Meeting on I5 March 1978, the Copies of Which Were Transmitted to the Council

ParI II 32s _~---._--._--.

At the end of the 2060th meeting the President stated consider the latest premeditated and unprovoked act of that there were no further speakers on his list and if aggression against Zambia’s sovereignty and territorial members of the Council had no objections the next integrity by forces of the rebel minority regime in meeting of the Security Council to continue consider- Southern Rhodesia. Rebel Rhodesian forces, using in- ation of the complaint by Chad would be held on 21 fantry troops and war planes, had violated Zambian February 1978. territory between 6 and 8 March in the Lungwa (Feira) district on the Zambia side of the Zambezi River. Five De&Ion: deletion of the item from the list of matters of members of the Zambia National Dcfence Forces had which the Council is seized been reported killed and 20 innocent civilians injured. By letter I*** dated I8 February 1978 addressed to the The complaint by Zambia was supported by mes- President of the Security Council, the representative of sagesrUt from the Commonwealth Secretary-General, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated that following the representative of Upper Volta, on behalf of the discussions among representatives of the Sudan, Chad African Group of States, and the Co-ordinating Bureau and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya at Tripoli between 16 of Non-Aligned Countries condemning the act of ag- and 18 February, a trilateral joint communique had gression by the Rhodesian rebels and urging the Securi- been issued, as well as a bilateral joint press community Council to protect the territorial integrity of Zambia. que of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Sudan, At the 2068th meeting on I5 March 1978, the copies of which were transmitted to the Council. Security Council included the letter dated 9 March By letterr6” dated 21 February 1978 addressed to the 1978 from the representative of Zambia in its agenda President of the Security Council, the representative of and considered the item during its 2068th to 2070th Chad also transmitted the text of the Chad-Libyan- meetings from 15 to I7 March 1978. During its Sudanese joint communique. deliberations the Council decided to invite the reprcsent- In the penultimate paragraph of the joint communi- atives of Botswana, Cuba, Egypt, the German Demo- que, it was stated that the Chad delegation had decided cratic Republic, Ghana, Jamaica, Mozambique, the to withdraw its complaint to the Security Council and to United Republic of Tanzania, the Upper Volta, Vie1 work for the restoration of diplomatic relations between Nam and Zambia to participate, without vote, in the Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. discussion of the item.ra* At the 2069th meeting on 16 In a Ietter’b” dated 22 February 1978 addressed to March 1978, the Council also decided to extend an the President of the Security Council, the representative invitation to Mr. George Silundika under rule 39 of the of Chad informed the President that the Government of provisional rules of procedure.‘*’ Chad had decided not to press for further consideration At the 2068th meeting on I5 March 1978, the of its complaint by the Council. Foreign Minister of Zambia warned that unless the root In a Ietter’“P dated 22 February 1978 addressed to cause of the Rhodesian problem was eliminated, the the President of the Security Council, the representative prospects of averting a generalized conflict engulfing the of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. noting that Chad had entire region were bound to recede irreversibly. HC decided to withdraw the complaint, assumed that the offered a detailed description of the latest Rhodesian Security Council had taken the necessary measures to attack which had come within hours of the signing of delete the item “Complaint by Chad” from the list of the so-called agreement at Sahsbury. He expressed his matters of which it was seized. Government’s appreciation that the Security Council On 23 February 1978, the Secretary-General drew had firmly rejected that internal settlement and indicat- the two above communications to the attention of the ed that Zambia was deeply worried about ominous members of the Security Council and proposed that if consequences of unbridled acts of aggression by the no objection was received by 27 February, the item Rhodesian regime which was trying to draw the front- “Complaint by Chad” should be deleted from the list of line States and their friends into direct conflict with matters of which the Security Council was scired. As no Southern Rhodesia. He stressed that the latest attack objections were received, the item was deleted from the was not directed against so-called guerrilla bases in list. Zambia nor was it a question of hot pursuit, but was a premeditated act of aggression against Zambia. Quoting COMPLAINT BY ZAMBIA words of President Kaunda he invoked Zambia’s right to retaliate in self-defence when its territorial integrity Decision of I7 March 1978 (2070th meeting): resolution was violated and asked the Government of the United 424 (1978) Kingdom to change the situation in Southern Rhodesia. By Ietterl”O dated 9 March 1978. the representative Since the colonial Power had so far refused to coerce the of Zambia requested the President of the Security Council to convene an urgent meeting of the Council to Ib*‘Scc S. 12593. rbtd, p S3. for the IIOIC of the President of Ihe SCCU~II) Council transmitting the statement by the Commonwalrh Sccre~ar)~Gcneral. S. 12594. ,btd, p 54. for the lerter dated 10 March I978 from the rcprtxnutwc of Lppw Volta: and S/12595. ibid. pp ‘6’6 Si I2508.OH. JJrJ veer .Supp/ JOI Jun \ltmh IV7R. pp 40-4 I 54.55. for a ICIIC~ also dated IO March from the rcprcsenral~ve Or Sri I*” S/I 2570. ibrd.. p 42 1 ankJ lranrmttrlng the ICXI of a communiquC by the Co-ordinaw ‘h’“S/12!72. rhrd. pp 42-41 BurcJu of Kion-All%ncd Countrlcr ‘“‘“S/12573. ibtd, p. 41 lha1 For dclrlk. ICC chrplcr 111 ‘-“S/l25119,ibtd.pp (I-5: I”’ For further details. see the same chapfer 32h Chaptrr \ Ill. Mainlrrmnrc of intcrnrlionnl pcrr’r and wrwil) -... ___. -._ .~ - . -. - -- .~. _-. . .

rcbcls into \ubmission, Zambia \s~~ld pursue other uinc majority rule in an independent Stntc of Zimba- avenue\ left to it. He recalled his Government’s efforts bwe. He referred to the Anglo-American plan as the to sc:k ;I negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and its best hope for a peaceful solution of the Rhodesinn crisis rccnmmcnda(ion urgently lo impost and cnforcc oil and indicated his delegation’s support for the draft 5nnctions against South hfrica itself under Chapter VII resolulion.~Mp of the C‘hartcr.16” The rcprescntativc of the USSR stated that thcrc H;I\ J‘he Icprehrntativc of Upper Volta. speahinp in his a direct connection bctwecn the attempts crt’ the \rhitc c,lp,lc‘lt!’ a\ Chairman of the African Group for the Rhodcsinn r+imc 10 irnposc the so-callct! intcrn:ll 111()nttt of Alarch, strongly condcmncd the Rhodcsian scttlcmcnt on the people of Zimbabwe and the :~ctb 01’ ;ttt;lch ;ind rcbtated the conviction of the African Group aggression against the front-line States. In the discus- th:lt the ~1) \\a! to prcscrvc the sccurily and pcircc in sion of the Zambian complaint, the Council sh~~uld s,\llthern .\Zfrlca wi\s to put an end to the existcncc of the dccidc on effcctivc measures to put an end II) the rC:gInIcs of %uthcrn Rhodesia ;\nd South Africlt. flc Rhodcsian aggression ;lnd to rcmovc the racilrt rtigtmc crk*cd the (‘cyuncil to condemn the act of aggrcs\ion The task of liber,tting the long-suffering pc~~plc OI ;I~.IIII,~ %ambi:l and to take mcasurcs to climin:rtc‘ the Zimbabwe from the colonial yoke could bc ACCOIII- nllrlc>rit! rkgirnc in Southern Rhodcsiit ‘Oh’ pliahcd by the dectsivc application of the most ~.ffcc~ivc ‘1 hc rcprchcnt;ltivc of the UnIted Republic of ‘T‘iln/a- sanctions against the rCgimes of Pretoria and SaIlsbury Iii.{ c;illcd for lhc ~limift~~lion of lltc rcbcl minoril) in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. includ- rCglmc in Southern Rhodesia and for a gcnuinc transfer ing an embargo on the dclivcry of pctrolcum prod- ol’ p-j\scr to the pcoplc of Zimb;jbwc. tic dcscribcd the ucts.‘“‘” latest Jtt:lck against Zambia as part of a systematic During the same meeting. the President put the draft c;tmp,lipn :qvin5t ncighbouring indcpcndent African resolution to the vote; it was adopted unanimously as Stntcs. whcrcby the Rhodcsian rigime tried to intcrna- resolution 424 (1978).‘“” It rcuds as follows: tion;llizc the:

1. Strong/y rondmvu the reccnl armed invablon perpetrated by also blown up. On the following day, two road bridges the illegal racrst minority rCgimc in the British colony of’ Southern near Rufunsa on the Great East Road linking Zambia Rhodesia agalnrl the Rcpubllc of Zambia. which conslilules a flagranl violrl,on of the sovcrcignty and terrtitorial mtcgrity of Zambia. and Malawi were destroyed. Kaleya bridge. in the 2 Comnwnd~~ the Rcpubllc of Zambir and other Cronl-llnc Stales southern province, and Chongwe bridge, on the Great for their contlnucd support of the people of Zlmbabwc in their JUSI East Road, wcrc destroyed by rebels on I9 November. and legitimate struggle for the attainment of freedom and indcpcn- These attacks on Zambia’s road and rail networks had dcnce and for their scrupulous rcslraint in the face of provocations by virtually cut off Zambia’s major transportation links the Rhodesian rebels; with the outside world. The Zambian representative 3 Rro//irmr that the liberation of Namibta and Zimbabwe and gave the following preliminary figures for the estimated the elimination or oporrhrtd in South Africa arc necessary for the attainment of justice and lasting peace in the region; cost of reconstructing the bridges: The total cost would 4. Co//s upon the Government ol the United Kingdom of Great come to SUS 10,024,000, with the road and rail bridge Britain and Northern Ireland. as the administering Power. IO take over the Chambeshi river coming to at least SUS prompt effective measures IO bring to a speedy end the existence of the 3,132,500. There was no doubt that the cost of recon- illegal racist minori1y rCgimc in the rcbcl colony of Southern struction would eventually far exceed this first estimate. Rhodesia. thereby ensuring the speedy attainment or indcpcndcncc under genuine majority rule and thus contributing to the promo1ion of He also informed the Council of other cases of durable peace and sccurlty m the region; aggression against Zambia which either had been com- 5 Drctdrs that. in the event ol lurthcr ac1s of violation of the mitted prior to the recent attacks or had involved South sovcrelgnty and 1crritorlal intcgrlty of Zambia by the illegal racist African troops. All these attacks were clear evidence mm&y riKlrne In Southern Rhodcrla. the Security Council will mcc1 that the aggression was directed against Zambia and agnln IO consider the adoption of more clfcctivc measures, in could not be camouflaged by Rhodesian claims that accordanrc wvlth the appropriate provisions ol the Charter ol the l:nltcd %~II~w.. lncludmg Chapter VII thereof. these acts occurred in pursuit of the freedom fighters of the Patriotic Front and did not involve the Zambian Decision of 23 November 1979 (217 1st meeting): reso- people. The attacks launched by the illegal Rhodesian lution 455 ( 1979) rCgimc had violated Zambia’s territorial integrity and By letter ‘(‘l dated 22 November 1979. the representa- sovereignty and disregarded all norms of international tive of Zambia requested an urgent meeting of the law as well as several Security Council and other United Security Council to consider the escalating and intensi- Nations resolutions. He expressed regret that the Gov- fied acts of aggression against his country by the illegal ernment of the United Kingdom had so far failed to rtgime in Southern Rhodesia. bring sanity to bear on the rebels in its colony and At the 217lst meeting on 23 November 1979, the instead tried to implicate Zambia, although the Zambi- Security Council included the question in its agenda and an people were the victims, not the initiators of the decided to invite the representative of the Libyan Arab Rhodesian struggle. Under these circumstances, were Jamahiriya to participate in the discussion without the the Zambians not justified in holding the administering right to VO~C.‘~” The Council considered the item at the Power responsible for the turn of events in the area? same meeting. The representative of Zambia concluded that his At the beginning of the meeting, the President drew Government would appreciate if the Council could set up an ad hoc committee from among its members and the attention of the Council members to the text of a instruct it to assist in the implementation of the draft resolutionlo” which was sponsored by Bangladesh, resolution to be adopted and to report back to the Gabon, Jamaica, Kuwait, Nigeria and Zambia. Council not later than I5 December. Such a step would The representative of Zambia spoke first and elabo- help to mobilize much needed international assistance to rated on the letter which he had submitted. He pointed Zambia arising from the prevailing international situa- out that since 1978, when his Govcrnmcnt had come to tion.‘“‘3 the Council to complain about Rhodesian aggression, The representative of Nigeria condemned the wanton the rebel Rhodesian forces had embarked more and acts of aggression by the illegal rlgime and indicated more on armed attacks. aerial raids and commando why the Rhodesian rebels had managed to survive all raids against Zambia, using even more sophisticated the strictures of international sanctions all those years. weapons against the Zambian civilian population and In his judgcment, the United Kingdom as administering refugee centrcs in different parts of the country. Similar Power had failed to assume its responsibilities for attacks had been undertaken against Mozambique, quelling the rebellion; the international sanctions had Botswana and Angola. often been breached with impunity; the international )Ic added that the recent attacks had created indeed a community had failed to defend the conventions and very grave situation. On I2 October 1979. the Chambe- laws of clvllized international conduct; but, above all, shi river rail bridge on the Tanzania-Zambia railway the racist rCgime of South Africa had shown contempt and the road bridge linking Zambia and Tanzania were for the United Natlons by refusing to apply the both blown up. On 16 November. three other bridges Council’s decisions against Southern Rhodesia and bj along the Kafuc-Chirundu road in central Zambia were consistently aiding and abetting the rebellion with arms. men, finance, trade and other support. The Rhodesian rebels aimed to destroy the Zambian economic infra- Chapter VIII. M~lntm~~cc of lnlcrnallonrl peace and nccurlty

structure, to weaken its support for the liberation adopt by consensus the draft resolution sponsored by movements, to escalate the war of liberation in Zimba- Bangladesh, Gabon, Jamaica, Kuwait, Nigeria and bwe, to intimidate the Zambian population, thus caus- Zambia. Since there was no objection, the draft resolu- ing the Government of Zambia to exert pressure on the tion was adopted as resolution 455 ( 1979).1bml It reads as Patriotic Front and make it accede to unfair demands in follows: London, and to wreck the talks going on in London at Thr Srcuriry Council. Lancaster House. Tukinp nolr of the letter from the Permanent Rcprcscnlatnc of the The representative of Nigeria added that his Govern- Republic of Zambia contained in document S/13616. ment stood ready to give full support to the Government Moving consrdrrrd the sia1cmcnl of the Pcrmancni Rcprc\cnla!lvc of Zambia if the situation were to turn into a full-scale of the Republic of Zambia. war. At this point, he introduced the draft resolution Grow/y conrrmrd III the numerous hostile and unprovoked XIS of sponsored by Bangladesh, Gabon, Jamaica, Kuwait, aggression committed by the illegal minority rCgmw In Southern Nigeria and Zambia which he hoped would provide Rhodesia violating the sovcwgnty. air space and Icrrlt~wl;ll inteprlty assistance lo the Zambian Government in ensuring full of the Republic of Zambta. compensation for its losse~.‘~‘~ Grow!, concrrnrd a/w PI the conlmuing collusion by South Afrlc:l In the rcpcatcd MIS of aggression IJunchcd aga!nsI ~hc Rcpubllc of The representative of the USSR recalled that the Zambia by the rebel forces of the illegal minority rCplmc In Southern Council had already on many occasions considered the Rhodesia, question of aggressive actions of the illegal rCgime Grlrvrd at the tragic loss in human l~fc and conccrncd about the against neighbouring countries and had condemned the damage and destruction of property resulting from the repeated acts armed invasion of Zambia in its recent resolution 424 of aggression committed by the illegal minority rCglmc In Southern Rhodesia against the Republic of Zambia, (1978). But the Rhodesian attacks had actually become Convincrd that these wanton acts of aggression by the dlcg~l more severe and intensive. He suggested that these new minority rCgime in Southern Rhodesia form a consistent and sustamcd attacks might have been launched in order to coerce the pattern of violations aimed at destroying the economic infrastructure Government of Zambia to stop supporting SWAP0 and of the Republic ol Zambia and wcakenmg its support of the struggle the Patriotic Front and thereby to secure further ol the people of Zimbabwe for freedom and national hbcratlon. concessions at the talks regarding Namibia and Zimba- Rrcalling its resolution 424 (1978) of I7 March 1978. in which, bwe. The delegation of the USSR believed that the infrr alto. it strongly condemned the armed invasion pcrpctratcd by the illegal minority rCgimc in the British colony of Southern RhAesia. Council should not only condemn the recent acts of which constituted a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and tcrritorlal aggression but ensure that they would not be repeated in integrity ol Zambia. the future by considering the application of the provi- Rra/jirming that the existence of the minority racist rCgimc in sions of Chapter VII as decided upon in resolution 424 Southern Rhodesia and the continuance of its acts of aggression ( 1978).‘6” against Zambia and other ncighbourtng SI~ICS constitute a threat IO international pcacc and security. The representative of the United States expressed his Gxuciour of the need lo take immedlJcc and cffcctivc *icpr fur the Government’s greatest regret that at that crucial point prevention and removal of all threats IO Intcrnaiwn.tl pcacc and in the efforts at Lancaster House to bring Zimbabwe to security. independence the Council had to convene to consider the I Srrongly condrmm the illegal rCgimc in the British colony of latest attacks against civilian targets in Zambia systcm- Southern Rhodcsla for its continued, intensified and unprovoked act\ atically denying it land access to the outside world. In of aggression against the Republic of Zambia. which constitute a this situation. his Government felt that the quickest way flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial intcgrlty of Zambia; to bring about a permanent halt to violence on all sides was to reach a prompt agreement on the cease-fire and 2. Slronglv rondrmns also the continued collusion by South Africa in repeated acts of aggression launched against the Rcpubllc of to begin the process leading to elections in Zimba- Zambia; bwe.‘6” 3. Commrndr the Republic or Zambia and other front-line Srares The representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, for their continued support of the people of Zimbabwe in their just spcaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of and legitimate struggle for the attainment of freedom and indcpcn- African States for the month of November, conveyed to dence and for their scrupulous rcslraint in the face of unwarranted the Council the appeal of the African Group to the armed provocations by the Rhodesian rebels In collusion ulth South Alrican armed forces, international community to extend support and assistance to the people of Zambia, added that the Group 4 Calls upon the Government of [he Unltcd Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the admmlrtering Power. IO take called upon the Council to condemn the illegal rCgimc prompt and cffcctivc measures IO ensure that the illegal rawt for its flagrant aggression against the Republic of minority rCgimc In Southern Rhodcsta will dcrist from committing Zambia and to take effective action against the illegal rcpcaled 3~1s of nggrcwon and pruvocalton agamrl the Rcpubllc of rtgime in accordance with the relevant provisions of Zambia. Chapter VII of the Charter.16’q 5

7. Drcrdm IO establish an od hoc commlllcc composed of four In a notclbd4 dated 30 November 1979. the President members or the Securi1y Council, IO k appomred by the Prcsldcnl after consulla1lon with members. In order IO as~sl Ihc (‘wnc~l III 1hc reported that he had had consultations with the mcm- implcmcnntlon of the present rcsolullon. in partlculdr paragraphs 5 bers of the Security Council and that agreement had and 6 thereof, and report 10 1he Council by I5 Dcccmbcr 1979; been reached that the od hoc committee established 8 Drt-idrl 10 remain scixd of the mailer under paragraph 7 of resolution 455 (1979) would be After the adoption of the resolution, the rcprescnta- composed of Jamaica, Kuwait, Nigeria and Norway. tivc of the United Kingdom expressed regret that he had By lettcr’b” dated 6 December 1979, the Chairman of delayed the Council for several hours as he needed to the Ad Hoc Committee transmitted an interim report obtain instructions from his Government. The United adopted by the Committee on that date. The report Kingdom had already condemned the Rhodesian attacks indicated that at its first meeting the Committee had on civilian targets in Zambia and had expressed deep elected Norway as Chairman, that the Committee had and most sincere sympathy for the suffering and de- held four meetings between 3 and 6 December and that, struction in Zambia. He added that the Lancaster following consultations with the representative of Zam- House conference in London was in its ftnal stages, that bia, the members had decided to visit Zambia between a constitution granting genuine majority rule had been 1 I and 15 December in order to hold discussions with agreed on by all parties and that the transitional the Government of Zambia and to obtain the requisite arrangements had also been negotiated. The last hurdle information for its subsqucnt work. In view of that was the question of the cease-fire which would bring decision, the Ad Hoc Committee rqucsted an extension about the cessation of the acts of violence in Rhodesia of the date for the submission of its full report, which it and the ncighbouring countries. expected to have ready by 31 January 1980.1686 He noted that his delegation had joined the other By lctter1ea’ dated I4 December, the Chairman of the members in the consensus of the draft resolution Ad Hoc Committee transmitted a second interim report, although the text was not even-handed, but one-sided, adopted by the Committee at its 5th meeting on that with intemperate phraseology. His Government was date in Lusaka, and pointed out that the difficulties most eager to end the fighting, but was not yet in brought about by the recent destruction of vital rail and control to guarantee a cessation of hostilities. In the road bridges throughout Zambia were so great that, in view of his delegation, the resolution just adopted did the view of the Committee, only urgent material and not contain a fresh determination under Article 39, and other forms of assistance from Member States and the Lord Privy Seal had stated in the House of international organizations would enable the Govern- Commons that the Government felt not responsible for mcnt of Zambia to carry out its emergency programme the damages incurred by the Zambian authorities. Once of restoring the bridges, which were crucial to the the cease-fire had been achieved. the United Kingdom functioning of the country’s economy. The report of the would wish to help Zambia as a friend to restore its Committee contained detailed estimates provided by the infrastructure. Government of Zambia of the cost of restoration of the In conclusion the representative of the United King- bridges, which totalled 14.618,586 kwachas, or SUS dom rejected the charge by the Libyan representative 18,741 ,778.‘~“” that Britain in some way encouraged the raids on In a notcrblq dated 22 January 1980. the President of Zambia and wanted the Lancaster Conference to fail. the Council announced that, following consultations He also sharply rejected the accusation by Nigeria that among members of the Council, it had been agreed that the Government of the United Kingdom had aided and for the purpose of presenting its full report, the Ad Hoc abetted breaches of the sanctions imposed by the Committee would continue to be composed of the States Security Council. tic hoped nothing Nould happen now mentioned in paragraph 3 of the note dated 30 Novem- IO interrupt or tlcflcct from the achicvcmcnt of pace bcr Ibuo ;111d ~~;~hdr~y CM the pcoplc of Ztmb~hwc.‘*“~ On 3 I Janu.try 1980. the Ad Hoc Committee submit- At the end of the meeting. the rcprescntativc of ted its report,l*yl adopted by it that day at Headquarters Zambia thanked the Council for the unanimous support in New York. The report contained a dctailcd summary exprcsscd in resolution 455 (1979). Hc made special of the Committee’s activities during its visit to Zambia. mention of the provision in paragraph 5, with regard to The Committee also noted that the Secretary-General the question of compensation, and stressed that his had transmitted its second interim report to Member Government intended to pursue its legitimate claim for States and to various international and intergovernmen- compensation from the United Kingdom for the damages done the Zambian economy by the rebel Smith ID” S,I 1669, OR. 14/h ,r Sup,4 fur (kr -Dee 1979. p 94 ‘~“S~lMRl.rhld ” 113 rCgime. He hoped that the decision to set up the ud hoc ‘b’o The req;csr~f&‘thc catemwn ud< granted by 1hc Council See committee would result in substantial assistance in this Ihc nt~c dated I? Dcccmbcr and tssucd by the Presldcnc (S/13685. hour of need. His country would continue its resolute Ihd, p I Ihi lhd S, 13694. rhld pp 132. I I! support for the legitimate struggle of the people of ‘+A’ A Government brtcf glvlng 1he complete dctalls about the C‘OII Zimbabwe until genuine independence would be of rotwacmn and Ihc overall damage IO 1hc Zbmblan cconom) ud, achieved I”’ Included AS an annex IO 1hc second lntcrlm rcporl lhXq S:I 3155. OR 35th PI, Suppl for Jan -March IOAO. p I’? ‘W SW noic I672 I’*’ S/l J77J (tncorporaclnp dxurncnl S’iI774Korr I ). rbiJ FF 2n-i-l 330 Chptcr VIII. M~latcarece of In~cn~rlloa~l pemcc rnd security tal organizations and that the Chairman of the Commit- on the invasion of Angola. He appealed to the Security tee had addressed letters to a number of potential donor Council to condemn strongly South Africa for its countries, as well as to certain intergovernmental orga- invasion of Angola, implement the embargoes on arms nizations, appealing in each case for an urgent contribu- and oil and observe economic sanctions against Preto- tion to assist Zambia in restoring its most important ria.lbM bridges. A number of Mcmbcr States and international The representative of Zambia, speaking on behalf of organizations had responded positively to that appeal, the African Group of States, called upon the Security and, as of 31 January, the target figure of 14,618.OoO Council to adopt prompt measures to stop South kwachas stipulated by the Government of Zambia for African aggression against Angola, to ccnsurc the the restoration of the bridges had been met. Ncvcrthe- uparrhtid rCgimc for using the international territory of less, the Ad Hoc Committee stressed that further Namibia as a launching pad for committing acts of assistance to Zambia was needed in order to facilitate aggression against Angola, and to impose mandatory the reconstruction of that country’s economic infrastruc- and comprehensive economic sanctions, an oil embargo ture as a whole. and an arms embargo under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.‘69’ COMPLAINT BY ANGOLA ACAIYST At the same meeting the representative of Mauritius SOUTH AFRICA introduced a draft resolution sponsored by Bolivia. Gabon, India, Kuwait, Mauritius, Nigeria and Vcnczue- Decision of 6 May 1978 (2078th meeting): resolution la.lbn He emphasized that in the fifth preambular 428 (1978) paragraph of the draft resolution the sponsors intcntion- By letter’692 dated 5 May 1978 addressed to the alty used the word “recalling” in respect to the resolu- President of the Security Council the representative of tion 387 (1976) and not “reaffirming”, bearing in mind Angola requested an urgent meeting of the Security the fact that some members did not vote in favour of Council to deal with the most recent aggression by that resolution. Referring to the last operative para- South Africa against Angola. graph of the draft resolution he said that the Council A number of letters16*J condemning the invasion of would decide to meet again in the event ol further acts Angola by South Africa and calling upon the Security of violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Council to take urgent measures against South Africa the People’s Republic of Angola by the South African had been received by the Secretary-General and the regime in order to consider the adoption of more President of the Security Council. effective measures, in accordance with the appropriate At the 2077th meeting on 5 May 1978 the Security provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, includ- Council adopted w the agenda and considered the item ing Chapter VII. He emphasized that the sponsors had at the 2077th and 2078th meetings on 5 and 6 May intentionally used the words “to consider the adoption of 1976. more effective measures” meaning that at the appropri- In the course of its deli&rations the Council invited ate time members of the Council would have the the representatives of Algeria, Ango!& Benin, Cuba, opportunity to consider the application of such mea- Mozambique, the United Republic of Tanzania and sures. Zambia, at their request, to partjcipate, without vote, in In the course of the 2077th and 2078th meetings a the discussion of the item.l*9’ number of speakers called for the imposition of mta- The Council also extended invitations under rule 39 sures stipulated in Chapter VII of the Charter of the of the provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Sam United Nations.‘699 Nujoma, President of the South West Africa People’s At the 2078th meeting on 6 May 1978 the draft Organization (SWAPO) and to the President of the resolution was adopted unanimously as resolution 428 Council for Namibia.lbP’ ( I978).“” At the 2077th meeting on 5 May 1978 the represcnta- The resolution reads as follows: tive of Angola stated that the latest aggression of South

Africa against Angola was not aimed only at attempting Hoving romidrrcd the lctlcr dated 5 May 197W from Ihc Pcrm.l- to destroy SWAP0 and the liberation struggle of the nent Reprcwnlallvc of Angola transmltlmg a communlcatton from the Namibian people; it was also intended to destabilize the Ftrsl Vice-Prlmc MIIII>IC~ uI the Pcuple’s Republic of Angola And the situation inside his country. The abstention of the letter dated 5 May 1971 from the Pcrmanenc Rcprcsrntatlvc ul Western Five on the just programmc of action adopted Zambia on behalf of the Group of hfritxn SI~ICI at the 1Jn11ed Nations. at the ninth special session of the General Assembly gave Pretoria the cncouragcment it needed to embark 1b96 2077th mtg . parts S-22 I*” /bid. paras JO-55 “*l S/12690. OR. jjrd y’. Soppl for Apr:I.Junr 1978, pp 46.47 lhv’ lbrd. par~c 64-69 S I !h9! ~3s adopted uithuut change as I691 S/12688. tbtd, pp. 45-46 (from Sr1-1.31:Ld). S:l?hW. thrd p rcsolulion 418 (1978) 46 (from Angola), Si 12691. mlmeo r;lp!wl t ur the text uf the statement. see GA OR, Jlrd stsston. J ur,d tcr ?1. vol I. para 366 (President of the United N311onc Cuunc~l for NJnliblJ). S 12693. OR. J.frdy Suppl JOI April-June 1979, p 41 (from Zambl.1) Ih ’ 2077th mtg.. preceding pars I “” For dclsll\. KC chapter III