text: 55, Some influential members of the Council have the habit of describing South Africa’s’ Acts of aggression against Angola and other front-line States as mere “cross- border violence”. Surely the time has come for even those members to see in South Africa’s actions a deliberate and systematic pattern of aggression calculated to destabilize Angola and to destroy its economic infrastructure. 56. It is time for all members of the Council to recognize without equivocation that South Africa is engaged in nothing but gross and blatant acts of aggression in defence of its colonial stranglehold on Namibia and the doctrine of tlie supremacy of the whites, a doctrine that brings to mind nazism and the untold misery that Hitler-who was, incid- entally, admired by the Afrikaners-brought upon man- kind. It cannot, we hope, be claimed by even South Africa’s most ardent defenders that their objective in inst.i- tuting the discredited constructive engagement policy was to give South Africa that licence to engage at will and with impunity in so-called cross-border violence. Yet that is what that policy has produced; it has engendered in South Africa an aggressive arrogance paralleled in our present-. day world only by the expansionist violence and terrorism practised by Israel against its neighbours in the Middle East, of which the peace-loving people of Tunisia and their Palestinian guests are the latest victims. 57. The second point I want to raise in connection with the statement made in this Ch’amber by the South African representative is this: since he claims that “South Africa is committed to peace and stability in southern Africa” [iE#., par-u. 34, does he mean to tell the Council that South Africa’s continued acts .of aggression and destabilization are in keeping with that objective? 58. I have pondered over the statement made by the 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic statement or a speech addressing the United Nations Security Council, criticizing South Africa's actions in Angola and Namibia. The language used is formal and political, focusing on issues of aggression, destabilization, and colonialism. The text does not mention specific economic, environmental, or technological topics.