have been caught up in events that bring to mind every- thing that the United Nations was designed to oppose. We came to commend the results of the arduous progress of the international community towards acceptance of the primacy of law, but we have been shaken out of that by the response of unbridled force. 56. Tel Aviv and Pretoria, in simultaneous moves cor- roborating the identity of their goals and the reality of their alliarice, have tightened the African continent in their warlike grip and given free reign to outbursts of violence, examples of which overburden the records of the Security Council, which has too often been relegated to the position of a helpless bystander. 57. Over the years;the Council has grown accustomed to considering, in turn and with a frequency that their prolif- erating misdeeds have imposed on it, the cases of Tel Aviv and Pretoria. Today, zionism and apartheid have simul- taneously stepped up their defiance as if the better to disso- ciate themselves together from the meaning and the promise of the comity of nations in commemorating the age of reason of the Organization. 58. Thus, at a time when zionism has expanded its sphere of aggression to North Africa, apartheid% once again the object of condemnation by the international community because of its recent attack on the sovereignty and territor- ial integrity of Angola. 59. In this uninterrupted succession of reprehensible acts that make up the persistent aggression of the Pretoria regime against the People’s Republic of Angola, the facts that have justified this new meeting of the Council are for many reasons particularly grave. 60. Those facts are indeed grave, first, because in the terms of the Charter of the United Nations, they constitute acts of aggression against a sovereign State, part of whose 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be a speech or a statement from a government or international organization, addressing a pressing issue related to international relations, security, and human rights. The language used is formal and diplomatic, with a focus on condemning the actions of certain countries and calling for accountability. The text does not mention economic development, natural resources, or environmental issues, nor does it discuss scientific, cultural, or educational topics. It seems to be primarily concerned with international politics and the promotion of human rights and sovereignty.

**Category**
Humanitarian aid and relief, International relations