by South Africa calculated to evade the clear demand of the United Nations for the holding of free elections under United Nations supervision and control in Namibia;

7. Declares that in order that the people of Namibia be enabled to freely determine their own future, it is imperative that free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations be held for the whole of Namibia as one political entity;

8. Further declares that in determining the date, timetable and modalities for the elections in accordance with paragraph 7 above, there shall be adequate time to be decided upon by the Security Council for the purposes of enabling the United Nations to establish the necessary machinery within Namibia to supervise and control such elections, as well as to enable the people of Namibia to organize politically for the purpose of such elections;

9. Demands that South Africa urgently make a solemn declaration accepting the foregoing provisions for the holding of free elections in Namibia under United Nations supervision and control, undertaking to comply with the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of June 21, 1971, in regard to Namibia, and recognizing the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia as a nation;

10. Reiterates its demand that South Africa take the necessary steps to effect the withdrawal, in accordance with Resolutions 264 (1969), 269 (1969) and 366(1974), of


« PreviousContinue »