Competing Narratives and

At the 1637th meeting of the SC, concerning the question of Namibia, the Chi- nese representative took the opportunity to attack the United States and Britain for being the “behind the scenes big bosses of South Africa”.30 A few years later, during the 1900th meeting of the SC, regarding Angola and South Africa, in an even more overt redirection of the debate concerning South Africa and clearly ch. [...] In his delivery, the delegate accused the Soviet Union of “flaunting the flag of socialism” while it “pushes fervishly its colonial policy of expansion”.31 The United States showed perhaps the greatest degree of variance in its response to the situation in South Africa over the course of the SC debates. [...] There was a tonal shift in the language used by the SC in the wording of Resolution 417, which recalled and iterated Resolution 392.43 This was the first instance of the SC referring to the government of South Africa as the “racist regime of South Africa”.44 Despite the ap- prehensions of France, the US and the UK, the conflict in South Africa had crept beyond the borders of South Africa. [...] At the 2612th meeting of the SC in 1985, the UK delegate declared that the UK “finds it incredible and altogether unacceptable that the South African Government should disregard the decisions of the Council.”59 In this case the UK did vote in favour of Resolution 574, which was adopted unanimously.60 However, the official policy of the UK remained one of engagement. [...] Interim Report of the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Govern- ment of the Republic of South Africa: Letter Dated 63/05/06 From the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Polices of Apartheid of the Government of the Re- public of South Africa Addressed to the President of the Security Council, [S/5310], 09/05/1963.