A/31/PV.104 General Assembly

This year, that of the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Amphictyonlc Congress of Panama, the King of Spain, His Majesty Juan Carlos I, visited the Dominican Republic, Colombia and Venezuela, and in Caracas paid a tribute before the remains of Simon Bolfvar on 15October last. On that occasion, standing before the tomb of the Liberator, His Majesty said: "It is with profound emotion that I make thisoffering here as a symbol of Spain's respect for Simon Bolfvar, an eminent leader of our people. Both the conquerors and the liberators of America are yours and ours; they belong to us all, because their names are inscribed ill a history which is also that of all of us,and from which nochapter can beerased. "Today, at the end of a century and a half, now that the suffering and the bloodshed that separated us have been forgotten and the ideals and even the disappointments of Simon Bolfvar have been consecrated, we are left to share the legacy of his great hope for a community: theideal of the unity of all Hispanic peoples, to which I payhomage withprofound reverence". 10. This commemoration of the Panama Congress cannot but arouse in Spain and among Spaniards a particularly sincere and heartfelt response. The passage of time enables us now to view that event and the efforts and struggles which preceded and followed it in their historical perspective, a perspective in which the essence of those events is revealed and they appear in their most transcendent form and takeon the greatest signlflcance for humanity. Thus we can stand united and consider ourselves in solidarity with that titanic endeavour, recalling that Bolfvar was a student in Spain and married a Spanish woman, whowentwithhim when he returned to his land; and that years after when his ideals had matured, he embarked upon hispolitical activity by opposing the attempt to extend to American soil the authority of a monarch imposed on Spain by the Napoleonic invader, and instead proclaimed the legitimate Spanish monarch in exile, Fernando VII. 11. But apart from its historical aspect, the very content of the Bollvarian ideal was, inits time, more Hispanic in the broad sense than was nineteenth-century Spain, since it responded to a vision of communlty and universality that was a worthy successor tc that which inspired Spain in the heyday of its cXi,~m'1i(ln. For many years now, the tics between Spain and the sister republics of America have ceased to be tainted by the concept of anachronistic dependency or of u resentment burn of past political and 12. Politically, the logical consequence of this unalterable principle is the doctrine, undoubtedly elaborated by Latin American writers, which might be called the principle of non-discrimination, based on the unreserved acceptance of political pluralism as an attitude that would further Iberian-American integration. 13. Spain has also welcomed enthusiastically the idea put forward on 12 December last in Cartagena by Mr. Alfonso Lopez Michelsen, President of the Republic of Colombia, of a community of Hispanic peoples, a doctrine which reflects the Bolivarian ideal and which has evoked an enthusiastic response in various Latin American countries. It may be premature to speculate whether such a community can or should be established within an institutional framework, but what wc can say right now is that its constituent elements already exist, and we can foresee a rapid develop- -nent of these ideals, in both the cultural and the economic fields, as well as in that of the technical and financial co-operation that already exists on both the bilateral and the multilateral levels between Spain and the other countrieswhich areinvited to join it. 14. The draft resolution which 27 countries of the American continent have submitted to the General Assembly in connexion with the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Arnphictyonic Congress, and which is contained in document A/31/L.23/Rev.2, commemorates in a universal forum the most significant event in the process of Latin American independence and pays a tribute to the ideals of the Liberator, which are no less valid because they were not fully realized in their historical context. I believe it necessary to say that Spain will vote in favour of this draft resolution, thereby associating itself with the tribute paid to Slmon Bolfvar and to the proclamation in favour of union signed in Panama, which anticipated the ideals and objectives of the United Nations. Inasmuch as the draft resolution, in its operative paragraph 3, expresses the hope of the General Assembly that the ideals of Bolivar will inspire the establishment of a more just international order, thus 'lttaining the triple objective of peace, economic and social progress and the promotion of human rights and freedom for individuals, as well as for peoples, the draft resolution fully reflects the Spanish Government's purposes for International action, 15. To conclude, on thissolemn occasion, Spain greets the sister Republics of America and joins with them in professing the ideals which have inspired the initiative with which the General Assembly isdealing today.

I have asked to beallowed to speak simply because I felt that the representative of Italy could not keep silent on this special occasion. but should say a few words. 17. The General Assembly is ir fact solemnly cornmemoraung today the one hundred and fiftieth annlveisary of the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama. That was an historic event which carried great moral and political weight 18. The world-wide vision of Simon Bolfvar and his concept of uniting in an effort for peace and progress those American countrieswhich a short time before were engaged in an armed and victorious struggle for their independence, anticipated in many ways the principles and purposes enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations signed in San Francisco in 1945. 19. Bolfvar advocated, and the Panama Congress debated, the ideals of equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, maintenance of peace and security, respect for the dignity and value of man.Thoseare the same ideals from which we take inspiration in our work here; they reflect the same set of values which we are strenuously trying to implement; in short, they are the very essence of the United Nations, which can look at Sim6n Bolfvar asa precursor. 20. The fact that these targets-I refer to the Treaty of Perpetual Union, League and Confederation-were not attained at that time shows how long it takes before the most noble ideas can come true. Nobody can be more aware of this than we at the United Nations, where we are all witnesses and actorsin pursuing ideals which spring from the same spiritual sources. 21. My country, which has been linked to Latin America since its birth, has kept alive this original fraternal association throughout all the centuries that followed, taking an active part in the events which have shaped the new nationsof the subcontinent. 22. I shall confine myself to recalling that Giuseppe Garibaldi fought for the independence of the Latin American peoples, in defence of that great ideal of freedom, for which he was called "the knight of humankind". That great leader of what we would call today liberation movements 011 two continents also earned the name "hero of the two worlds". The presence in Latin America of millions of citizens of Italian origin has added a newindestructible link to the old ones. 23. In short, Latin America is a region to which Italy is bound by a common heritage, a huge network of mutual interests and a broad sharing of the same values. This common physical, moral and cultural heritage is nowadays the backbone and the main inspiration of the practical activities carried out by the Italian-Latin American Institute, which was created by an agreement signed in 1966by Italy and the 20 Latin American countries. 24. I had the great fortune, when celebrating Columbus Day one year before in 1965,of personally introducing, on the instructions of my then Foreign Minister, Amintore Fanfaniwho was also President of the twentieth session of the General Assembly the first draft statute of that organization. Looking hack at that luncheon, held in this very building and attended by the representatives of all the countries of the American continent and of Spain, I am moved today by the thought that we were somehow acting 26. I can only conclude by paying a deep and respectful tribute, on behalf of my Government and people, on this solemn anniversary to the ideals that led Simon Bolfvar to bring together the Latin American countries as the crowning performance of his patriotism and as a far-sighted initiative announcing a newera.

There can be no greater honour for me than to address the General Assembly at a meeting presided by the representative of Nicaragua, whohere reflects another glory of America-Ruben Darfo. 28. The traveller visiting the entire continent and the capitals of the countries of Latin America will note that there are numberless monuments erected in honour of Slrnon Bolfvar. But though marble or bronze may serve the creation of a great artist and also indicate an everlasting loyalty to his memory, it is acts such as these which constitute and perpetuate the true glory of the Liberator and his true immortality. 29. Glory is in fact not the statue which is built once and for alland which may in time become merely a landmark in the midst of the urban chaos of a modern city. Glory is not the monument, but the living and fertile memory of men, a memory which is no mere recollection, the reflection of a silhouette in the mirror of imagination. Glory is memory transformed into inspiration a~14 reflected in action, a spur to effort, a guide to conduct, Jthe sum of aspirations, a pointer to the future and to concrete reality. 30. Hence the singular slgnifleance of these meetings of the General Assembly at which we are commemorating the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Amphictyonlc Congress of Panama, convened by Bolfvar in 1824and held in Panama two years later, from 22 June to 16July 1826. In truth, the purpose that unites us here is not to be found in the scntimental liturgy of ritual commemorations, but in the visionary programme of action of an assembly of peoples seeking, with firm determination and the spirit of Bolfvar, the road which leads to the goal of their national aspirations, 31. Indeed, this is nil simple commemorative act. hut an instant's pause, a moment for reflection in a long march that was planned in a palace in Lima and that began in tropical Panama one day in June in I H2C1; a march towards the effective union of a group of countries linked h> common origins and sharing a cultural tradition. which together with the peoples of other regions of the world. 33. At this time I should like to present some brief thoughts on the human phenomenon that BoHvar represents and which is highlighted in the protocols of the isthmus, because they embody not only the needs and realities of nineteenth-century America, but also and above all the aspirations andexigencies of the future. 34. The talent of the Liberator in this case was to consecrate for ever by his words and deeds the fortunate coming together of the man and the historical circumstance. What, then, does genius consist of? Perhaps we should say that genius is the ability to perceive the significance of circumstances, of a historical moment, and more particularly to assess with penetrating intuition what future need is contained in that moment, that historical circumstance, at which will only later be revealed to common men but which the man of genius discovers, buried under the appearances of the moment and implicit in them. And thus when Bolivar conceived of and convoked the Congress of Panama, he responded not only to the circumstances created by the success of the fight for political freedom in Latin America, but alsoto the needs of the future. That is to say, to the future generations, those of our world today. 35. The Amphictyonic meeting in Panama was the crowning of the glorious campaigns of the united army of liberation and of many other memorable exploits of the liberators in various parts of America. But the trium, ,f the sword, BoHvar thought, must be consolidated by law, by an institutional framework, that would govern both the domestic affairs of nations and the international relations between them. He also realized that, given the omnipresent threat presented by the great Powers of the time and by those of the future, as well as the internal dangers, the Latin American peoples must remain united, behind the bulwark of a solemn covenant which would constitute, as he said, when he convened the Amphictyonic Congress, "a system of guarantees which, in peace and in war, will be the shield of our new destiny". And with a true understanding of the significance of place, the most modernof allhisideas, he indicated that Panama was to be "the venue for an Assembly which would serve as an advisory body in major conflicts, a point of contact in timesof common dangers, a faithful interpreter of public treaties when difficulties arose, and finally a place to reconcile our differences". "It seems that, if the whole world should have to choose its capital, the Isthmus of Panama, locatedasit is in the center of the globe, with Asia on one side and Africa and Europe on the other, would be the sitechosen for this grand design.... " " ••• A hundred centuries hence, posterity, searching for the origin of our publiclawand recalling the compacts that solidified its destiny,will finger with respectthe protocols of the Isthmus. In them will be found the planof the first alliances that will have marked the beginning of our relations with the universe. What, then, will be the Isthmus of Corinthcompared with that of Panama? "2 Thus he made the future the present. 37. Bolfvar was fully aware of all present and future dangers. In contrast to the so-called Monroe Doctrine which, not to mention the doctrine that Washington was already beginning to follow in its own interests, opposed the future colonization of the territories of America, but which from the advocacy of "An America for the Americans" degenerated into that of an "America for the North Americans", the doctrine of Bolivar, as embodied in the Treaty of Permanent Union, League and Confederation of 1826, opposed any foreign domination, past, present or future. 38. Speaking out against the nations of Europe which had imposed the yoke of slavery in other parts of the world, Bolfvar, with a clear vision of the third world of the future, already in 1813 was proposing that all those parts of the world establish a balance between themselves and Europe so as to end the predominance of the latter. Hecalled this, as he said, "the balance of the universe, which must be taken into account in the calculations of Latin American policy". 39. As Indalecio Lievano Aguirre hassaid: "Thus Bolivar insisted on making the Panama League a standard bearer for the poor peoples of the world, because he was aware that only inso far as those peoples took the initiative and acquired a relative awareness of their common destiny, would it be possible to prevent vast political and social transformations that were taking place at the timefrom leading to the mere replacement of the feudal imperialism of the traditional monarchies by an Anglo-Saxon economic imperialism, whose victim would inevitably be Spanish America". 40. Latane, in his History of American Foreign Policy, later confirmed the Liberator's fears, particularly regarding 251mbn Bollvar, Lima, 7 December 1824. For the text, see Selected Writings of Bolivar, vol. 11, Viccntc Lccuna, eomp., Harold A. Blerek, Jr., ed, (New York, The Colonial Press, Ine., 1951),pp. 458-459. 42. Progress and the rise of our peoples towards higher forms of social and political life isno easy matter. The way is bitter and tortuous and besetby innumerable difficulties, many of them created by ourselves-when they are not the work of tenacious foreign interests. But this progress is constant, even if it has not been unbroken. Let ustake, for example, the unity and solidarity of Latin America. The fratricidal wars that have taken place from time to time in the past were nearly always instigated by foreigners who wished to prevent the attainment of that unity. Notwithstanding all obstacles, however, the ideal of unification and solidarity has gained ground, and the will towards unification has been apparent throughout the continent, from the days of Bolivar, San Martin, O'Higgins, Tiradentes, Juarez, Valle, Martf, Morazan and many others to more recent times-as when the famous Reforma University of Cordoba, in Argentina, proclaimed the need to create a United States of Latin America. It was also apparentin the campaign for Latin American unity carried out throughout the entire continent by Manuel Ugarte. More recently still, the process of unification has gathered new impetus with the establishment of the Latin American Economic System at the P3J1ama Convention of 1975, whereby the countries of Central America, the Caribbean and South America unitedtheir efforts to overcome all remaining obstacles. 43. Latin American unity has never been envisaged with the intention to harm any country or group of countries. Our ideal is harmony and mutual respect for systems, ideologies and interests. We demand only that the natureof our past relations with countries that have achieved scientific and technological supremacy be changed, for these anachronistic relations are in fact a barrier to the establishment of an atmosphere of harmony and confidence that would enable the Western Hemisphere to set up that community of friendly nations to which Slmon Bolfvar referred. 44. Today in this hall-and for this we are grateful-we' recall that Sirnon Bolfvar on many occasions referred to the need to open a canal in Panama, so as to shortendistances in the world. What is more, the Liberator always had in mind the ideas of Humboldt on this matter, and he made efforts in that direction by granting a concession to Baron 3 John lJolJaday l..atane and David W. Walnhouse, A History of American Foreign Policy, 2nd rev. (New York, The Odyssey Press, 1940), p, 306. 45. Panama, which was fortunate in enjoying a privileged place in the thinking of the Liberator, is today the pointat which Latin American efforts are concentrated for the creation of a new order in international relations. Panama's struggle to secure its sovereign rights over its entireterritory has from the outset had the support of the vast majority of the countries of the world and, of course, particularly of our LatinAmerican brothers. 46. The fact is that one of the main themes which the countries of the third world proclaim and defend is the principle of the sovereign equality and respect for the territorial integrity as well as the personality of States. 47. The tribute which the United Nations is paying today to the genius of Bolivar and to the Amphictyonic Congress is gratifying to my country not only because of what it represents institutionally for the integration process of Latin America but also because it endorses the national legitimacy {.•f the Panamanian State. 48. We are not a nation invented in this century through the desire for expansion of the United States, although some historically disoriented minds have endeavoured to present Panama as a canal converted into a country or a country invented for a canal. 49. Such an idea results from ignorance of the facts. The historical truth is that the istlunus was the first land of the entire continent which was discovered and inhabited by the Spaniards. Justo Arosemena said: "The Spanish colony which in the times of Nicuesa was called Castilla del Oro and later was known as Darien, and which in our days is generally called the isthmus of Panama, because of its then isolated situation and because it was the first colony of the continent was for a long timedirectly governed by the metropolis." 50. The city of Panama isthe oldest capital in continental America, having been founded almost a century before the first British colony was established in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, and more than a century before the establishment of the Plymouth colony in 1620 by the Pilgrims and the colony of Massachusetts Bay in 1630 by the Puritans. SI. On 28 November 1821, before the collapse of Spanish power in Puerto Cabello and in Pichincha, and before Bolfvar and Sucre had crowned theirglorious careers on the battlefields of Junfn and Ayacucho, the isthmus of Panama proclaimed its independence from Spain without foreign assistance. This was recognized by BoHvar himself, who declared to the eminentPanamanian, Jose de Fabrega: "I cannot find words to express the feelings of joy and admiration 1 felt on knowing that Panama, the centre of 53. And the Liberator declared: "Everythingis resumedin this: justice, generosity, national policy and interest." 54. The Amphictyonic Congress of Panamawasheld when the isthmus had been spontaneously incorporated in the Greater Colombia of Bolivar, who had been motivated by the desire to form a Federal State of the Great Republic similar to New Grenada,Venezuela and Ecuador. 55. We might say that today's commemoration has a fourfold significance. In addition to the celebration of the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Continental Congress of 1826, by a significant historical coincidence of anticoloniallst events today, 17 December, we cornmemorate the one hundred forty-sixth anniversary of the death of the Liberator, which occurred in Santa Marta on 17 December 1830; it is also the one hundred eightieth anniversary of th,'e famous farewell message of President George Washington, published on 17 December 1796; and we commemorate the one hundred fifty-seventh anniversary of the constitution of Greater Colombia, of 17 December 1819, Whful the Angostura Congress considered that fundamental charter which Bolivar drafted for this purpose, a task which was later to be completedat the Cucuta Congress, which prepared the final constitution for GreaterColombia. 56. The visionary precedent of the Constitution of Greater Colombia, to which we all pay a reverent tribute today, makes obvious the need for an effective union of our peoples. This does not arise from a purely intellectual political theory; it is a need determined by the very conditions of the world of today. We have in fact reached the planetary stage in the history of the world, as is constantly proved in this General Assembly of the United Nations. While in the past, ~J.ld in the not-too-distant past, the great actors on the {historical scene were nations, considered indlvidually--and, in away, the nineteenth century constituted the apotheosis of nationalism-today the actors on the historical scene, the dramatis personae, are large human blocs. 57. In that sense, those who maintain that the nation- State, with the exception of certain macro-States, is too small for the modern economies are right. Bolfvar anticipated the development of international relations by 150 years when he' conceived of the organization of Latin American State- 3S a nation of republics. 58. Thus we see that it is the large human blocsto which I have just referred, the blocs that are striving to create the newpoliticalentity, whichwillin time be the regional State envisaged by the Liberator. An example of this new political grouping is to be found in the regional groups of the United Nations: the African group, the Asian group, the Arab group, the group of Western European and other States, the Eastern European group, the Latin American group. Each of those groups has similar or at least 59. We have already entered the stage of what could be called the higher forms of nationalism. At this stage of the history of the world, Bolivar's idea of the unity of Latin America takes on its full vigour and currency. 60. We are not speaking of an imaginary notion. Unity already exists in the very infrastructure of the Latin American countries. But, in relation to that unity, to the collective personality of Latin America, we must bear in mind, as Leopoldo Zea said, that "Iberian America must follow its own course, just as the modern peoples have done, and it must build in accordance v/ith its own circumstances". In that respect, he added: "Bolivaradmired the modern nations, the great Western nations; but, at the same time, he knew that in order to deal with them it was necessary, above all, to become strong so as to be able to meet them on a foo ting of equality and not as nations willing to submit to a new form of subordination". 61. The convening of the Amphictyonic Congress, which Ludwig called the "most daring and most promising" idea of the Liberator, gave rise, from the moment the invitations were sent out, to a confrontation between Bolivarism and Monroism-a confrontation that has marked a large part of hemispheric relations. 62. President Adams of the United States described the Panama Congress as a great human undertaking. He said that its purpose was to better man's condition. He added that it was similar to the idea that led to the Declaration of Independence of the United States. 63. Secretary of State Henry Clay, for his part, stated in hisinstructions to the United States delegation that: "The holding of a Congress in Panama, in which the diplomatic representatives of the independent nations of America will participate, will represent a new era in human relations. That fact in itself-whatever may be the results of the Congress--cannot fail to be noted by present and future generations of the civilized world". Clay continued his instructions to the United States delegation by saying-and perhaps his style was somewhat omate-sthat: "Each one of the States must govern itself freely and in accordance with its own interests". He concludedin this way: "We therefore reject any attempt to establish an amphictyonic congress that would arrogate to itself the authority to decide on disputes between the various American States or to determine their behaviour". 64. Clay's instructions rejected any formulas for offensive or defensive alliances by the United States with the new Hispanic American States. The debates to which the Panama Congress gave rise in the United States Congress at that time not only gave historic relevance to the Panama Congress but served to determine the thrust of the so-called "The Monroe Declaration does not oblige us, in any event, to take up arms when there is any indication of hostile feelings on the part of the European Powers towards South America-unless military operations are carried out in our immediate vicinity". 65. Clay rejected also the compromise idea advocated by Canning that peace should be exchanged for trade concessions or indemnities. Theinstructions stated: "Therefore, any idea of granting trade privileges in perpetuity to any foreign nation must be rejected, because such a concession is incompatible with our present absolute independence and would consequently, in fact if not formally, reduce us to the former statusof a colony". 66. Clay's thesis in opposition to concessions in perpetuity because they implicitly are typical of the colonial status, anticipated by 150 years the Tack-Kissinger agreement under which Panama and the United States agreed to do away with the notion that concession for the Panama Canal was granted in perpetuity by negotiating a new treaty concerning the Canal-a negotiation which is still in process-by which the painful colonial situation that has persisted in the heart of Panamanian territory would be eliminated. 67. Hence, it is of the utmost importance to my country that, as part of the tribute paid to the Liberator on the occasion of the one hundredand fiftieth anniversary of the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama, the General Assembly of the United Nations should, in accordance withoperative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution presented by the entire Latin American group [A/31/L.23/Rev.2J, formulate "... the wish for a successful outcome of the negotiations for the conclusion of a new treaty on the Panama Canal, which will eliminate the causes of conflict between the Republic of Panama and the United States of America, in accordance with the Declaration of Principles, signed by the parties concerned on 7 February 1974, where it is stated that the Panamanian territory of which the Panama Canal is a part shall be returned promptly to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Panama and that the Republic of Panama 'will assume total responsibility for the operation of the Canal upon the termination of the treaty' ". 68. The delegation of Panama regards the positive attitude of the United States delegation during the present debate, as manifested by its active support of thisdraft resolution, as a gesture of friendship and co-operation, to which we attach its full value. 69. We regard as a favourable factor for good relations among the States of the Hemisphere the statements in favour of a prompt solution to the question of the Panama Canal that have been made by Mr. Cyrus Vance, who will replace Mr. Henry Kissinger at the Department of State on "The so-called Panama Canal Zone, 10 miles wide and SO miles long, which cuts through and severs the Panamanian Isthmus in its central part, making of the Republic of Panama a divided nation, is today an anachronistic colonial enclave for which there is no justification and which is destined to disappear giving place to a State of Panama restored to full territorial integrity and promoting relations of peace and friendship in the region". 71. On behalf of my country I wish to express my gratitude for the inclusion of mention of the Panamanian problem in this draft resolution in honour of Bolfvar, Panama's weapons in the struggle to recover its rights are moral laws and legal arguments which, as now, world public opinion is helping us to wield with growing effectiveness. Panama is therefore the battlefield of Bollvar's cause today. Thus nothing is more just than the Panamanian Government's aim of raising in its capital a monument to the unity of Latin America; a monument in which, by a happy decision of the Government of Brazil, which today has the protocols in its archives, the originals of the isthmus protocols will be deposited. I refer to the manuscripts of the acts of the Amphictyonic Congress of 1826. 72. So let us honour Bolfvar with deeds suchas this, deeds that show our understanding of BoHvar's cause. Today's tribute to the ideals of the Liberator has been rendered especially glowing by the eloquent statements made by the representative of the Democratic Republic of Yemen; by the representative who spoke on behalfof the Arab League; by Madagascar on behalf of the African group; by Malta on behalf of the group of Western European and other States; by Bulgaria on behalf of the Eastern European group; by Fiji on behalf of the Asian group; by Guyana, asChairman of the Latin American group; by the Italy of Garibaldi; by our mother country, Spain; by Portugal, a member of the Iberian family; and by the President of this Assembly, Mr. Hamilton ShirJey Amerasinghe. 73. On behalf of Venezuela, where the Liberator was born-and I say this at the request of the Ambassador and on behalf of the delegation of Panama-rnay I tell the spokesmen of the international community that I ammost grateful for their important commemorative statements. which weshall always carrywith usin our hearts. 74. We trust that the ideals of the Liberator will acquire increasingly specific and concrete form. Overcoming all obstacles and barriers, the world is working towards higher forms of social life, economic justice. dignity and culture. To state that this inevitable process is taking place isnot to indulge in optimism. It is something we can observe from day to day. History does not progress harmoniously, without vicissitudes. History isa dialectical process, withits 75. Since it was singled out by the Liberator, my country must pay a lasting tribute to his memory to reaffirm that his thinking and his work continue to influence the world. Therefore from this rostrum, and in conclusion, to quote the Panamanian historian Jose de la Cruz Herrera, I shall say that the Panamanian delegation has aspired only to emphasize: ".•• how much the Republic of Panama owes to that unique man who with a vision at once accurate and just understood and predicted the predominant role of the Isthmus in the destiny of mankindand made of that land the venue of the Assembly which served as the founda- tion on which to build our regional and international policy, a policy which seeks to eliminate from the world the rule of force and tc settle conflicts arising from selfish national aspirations and conflicting and false' interpre- tations of justice".

General Assembly resolution 1514(XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, was adopted exactly 16 years ago. Since its adoption the membership of this Organization has grown from 99 in 1960 to 147 today. Thissubstantial increase in membership indicates the progress we have so far made in our implementation of the Declaration. It should give us some justification for satisfaction. In spite of this substantial gain, however, there is no denying that we have still not completely achieved the objective of the Declaration. Sixteen years after adoption of the Declaration there are still over 12 million people under colonial domination in southern Africa and elsewhere. This Organization and the world community as a whole, it seems, now faces its most difficult hurdle. The question is, have we the will to make the effort required of us to jump over this last hurdle? If we capitulate before the last hurdle we shall not have completed the race and we shall therefore have no reason to congratulate ourselves. 77. My delegation maintains this position because the Declaration to which we are committed defines our task in regard to decolonization and leaves no room for halfmeasures or partial achievements. In the Declaration this Organization undertook to take immediate steps in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories and all other Territories which had not yet attained independence to transfer all ... Resumed from the 102ndmeeting. 78. Two years ago we welcomed the change in Portugal's position on decolonization. It was a change which recognized the realities of today. We all thought then that the last strong sinew of the colonial system had been broken and that we could look forward to accelerated progress towards a world'order based on national sovereign equality founded upon the noble principle that all men-of course, including women-were created equal. My apologies to President Lincoln. On the contrary, what do we find? 79. The report of the Special Committee [A/31/23/ Rev. 1J cannot but give us all an understandable cause for concern and anxiety over events in s.iuthem Africa. There, South Africa continues to occupy the Territory of Namibia illegally, in blatant disregard of the decision of the International Court of Justice and in contemptuous rejection of the resolutions and directives of the Security Council and the General Assembly. In defiance of this Organization's express opposition, South Africa has embarked on a course of perpetuating its hold on Namibia through the Balkanization of the Territory into small, weak and economically impoverished entities it calls "bantustans". By strengthening its military forces in the Territory, it hopes to be able to force the people to submit to its will by indiscriminate murder and imprisonment. By unjust and repressive laws, the people of Namibia are being denied their basic political freedoms and human rights. The sad and regrettable aspect of the drama being enacted in southern Africa is that South Africa has managed to get some Members of this Organization to regard its deception as a genuine effort to co-operate in finding an acceptable solution to a problemof South Africa's own creation. 80. My delegation cannot but regret that, despite our experience of history, human memory should still be so short. Some of us, however, like the elephant, can never forget. We cannot forget that Sir Nevllle Chamberlain's paper peace with Hitler cost the whole world so much, in both human and material resources; that is a price the human race cannot afford to pay again in the fourth quarter of this century. To my delegation, the so-called Turnhalle constitutional conference constitutes no less a deception of the international community than the "scrapof-paper peace" with which Hitler lulled Sir Neville Chamberlain, the United Kingdom public and the greater part of the worldcommunity into complaisance. To my delegation, the Namibian issue is a simple one. Restated, it is that South Africa is occupying a United Nations Trust Territory illegally. That being the case, the Issue demands only one action by South Africa, namely, unconditional withdrawal 81. While this Organization prevaricates on the Namibian issue, while some of us indulge in ingenious rhetoric to explain away their untenable positions, the plunder of Namibia's economic resources by South Africa and its allies proceeds apace; consolidation of the privileged position of the European Community in the Territory continues, while heavy investments from Western economic interests flow into the Territory incessantly. Somewhere between public pronouncements by some Members of our Organization and their actions, there is certainly a credibility gap. How else can we describe a situation where the same countries, while condemning and denouncing South Africa, continue to supply it with arms to consolidate its strength and to co-operate with it even in the development of nuclear weapons? This obvious inconsistency can be explained only by one of two theories: either that the southern African situation has become a pawn of the ideological cold war we thought was now behind us or else, to borrow Shakespeare's words, that reason has fled to brutish beasts. 82. We have come near to achieving the objective we set ourselves in resolution 1514(XV) on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted 16 years ago by the General Assembly; yet unless we are willing to make the final effort over the last lap we shall continue to be so near and yet so far from our ultimate goal. We should act now before we leave the people of South West Africa with no option other than armed struggle to achieve their freedom, independence and human dignity. 83. The situation in Zimbabwe is no more encouraging than the tragedy in South West Africa. Here a new situation is fast developing which could have serious consequences not only on the Territory itself but on world peace and security as well. I refer to the so-called pre-emptive attacks against countries bordering Rhodesia now being staged by lan Smith's minority regime. Mozambique, Botswana and Zambia have been and continue to be subjected to armed attacks by land and air by South Afr.~an and Rhodesian forces, while Members of this Organization look on. In such circumstances, it is unrealistic to conjecture that these countries will in the near future, if the situation persists, adopt any measures available to them, including seeking the assistance of friendly countries, to safeguard their security? 84. There is yet another development in the Zimbabwean situation which should cause this Organization some concern. I refer to the so-called "protective villages" established by the illegal regime of lan Smith. These camps, in the view of my delegation, arc no more than concentration camps. The report of the Special Committee should leave no one in doubt about this. It is a strange kind of "protection" which employs as its means the torture of pregnant women and the murder of unarmed people, including young boys and girls. SS. It is against this background that we should view the current negotiations in Geneva on the future of Zimbabwe. 86. In the view of my delegation, therefore,an acceptable interim government should do two things: it should dispel the understandable suspicion of the black majority in Zimbabwe while giving some assurance to the white minority. For the I'chievement of this objective two conditions should prevail, namely, a return to the legal political status of the Territory and the establishment of an interim government that reflects the democratic principles that, we are told, characterize a civilized human society. 87. This leads me to the role that we believe the United Kingdom Government is expected to playand should play, not only in the negotiations nowproceeding in Geneva, but also in the processes leading to the full independence and sovereignty of Zimbabwe. We believe that this role is crucial to the success of the Geneva negotiations. We are gratified to note from the statement of the United Kingdom representative that his Government is willing to play sucha role. It is our hope that the Smith regime will make it possible for the two conditions I referred to earlier to prevail. Unless this happens, the black majority in Zimbabwe will be left with no choice but to continue the armed struggle till with the blood of their sons and daughters they win backthe rights whichcommon decency and their own dignitydictate that they cannot surrender. 88. There have been some developments in recent yearsin the process of decolonization which give my delegation some cause for concern. Those developments call for a rededication to the principles embodied in the Declaration on the Grantingof Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Iresolution 1514(XV)J. As I said earlier in my statement, our commitment to the process of decolonization cannot admit of any application of a double standard. Those that have benefited from this Organizatlon's commitment to the cause of decolonization cannot and should not deny the same benefits to others. The principle of self-determination and the freely expressed wishes and desires of non-self-governing peoples remain to us the most essential elements of the decolonization process. We cannot accept as valid any special pleading by any country that infringes on these cardinal principles. We 89. My delegation has noted with satisfaction the efforts being made by some administering Powers in preparing the Territories under their administration for independence. We wish, in particular, to record our appreciation for the co-operation that the Special Committee hasreceived from the Governments of Australia, New Zealand andthe United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland in its work. I take this opportunity to appeal to other administering Powers which have not yet found it possible to do so to endeavour to assist the Committee in the discharge of its responsibilities. 90. The Special Committee, in its reports on specific territories, deprecated the existence of military bases in certain Non-Self-Governing Territories and has recommended the dismantling of those installations. It has been maintained by some administering Powers that that demand constitutes an unwarranted interference in their internal affairs, on the grounds that the Territories concerned are their colonies whose security is their responsibility. Such arguments are not new to this Organization, but, as in the past, they can hardly be considered tenable. We consider the concern expressed by the Special Committee to be justified. 91. We have reached a crucial stage in the decolonization process. The last few yards of a race have often proved the most difficult to run, and it is no surprise that our energy has already started to show signs of running out. However true this may be, we should not flag in our determination to complete the noble task that was started some 16years ago. We owe a duty to generations yet unbornto contribute to the creation of a peaceful andsecure world. Colonialism or any form of domination of one group of people by another group of people isincompatible with such a world. 92. In conclusion, I should like to take thisopportunity to congratulate Western Samoa on its admission to membership in this Organization. It ·is a fitting occasion to do soat a time when we are assessing the progress that we have made with regard to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. I have no doubt that Western Samoa brings to the Organization a great deal of experience and the rich culture of the Polynesian people.

The General Assembly can be justly proud of not adjourning its thirty-first session before having admitted the People's Republic of Angola to membership in the United Nations. 94. The tremendous sacrifices made over many years by the Angolan people in its heroic struggle against Portuguese reaction and its resounding victory over those whotried to pre-empt its independence have once again borne witness to the vanity of the useof force against the unshakable will of peoples to be free. 'rhis is also an encouragement to the international Organ.zation, which henceforth should redouble its vigilance and its efforts so as to ensure the 96. Despite the clarity and binding nature of those provisions, most of the colonial peoples have acceded to national sovereignty only after longand often deadly wars of liberation. 97. In the conflict which pits it against the colonial Powers, the United Nations fortunately chose to remain faithful to its Charter. That attitude, which is due to the determination of the non-self-governing peoples and to the political courage and far-sightedness of those peoples andof all States that prize peace and justice has led the Organization to make a more accurate analysis of the situation in the colonial territories and to adopt steps which are more and more in keeping with the aims and objectives of the Charter on the question of decolonization. 98. It was thus that, with the abstention of only the colonial Powers and their allies, resolution 1514(XV) was adopted on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, on 14December 1960 during the fifteenth session of the General Assembly, which, for the first time in our Organization's history, brought together a large number of Heads of Stateand Government. 99. During the ceremonies commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of that historic Declaration, the international community noted with some satisfaction the fact that) between 1960 and 1975, 36 former colonial countries had acceded to independence and that nine of them had voluntarily integrated themselves in, or associated them- selves with, independent States. 100. The decolonization process has thus become irrever- sible, because new States have appeared on the inter- national scene in 1976, and some of them have already taken theirlawful places in the United Nations. 101. But that does not mean that colonialism has been overcome, because, as is quite clearly apparent a document published by the Department of Political Affairs, Trustee- ship and Decolonization of the United Nations.' 32 countries still appear on the list of Non-Self-Governing or TrustTerritories. 102. The physical occupation of a Territory by a foreign Power, furthermore, is not. the only manifestation of colonial sway: in recent years we have hadabundant proof 4 see Decolonizatton: a publication of the United Nations Department of Polittaal Affair', rruftee,hip and Deeotonizatton, vol. Il, No. 6 (December 1975),table VII. 103. All peoples have an inalienable right to self-deter- mination and independence, without any distinction based on geographical location, demographic composition or the level of economic development of their Territories. The report of the Special Committee on the situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, in document A/31 /23/Rev.1, reminds us of this once again. 104. In adopting resolution 3481 (XXX), requesting the Special Committee on Decolonization: "... to continueto pay particular attention to the small Territories, ... and to recommend to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of these Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, freedom and independence", the international Organization clearly sought to indicate thereby that it attached the same value to the respect for fundamental human rights, partic- ularly those which relate to freedom. 105. The colonial peoples must be allowed to choose forms of administration or government in accordance with their basic political and social aspirations. The United Nations can help them to achieve this goal only after an objective analysis of the situations prevailing in their respective Territories. The refusal of certain colonial Powers to co-operate with the Special Committee leaves our Organization no alternative but to send visiting missions to those Territories which have not yet become independent so that the United Nations may be informed and guided in the decisions it may be prompted to take to help the populations of those Territories to achieve self- determination. 1'( i 106. The arguments advanced by the colonial Powers to delay or to refuse political emancipation to peoples of small Territories quite simply show their deliberate attempt to misconstrue or to circumvent the pertinent provisions of the Charter and of resolution 1514(XV), which set no conditions for the emancipation of peoples. The disturbing situation in these Territories proves that the colonial Powers have failed in their trust to ensure the political, economic and social progress of those Territories, as recommended by the Charter. 107. Those peoples continue to have faith in the eman- cipatory mission of the United Nations, one of whose priority tasks is to free them from the nightmare of neediness by endowing their economies with structures likely to increase the production of their resources and give them new worth. The problems of small Territories are undoubtedly very complex and specific, but it isnot part of the vocation of the United Nations to find solutions that correspond to the circumstances, without at the same time; violating the purposes and principles of the Charter in decolonlzation matters? 108. Every year, the United Nations renews its efforts to bring about a new international order and, as was clearly 116. lan Smith has never concealed his intention to consolidate white domination in Southern Rhodesia under 109. Although the decolonization process has reached its final stage in that continent, it is in the southern part of Africa that the most virulent abscess of colonialism and its various manifestations has 'takenhold. 110. The situation in Southern Rhodesia and Namibia continues to preoccupy the international community be- cause it remains a direct and permanent threat to inter- national peace and security. 111. Being as it is a colonial Territory in which the black population is submitted to arbitrary rule and to exploita- tion, Southern Rhodesia is undoubtedly the only colonial country in which, since the end of the Second World War, all conditions have been deliberately created in order to establish there the domination of a white minority. Recently, the international community was informed of the existence of an Anglo-American plan to settle the Rho- desian crisis. Since 28 October 1976,a Conference hasbeen held in Geneva to put an end, once and for all, to the colonial regime in Zimbabwe. While we can only welcome any peaceinitiative, it isour duty nevertheless to recall that peace can be lasting only whenit isjust. 112. The Anglo-American plan, the contents of which have not yet been revealed by its authors and to which the Salisbury delegation of white racists likes to refer, can resolve the Rhodesian crisis only to the extent that it is based on the basic aspirations of the Zimbabwe people, and their inalienable right to self-determination and indepen- dence, and this necessarily implies the unconditional transfer of power from the racist minority to the black majority through their liberation movements, which are their authentic representatives. 11' 113. The intensification by 'the nationalists of the armed liberation struggle in Zlmbabwehas forced the rebel regime of lan Smith to sit down at tl1e conference table at Geneva in the hope that the economic sanctions decreed by the United Nations against Southern Rhodesia will be lifted, and that it will thus have additional time and means to perpetuateits domination and its hold over that country. 114. Indeed, did not lan Smith publicly declare on 24 September 1976 in connexion with Zimbabwe's inde- pendcnce: "To our great regret, however,"·-and I wish to stress this-"we were not able to have our vicws prevail"? 115. The recrudescence of acts of repression in Zimbabwe, the craven military aggression of the rebel regime against Mozambique, the closer military ties between the partisans of apartheid and the illegal white regime in Salisbury are revealing about the nature and purport of the discussions' going on in Geneva. 125. The sham constitutional consultation that was re~ cently cooked up by the masterminds of reactionary diplomacy of the illegal and racist regime of Pretoria clearly violates those provisions, It only provides further evidence of the desire of Verwoerd and his allies to continue to defy our Organization and to keep the Namibians under their control. "Dr. Kissinger has assured me that we have a common objective, a common goal, namely, to keep Rhodesia within the free world and safe from Communist inroads"• 118. The aim, the purpose of those nations which love peace and justice is to do everything they can to help the people of Zimbabwe who are in a state of war "to recover tJle land of their ancestors and to determine their own future". Those last few words were quoted from the statement of Colonel Charles Cissokho, the Minister for foreign Affairs of the Republic of Mali, made before the General Assembly on 8 October last / see 24th meeting, para. 60j. 126. The only way to bring about decolonization in Namibia has already been determined by the Organization of African Unity /OAU/ and the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, as well as the United Nations itself. It necessarily involves the prior recognition of the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence, respect for Namibia's territorial integrity, the release of political prisoners opposed to the SouthAfrican presence in their country,the withdrawal of the administration and all the troops of the South African racists from Namibia, the organization of free elections under the auspices of the United Nations, and the recognition of the South West Africa People's Organi- zation / SWAPO/ as the sole representative of the Namibian people. 119. The situation in Namibia is another direct and permanent threat to international peace and security because it is fraught with the possibility of racial conflict and because of the irresponsible attitude adopted by the racist and illegal regime of Pretoria, whose presence in the Territory is one of the most serious affronts to our Organizatit)n. 127. SWAPO derives its legitimacy as the representative of the people from its mandate from the Namibian people themselves, whose authentic embodiment it is. Indeed, a dispatch from the Agence France-Presse has revealed that on 29 November 1976 the Executive Committee of the last of the Namibian political parties, which had previously been opposed to SWAPO-the Namibian African People's Organization-unanimously decided to join ranks with SWAPO because, the dispatch states, it published a corn- munique saying: "We are convinced that only SWAPO, as the leading national liberation movement of the people, can unite the masses in Namibia". 120. The reports of the Special Committee on decolo- nizaiion, the Committee against Apartheid and the United Nations Council for Namibia provide ample detail about the ever more repressive policy practised by Pretoria against the black population of Namibia, although that Territory is in fact under United Nations trusteeship. 121. The bantustanization of the country is not only an insult to the Namibian nation andan attempt to perpetuate the vile system of apartheid, but it is also the reflection of one of the cherished dreams of the Fascist regime of Pretoria to surround itself with satellite States in order to slake its thirst for expansion andexploitation. Namibia also constitutes for the bands of racists a base for possible aggression against the People's Republic of Angola. This international Territory, which has been illegally occupied by the Vorster regime and heavily militarized, has been transformed into a bridge-head by international imperialism to satisfy its desires for colonial reconquests in Africa. 128. The United Nations must be gratified at the objec- tivity of such attitudes, which confirms the correctness of its judgements and involves it ever more each day in the implacable struggle that it is waging against colonial domination. It should, at the end of these discussions, adopt measures to make it possible for the Special Committee to complete its annual studies on the evolution of the situation in colonial Territories, by sending visiting missions. It should also encourage the Committee to extend the range of its co-operation withnon-governmental organl- zations and endorse resolution No. 2 adopted by the Fifth Conference of non-aligned countries on the creation of a fund to supportand give solidarity to liberation in southern Africa/see A/31/197, annex IV/. 122. It is undoubtedly for that reason that certain States Members of the United Nations, particularly those most directly concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security, continue to defy the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on Namibia by encouraging international capitalism to exploit the re~ sources of that country. 129. The struggle of peoples under colonial domination for their self-determinatlon and independence derives its legitimacy from the provisions of the Charter. The uncon- ditional support given by certain Member States to the colonial Powers to perpetuate colonlzati.m and the abuse of the right of veto in the Security Council against any resolution aimed at swiftly ensuring the triumph of the rights of peoples under foreign domination may serve to 123. The wanton exploitation of the resources of Namibia by foreign interests, the fact that only blacks are denied the right to form trade unions in the country, the miserly salaries paid them, and the inhuman working conditions in the mines-which virtually become the graves of Africans~> show the true face of big capital interests in Namibia. "No stalling tactics, regardless of how subtle they may be, and no military force can prevent the African peoples from achieving their final goal, namely, the total libera- tion of the last bastions of colonialism and racism in Africa. The last vestiges of colonialism will also be uprooted from the continents of Asia and Latin America by theirpeoples." [24th meeting, para. 64/. 130. That is a truth which has never been disproved by history. Let the colonial Powers and their allies understand this and co-operate with the United Nations so that dynamic and firm decisions can be taken at this session to ridthe world of the evils of colonialism andapartheid.

Sixteen years ago thisOrganization resolved to work relentlessly towards the ending of colonialism by adopting resolution 1514(XV) which, among other things, declared the right of dependent peoples to freedom, self-determination, national independence and territorial integrity. 132. In spite of some progress made since the adoption of that Declaration, more than 12million people still remain under colonial rule, the majority of them in southern Africa. This is very regrettable given that some of the Powers administering those peoples and territories claim to be champions of human rights. 133. We have noted withgreat disappointment theexcuses given by the administering Powers for failing to implement fully the 1960Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial peoples and dependent territories. In the view of my delegation these excuses are nothing but delaying tactics intended to prolong the status quo. 134. In Namibia, the supremacist racists continue to occupy that Territory in complete violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, the advisory opinion of the International Courtof Justice and the many resolutions and decisions of this Organization. We reject without any reservation South Africa's persistent defiance of this Organization and, in particular, we consider it a continuous provocation and an insult to the international community. We consider that the letter dated 27 January 1976 contained in document S/11948,5 addressed to the Secretary- General by the racist Pretoria regime, stating, interalia, that South Africa does not recognize any right of the United Nations to supervise the affairs of Namibia and further that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 21 June 19716 was advisory only as confirmation of that r6gime's persistent defiance of theprinciples andpurposes of this Organization in order to continue its occupation of Namibia. We hold that South Africa is under obligation to S See O{{icl4l Record'of the Security Council, rltirty·j1m Year, Supplement {or January, FebrUt!ry andMarch /976. 6 l.ctIll Consequence, tor State' of the Continued Presence of South Africa In Namibia (&Juth We't Africa) notwithltandlng Security Council Resolutton 276 (1970), AdvllOry Opinion, leJ. Reportl /971, p, 16. 136. It is well known that South Africa has been frantically implementing the notorious Odendaal Plan announced in 1964. That notorious plan is a blueprint for the bantustanization of Namibia, modelled to the letter and spirit on the notorious SouthAfrica pattern.The people of Namibia, under the leadership of SWAPO, have fought gallantly against that diabolical policy and the illegal occupation of their country by South Africa. It is also well-known that South Africa's occupation of Namibia is first and foremost strategic, political and economic. South Africa needs Namibia as a buffer-zone in an attempt to prolong its apartheid policies in the Republic and to launch military attacks on independent African countries, as has happened in the case of Angola and Zambia, and economically to continue to exploit its labour and abundant natural resources. Thestrategic and political factors became more evident with the enactment by the South African racist Government of a law allowing its Fascist troops to intervene in independent Africa south of the Sahara. One wonders what interests South Africa has in independent Africa except to spread terror, destruction and confusion in order to impede the liberation of the oppressed peoples of southern Africa. 137. It has been my Government's policy to support the Namibian people both morally and materially. We shall continue to honour this pledge to the extent our national resources permit us. 138. We condemn South Africa's brutal oppression of the Namibian people and its persistent violation of their human rights as well as its efforts to destroy their solidarity and territorial integrity by bantustanization. We should like to take this opportunity to request all United Nations specialized agencies and other organizations within the United Nations system to accept representation of the Namibian people in their conferences and meeting') and to protect the 139. It is the view of my delegation that the international community, without reservations, should reinforce its concerted efforts to bring to an end South Africa's occupation of Namibia. 140. The South African fascists, faced with the resolute struggle of the Namibian people to liberate themselves and isolation by the international community, organized in 1975 a bogus conference allegedly to decide the Territory's future. In the view of my delegation this conference was bogus in that it excluded the authentic representative of the Namibian people-that is, SWAPO. It was illegitimate in that it was designed to divide the Namibian people and thereby perpetuate South Africa's domination. My Government will not recognize sucha conference and we call upon all Member States of this Organization to deny the bogus Windhoek Conference any form of recognition. 141. With regard to the British colony of Zimbabwe and without prejudice to the outcome of the Geneva Conference, my delegation would like to reiterate our Government's policy that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, has the responsibility for'Jeing to it that the Conference is concluded with an immediate and definite programme and date for transfer of power from the minority Smith rebels to the majority African people. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to my delegation. 142. Finally, we should also like to take thisopportunity to express our complete disappointment withthe behaviour of .me Members of this Organization on matters of decolonization. Some members of this Organization have deliberately impeded the process of decolonization by carrying out military op-rations against emerging new States with the intention m arbitrarily integrating them in their countries either for economic reasons or territorial aggrandizement, or both. We have seen this happening in Western Sahara and East Timor, and we are carefully following developments in Belize, the Falkland Islands and Djibouti in particular. Such acts are in compete contradiction with the spirit of the Charter, the 1960Declaration on decolonizatlon, international law and relevant resolutions and decisions of this Organization. We shall continue to support all those peoples which have fallen victim to these unwarranted actions in their legitimate struggle for self-determination, freedom, national independence and territorial integrity. We do not believe that might is a substitute for self-determination, and we regret that some States, having themselves experienced the pains of colonization, should subject others to a similar situation. We cannot understand how a people invaded and occupied can be saidto have exercised its right to self-determination. 143. In conclusion, my delegation would like to express its appreciation to the Special Committee, the United Nations Council for Namibia and the Secretary-General for the continuous efforts they arc making in the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independe Ice 145. Before undertaking any assessment of the report of the Special Committee, I should like, on behalf of the delegation of the Party-State of Guinea, to congratulate the members of that Committee, especially its Chairman, our brother, Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim of the United Republic of Tanzania, whose commitment, competence and devotion enabled that bodyhonourably to discharge the difficult but challenging taskentrusted to it by the General Assembly. 146. The post-war period in general and the last 16 years in particular have certainly been characterized by an accelerated change in relations and structure which no longer meet the requirements of our time. One of the principal characteristics of this period is the disintegration of colonial empires. In the course of these years a large number of formerly colonized countries have become independent and sovereign States Members of the United Nations. 147. In celebrating the notable success achieved by the United Nations in the process of d.colonlzatlon, it is our duty to pay a tribute to the innumerable fighters who laid down their lives for the freedom of their people. The history of the anticolonial struggle has proved, were any proof needed, that it is the courageous struggle of peoples, led by their national liberation movements, that has been themain factor in the downfall of the colonial system. 148. The events which have recently occurred in the sphere of decolonlzatlon and, in particular, those which have occurred in Africa since 1974,will certainly appear in the history of decolonization as landmarks of especial importance. 149. After (te victory of the liberation movements of the Territories j .nder Portuguese administration, leading to the success of the democratic forces in Portugal, the last colonial empire, that of Portugal, disintegrated. A new political balance of forces came into being in Africa. 150. The admission this year to the United Nations of the People's Republic of Angola is ~11l important milestone in the history of the struggle of the African peoples to throw off the colonial yoke. And the admission of this brother State, despite the reticence of those who refuse to respect the verdict of history, also re-establishes oneof the cardinal principles of this Organization, that of universality. 151. In this connexlon I should like to express the hope that, when the Security Council next considers the application for admission to the United Nations of the Socialist 153. The situation of crisis prevailing in southern Africa is the result of this lack of political determination of certain States-and not the lesser ones-which are not really committed to genuine decolonization but which would maintain that part of our continent under the effective control of international imperialism and set it up as a military power poised against independent Africa. 154. The continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, which has only contempt for all the United Nations decisions expressing the universal condemnation of its abhorrent policy of apartheid and its practice of bantustanization, is inadmissible. South Africa has clearly proved that it has no desire whatever to see any change leading to the independence of Namibia, which it is determined to transform into a strategic basefrom which it canthreaten the independent States of Africa. It isspeeding up its acquisition of sophisticated weapons, and its disquieting acquisition of a nuclear potential emphasizes the growing danger which that racist regime poses for Africa and for world peace. 15S. Using the arms and other assistance it is receiving, the illegal racist regime of the rebel lan Smith is also adopting an increasingly aggressive attitude towards the neighbouring independent States, and is having recourse to the most pitiless and barbaric methods against the people of Zimbabwe, which it is oppressing and maintaining in a state of subjugation. It was only to be expected that the redoubled attacks of the liberation movements of that Territory would lead lan Smith to seize the branch extended to him by the United States and the UnitedKingdom. 156. Although the rebel lan Smith seems to believe that he is in Geneva as the "victor" to impose hisconditions for Zlmbabwcts independence on the "vanquished", we hope that the deep uspiranons of the people of Zimbabwe, rcpresented hy the liberation movements, will prevail at that Conference and that nothingwill be done to jeopardize that people's inahcnable right to freedom and tndepenlk'Ii'_C 1I right which C:l.l III no case be negotiated. a right whose attainment cannut he subjected to any conditions. t 157. If the racist regimes of southern Africa are able successfully to resist the pressure of the international community, the mandatory sanctions, the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, it is precisely because they are being assisted by all these circles of well-known economic and strategic and other imperialist interests of certain industrially developed countries. The same circles offer Africa peaceful negotiations as measures towards solutions; they oppose "violence" as a method in the liberation from colonialism and racism. In fact, it is obvious that apartheid and racism, which are the worst forms of violence against the African population, are supported by the deeds and condemned by the words of these very Powers which refuse all concrete support for and assistance to Africa in the action it is taking to eliminate apartheid and colonialism from its soil. 158. We believe that it is in the interest of the international community to assist the liberation struggle of the peoples of Namibia, Zimbabwe and Azanla, For if that assistance is 110t given the crisis in southern Africa can have unforeseeable harmful effects on international peace and security. 159. The question of what has been called the small Territories has taken on particular significance this year because of the ever-increasing pressure exerted by the peoples of those Terrltorles for the liquidation of colonialism. It has become obvious that a small Territory does not of necessity pose a small problem. In our present interdependent world, where peace is indivisible and can be based only on freedom and co-operation among all peoples and all States, equal subjects in international relations, no problem can be neglected as being of minor importance. The refusal to grant any Territory, even the smallest, its legitimate rights can lead to an international crisis. 160. We hope that all the anti-colonialtst forces will overcome allthe dissensions regarding the decolonization of a given Territory, so that all the obstacles to this process may be eliminated and the peoples of the Territories concerned may be enabled freely to exercise their right to self-determination and independence. Sucha determination on our part will doubtless permit Belize, Brunei, EastTimor and Djibouti to rid themselves of colonial domination and join the family of nations represented here. 161. With regard to the Comorian island of Mayotte, we appeal to France to show its sense of responsibility in the process of decclonizatton, anu on the basis of the frankand sincere friendship we intend to maintain with France, we ask it to respect the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Comoros by restoring to that country the island of Mayotte, a natural component of the archipelago. 102. The National Revolutionary (uuncil of Guinea, at its last session, adopted it resolution reaffirming the unswerv- 163. I should be failing in my duty if I ended this statement without paying a respectful tribute to some great heroes of the national liberationmovement who fell on the field of honour because of their legitimate efforts to ensure the fulfilment of the objectives of the Declaration in resolution 1514 (XV), whose sixteenth anniversary we celebrated a few days ago. On behalf of the people of Guinea and their Party-State, I wish to salute from the rostrum of the General Assembly Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Eduardo Mondlane, Albert Luthuli, Amilcar Cabral, Herbert Chitepo and many other brave, great sons of Africa who made the supremesacrifice for the liberation of the African continent. Their immortal names will remain engraved in the history of the permanent struggle of peoples against the forces of evil and for the victory of reason over arbitrariness, the triumph of justice over injustice.

It is not our intention to redefine the spirit of the Declaration in resolution 1514 (XV), because it is essentially a reproduction and expansion of the provisions of the Charter proclaiming the faith of the Member States in "fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". Nor is it our intention to dwell on a fundamental democraticprinciple that is already well established-namely, the principle of the equality of the political rights of all peoples. It is a principle that we have sought to translate in the Declaration in resolution 1514(XV) into steps which, through self-determination, can ensure a free and independent future for the colonial peoples that aspire to becomesovereign States. 165. The present debate can be justified only by the conflicts which have broken out regarding the evolution of some of these peoples towards ful1 self-determination and independence and by our not having yet reached any final result entallithe completeImplementatlon of the fundamental princ.._ Jf both the Declaration and the Charter. 166. Some forces, which can easily be identified if only by their stubbornness and their reactionary reflexes, see fit to drag out something which the international community has already passed judgement on and condemned and rejected by adopting the Declaration in resolution 1514(XV), in which we proclaimed the need unconditionally and swiftly to put an end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. 167. This is a need which the General Assembly sawfit to spell out by immediately placing the struggle against colonialism in the broader context of the defence of fundamental human rights and the whole cause of promoting international, universal peace, security and cooperation. In particular. it sought in the preamble to the Declaration to emphasize the decisive role that the peoples that are still dependent can play in pursuing these objec- 168. The principles laid down in the Declaration are too well known for me to have to rehearse them at any length. The most important of them relate to the right of al1 peoples freely to determine their political status and their economic, social and cultural future; the timelygranting of independence and the transfer of power "without any conditions or reservations ... without any distinctionas to race, creed or colour"; transition to the status of genuine, independence without any armed repression or opposition; and respect for the national unity and territorial integrity of the peoples and countries concerned. 169. These various tenets form a coherent whole aimedat achieving a precisely determined goal, which is to make it possible for all colonial countries and peoples to enjoy complete freedom and independence. They lay down a body of political law and rights which are inalienable and absolute and can therefore neither be truncated nor interpreted in a restrictive way, let alone be challenged. 170. However, it is a far step from principles to practice. 171. In a rapidly changing world in which rivalry is rampant in all regions and areas, the desire of the colonial peoples for independence has more than once been subjected to the requirements and laws of confrontation between the major Powers. The defence of zones of influence or specific strategic points, the desire to preserve privilege, the wish to safeguard and to perpetuate a political environment which gives free rein to the lust for exploitation and domination-these are all reasons which, in the eyes of some people, justify maintaining the status quo, on attempts to confiscate power for the benefit of individuals in the pay of powerful economic foreign interests, of imperialism or even of international racism. Sometimes, also, the right of peoples to independence has been denied in the name of the questionable need to restore national unity in certain countries, or simply because of a naked desire for annexation. 172. In one case, despite the specific demands of the General Assembly and the Security Council, they refuse to organize a referendum on self-determinatlon and instead to vest in an assembly of prominent persons the right to decide the future of an entire people. In another, the future of a people is determined by a so-called popular assembly established under a regime of foreign military occupation, which prevents the nationalist forces from freely participating in the elections. Or again, when the vast majorityof the population has voiced its desire for independence, the colonial Power involved goes back on its commitments, gives a sui generis interpretation of the result of the vote and takes advantage of it to destroy the territorial unity and integrity of the country, in flagrant violation of the Charterand of paragraph 6 of the Declaration. 173. But none can equal the racist minority regimes of Pretoria and Salisbury in their blind determination to 174. The fact that lan Smith has visited the Geneva Conference should not lead us suddently to give way to euphoria and jubilation and to consider that the problems of decolonization in Zimbabwe have thereby been resolved. The holding of that Conference shows that the intellectual reservations of the white minority are far from dispelled and that they are approaching these talks with the quite definite intention of restricting the sovereignty of the future majority government, imposing conditions on the independence of Zimbabwe, and as a matter of priority securing their own future even to the detriment of the majority, so that they can subsequently legalize and perpetuate a new neo-colonial and imperialist structure. When lan Smith speaks of entrusting the Government of Zimbabwe to a "responsible majority", which is no; the same as a simple majority; when he asks for the creation of a Council of State which he himself would preside over, and which would approve the composition of the government and prepare the constitution; when he requests that white rebel racist-minority ministers preserve the key Ministries of Defence and Justice in the so-called "transitional" government-are we certain that he has in fact given up the idea of minority government, and are we certain that he sincerely intends to give up the privileges now enjoyed by that minority? 175. As far as we are concerned, we have always supported the position of the so-called front-line Heads of State and the position of the nationalist movements which have rejected lan Smith's interpretation of the Angle- American plan, since it isintended to prejudge the decisions which the independent people of Zimbabwe alone should take in full sovereignty. We are convinced that it isstill up to the United Kingdom as the administering Power more resolutely to support the nationalist forces of Zimbabwe during this traditional stage so that Zimbabwe may accede to independence. In so doing, the United Kingdom would resume the responsibility we have never denied it but which is not always fully assumed because of a certain logic which has largely been superseded by an evolution of thought and circumstance. 176. In connexion with Namibia, our delegation has already had occasion to give its views both in the Security Council and in the Fourth Committee. We continue to denounce South Africa's refusal to co-operate with the United Nations in order to find a solution to these problems which will satisfy both the Namiblan people and the entire international community. We can neither accept nor sanction its idea of dismembering the international territory of Namibia through the tribal talks in Turnhallc, 177. We cannot conceive of any negotiations on Namibia before South Africa has accepted the conditions laiddown by SWAPO, namely, that any negotiation between SWAPO and the illegal occupation regime should deal solely with the arrangements for the transfer of power to the Namibian people under the direction of SWAPO; that the negotiations must take place under the auspices of the United Nations; that the unconditional release of all political prisoners or detainees must take place before anything else is discussed; and that the South African armed forces must be withdrawn from Namibia. 178. These conditions had by no means been met on 19October last, when France, United Kingdom and the United States vetoed the draft resolution proposing a mandatory embargo on arms deliveries to and economic sanctions against SouthAfrica." Since then the negotiations which apparently were to be held at that time, and which, according to those delegations, made it untimely for new steps to be taken, were not the sort of negotiations that we can regard asserious. 179. Furthermore, it is a fact that a few weeks later no one was saying anything about the "negotiations" to which those three Western Powers had referred at that time. In other words, the irresponsible exercise of the triple vetohas led to a slackening in the actionof the Organization, which can only be to the benefit of South Africa in realizing its plans. 180. This problem of Namibia, as we see it, illustrates the tragedy of our Orflnization: it is powerless because of the conflicting interests which prevail in it to ensure the full implementation of principles which appear, at first sight, to be universally accepted; powerless also to impose decisions in regard to conflicts where some may withdraw from its jurisdiction in order to subject to so-called negotiations something which is not negotiable or to pursue objectives which are not easily reconcilable with the liberation and independence of peoples. 181. The United Nations, we believe, should reaffirm its authority, insist on the scrupulous implementation of its resolutions and refuse to be relegated to a secondary or peripheral role which would be incompatible with its function, which is to serve as a privileged centre for negotiations on and the settlement of international problems. It should under no circumstances agree that the principles of the Declaration contained in resolution 1514(XV) may be diluted in their appllcatlon or diverted from their t~ue goal. 182. Fait. to our general principles and recognizing as we do that the legitimate struggle of the colonial countries 7 See Official Rtcord, of th« Stcurit)l Coulldl, 1111rt)l·flm Ye2~ 1963rd meeting. ' 183. The results which have already been obtained, however significant they may bel in no way diminish our common responsibility in this connexion, since it is true that the requirements of the new international order, which should be more democratic and more just, have both broadened and deepened this responsibility and enjoin upon us the task of persevering until equality among all menand allnations becomes a living and irreversible reality. 184. A debate is about to conclude during whichwehave all endeavoured to demonstrate our commitment to resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence 'to Colonial Countries and Peoples, to display our responsibility in the eyes of world public opinion and to analyse the factors which have had a tellingeffect on the process of the liberation of peoples and in certain cases to ensure that the elimination of colonialism has entered its final stage. For our part, whatever be the value of these professions of faith, we shah continue to be guided by the aspirations and claims of peoples that are subjected and humiliated, to whom we would say: U Aslongasjusticehas not been fully renderedto you, our struggle will go on".

We have now concluded our debate on agenda item 25. 186. The General Assembly has before it three draft resolutions, contained in documents A/31/L.29 and Add.!-3, A/3l/L.30 and Add.I-3 and A/31/L.31 and Add.l-S. I shall now call upon those representatives who wish to explain their votes on any or all of the three draft resolutions.

Guatemala has for 16 years firmly upheld the fundamental principles and purposes of decolonization as contained in resolution1514(XV). However, the delegation of Guatemala at this Assembly will a'istain in the vote on draft resolution A/31/L.29, entitled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", because we cannot accept certain politicalcriteriaexpressed in the text which have no bearing on the real purpose of decolonizatlon. These are political criteria which might affect the territorial integrity of Member States, and that is contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and to the maintenance of international peace and security and the defence of the sovereignty, independence .tnd territorial integrity of Member States. 1~X. [1' separate votes were taken, Guatemala would vote .li~ain-t ';i'vcral l'tlragraphs in the draft resolution, because they ,.mu;ain dangerous generalizations which are not in a~C"II; ..ith our particularclaims Oil the Territory of Belize. 190. I should like to pay a tribute to the officers of the Special Committee who have each contributed to the Committee's work this year: the Chairman, Ambassador Salim of the United Republic of Tanzania; the acting Chairman, Ambassador Abdulah of Trinidad and Tobago; Mr. Garvalov of Bulgaria and Mr. Vraalsen of Norway, who has performed creditably this session as Chairman of the Fourth Committee, and the Rapporteur of the Special Committee, Mr. Glayel of the Syrian Arab Republic. 191. The Australian delegation in the Special Committee has participated actively in the work of the Committee throughout 1976. Our support for the process of decolonization and for majority rule in Namibia and Zimbabwe is consequently amply documented in the report of the Special Committee. The few reservations that we have had in relation to the decisions of the Committee are also recordedin the Special Committee'sreport. 192. On several occasions, both in the Special Committee and in this Assembly, we have stated the Australian Government's position on the legitimacy of armed struggle in the achievement of liberation from the racist and colonial regimes that persist in Zimbabwe and Namibia. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes, there may be recourse to rebellion against tyranny and oppression as the last resort in situations where human rights are persistently denied. But recourse to armed struggle must be made only as a last resort. We believe that the international community has a continuing obligation to explore fully the opportunities that, in our view, stillexist for a peaceful solution in Namibia and Zimbabwe. In this regard, we believe that all parties concerned should take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Geneva talks in relation to Southern Rhodesia, and we wish its Chairman and all those associated with this effort full success. We hope that those talks will culminate in arrangements for a smooth transitionto majority rule in Zimbabwe. Consistent with our support for peaceful solutions, we deny to the illegal regime in Zimbabwe and to the South African Government all forms of military equipmentand assistance. 193. In its operative paragraph 10, draft resolution A/31/L.29 refers to the presence of military bases and installations in colonial Territories. As we have noted in the Special Committee, and more recently in the Fourth Committee's vote on the draft resolution on Guam, the United Nations Charter recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self defence and that the existence of installations of an administering Power in its dependent Territory may well be justified by obligations relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as well aslocal defence. 194. Operative paragraph 1{ of draft resolution A/31/L.29 refers also to nuclear and military collaboration with South

The Federal Republic of Germany has consistently supported the acceleration of the process of decolonization. As members know, Germany had the privilege of being stripped of all its colonies as early as 1919. Since the Federal Republic of Germany was thus never a colonial Power, its contacts with the countries and peoples concerned have been easy from the outset, and today it maintains friendly relations with almost all the countries of the third world. These are relations based on respect and mutual understanding and arc aimed at longterm political and human understanding. Never in the framework of these relations has the reproach of colonialism played a role. We see our activities as aiming at better economic and social structures as a decisive contribution to the solution of the most pressing problems of those peoples, especially those in Africa. Going beyond simple statements and solemn gestures, we have translated our awareness of these problems into a practical policy, thus helping our African partners and others to achieve genuine independence. This material and human commitment for the benefit of almost all developing countries has been warmly recognized by our partners,and we are proud of this. 196. Given this 'progressive co-operation in the transformation of purely legal independence into true independence and self-determination, the principal content of draft resolution A/31/L.29 has always been a basic clement of our approach to the problems of decolonlzation. That is why we should have preferred to accept this draft resolution by an affirmative vote and without reservation. 197. However, this text contains several passages that give rise to serious objections and which,consequently, make it necessary for us to request that our partners in the Assembly understand that the only choice remaining to us is to abstain. 198. We have always maintained that effective measures against apartheid arc necessary and that they must be intensified. But one cannot, as does operative paragraph 2, identify this struggle with the decolonization struggle. South Africa does not represent a decolonization problem. 199. Armed struggle for decolonizatton should not, in our view, be recommended, since we feel that political solutions arc always possible. The approval of armed struggle, which 200. The existence of military bases is not necessarily an obstacle to self-determination. That is why operative paragraph 10 has no place in the context of this draft resolution. The retention of that passage is even less comprehensible to us, since the majority of the General Assembly has already expressed its reservations in this respect during the vote on 1 December 1976 on another draft resolution. 201. Other objections concern parts of the sixth prearnbular paragraph and the mention of a "threat to ... peace and security" in operative paragraph 2. 202. We shall express our favourable attitude to the principle of decolonization by an affirmative vote on draft resolution A/31/L.30 on the dissemination of information on decolonization.

In reference to draft resolution A/31/L.29, I should like to express Portugal's reservation concerning operative paragraph 10 of the aforesaid draft, on the question of military bases maintained by administering Powers in Territories under their administration. 204. Consistent with what we have stated in the Fourth Committee regarding the questions of Guam and French Somaliland,« we consider that neither the provisions of the Charter nor those of resolution 1514(XV) prevent the administering Powers from maintaining such military installations, which do not necessarily in themselves constitute obstacles to the exercise of the right to self-determination by the peoplesconcerned. As wehave said before, we think that it is up to the latter to decide upon the existence of such installations. 205. Also, our positive vote on the aforementioned draft resolution cannot be interpreted as an-endorsement of all the decisions and conclusions contained in the report of the Special Committee referred to in operative paragraph 5 of the draft. ;'j

The United States will vote against draft resolution A/31/L.29 on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples. 207. My delegation has reservations about a number of aspects of the draft resolution itself, as well as about portions of the report of the Special Committee on decolonization, which operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution approves. We have already addressed some of these, including the language on military activities and foreign economic interests, in committee or in plenary,and will not take the time to repeat our views today. 208. Concerning the section of the report of the Special Committee dealing with Guam, my delegation wishes to 210. Chapter 1 of the report of the Special Committee [A/31/23/Rev.l/ contains a reference to discussion of Puerto Rico, including a decision to take up the question again in 1977. Puerto Rico is not a matter which falls within the purview of the Special Committee. The people of Puerto Rico are self-governing, as was recognized by the General Assembly in 1953, when it approved resolution . 748(VIII), and in 1971, when it decided not to inscribe Puerto Rico on its agenda. 211. Thepolicy of the United States with regard to Puerto Rico is based on full acceptance of the principle of self-determination. We stated before this body in 1953 that if the Legislature of Puerto Rico should adopt a resolution in favour of independence, then the President would immediately recommend to the Congress that independence be granted. 212. The fact of the matter is that, in the exercise of their right to self-determination, the people of Puerto Rico have opposed independence for Puerto Rico and have selected a commonwealth relationship with the United States. This choice, which was made in 1952, was reaffirmed in a 1967 status referendum. Theelection heldon 2 November of this year provides further current evidence as to the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico. Although pro-independence parties campaigned hard and freely, they received the supportof only6 percent of the voters. 213. In view of these facts, discussion of Puerto Rico by the Special Committee is an unwarranted interference in the affairs of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico. 214. Concerning the Committee's discussion of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, I wish to point out that the Charter provides that all functions of the United Nations relating to Trust Territories designated as strategic areas shall be exercised by the Security Council. The Security Council has delegated to the Trusteeship Council the authority to consider the administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands on behalf of the Security Council. For these reasons the United States considers inappropriate any consideration of the Trust Territory by the Special Committee, and does not participate in the Committee's consideration of the question. The record of the United States Administration of the Trust Territory is available in the documents of the Trusteeship Council, which clearly refute the views expressed by certain irresponsible delegations. 21 S. The United States will abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/31/L.30 concerning dissemination of infor- 216. The United States will participate in the adoptionby consensus of draft resolution A/31/L.31, concerning an International Conference in support of the peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia. We reserve our position on the political significance of the Conference, its timing and United States participation.

I am speaking on behalfof the delegations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and of my own country, Norway. 218. The Nordic delegations will vote in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.29. The position of the Nordic countries on the question of decolonization has been consistent and is well known. Our Governments take strong exception to anything that impedes the interests of the peoples in dependent Territories in exercising freely their inalienable right to self-determination. On the basis of an over-all consideration of the draft resolution and in view of the special responsibility of the United Nations concerning the question of the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, we are in a position to supportthe draft resolution because we are in al.,.reement withits main objectives. 219. However, the positive vote of the Nordic countries does not mean that we do not have reservations concerning certain provisions of the draft resolution which run counter to principles that we have consistently upheld or which raise constitutional difficulties. We have spelt them out on so many occasions in the past that we do not intendto go into any detailnow. 220. We would, however, place on record our view that operative paragraph 4 contains elements that do not accord with the policy of peaceful solutions that the Nordic countries have always followed. 221. As regards the request in operative paragraph 9, it is our understanding that that does not entaila breach of the principle of universality. 222. We shouldalso like to place on record that wedo not agree with every part of the report of the Special Committee. 223. We should, finally, like to reiterate our hope that the ultimate goal of self-determination and independence will be achieved through co-operation and peaceful negotiations.

The debates in the Special Committee and the Fourth Committee this year have shown that a wide measure of agreement exists on th~ question of decolonization. Inevitably, there are differences of approach on the best means of bringing about changes 225. It is a distortion of the truth to assert, as does operative paragraph 2 of the draft, "that the continuation of colonialism in all its forms ... poses a serious threat to international peace and security". That statement is true for Rhodesia, as determined by the Security Council. It is certainly not true, for example, for the several hundred thousand inhabitants of Territories for which the United Kingdom remains responsible in the Pacific and Caribbean regions. As it fails to discriminate between different territories and situations, that paragraph is rendered virtually meaningless. 226. In the text as at present drafted, we are asked to accept, for example, that the imminent advance of the Solomon Islands to independence contravenes the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That assertion is incompatible in substance with the resolutions of the General Assembly adopted on 29 November on the recommendation of the Fourth Committee {resolutions 31/29, 31/30 and 31/31J and contradicts paragraph 12 (d) of the draft itself, in which the Special Committee is requested "to continue to pay particular attention to the small Territories ...". 227. We would not expect to agree with the Special Committee on every point. We are amply familiar with the range and variety of the issues it discusses. We have our well-known positions on such questions as, for example, the Falklands and Brunei. There have been occasions on which we have differed and cases where no further comment on our part is called for as the issues have already been thoroughly discussed. 228. There are, however, two issues raised by the draft in operative paragraphs 5, 7 and 10, on which I should liketo comment. They relate to a point which I made earlier, namely, that a resolution can be robbed of meaning and force if it uses language indiscriminately. Foreign economic interests in many Non-Self-Governing Territories enhance the capacity of their inhabitants to proceed to self-determination and to attain early and secure independence. That fact received wide recognition in the course of the debate early in the :ession on agenda item 87. Nor does the draft 230. It will be clear that my delegation regards some of the wording of the draft resolution as false and unrealistic. Much of it, however, we accept. We shall continue to take part in the relevant discussions of the Special Committee and to convey its conclusions and recommendations, as appropriate, to the Governments of United Kingdom Territories. We are grateful to the members of the Special Committee, and to its Sub-Committee on Small Territories in particular, for the achievements of 1976, and we look forward for our own part to a productive session in 1977. 231. My delegation will be ready to join in the consensus on draft resolution A/31/L.31 concerning the holding of a conference on Rhodesia and Namibia at Maputo next year. We are in favour of open and full discussion of these important questions. But I think it only right to say that we shall also have to consider in due course the timing of the conference in relation to developments elsewhere towards a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia. We also have reservations about the reference to the word "struggle" in the fourth paragraph of the preamble, 232. I close with a general observation. My Government welcomes frank discussion of conditions in our Territories. We resent, however, the kind of propagandistic, ill-informed and ill-intentioned criticism which we have heard from representatives of Czechoslovakia and of what, borrowing a phrase of their own, I shall describe as"other Warsaw Pact circles". Our claim to abide by democratic principles in our remaining dependent Territories rests on facts which canbe attested to by any impartial observer and to which in the recent past no fewer than three United Nations visiting missions have already attested. We believe in the free determination of their future status by their inhabitants. We have confidence in the democratic process in our dependent Territories. We can only think that people who have had experience of the Brezhnev doctrine have difficulty in understanding the very idea of the wishes of the people freely expressed. 233. Mr. FUENTES IBA~EZ (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): The Bolivian delegation would like to express its reservations on operative paragraphs 4, 5 and 10 of draft resolution A/31/L.29. Operative paragraph 4 sanctions the use of all means at the disposal of colonial peoples; in other words, it includes violent means thus it a way placing on a secondary level the peaceful means whi. arc prescribed by our Charter. Operative paragraphs 5 :Bt.l 10 involve situations which arc not similar, and if they arc

The Assembly will now take a decision on the various draft resolutions. 235. We shall vote first on draft resolution A/31/L,29 and Add.l-S entitled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples". The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of that draft resolution are contained in document A/31/442/Rev.l, sectionA. A recorded votehasbeen requested. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Boli- via, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslo- vakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,' El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. I • Against: Israel, UnitedStatesof America. Abstaining: Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands.

We shall now turn to draft resolution A/31/L.30 and Add.l-S, entitled "Dissemination of information on decolonization". A recorded vote has beenrequested. 9 The delegation of Mozambique subsequently informed the Secretariat that it wished to have its vote recorded as having been in favour of the draft resolution. The delegation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland subsequently informed the Secretariat that it wished its vote to be recorder' as an abstention. Against: None. Abstaining: France, United Statesof America. The draft resolution w.t'lS adopted by 132 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (resolution 31/144).

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/ 31/L.31 and Add. 1·3,entitled "International Conference in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia". The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of that draft resolution is contained in document A/31/442/Rev.l, section B. I have been informed that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt this draft resolution by consensus. In the absence of any objection, I shall consider that it isso decided. Thedraft resolution w.t'lS adopted (resolution 31/145).

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votesafter the vote.

The Greek delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.29. It also voted in favour of draft resolutions A/31/L,30 and A/31/L.31 because it approved of the way in which thoseimportant subjects are treated in those drafts., Our vote in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.29, however, should be understood in the light of the position taken by my delegation on specific aspects of certain questions dealt with in that resolution, a position we expressed in our statements by our votes in the Fourth Committee. 241. With regard to draft resolution A/31/L.29, my delegation has reservations about operative paragraph 2, which declares that the continuation of colonialism in allits forms and manifestations poses a serious threat to international peace and security. Not only do we feel that the definition of such a threat is essentially a matter to be decided by the Security Council, but we also have grave doubts about the accuracy of the statement in many colonial situations. 242. In operative paragraph 4, which reaffirms its recognition of the·legitimacy of the struggle of the peoples under colonial and alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal, we interpret this to mean by all peaceful means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. 243. With regard to operative paragraph 9, whichrefers to withholding "assistance of any kind from the Government of South Africa", we also have a reservation in the context of our long-standing attitude that requests such as this properly fall within the area of competence of the Security Council. 244. In connexion with operative paragraph 10, we cannot accept that the presence of military bases is necessarily incompatible with the process of decolonization. We feel that our view was clearly endorsed earlier this year when the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of one Non-Self-Governing Territory-Guam-voted to retain their association with their administering Power and its military base. The representative of the United States has just recently referred to this point this evening from this rostrum. 245. In addition, although fully recognizing the importance of the work of the Special Committee in the United Nations system, we cannot unreservedly endorse those elements of its report /A/31/23/Rev.1J which correspond to the reservations we have just expressed. 246. In conclusion, Ireland wishes once more to reaffirm its support for the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960, by which the Assembly affirmed that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the Charter of the UnitedNations. We voted for that resolution in 1960 as we continue to support it now.

The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples is one of the fundamental documents of this Organization. Austria has never failed to lend its full support to the rights of colonial countries and peoples to self-determination and independence, and our attitude in 249. The Austrian delegation has whole-heartedly agreed with the general thrust of the three draft resolutions on which we have just voted, and it therefore cast positive votes on draft resolutions A/31/L.29 and A/31/L.30 and joined the consensus on A/31/L.31. We did so in spite of some reservations which we must express with regard to the wording of various provisions of these resolutions. 250. In particular, I should like to refer to operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution A/31/L.29, which we interpret to mean that the use of all peaceful means in conformity of .he Charter of the United Nations is envisaged. 251. Finally, in the context of draft resolution A/31/L'.31, which has just been adopted by consensus, I should like to indicate that my Government is giving active consideration to a voluntary contribution to defray some of the additional costs of the proposed conference on Zimbabwe and Namibia in Maputo.

My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.29, which has just been adopted, because it firmly supports its basic objective, namely to reaffirm the inalienable right of the peoples of Non-Self- Governing Territories to self-determination and independence. 253. However, there are some paragraphs which my delegation finds difficult to support. They are the sixth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 2, 5, 9, 10 and 12 (h). 254. With regard to operative paragraph 7, my delegation understands that it does not condemn all activities of foreign economic and other interests. 255. My delegation's affirmative vote does 110t constitute acceptance of certain implications of the language used in the fifth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraphs 3,4 and 11.

I should hke briefly to explain the vote of the delegation of Iran 011 draft resolution A/31/L,29, which has just been adopted. 257. Iran has always strongly adhered to the principles of self-determination and independence enshrined in the United Nations Charter. This is evidenced by the fad that my Government has always been and continues to be among the fervent supportersof the decolonlzutlon pW';"SS throughout the world. In pursuance of this objectivc I Ii,C therefore voted in favour of the draft resolution en the implementation of the Declaration on t1H~ Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

The delegation of France had to abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/31/L.29 because it doesnot agree with the general spirit of its provisions. 260. In particular, my delegation cannot accept the recognition of "the legitimacy of the struggle ... by all the necessary means ...". Moreover, we do not believe that foreign economic interests are necessarily impeding the independence and development of the Territories concerned. We have objections also to the use of the language of Chapter VII of the Charter. 261. With regard to draft resolution A/31/L.30, on the dissemination of information on decolonization, and draft resolution A/31/L.31, on the Maputo Conference, my delegation would merely recall its reservations about references to resolutions for which it hasnot voted, as well as about the report of the Ad Hoc Group of the Special Committee, of whose conclusions recommending armed struggle we do not approve. , 262. Some of these objections, in particular those relating to recognition of the legitimacy of armed struggle, could have led my delegation to cast a negative vote. We did not do so in order to demonstrate our determination to associate ourselves, over and above the differences on methods, with our common aim: freedom for the peoples by means of a recognition'of their right to self-determination. My delegation is still firmly devoted to the maintenance of the principles of orr Organization. Our Organization cannot work for peace except through dialogue and other peaceful means. Any other kind of action is, we feel, not in keeping with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The Italian delegation gladly voted in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.30, and was happy to join in the consensus on draft resolution A/3l/L.3l, but was obliged to abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/3l/L.29, concerning the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. While in fact fully sharing the principles and the spirit behind draft resolution A/3l/L.29, and while noting with approval the positive developments that have taken place this year in the process of decolonization, we cannot endorse the wording of some of the paragraphs of the draft resolution. In particular, we have reservations about the paragraphs implying support for the use of force, which we cannot approve and which arc not likely to bring about any progress. We have reservations also about those paragraphs suggesting that all foreign investments in colonial countries arc necessarily detrimental to the interestsof the peoples of the Territories concerned. Suchan indiscriminate statement runs counter to the facts, in our view. Moreover, we r'ltlnot accept the principle implied in operative paragraph 10 that the presence of military bases in Non-Sclf-Governmg Territories is detrimental to the interests of the peoples of the Territories concerned. That, too, has been proven not to correspond to the real state of affairs.

We voted in favour of draft resolution A/31/L.29 because of our constant support for the acceleration of the process of decolonization and our complete agreement with the spirit of the draft resolution. We believe that the speedy and completeelimination of the last vestiges of colonialism, particularly with respect to Namibia and Zimbabwe, and the total eradication of racial discrimination, apartheid and the violations of the basic human rights of the peoples in colonial Territories will be achieved with the complete and faithful implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 266. My delegation would like to state, however, that our affirmative vote should not be considered as an endorsement of all the views expressed in draft resolution A/31/L.29, particularly those expressed in the paragraphs dealing with military bases and Installations. We should like to express our reservations also about the paragraphs in the report of the Special Committee which deal with military bases and installations.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speakin exercise of their right of reply.

Whatever the representative of Somalia may have said here yesterday {102nd meeting/ I note that he at no time indicated that his country was withdrawing its sponsorship of the draft resolution on the FrenchTerritory of Afars and Issas, adopted in the Fourth Committee and then, without any change, in the General Assembly [resolution 31/59/. 269. My delegation is thus authorized to conclude-cas is the entire international community-that Somalia remains committed to all the provisions of that text, and particularly to the reference to the solemn declarations of the leader of its delegation at Port Louis and in the Fourth Committee, and to the specific reference in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the resolution to certain resolutions adopted by OAU and the United Nations; I have in mind resolutions 43110 and 4801 1 adopted by OAU, the declaration adopted by the OAU Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa, and resolution 3480 (XXX), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. 270. Moreover, with regard to the idea of political guarantees-and I stress the word "political" sought by France, I would make it clear that that idea in no way implies a derogation from international law. Rather, it implies unequivocal commitments by the two neighbouring States to accept without reservation the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the future State and 10 Scedocument AI 10297,annex I. 11 See document Al31/196 and Corr.I, annex.

In hissecondstatement in exercise of his right of replyyesterday the representative of Somalia made certain remarks which require a brief response from my delegation. 272. The representative of Somalia asserted that Ethiopia's insistence that Somalia implement the pertinent General Assembly resolutions calling for the renunciation of territorial claims on Djibouti is but an attempt on our part "to inject into the discussion on the decolonization of French Somaliland matters which have nothing to do with that specific problem"{see 102nd meeting, para. 178/, 273. I should like to assure the General Assembly as much as the representative of Somalia that at no time did my delegation inject into the debate on Djibouti matters extraneous to the future of the Territory. On the contrary, we have consistently endeavoured to ensure that the international community focus its attention 011 the real problem pertaining to Djibouti on the eve of its independence. We have shown that, France having finally committed itself to a clear time-table for decolonizing the Territory, the only impediment in the way of Djibouti's independence and the darkest cloud hanging over its future sovereignty and territorial integrity is Somalia's continuing claim on the Territory. In the circumstances I hardly think anyone seriously entertains the view that Somalia's claim on Djibouti and its reluctance to renounce it is a matter extraneous to the decolonlzation of the Territory. 274, We have repeatedly heard the pious declarations of the delegation of Somalia to the effect that its country will respect Djibouti's independence. On the other hand, that delegation continues to this very minute to persist in its refusal to offer a reasonable and convincing explanation as to what compeIled it to register a formal reservation to resolution 31/59 if not its territorial claim to Djibouti. 275. Since the reservation Somalia has registered at this session is the third in a series, the General Assembly can only conclude that Somalia is intent upon subverting Djibouti's independence to suit its expansionist designs. 276. Notwithstanding the verbal acrobatics at which its representatives seem to be particularly adept, those who sponsored and supported resolution 31/59 surely have no grounds to take at face value Somalia's seeming lack of interest in expanding at the expense of Djibouti. Since Somalia's representatives have time and again effectively demonstrated that they do not mean what they say or say what they mean, the only way they can convince the General Assembly that Somalia does not have territorial designs on Djibouti is by the formal withdrawal of their reservations concerning resolution 3480 (XXX) and the speedy implementation in particular of its paragraph 6, which calls for the renunciation of territorial claims to Djibouti and spells out a specific procedure. The General Assembly would have to consider anything short of that a deliberate attempt by Somalia to mislead the international community as to its designs on the Territory of Djlbouti. 278. Addressing the twenty-first session of the General Assembly on 18 October 1966 in his capacity as Prime Minister of the Republic of Somalia, Mr.Hussen stated the following: "Should the people of the Territory decide by a majority vote to become independent, arrangements should be made to guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of their State",12 . 279. I am sure the members of the General Assembly appreciate the fact that since the statement I have just quoted was made by Ambassador Hussen as head of government of his country, the authority with which he spoke does not permit of any doubt. Yet in the course of the current session of the General Assembly, when the question of Djibouti was being discussed in the Fourth Committee, the representative of Somalia declared: ".. .us the situation regarding [Djibouti] has changed since October 1966, it was inappropriate to refer in the present context to Somalia'saction at that time".! 3 280. Having due regard to Somalia's continuing territorial claim on Djibouti one may at this juncture ask what situations have changed with respect to the Territory to warrant a statement such as that made by the representative of Somalia in the Fourth Committee and repeated by the Ambassador here yesterday. Why is Somalia reversing its position of a decade ago at a time when the early accession to independence by Djibouti is practicalIy assured? Certainly it could not be out of concern over imaginary limitations on the sovereignty of Djibouti. If its proposal implied such limitations, why did it have to make it in the first place? 281. Does this reversal of position by Somalia on the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Djibouti and its present refusal to abide by the provisions of successive resolutions of the General Assembly mean that it is now committed to absorbing the Territory? If suchis the case, let the representative of Somalia say so without further subterfuge, 282. The present issue is, then, Somalia's credibility concerning faithful implementation of the provisions of all General Assembly resolutions on Djibouti in their entirety without any reservation or exception whatsovever. In the. event of failure by Somalia to indicate clearly here and now that it is going to implement those resolutions, the international community should draw the appropriate conclusion and stand ready for whatever steps Somalia might take to achieve its designs on Djibouti. 12 See OfJil'ia/ Records of the General AS1emb/)', Twenty-first Session, P/('nary Mcetingy, 1447tll meeting, para. 58. 13/hid., Thtrtv-ftnt Session, Fourth Committee, 27th meeting, para. 107. 284. In the first place, with regard to the statement of the representative of France, I should like to state that his delegation has the right to interpret the provisions of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the question of so-called French Somaliland asit wishes. 285. We have interpreted that resolution according to how my delegation and my Government understand it, and I have nothing to add, except that the injunction against interference in the internal affairs of an independent French Somaliland is addressed to France also-not only to Somalia, but also to France, and to all other States. 286. With regard to the statement of the representative of Ethiopia, I do not think I have much to say about it. The Ambassador of Ethiopia mentioned a statement I made before this General Assembly in 1966 in my capacity as Prime Minister of my country. I think it important that I reply immediately. It is true that at that time he mentioned I supported an arrangement of guarantees for theTerritory in the event of the people of the Territory opting for independence, because at that time there was a referendum taking place. I made that proposal at the time because the Ethiopian Government at that time had officially declared that, in the event of the population of the Territory opting for independence, Ethiopia would not hesitate to intervene militarily, That was the reason why my Government, quite wisely, came before the General Assembly and proposed that arrangement: in order to avoid a military confrontation between the neighbouring countries on thequestion of French Somaliland. Unfortunately, that proposal was not acceptable to Ethiopia at that time. 287. Time passed, and last year Ethiopia thought. that perhaps the question of guarantees would go in its favour this time. And it was not the Somali Government that rejected that idea in 1975, before the OAU Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa in Oar esSalaam; it was the people of theTerritory that rejected that idea. 288. With your permission, Mr. President, I should like to read to the General Assembly, to refresh its memory, what the President of the Government Council of the Territory, Mr. Abdallah Mohamed Kamil, stated before the Fourth Committee on 3 November of this year on this question of guarantees. He said: "There had been talk, however, of having its Independence guaranteed by a covenant to be concluded by the two neighbouring States't-rhat is, Somalia and Ethicpia "in, it seemed, the future State's own interests. The population of the Territory didnot want such a covenant. One very recent example had shown what agreements of that kind, concluded by large States on the pretext of defending and protecting a small State,led to. "The population did not want a covenant which might give anyone of the signatory Powers the right to take a hand in itsaffairs on the pretextof protecting it from the othersignatory Power".14 15Ibid.•• para. 35. 14/hirJ.. 14!h IIJc,·tillg, paras, 50and 51. 290. Again, Mr. Kamil, speaking about the need for his country's complete independence, on accession to lndependence from France said that his Territory "must fight in order to win and preserve genuine independence, an independence without any conditions or restrtctions".! 5 On this basis, we felt that the resolution adopted by the General Assembly, which was a resolution formulated on the basis of a compromise, was not completely in conformity with the genuine interests anddesires of the people of the Territory as I have just mentioned and it is for this reason that we have to place on record our reservations in that regard. 291. I do not want to indulge in any acrimony as the Ethiopian delegation wants me to do. I should like also to remind the Assembly that it is not true that there is no territorial problem between Ethiopia and Somalia. It isnot so simple. The General Assembly iswell aware of it, OAU is well aware of it, and it is our firm beliefthat Ethiopia has always tried in every forum to inject extraneous proposltions into the question of French Somaliland and to fish for something else, even in regard to territorial disputes which are well known to the world body and which are at the present time in the hands of a special committee of the DAU Heads of State.

Today the General Assembly has adopted a resolution on anextremely important question, the question of the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Everyone who is sincerely interested in the absolute and full solution of this problem cannot but be concerned and distressed over the fact that millions of people are still suffering under colonial oppression. Probably the General Assembly would not have any reason for once again adopting a resolution on this question were the situation different. I do not know how the representative of the United Kingdom voted. Apparently he did not vote at all on this question, for a number of reasons, but in any case he did make a few comments here to explain his position. He said that some statements from the Warsaw Pactcountries on this question were propagandistic and he pleaded for democratic principles in resolving thecolonial question andachieving decolonization. 293. If democratic principles had been applied in resolving the problem of decolonlzation, then today we would doubtless have no reason at all to talk about this problem. Namibia would doubtless be an independent State. Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia) would doubtless be an independent State; and the English could be sitting somewhere alongside that State here in'the General Assembly hall. 294. However, such an understanding of a democratic solution as was expressed by the representative of the 295. However, this is not happening in Rhodesia, where the United Kingdom is the administering Power, so I do not think that it is fitting that it should call propagandistic a statement by people who are advocating a democratic solution. 296. And it is completely out of place to repeat from this rostrum inventions of Western bourgeois propaganda concerning the policy of the Warsaw Pact countries and the doctrines of that policy invented in the West. 297. In our foreign policy there is but one doctrine-that of Lenin advocating the peaceful coexistence of countries with different socio-economic systems. That policy also requires us to provide assistance to people suffering under colonial oppression. This is the Leninist policy, which we have always followed and will continue to follow. We have no other doctrine, and that is the only democratic way of resolving the problemof decolonization.

In the first place, we do not have any territorial dispute with Somalia, as the Ambassador of Somalia claimed. If we have anything,it isa boundary dispute with Somalia, and there is no OAU body considering this problem. 299. Secondly, we have taken note of the Ambassador's statement to the effect that his country has a serious reservation with regard to the resolution that was adopted by the General Assembly on 1 December. If that isso, then why did his country join in sponsoring it?,

My delegation only wishes to point out that the policies and good faith of my country are constantly called into question, directly or indirectly, by certain States, and that we have been singularly restrained in the tone and frequency of our replies. There really should be no surprise whatsoever if my Ambassador felt impelled to makea fewremarks in reply to suggestions by the representative of Czechoslovakta-and not, incidentally, the representative of the Soviet Union-as to how "so-called democracies" conduct elections in dependent Territories. 301. Now it may be that the representative of Czechoslovakia meant to attack another country, but if so he should say so. We are tired of hearing generalized accusations and insinuations, and we are tired of hearing lectures on democracy from countries which do not practise it themselves and who try to exploit this debate on decolonlzatlon for blatantly propagandistic reasons. 302. As regards our vote, I hasten to reassure the Ambassador of the Soviet Union that we have already indicated to the Secretariat that we had intended to abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/31/L,29. 303. In conclusion, I should also say that I was delighted to hear that the Soviet Union believes in the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other States, 305. I .have before me an interview with Abdallah M. Kamil held on 18 November by a correspondent of the British Broadcasting Corporation, London. Mr. Kamil was asked about the attitude of the two neighbouring countries with regard to his territory. Speaking about the future independence of the territory, he said: "As for Somalia, President Siad has said repeatedly that his country wishes to see a fully independent Djibouti". I do not think that our President used the word "Djibouti". We usually use the words "so-called French SomaliJand", because Djibouti is only a city and does not represent the Territory as a whole. Such is our opinion of the name"Djibouti". Hewent on to say: "I think that if President Siad had designs to annex our country he would not have madesucha statement". 306. He was then asked what the attitude of Ethiopia would be on the question, and this iswhat he said: "Answering a question on Ethiopia's attitude to the future independent State of Djibouti, the President said"-jhe President is Mr. Abdallah M. Kamil..·'Ethiopia's attitude towards our territory is rather unsatisfactory'. "'For lnstance,'-..he continued..'the Ethiopian representative in the United Nations Decolonization Committee said that my Governmenf--that is, the present Government of Djibouti..'does not enjoy the confidence of the inhabitants of the territory. " 'What prompted the Ethiopian representative to utter such a statement? What is the meaning of that statement? To me, it is clear interference in our domestic affairs. J hope that Ethiopia wiIl in the future demonstrate good faith towards our territory and will stop interfering in our internalaffairs.' " 307. That is a very, very recent statement, and it shows that the people of the t-rritory have no doubt at allabout the good faith of the Somali Republic with regard to their future destiny. It shows also their preoccupation, doubt and concern about the present and future attitude of Ethiopia with regard to their future destiny.

The Assembly will first consider the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 85 [A/31/437]. 327. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting on any or all of the eight draft resolutions recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 1~ of its report. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explaintheir votes after allthe votes have beentaken.

My delegation supports without any reservations the draft resolutions on Namibia that have been recommended to the General Assembly by the Fourth Committee. Those draft resolutions reflect the grave concern of the majority of Member States over the inability of the United Nations to carry out its special responsibilities for the Territory. They also reflect the determination of all freedom-loving States to continue their efforts to remove the obstacles in the way of selfdetermination and independence for the people of Namibia. 329. It is particularly frustrating that the General Assembly, which has played such an historic role in the decolonization process, shouldbe hampered in its effortsto implement the provisions of resolution 1514(XV) in the single case where the Organization has assumed direct responsibility for a Territory. Its failure in this regard isall the more disconcerting in the light of the fact that there is no issue before the United Nations which seems to elicit such unanimity in principle as the question of Namibia. The termination of South Africa's Mandate over the Territory 10 years ago received the widest support from the United Nations membership and was firmly endorsed by the Security Council. 330. Both before and after the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion on South Africa's illegal occupation, the General Assembly and the Security Council repeatedly condemned Pretoria's persistent refusal to withdraw from Namibia. They have also condemned in the strongest terms Pretoria's imposition of apartheid on the Namibian people and its attack on the unity and integrity of the country through the application of the bantustan policy. In addition, the legitimacy of the struggle of the Namibian people has been affirmed and SWAPO has been widely recognized as the authentic representative of the Namibian people. 331. In recent times, the General Assembly and the Security Council have also expressed deep concern over Pretoria's military build-up in Namibia. The threat of that development to both the freedom struggle and the territorial integrity of neighbouring States was illustrated by the armed aggression against Angola and Zambia-un aggression condemned in both cases by the Security Council. 332. In spite of this seeming urv-nimity of purpose on the part of the world Organization, the situation in Nlln!l'.a 11:1-; 334. The promise that repressive legislation would be annulled and that a climate for free political expression would be established in Namibia has meant in actual fact the mounting of an oppressive campaign against political leaders who oppose white minority rule, and particularly against SWAPO. In this context, my delegation joins with other States in reiterating our indignation at the cruel and illegal imposition of the death sentence on two SWAPO leaders, an act which has aroused indignation and condemnation in the world community. 335. The extension of apartheid legislation and practices to Namibia is also a matter of serious concern. As the report of the decolonization Committee has pointed out, the much advertised removal of racist restrictions is nothing but window dressing, and in any case it does not touch the fundamental bases of apartheid. The military build-up in Namibia, a glaring symbol of Pretoria's illegal occupation, long condemned by the Security Council, continues to increase and now includes the establishment of a free-fire zone on the border with Angola. 336. The latest attempt to hoodwink the world cornmunlty was the convening of the so-called en. .titutional Conference at Wlndhoek, The majority of ,.le Member States have followed the lead of the Council for Namibia in rejecting that Conference as a sham, which cannot in any way fulfil the Security Council's demand that the Namlbian people be enabled forthwith to exercise their right to self-deterrnlnation and independence on the basis of free elections. 337. The so-called Windhoek Conference has, of course, been master-minded by the Vorster regime. Its participants are hand-picked puppets of the racist authorities in Pretoria. It has excluded even the possibility of a United Nations role in its procedures. It excluded the participation of non-white political parties, including SWAPO, and its declaration of intent shows that its purpose is to maintain the status quo, a status quo which means the perpetuation of apartheid, bantustans and the economic exploitation of the Territory. BB. Responsibility for the inaction of the Security Council in the face of Pretoria's intransigence must, of course, be laid squarely at the door of Pretoria's Western illies and trading partners who are permanent members of the Security Council. Some years ago when those permanent members counselled patience and moderation in "'~lillg With the situation and gave credence to every small mparent concession from the Pretoria author- 339. The position taken by Pretoria's friends on the Security Council is dangerous because it severely undermines the credibility and authority of the United Nations and because it fails to deal with a clear threat to international peace and security. 340. The excuse that the Namibian situation does not threaten peace is, in the viewof my delegation, completely untenable. As the representative of Mexico has pointed out during the debate, the illegal occupation of a territory by a State is an act of aggression, and since Namibia is under direct United Nations responsibility, South Africa is cornmitting an act of aggression against the United Nations. The use of Namibia as a base for aggression against neighbouring territories removes any doubt that might have existed about the nature of the situation and about the responsibility of the Security Council in this regard under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. 341. It is extremely unfortunate that the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Member States have been frustrated by the refusal of South Africa's Western allies to take such minimal action as would emphasize the isolation of the Vorster regime and prohibit the supply of arms which contribute to the repression of the Namibian people and to the threat to neighbouring countries. 342. However, it is pertinent to recall here the most eloquent and appropriate reaction of the SWAPO representative, Mr. Gurirab, when he addressed the Security Council after the triple veto on 19 October. He said that States "... can veto resolutions now and in the future, as they have in the past, but they cannot veto the will and the determination of the people of Namibia to achieve liberation in our country".16 343. All freedom-loving States are determined to continue and to extend their support to the Namibian people, through their authentic representative, SWAPO, in its liberation struggle. The SWAPO leaders have shown statesmanship in their reasonable and just demands for a constitutional and democratic framework on the transfer of power which, they quite rightly insist, should be under United Nations auspices. They have rightly demanded the release of political prisoners and the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia as prerequisites for negotlatlons. Generous material and moral support for the goals and programmes of SWAPO will be a L'ost significant form of aid for the people of Namibia as a whole. 345. The Institute for Namibia, established in Lusaka with the support and co-operation of the Government of Zambia, will add a new dimension to the work of the Council, as it will provide a valuable centre for promoting research and implementing projects in connexion with the Namibian situation. 346. Those countries which have been making generous contributions to the United Nations Fund for Namibia are to be highly commended, and we hope that all States and institutions able to do so will also contribute to that important Fund. 347. My delegation particularly commends and supports the proposal of Finland for a nationhood programme for Namibia, which would co-ordinate and intensify the programmes of the United Nations, its specialized agencies and concerned Governments. The specialized agencies have an important role to play in this regard, and my delegation hopes that they will follow the lead of the United Nations Development Programme, which has included an indicative planning figure for Namibia for the period 1977-1978. 348. Among the most important provisions of the draft resolutions now before the General Assembly are those which condemn the activities of foreign corporations operating in Namibia under the illegal administration of South Africa, those which call for the termination of economic, diplomatic and consular relations with South Africa in the context of its illegal occupation of Namibia and those which call once again fl''' the strict observance of the arms embargo. Those States which have in the past ignored these provisions have shown a callous disregard for the human rights of the oppressed Namibian people. many of whom are already paying with their lives for the freedom of their people and their country. 349. The experience of the past gives little ground for hope that the Security Council will take note of the General Assembly's renewed request that it impose a mandatory arms embargo on South Africa. When I speak of South Africa, I mean, of course, the white minority regime which is now arbitrarily ruling South Africa. However, my delegation would like to recall in this conncxion that the representative of France stated in the Security Council on 19 October! 7 that his delegation could not rule out the possibility of further restrictive measures if the hoped-for progress did not come about because of renewed bad faith

I call on the representative of Saudi Arabia on a point of order.

Many of our colleagues havealready left because they had previous appointments and, indeed, some of them were getting tired. After' all, they are human. 352. I should like to point out that it would not be fitting to vote on such important draft resolutions as the ones of which we are now seized, when approximately half of the members are not present or when those that are present are so tired that they might vote unintelligently and mechanically. 353. May I therefore suggest, Sir-and, in deference to the President, this is not a formal request-that we come earlier on Monday morning and take the 20 or 30 minutes needed to dispose of the business now before us, instead of continuing in this manner. 354. I make this suggestion hoping that you, Sir, in your capacity as President, will adjourn the meeting, and let us go home and rest a little.

There is clearly a quorum here. Since representatives have waited this long, perhaps they would wish to proceed to the vote this evening. If, however, any representatives feel that we should adjourn until tomorrow morning, I should be prepared to accede to their desire. 356. I call on the representative of Saudi Arabia Oil a point of order.

Everyone know'; that no plenary meeting of the General Assembly had been scheduled for tomorrow. We had aU hoped that it would Iw possible to complete our consideration of all these items this evening. 358. I am not acting on my own initiative. I have been here for quite a number of years, and it is therefore the habit of some of my colleagues to approach me and ask n,l' to speak for them in these matters. They have asked me to inform the President that they have commitments fur tomorrow morning. They had no way of knowing that there was a possibility that the Assembly would vote orl these draft resolutions tomorrow. Indeed, to vote tumorrow would be worse than proceeding to volt.' now. because half, or perhapseven more than half, of the members w- Hilt! not be here. 359. It is not fair to our African. Asian '.'1' l.uropeun brothers regardless of ideology or political persuasion to use our time in a wanton manner and then to yph' tomorrow as a mere formality. 361. I repeat that I am not speaking on my ownbehalf. I am at your command, Sir, and at the command of the Assembly. J have been in the General Assembly and in the Security Council at all hours of the day and night. But I think that for practical reasons we should adjourn now. I am making a formal motion for adjournment, with the proviso that we meeton Monday to finish our work on this item• 363. It is true that there is a quorum at the moment. Nevertheless, we wish to associate ourselves with Mr. Baroody's request that the vote be deferred until Monday.

If there is no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly wishes to adjourn at thistimeand meet on Monday morning to vote on the draft resolutions now before us. The meeting rose at 8.15 p.m.