A/35/PV.98 General Assembly

I put before the General Assembly the draft decision contained in document A/35/L.37/Rev.l and Add.1. The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implica- tions of this draft decision is to be found in document A/35/761. 2. It is my understanding that the General Assembly is prepared to adopt the draft decision without a vote. The draft decision was adopted (decision 35/442). 3. The PRESIDENT: With regard to the consider- ation of agenda item 27, entitled "Question of Nami- bia" , at the resumed thirty-fifth session, I should like to inform the Assembly that the representative of the Sudan has confirmed to me by letter dated 15 Decem- ber 1980 "that the African group, having been apprised of the current state of negotiations between the United Nations and South Africa on the implementation of Security Council resolution 385 (1976)" , has requested postponement of the debate "till January 1981 so that the General Assembly can consider at that time the NEW YORK outcome of the proposed pre-implementation talks scheduled to be held from 7 to 14 January 1981 under the auspices of the United Nations". 4. May I consider that the General Assembly agrees to that request, that is, to postpone the debate on the question of Namibia until the resumed session in January 1981? It was so decided.

Members will recall that at the 85th plenary meeting on 8 December all the draft resolutions on this item were introduced. Subse- quently, revised texts of two of the draft resolutions were issued as documents: A/35/L.16/Rev.I and A/35/L.23/Rev.l. 6. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes before the vote on any or all of the 18draft resolutions. Representatives will ofcourse also have an opportunity to explain their vote after the vote or after all the votes have been taken. I should like to remind the General Assembly that, under rule 88 of the rules of procedure, the President will not be able to permit the proposer of a proposal or of an amendment to explain his vote on his own pro- posal or amendment. 7. As far as explanations of vote are concerned, representatives will recall decision 34/401 adopted at the preceding session of'the Assembly to the effect that explanations of vote should be limited to to minutes and that they should be made from the delegations seat.

During the debate on agenda item 28, the nine States members of the European Community unre- servedly condemned the policy of apartheid of the South African Government [6/st meeting, paras. 106- /20]. In so doing they joined with the unanimous opposition of world opinion, expressed through the General Assembly in its search for a fundamental change in South Africa. The nine members of the Community remain convinced that fundamental changes must take place in South Africa before the • Resumed from the 85th meeting. 11. The struggle against apartheid has as its objective the establishment of a multiracial, free and egalitarian society in an independent and sovereign State; it is not a struggle against a colonial Power. We hope, there- fore, that South Africa will soon set up institutions reflecting the aspirations and interests of all that country's inhabitants. At the same time, the nine members of the Community reaffirm their adherence to the principle of universality of the United Nations. 12. Although it is aware of the reasons that may cause individuals and groups to take to violence in an attempt to put an end to the policy of apartheid through armed struggle, the Community remains firmly convinced that peaceful change is possible, in keeping with the principles and purposes of the Charter. The Organization must foster peaceful solutions and, con- sequently, we reject any implicit or explicit approval of armed struggle in General Assembly resolutions. 13. The Community mamtains its position of prin- ciple, which has been set forth on many occasions, on the applicability of the prisoner-of-war status in accordance with the relevant Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,· the Additional Protocols to these Conventions, of 10 June 1977.2 However, the fre- quency of political trials and the number of political prisoners in South Africa testify to systematic repres- sion of those who are seeking to build a just and equitable society. The nine members ofthe Community wish to emphasize that they have continued to press the South African Government to free immediately and unconditionally people imprisoned because of their political convictions. 14. We cannot support a demand to break off all relations with South Africa. We believe that existing lines of communication must be used to permit the free expression of views on all the political, social and economic questions which are of concern to the population of South Africa. IS. The Community strictly adheres to the Olympic principle of non-discrimination and rejects any form of apartheid in sports. While respecting the indepen- dence of private organizations and the fundamental rightof people to travel abroad freely, the Governments of the nine States members of the Community will I United Nations, Treaty Series. vol. 75, Nos. 970-973. z A/32/144. annexes I and 11. 25. My delegation therefore regrets that not all the draft resolutions before us will help achieve and sustain that consensus. 26. As in t~e past, !lly delegation is unable to support draft resolutions which seek to pre-empt the functions of the Security Council. We will therefore abstain from votin.g on. dr~ft resolutions A/35/L.13 and Add. 1, on the slt~~tlon m southern Africa, A/35/L.I4 and Add. 1, on military and nuclear collaboration with South ~frica, A!35/L.I5 and Add. 1 on comprehensive sane- nons against South Africa, A/35/L.I6/Rev.I, on the oil embargo against South Africa, A/35/L.21 and Add.I on the International Conference on Sanctions against Sout~ Africa and A/35/L.27 and Add.l, on the implementation of United Nations resolutions on apart~eid. by Governments and intergovernmental organizations. 27. With regard to draft resolution A/35/L.13 and Add. 1, we cannot endorse the concept of armed struggle. While we agree with the general thrust of d.raft resolution A/35/L.I4 and Add. 1.we have reserva- nons about the selective criticism applied in the ninth preambular paragraph. We also have difficulties with the legal and practical implications of the obligations placed on Governments in operative paragraph 3 of the latter ~raft resolution, operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/35/L.I5 ar.J Add.I and operative para- graph 4 of draft resolution A/35/L,16/Rev .1. ~8. For the same reasons, my delegation will abstain m the vote on draft resolutions A/35/L.I7 and Add.I, on cultural, academic and other boycotts of South Africa, and A/35/L.18 and Add.I, on the role of t~ansn~tionalcorp~rationsin South Africa. My delega- tion Will vote agamst draft resolution A/35/L.20 and Add.I, on relations between Israel and South Africa. 29. .My d~legation will, however, support the remammg nme draft resolutions. New Zealand has sponsored draft resolution A/35/L,32 and Add.I, on mvestments in South Africa, because we believe it provides a practical means of bringing pressure to I~sld~ S,;mth Afnca, my delegation would, however, find It difficult to go along with the method of solu- tion prescribed in draft resolutions A/35/L.I5 and Add.l, A/35/L.16/Rev.I and A/35/L.21 and Add.l, bec.ause ofour geo~raphicallocation.Our vulnerability obliges. us to abstam from voting on these three draft resolutions. Economic sanctions against South Africa would affect the economy of Swaziland. I need not mention that this state of affairs was imposed upon us by factors of colonial history. b~a~ on South Africa, peacefully and effectively. Slm!larly, we will continue to support the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa and, therefore, draft resolution A/35/L.33 and Add.1 and the objec- tiv~s of draft resolutions A/35/L,22 and Add.l, on assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement, and A/35/L,23/ R~v.l, on. the campa~gn for the release of political pnsoners m South Africa, and the broad objectives of draft resolution A/35/L.19 and Add.I , on international campaigns against apartheid. ~ommunJque of the Commonwealth Heads ofGovernment meeting /11 London, 8-15 June 1977 (London. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1977), pp. 21 and 22. .1 Com"!'on,wealth Statement on Apartheid in Sport. See Final 37. Peace in southern Africa would come as a result of the independence of Namibia and a change in the situation inside South Africa. It is our sincere prayer that God Almighty in His infinite wisdom will intervene in the situation in South Africa and prevail against the forces that generate racial prejudice and bigotry, so that all races may live in equality, peace and harmony. 38. Mr. de ALBUQUERQUE (Portugal): Portugal's long-standing opposition to the concept and policies of apartheid is well known and therefore I need not elaborate on it in our explanation ofvote today. I would just add that we are opposed to any form of racism or racial discrimination, as it goes against the very nature and structure of Portuguese society and the principles that inspire it. Moreover, we consider that apartheid, as a form of institutionalized racism, is an offense to the moral conscience of mankind. Its eradication is therefore not only a political but also a moral imperative, and it is the responsibility of the entire international community to exert its best efforts to put an end to all its manifestations. 39. Last year, when certain changes were introduced in the apartheid laws, we were hopeful that it repre- sented a new attitude on the part of the South African Government, which would pave the way for the introduction of reforms with far-reaching conse- quences for South African society. Unfortunately, those measures did not deal a fatal blow to the whole system of apartheid as we had expected, but they did affect the very essence of inter-racial relations in South Africa; There are indeed some signs that seem to indicate a growing awareness today among large segments of the white population, especially the younger generation, of the need to abolish the policies and practices of apartheid, which have created wide- spread bitterness, strife and even mistrust among blacks and whites, thus putting serious strains on the entire social fabric of South African society. 40. At the official level, however, there has been little or no progress. The South African Government seems intent on pursuing its policy ofbantustanization, as is evidenced by the recent announcement of the setting up of another homeland, Ciskei. This is but another way of perpetuating the institution of apart- heid and its instruments of domination, under the guise of conferring power on the black majority. 41. Furthermore, the Pretoria regime has resorted to unprovoked armed incursions into the territory of neighbouring States, namely, Angola, Zambia and Mozambique, because of the moral and material 56. My delegation, therefore, will give its unreserved support to all the draft resolutions before the Assembly.

Canada shares with the other members of the Assembly a deep abhor- rence of apartheid and the institutionalized and systematic violation of fundamental human rights which it entails. In his address to the General Assembly on 22 September [4th meeting] the Canadian Secre- tary of'State for External Affairs, Mr. Mark Mac- Guigan, reiterated Canada's opposition to apartheid. At that time he stated that any society or system rooted in racist supremacy is not acceptable and never will be. South Africa must recognize the inevitability of change. The South African Government has heeded neither the appeals of the international community nor those of its own citizens who seek to exercise their basic rights of freedom and equality, and to live in dignity and to share in the political, economic and social development of their own country. The South African Government must recognize that the future peace, prosperity and security of South Africans of all races can only be assured if apartheid is fully and completely eradicated. Time is short for the peaceful resolution of the situation. 62. With reference specifically to draft resolution A/35/L.25 and Add.l on apartheid in sports, Canada has taken effective steps in this area by denying visas to sportsmen and officials representing South Africa or South African sporting organizations. In so doing, Canada has thereby implemented the International Declaration against Apartheid in Sports within the context of our legal framework. Nevertheless, we continue to have serious reservations concerning the aporopriateness and unitlity of the proposed interna- tional convention against apartheid in sports, as the constitutional framework of Canada's federal system 67. First, we have reservations concerning the reference to armed struggle contained in operative paragraph • of draft resolution A/35/L.13 and Add.l and in operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution A/35/ L.27 and "ad.I because it implies support for a means of actir ·)t envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations. 68. Similarly, we wish to reserve our position on operative paragraph 3 (j) of draft resolution A/35/L.14 and Add .I since certain assumptions not necessarily related to the subject matter are included as instances of collaboration with the Government of Pretoria. 69. In addition we should like to stale expressly that in .'.!te opinion of the Argentine delegation compliance whh some of the measures contained in operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/35/L.15 and Add.I cannot be required of Governments until the Security Council, the sole body with the power to impose mandatory sanctions against a State, has adopted the relevant resolutions. 70. Finally, we should like to reserve our position with respect to the eighth preambular paragraph, to the last part of operative paragraph • and to operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution A/35/L.23/Rev.l because the Republic of Argentina abstained in the vote on article 44 of Additional Protocol I to the 77. As far as the eighth preambular paragraph of draft resolution A/35/L.23/Rev.1 on a campaign for the release of political prisoners in South Africa is concerned, it is our understanding that the words "freedom fighters" contained in that paragraph refer to the liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity lOA U].

In my statement during the debate on the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa [59th meeting], I remarked that the needless insertion of unending diatribes against my country has severely undermined the very purpose of the annual debate on apartheid. I also took that opportunity to restate Israel's position on apartheid and its unequivocal rejection of racism and racial discrimination in any form. 79. I observed that for the Special Committee against Apartheid the facts seemed irrelevant. Reality must not be allowed to intrude on a sacred ritual. If we had not been presented today with a special draft resoluti. n concerning Israel, it would have amounted to an admission that such a policy in the past had been mistaken and misguided. And so the Assembly is being asked to vote today en a rehashed concoction of malicious lies that have become an embarrassment to the stature and prestige of this world Organization. 80. The sponsors of draft resolution A/35/L.20 and Add.I have seen fit to ignore official communications from my Government, contained in official documents of the United Nations, refuting the false allegations against Israel. Instead they have relied on the unsup- ported distortions, innuendos and speculative press reports contained in the special report of the Special Committee. It is on "evidence" like this that draft resolution A/35/L.20 and Add.l is based. A report based on such non-evidence must be considered a non-report; and a debate based on such a non-report must be considered a non-debate; and the resultant draft resolution must be seen for what it is: pure and unadulterated non-sense. 81. It is high time that a serious assessment of this ritual take place before it backfires completely. When certain Stales persist in turning an apartheid debate into a Middle East debate they succeed only in showing their disdain for and disinterest in a subject of vital concern to both Africa and; ;~ world. Since the draft resolution contains particularly obnoxious falsehoods, it is worth considering who in fact is committing a hostile act against Africa. It is precisely this double standard that undermines the international campaign against racism and racial discrimination. 87. it is a measure of our deep concern about the increasingly critical situation in South Africa that we nevertheless find it possible to vote in favour of a majority of the draft resolutions before us, despite reservations on certain paragraphs which I will men- tion. We also, of course, share the reservations on certain draft resolutions which are held in common by member States of the European Community, and which the representative of Luxembourg just mentioned in his statement. 88. I shall first refer to the draft resolutions we support. The Irish delegation believes that the interna- tional community should continue to apply pressure in a careful and co-ordinated way to promote change in South Africa. For that reason Ireland has again joined a large number of other countries in sponsoring draft resolution A/35/L.32 and Add.I, which calls on 89. Our concern, as I have said, is that international pressure on South Africa should be brought to bear in an effective and co-ordinated way. Some of the other draft resolutions before us call for comprehensive rather than selective measures. I have to say, how- ever, that my Government has doubts about the wisdom of any such call for comprehensive sanctions at the present juncture. Furthermore, we would have reservations about calls for action addressed to indi- vidual Member States, which are likely to be ineffec- tive. We would fear, indeed, that this might under- mine the effort to achieve a co-ordinated and selective approach on this most important issue. 90. We would. also have certain legal difficulties with some of the formulations in these draft resolu- tions. Accordingly, we are obliged to abstain on draft resolutions A/35/L.15 and Add.I and A/35/L.18 and Add. 1. 91. Ireland supported the proposal that the Security Council should impose an arms embargo on South Africa, and since the embargo was imposed we have implemented it fully. Ireland has therefore decided to vote in favour of draft resolution A/35/L.14 and Add.I to show its full support for the embargo. 92. I have to say, however, that we do so with considerable hesitation and with reservations, because of other aspects of the text. In particular, we cannot accept t'-.~ arbitrary condemnation contained in operative paragraph I of the text. We also regret that the arms issue, on which there is already a clearly defined decision of the Security Council, should have been dealt with in the same draft resolution as what has come to be called nuclear collaboration, with the consequent confusion between those two issues. We are glad, however, to be able to support draft resolution A/35/L.28 and Add.1 on the programme of work of the Special Committee Against Apartheid. Of course, our attitude to the recommendations in the report of the Special Committee must naturally be understood in accordance with the general policy which my delegation has outlined in this and previous statements. 93. Last year my delegation voted against the resolu- tion on the situation in South Africa [resolution 34/93 Al. We note, however, this year that the draft resolution contained in A/35/L.13 and Add.1 contains some improvements over the text adopted last year. With that in mind, Ireland will abstain in the vote on that draft resolution. We do so balancing the positive elements against a number of other, inappro- priate formulations in the text, including the explicit endorsement of "armed struggle". I have already dealt with that question in my statement in the debate on apartheid. For that reason, and for reasoris which 99. Ireland will, however, continue to make its own contribution to alleviating the plight of those who suffer under the apartheid system, including women and children, through its continuing support of the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. 100. Mr. ORT!Z SANZ (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation has always supported the struggle against the policy ofapartheid. Consisting in the majority of indigenous peoples, the people of Bolivia organized themselves and grew with the permanent conviction that they should repudiate all forms of racial discrimination. 101. None the less, in today's voting-to our great regret-our delegation will have to abstain on certain draft resolutions, because we find the terms in which they have been drafted rather inappropriate, both from the legal and grammatical points of view. The inclu-

The General Assembly will now take a decision on the various draft resolutions before it. The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of these draft resolutions in contained in document A/35/776. 103. We shall vote first on draft resolution A/35/ L.13 and Add.l, entitled"Situation in South Africa" . A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colom- bia, Cornoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Demo- cratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica,'Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Soma- lia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, 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, Viet Narn, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federat Republic of, Italy, Luxembourg, Nether- lands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malawi, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden.

The Assembly will now vote on draft resolution A/35/L.14 and Add.I, entitled .. Military and nuclear collaboration with South Africa". A recorded vote r.as been requested.

We shall turn now to draft resolution A/35/L.18 and Add.I, entitled "Role of transnational corporations in South Africa". A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly will now vote on draft resolution A/35/L.22 and Add.l, entitled "Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement". A recorded vote has been requested.

Now we shall turn to draft resolution A/35/L.24 and Add.I, entitled "Dissemina- tion of information on apartheid". I have no request for a vote. May I therefore take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution?

We shall now turn to draft resolution A/35/L.25 and Add.l, entitled' "Apartheid in sports". A recorded vote has been requested.

We now come to draft resolution A/35/L.28 and Add.l, entitled "Programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid" . A recorded vote has been requested.

Finally, we turn to draft resolution A/35/L.33 and Add.l, entitled "United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa". May I con- sider that the General Assembly adopts that draft resolution?

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

The repre- sentative of Luxembourg gave an explanation of vote on behalf of the nine members of the European Com- munity, which my delegation of course fully endorses. In view of the particular concern which the policies of apartheid arouse in my country, I should like to explain in somewhat more detail the vote of my delega- tion on the resolutions before us. 125. First of all, I wish to stress that my delegation supports the attempts of the Assembly to bring about the abolition of the policie s ofapartheid of the Govern- ment of South Africa. For that reason, my delegation would have wished to have been in a position to vote in favour of all the resolutions that have been adopted. The wording arid the declared intention of certain resolutions, however, made it impossible for my delegation to act according to that wish in all instances. 126. Our objection to wording implying that the struggle against apartheid can be equated with the struggle against a colonial Power has already been referred to by the representative of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the Community. That applies equally to our objections regarding armed struggle, measures aimed at a severance of all relations with South Africa-measures which would violate our constitutional freedoms-and arbitrary and unjustified accusations directed against Member States. 127. An important number of those objections unfor- tunately apply to the resolution on the situation in South Africa and, in particular, to operative para- graphs 1, 7 and 9, as well as to a number of pre- ambular paragraphs. Notwithstanding certain improve- ments in the text compared to resolution 34/93 A, adopted last year on this subject, my delegation could not but vote against this resolution because my country cannot support a blanket condemnation of certain States or organizations for collaborating with South 134. At the thirty fourth session. we abstained in the vote on the resolution concerning an international conference on sanctions [resolution 34/93 C] because we feared that the goal of such a conference would be the total isolation of South Africa. We have just voted in favour of the resolution on that subject because the current report of the Special Committee against Apartheid describes the aims of the conference in terms that leave room for our policy of dialogue and pressure. 135. We also voted in favour of the resolution on assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement, despite our reservations concerning the designation of the African National Congress of South Africa and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania as South African libera- tion movements, which contradicts our conviction that the South African situation is not a colonial one and that those movements cannot claim to represent all the people of South Africa. 136. We voted in favour of the resolution on the programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid in spite of certain reservations, notably concerning the tasks entrusted to the Committee aimed at the total isolation of South Africa. 137. Mr. HUSSON (France) [intelpretation from French]: My delegation associates itself completely with the statement made by the representative of Luxembourg on behalf of the nine States of the European Community. We too regret the introduction in certain draft resolutions of elements that needlessly prevented the Assembly from casting a unanimous vote. For that reason the French delegation had to cast a negative vote on some draft resolutions and to abstain in the vote on others. 138. I shall not reiterate the reservations that France has had to express on texts that repeat, sometimes in a new guise, most of the elements that were embodied in the corresponding draft resolutions that were adopted at the thirty-fourth session. Those reserva- tions are contained in the explanation of vote that I made here at the preceding session and they remain valid. '1riopted they stated that they did not consider them- serves bound by its provisions. Hence, had that draft resolution been put to the vote, we would have had to abstain. 144. For reasons set forth by the representative of Luxembourg on behalf of the nine members of the European Community, France would have also abstained had a vote been taken on draft resolution A/35/L.24 and Add.l on dissemination of informa- tion on apartheid. 145. On the other hand, we would have voted in favour of draft resolution A/35/L.33 and Add.1 dealing with the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. 146. In conclusion, I wish to reaffirm the importance France attaches to the speedy and peaceful emergence in South Africa ofa multiracial and democratic society. It is our fervent wish that the leaders of that country understand that they must without delay implenent the reforms that have been too long in coming. 147. Mr. TOMASSON (Iceland): I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries -Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. 157. Sixthly, the Nordic countries consider that only a free dernocratlc process based on the principle of one man, o.ie vote can determine who can represent the South African people. 158. Those are the considerations on which most of our reservations are based. They apply to, among others, draft resolution A/35/L.13 and Add.I con- cerning the situation in South Africa. The Nordic countries have noted the positive changes in this draft resolution as compared with the corresponding resolu- tion adopted at the thirty-fourth session of the Gen- eral Assembly [resolution 34/93 A]. We nevertheless abstained when it was put to the vote, because of the wording of several paragraphs. 159. With regard to draft resolution A/35/L.14 ",Plc' Add.I on military and nuclear collaboration with South Africa, we have reservations regarding the arbitrary and inappropriate singling out of States and groups of States in the ninth preambular paragraph. On behalf of the three Nordic countries members of NATO-Denmark, Norway and Iceland-I cate- gorically reject the notion that there exists any eo- 161. With regard to draft resolution A/35/L.17 and Add.l on cultural, academic and other boycotts, the Nordic countries wish to state that no Nordic Govern- ment is either promoting or participating in the type of collaboration or exchange mentioned. According to the joint Nordic programme of action against South Africa, a number of restrictive measures have been taken in this respect. We must clearly reserve our position, however, with regard to certain elements in this text which infringe on the constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens in free and democratic societies. 162. On draft resolution A/35/L.18 and Add.1 con- cerning transnational corporations in South Africa, the Nordic countries wish to state that, although they agree with the main thrust of the resolution, some of its provisions are of such a far-reaching nature that enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter would be required. 169. Furthermore, we cannot accept some of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee against Apartheid. In particular, the report of that Committee indicates, in paragraphs 210 and 211, that included among the 94 underwriters of the loan to South Africa are Japanese banks and investment houses. According to a footnote, this so-called fact is derived from a bond advertisement appearing in the International Herald Tribune on 19 June 1980. However, an intensive investigation conducted by the monetary authorities of Japan has found, first, that all of these so-called Japanese companies are in fact local corporations established under the local laws and regulations of the countries concerned and supervised by the authorities of those countries: therefore, they are excluded from Japanese jurisdiction. Secondly, those local corpora- tions underwrite bonds with a view to reselling them, and, in fact. at this time are no longer in possession of the bonds. 170. Even though such dealings are clearly not loans, the particular reference to Japan in the report describes the matter as if Japan had extended loans to South Africa. The aforementioned investigation, however, clearly shows that this is not the case, and my delega- tion unequivocally rejects such allegations. It is a well- known fact that the Government of Japan, respecting the relevant United Nations resolutions, has long and steadfastly called upon Japanese foreign exchange banks and their branches abroad which are under Japanese juridiction to refrain from extending any 163. All the Nordic cuuntries voted against draft resolution A/35/L.20 and Add.1 concerning relations between Israel and South Africa. Such a singling out of one individual country is highly inappropriate in this context. It must be deplored that such a draft resolution should have been introduced once again. as it seriously detracts from the main thrust of the other resolutions before us. 164. On draft resolution A/35/L.23/Rev.1 concerning political prisoners in South Africa. we should like to restate our reservation concerning operative para- graph 1 and the applicability of prisoner-of-war status in accordance with the relevant Geneva Conventions. 165. Concerning A/35/L.25 and Add.I on apartheid in sports, the Nordic Governments support the general objectives of the International Declaration against Apartheid in Sports. We should like to point out. however, as we have done on previous occasions, that the sports organizations in the Nordic countries are private and independent entities. While in some Nordic countries the authorities may suggest that they act in a certain manner, the organizations are free to take that advice or reject it. The Nordic countries cannot accept operative paragraph 5, as it contradicts the freedom of the press and runs counter to the provi- sions of our Constitutions.

Australia's opposition to the policies of apartheid is clear, un- equivocal and firmly on record. In the United Nations and elsewhere we have demonstrated our support for, and willingness to co-operate in, international efforts to achieve fundamental and meaningful change to the system of apartheid. My country is particularly sensitive to the problem of neighbouring African countries and is responsive to their efforts to solve the international problems created by apartheid. There are, however, a number of observations which my delegat.on wishes to have incorporated into the record concerning the resolutions which have just been adopted. They are observations which in no way qualify or limit Australia's determination to continue to play an active role in international efforts aimed at the eradication of apartheid and other racist practices. They do, however, show the fundamental reasons why Australia found itself unable to subscribe to some of the draft resolutions submitted under this item. 180. P is a matter of particular regret to my delega- tion that, on an issue which attracts universal con- demnation, a number of resolutions were drafted in such a way that they could not receive the unanimous support the issue deserves. For example, the most important draft resolution on the situation in South Africa was clearly prepared without any serious attempt to reach a consensus to reflect the influence which united world opinion could bring to bear on this issue. Furthermore, in previous debates we have made clear our particular difficulties with texts which endorse the concept of the legitimacy ofarmed struggle and violent solutions. Australia cannot support the practice of selective and tendentious condemnation of specific countries which are accused of what is called "collaborating" in one form or another with the Government of South Africa. 181. Although my delegation supported, for example, the draft resolution on military and nuclear collabora- tion with South Africa, we do not accept that every contact should be condemned in the terms used in some of the resolutions. Indeed, we .believe that it is important to maintain contacts with the South African authorities if we are to succeed in our attempts to influence them and bring about changes in policy. 182. I should also like to note that, under the Charter of the United Nations, mandatory action under Chap- ter VII can be taken only by the Security Council. The Assembly should take particular care not to attempt to direct the Council in such a way as to limit its freedom to take action which it judges most appro- priate in meeting its responsibilities for the main- tenance of international peace and security. 203. The call for total isolation of South Africa con- tained in the draft resolution on the programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid runs counter to our policy. We also oppose authorization of United Nations financial assistance to enable national liberation movements to participate in con- ferences and seminars against apartheid. 204. The recommendations contained in the draft resolution on investments in South Africa do not accord with United States policy. 205. We are pleased to join the consensus on three draft resolutions. On two of them, however, we have reservations. Our laws prevent the United States from carrying out certain provisions of the draft resolution on dissemination of information on apartheid. With regard to the draft resolution on the campaign for the release of political prisoners in South Africa, we note that by its own terms Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 can apply to liberation movements and their personnel only if they have met the requirements of article 1, paragraph 4, of that Protocol and transmitted a declaration in accordance with article 96 of the Protocol. 206. It is unfortunate that the determined opposition of the United States Government and people to apart- heid could nut be fully reflected in the votes which we have, of necessity, cast on certain of the draft resolutions before us today. As I indicated before, I hope that in the future a special effort can be made

Zim- babwe's commitment to the liberation of Africa as a whole and to the liberation of South Africa and Namibia in particular is very well known and needs no elaboration here. 208. As members of the Assembly know very well, however, Zimbabwe attained nationhood after a bitter war of liberation, which left the country devastated economically and socially. As a result, Zimbabwe is facing a massive problem ofresettling and rehabilitating thousands of returning refugees and displaced persons and of reconstructing its economic infrastructure. Accordingly, the delegation of Zimbabwe needs to examine very carefully the possible effects of some of the draft resolutions before the Assembly this after- noon, especially their effects on O'Jr resettlement, rehabilitation and reconstruction priorities and strategies. Thus, after careful consideration, our delegation decided to abstain on draft .resolutions A/35/L.I5 and Add. 1, A/35/L.16/Rev.1 and A/35/L.27 and Add.I. 209. I should like to make it clear also that our delega- tion would also have abstained if a separate vote had been taken in respect of certain operative paragraphs of draft resolutions which we have supported. Our delegation would like to reserve its position on those operative paragraphs. I say this in specific reference to operative paragraph 6 of A/35/L.13 and Add.1 and operative paragraph 1 (d) of A/35/L.19 and Add.I. As I say, if a separate vote had been taken on these, we would have abstained, but it is important that we are reserving our position for the same reasons. This action should not, however, be seen as in any way indicating a change in Zimbabwe's attitude to the policy of apartheid. On the contrary, we join the rest of mankind in absolute condemnation of apartheid and shall continue to work for true, meaningful and qualitative political and social change in South Africa and in Nambia.

For reasons which are well known to all members of the Assembly, my delegation would like to register its abstentions on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/35/ L.I3 and Add.l, operative paragraphs 2 (b) and (d) of draft resolution A/35/L.17 and Add.1 and operative paragraph 1 (d) of draft resolution A/35/L.I9 and Add. I. 211 We have abstained, for the same obvious reasons, on draft resolutions A/35/L.15 and Add.1, A/35/L.16/Rev.1 and A/35/L.27 and Add.1 in their entirety. We request that these abstentions be reflected in the records of the meeting.

We have unre- servedly joined in the international condemnation of the policies ofapartheid of the South African Govern- ment. We have done so out of a deep conviction that apartheid is morally indefensible and the most anti- social political' system in the world. 214. We fully understand the impatience of the international community with the intransigence of the South African Government and its stubborn adherence to the policy of apartheid, racial discrimination and segregation. We also recognize that whatever punitive measures will be unleashed upon South Africa, either internally or from outside, it will have persistently invited them itself by its obdurate conduct. The inevitable tragedy which apartheid will bring upon the people of South Africa will be felt far and wide, and countries like mine will not escape unscathed. Unless we were to elect to induge in the puerile and futile pleasure of cutting off our nose to spite our face, my delegation could not recommend to the interna- tional community that South Africa be destroyed economically, because that would entail the destruc- tion of the economy of Lesotho, which for the time being is, without much choice, interdependent with that of South Africa. 215. My delegation therefore abstained in the votes on the draft resolutions referred to and voted for the other draft resolutions on agenda item 28, reserving its position on the operative paragraphs I have mentioned, consistent with the position we have always main- tained.

Before concluding our con- sideration of agenda item 28, I call upon the representa- tive of Nigeria in his capacity as Chairman of the Special Committee Against Apartheid.

I feel compelled at this stage to make a brief statement as Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, but first of all I should like to thank you, Mr. President, and, through you, the other representatives, for the ringing endorsement just given the work of the Special Committee against Apartheid. Of the 18 draft resolutions on the apart- heid policies of the Government of South Africa just adopted, three were adopted unanimously, five without a single negative vote, and 10 with an average of eight opposing votes. This is a truly encouraging record far in advance of that of last year, given the perennial obstinacy of the three veto Powers acting like the proverbial monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Again they have not disappointed us with their customary negative votes on nearly all the draft resolutions. 219. Apartheid is an issue on which the entire interna- tional community has pronounced itself unequivocally. It is also a problem which has bedevilled the Organiza- tion and the conscience of humanity for a long time. We now truly stand at the crossroads. On the one hand, if the international community can forge the unity and strength necessary to eliminate apartheid in South Africa, that will herald a new era in human history, for the elimination of apartheid is the major unfin- ished business in the emancipation of Africa after centuries of colonialism, humiliation, oppression and foreign exploitation. With 'the elimination of apart- heid in South Africa, all of us can mark the end of the era of colonialism not only in Africa but all over the world, and the African States can concentrate their energies and resources on the struggle against poverty, illiteracy and disease inherited from their years of colonialism and can contribute effectively to the problems and tasks of international co-operation. On the ot.ier hand, so long as apartheid persists, there can be no stability and peace in Africa, particularly southern Africa. The nuclear ambitions of the Pretoria regime add a new critical dimension to this menace. 220. The draft resolutions that have been adopted today represent a comprehensive programme of action by the Organization and the international community as a whole. We have listened attentively to the many positive suggestions made by delegations during the debate and in explanations of vote before and after the vote. We have all recognized that the so-called reforms in South Africa are a sham, that apartheid cannot be reformed, but must be abolished and that there must be concrete international action and not mere verbal condemnation. 221. We have also taken note, very careful note, of the reservations expressed by some delegations, despite our disappointment that they have not moved forward. Some ofthe reservations relate to the strength and depth of our feeling shown in our condemnation of apartheid in strong terms. Others relate to a so- called lack of realism in putting forward ideas and measures which we perceive as indispensable in the fight against apartheid. I think the most serious cause for concern are the reservations based on an erroneous construction of the Charter. Under Arti- cle 10 of the Charter, the powers, competence and function of the Assembly to make recommendations to Member States or to the Security Council on any matter under consideration are not in doubt. There is precious little point in dragging in doctrinal texts or 223. I should also like to express our particular disap- pointment at the continued opposition of some Mem- ber States to the International Conference on Sanc- tions against South Africa, sponsored by the United Nations and the DAU. I must, however, express my satisfaction at the fact that some countries, particularly the Netherlands, have this year voted in favour of the draft resolution on this subject, taking account 'of the report of the Special Committee on the aims of the Conference [A/35/22/Add.3, paras. 15-30]. We hope that those countries will also take note of the views of the great majority of States and of the earnest and repeated appeals of the oppressed people of South Africa and of all the African States. The crimes of apartheid cannot be wished away, nor can the struggle be waged by semantic formulations which seek to hide the lack of will on the part of some Member States to put their commitment to human rights over and above their economic interests in South Africa. 224. I should like to assure the Assembly on behalf of the Special Committee that we will exert every effort, in accordance with the resolutions adopted today and in the light of all the views expressed, to promote international mobilization against aparth~id, with the co-operation ofall Governments and orgarnza- tions as well as all men and women of conscience. I hope that we can count on the co-operation of all the Member States. 225. We hope that the efforts for the elimi~ation of apartheid, to which we are all committed, will not he hindered by any external considerations, by cold war approaches, or by short-sighted material, eco- nomic or strategic interests. We will attach the utmost importance to mobilizing the public because apartheid is above all an affront to the conscience of all decent men and women. 226. The triumph of freedom in Zimbabwe, after heavy sacrifices, has created a new situation this year in our consideration of this item. Let us not lose the opportunity provided to humanity by the martyrs. of Zimbabwe and by the freedom fighters of South Afn~a and Namibia by failing to maintain the momentum m the march to freedom and liberty in South Africa. 227. Today, 16 December, is observed by the Afrikaners in South Africa as the Day of the Covenant in connexion with their past wars of conquest against the indigenous owners of South Africa, the African people. This day is observed by the opp.ressed peopl~ in their struggle for freedom as a national Heroes

Members will recall that at the 89th plenary meeting on 10December the Assembly concluded its debate on that item. 230. Representatives now have before them draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add.1. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the vote on this text. 231. Mr. de PINIES (Spain) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Spain, which in the past has always spoken on the subject of the Middle East, did not do so in the general debate on this item this year because inevitably we would have had to refer to what we had already stated in the Assembly on earlier occasions, since our position remains com- pletely unchanged. But we would, however, like to quote what the Foreign Minister of Spain said on the Middle East in the general debate: "The Middle East, the tense and vital nerve centre of ever-impending catastrophe, is the inevitable and natural concern of a country such as Spain, which is so closely linked to the Arab peoples and situated at the westernmost point of the Mediterranean. "The continuing policy of illegal settlements, the adoption of the 'Basic Law' on Jerusalem, the repetition of acts of aggression against the sover- eignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon and other events increasing tension in that area give rise to concern and require that the vicious circle of lack of understanding and intolerance be broken, if we wish to avoid new confrontations of unforseeable consequences. The time for action has come. "The Spanish Government considers it necessary for a further attempt to be made to open the door to a solution. Spain will spare no effort to that end." [4th meeting, paras. 118-120.] 232. My delegation is concerned at the situation in the Middle East: as it perpetuates itself.-we must bear in * Resumed from the 89th meeting. 234. Last year my delegation said that Israel cannot be denied the right to exist but that it was necessary for the parties in the confrontation-a con- frontation that has caused so much suffering and resulted in so many victims-to understand that the goal must not be to annihilate or humiliate the opposing side. Therefore, Israel cannot continue to keep the territories that it conquered in 1967, thinking that the unlawful settlements and the passing of years can create any acquired rights. Israel must realize-and eminent figures have said this-that the occupation of territory is not compatible with peace. The time has come for it to make a choice. 235. My delegation would like to express the following reservations on the draft resolution on which we are about to vote. With reference to operative paragraph 4, in our opinion the result of the exercise of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people should not be prejudged. As far as operative paragraph 5 is concerned, as we said yesterday when the resolution on the question ofPalestine was adopted, we believe that that paragraph refers only to the rights of the Palestinian people and does not affect in any way agreements which other parties in the area may have concluded. Having stated those reservations, my delegation will vote in favour ofthe draft resolution.

I wish to make a statement of two closely correlated components: the first, a point of order, and the second an explanation of my vote before the vote. 237. I find myself compelled to make some comments on what all of us should regard as extremely ominous functional aberrations which affect the very integrity of the work of the General Assembly and its interna- tional staff. The mass media in New York can be as wide of the mark and unfair as they please. After all, 243. The record and the recordings will bear me out when I say that I have never used the term "distin- guished bully" when referring to a colleague and friend, In the face of such serious and abrasive distortions and lies, and in order to preserve the integrity and accuracy of the proceedings of the General Assembly. I respectfully ask the President to request the Secre- tary-General to initiate an immediate investigation to bring the vicious culprits who wrote that press release 244. I am also informed that fabrications and dishonesty along similar lines-and equally auda- cious-have been pervasive in the various Committees of the General Assembly, particularly concerning the statements of representatives of the Arab States. We do "ot take those distortions lightly, and we suggest that those whose fidelity is not to the United Nations have no right to abuse their positions and malign the representatives of sovereign independent States, not to mention the integrity of the United Nations. 245. In explaining my vote before the vote on draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add.I, I should like to say the following: the draft resolution before the General Assembly is self-explanatory and requires no clarifica- tion. The disturbing element in the whole process, however, is that an Assembly representing the entire world finds itself in the awkward and untenable posi- tion of having to vote on such resolutions year in and year out to no avail. The entire draft resolution speaks of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, of the rights of the Palestinian people and ail other such provisions so solemnly and categorically laid down by the Charter of the United Nations. Are we the same United Nations whose Charter and founding fathers categorically and unconditionally rejected the acquisition of territory by force, aggres- sion, conquest and the enslavement of other peoples? 246. It is ominous and sad to reflect that these acts of the law of the jungle should have been imposed audaciously and with impunity upon the law-abiding States that form the totality of the United Nations, and the fact that the States and peoples afflicted by such lawlessness should sustain traumatic agonies is but a part of this sordid tale. For equally ominous is the deliberate and calculated effort of anti-peace and anti-law elements to so dilapidate the very fabric of the United Nations as to ensure its ultimate disintegra- tion and the termination of its noble mission for a world of peace, based on law and justice. If my words seem unduly bleak, I need only remind the Organiza- tion of the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which, by failing to confront the challenge of aggression in 1936, set the stage for its own collapse a mere three years later and triggered the horrors of the second global war. 247. Can the world in the nuclear age afford to watch helplessly and complacently a downward spiral into a bottomless abyss? Perhaps, by acting affirmatively and justly, we might manage to avert such a catastrophe and spare future generations the ravages of war.

First, I should like to inform the representative ofJordan that the Secretary-General has just assured me he will see to it that the matter the representative of Jordan has brought before the

My delegation is voting against the draft resolution on the Middle East that is before us. This text is in our view irrelevant to the search for a comprehensive peace, as well as to a resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects, to which my Government is dedicated and for which the Camp David agreements have provided the most realistic and practical framework. 250. A comprehensive settlement between Israe! and its neighbours can only be negotiated in accord- ance with the principles of Security Council resolu- tion 242 (1967), the only agreed basis for peace. We reject the shoi t-sighted and tendentious approach reflected in the present draft resolution, which seeks to undermine resolution 242 (1967) by ignoring one of its central provisions. It is unrealistic to expect Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories without endorsing Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. 251. Furthermore, we hold the strong view that repeating such an unbalanced demand ad infinitum in General Assembly resolutions will not make it right, nor will it form the basis for the comprehensive peace we all seek.

Had we been consulted, we would have expressed our favourable view with regard to the substance of the text of draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add.l and several of its paragraphs, because we are in favour of a solution which seeks to find peace in the Middle East, rejecting as we do the occupation of territory by force, and because we are moved by the martyrdom of the Lebanese people, attacked on several sides and struggling admirably and heroically to maintain its historical identity, which we all admire and which we all support. 253. However, in particular paragraphs of this text we are being induced to exalt and aggravate situations, rather than to accomplish the task of peace of the Organization, which should seek to calm those situations and resolve them. 254. The rejection of international agreements-duly contracted and supported not only by Governments and parliaments but by peoples which bring about the withdrawal of occupation forces and, particularly, the return of occupied territories to the country to which they legitimately belong-s-cannot change our convic- tions, in the light of our policy and our national and international conduct, as well as ou: view that the decisions of a sovereign people about its future must emerge only from the expression of the popular will in democratic elections. 255. We are, of course, entirely in favour of all the preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution, and in particular of its operative paragraph 6, and we have voted in keeping with this position on other decisions of the Assembly with regard to the question of Palestine and to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, we have not

I call on the representative of Jordan, on a point of order.

May I request the President to rule the representative of Israel out of order for misnaming my country, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The name he used is a travesty of the official name of the Hashemite King- dom of Jordan that is accepted in the records of the United Nations. Whatever he has said is therefore a travesty of United Nations procedure.

I would appeal to all repre- sentatives who participate in debates, when they refer to States Members of the United Nations to use

I call on the representative of Jordan on a point of order.

On a point of order, I believe that the President has ruled that we suourd stick to eplaining our votes before the voting and not exercise the right of reply-which is the right of every representative at the appropriate moment. 273. But the representative of Israel should not take the occasion of explanations of vote to make a reply. which puts his adversary at a disadvantage. For example, I did not say "Lord Rothschild": it was Time magazine which wrote that, and in brackets, but I have no way of answering him now. At any rate, this is irrelevant. The important point is that he is 276. However, I expect {hat explanations of vote come to the point of the explanations. That is a general observation, but I repeat it now in the direction of the representative of Israel so that he may come soon to explaining his vote on draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add. I. 277. Also, I should like to recall that just a few minutes ago I gave permission to the representative of Jordan to make an observation which was not directly connected with an explanation of vote. He stayed within his time-limit of 10 minutes and I Per- mitted him to proceed. 278. So we shall now proceed with explanations of vote, and I should like to repeat my appeal to the representative of Israel to come to the point.

On a point oforder, I should just like to point out that it is not surprising that the representative of Jordan should be so upset about what I have to say. For a number of years he has used this kind of language; he has referred to my people as "a bubonic plague", as "a cancerous growth" and so forth. But now that this has become public and some of the media have seen fit to pick it up he is upset. Rather than complain to the General Assembly about the way his statement has been reported he should apologize to it for the language that he has used, debasing its meetings, because that kind of language is nothing but out-and-out anti-Semitism of the worst and most virulent kind. 280. If the Assembly had stopped playing at being a mock parliament and introduced some real parlia- mentary rules and ethics, such calumnies would long ago have been ruled out of order. 281. I should like now to come to my explanation of vote. The Assembly has before it draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add.I. Just as what passes for a debate on the situation in the Middle East is merely a regurgitation of the Assembly's one-sided deliberations on the question of the Palestinian Arabs, so this draft resolution is merely a synopsis and pot-pourri of the resolutions which were adopted yesterday under agenda item 24. Its purpose is precisely the same as in those resolutions, namely, to impede the peaceful solution of the Arab-Israel conflict. 282. Like those resolutions, it is not an anti-war draft resolution, it is an anti-peace draft resolution. As such, it should be rejected. 283. The language of the draft resolution follows and exacerbates the formulations which have been advanced year after year on this item. It only goes to prove that its drafters have fallen captive to their own 284. One presumes that clear-thinking States are aware that the perennial repetition of lies and distor- tions does not make them any less false. A lie, a distortion, a fabrication, remains a lie, a distortion, a fabrication, no matter how often repeated by a ma- jority in the Assembly. 285. In the tradition of resolutions on this item, the draft resolution contradicts the provisions of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and the foundations on which it rests. That resolution was, and remains, one of the few positive contributions which the Organiza- tion has made to the cause of peace in the Middle East. The sponsors of the draft resolution before us appear to begrudge the Organization that contribution, and hence seek to undermine it. 286. In sum, this draft resolution, like the resolu- tions adopted yesterday on agenda item 24, is in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and all it stands for. It turns the United Nations against its very raison d'etre-s-the prevention of war and the promotion of peace. It goes without saying, therefore, that States which hold aloft the ideals of peace and of the United Nations in general should dissociate themselves from this draft resolution.

Before proceeding to the voting on draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add. I, I should like to make a general observation and a recommendation for the future. 288. If representatives want to take issue with other representatives on statements they have made, I urge them to make use of the right of reply, which we provide for in our rules of procedure. Representatives would thus also gain an extra few minutes for their explanations of vote within the lO-minute time-limit. 289. The Assembly will now proceed to take a decision on draft resolution A/35/L.49 and Add.I. A separate vote has' been requested on operative para- graph 8, and I now put it to the vote. A recorded vote has been requested.

The delega- tion of Trinidad and Tobago voted in favour of the draft resolution. 306. We adopted that position despite the fact that the resolution contains several elements with which we are not in full agreement.

My delegation feels that in the draft resolution, which has just been voted upon, facts and circum- stances are reflected on which we agree with the views of the majority of the international community; The meeting rose at 6.45 p.m,