A/36/PV.70 General Assembly

Statements will be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the various recommendations of the Fourth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant summary records. 13. May I remind members that under decision 34/401 the General Assembly agreed that when the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once-that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting-unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee. 14. May I also remind members that, in accordance with the same decision, explanations of vote should not exceed 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. 15. We shall frrst consider parts I and II of the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 19 [A/36/677 and Add.}]. 16. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting on any or all of the recommendations of the Fourth Committee in its report on this item. 17. Mr. sARRE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): As the Assembly takes up the draft resolution and the draft decision contained in part I of the report, I wish to make' the following statement in explanation of vote before the voting. 18. First of all, as the General Assembly once again considers the question of Western Sahara, I would reaffrrm the devotion of my country to the purposes and principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in the chart£r of the Organization of African Unity [OAU]. We also subscribe to the provisions of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14, December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Senegal has on 20. Demonstrating their traditional wisdom and realism and proving the virtues of dialogue, the heads of State of the OAU set forth an approach that could put an end to this conflict and serve the true interests of the African continent and of the international community. Essentially, that approach is to organize a referendum of self-determination for Western Sahara as a whole. To that end, the Implementation Committee on Western Sahara was established to ensure implementation of the decision, with the mandate of determining conditions for a cease-ftre and the procedures for organizing and carrying out that referendum with assistance from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 21. That historic decision aroused great hopes, and great hopes are still placed in it. Indeed, during this thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly, the· heads of State or Government, foreign ministers and other statesmen who have done us the honour of participating in our debates have all welcomed the agreement reached at Nairobi. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, whom I congratulate on his rePort and on the laudable efforts that he has constantly made on this· issue, has also emphasized the positive nature of the Nairobi decision. For all those reasons, .some delegations, including my own, had drawn up a draft resolution reflecting the spirit and letter of the Nairobi decision. 22. Responding to the appeal made by Mr. Daniel Arap Moi, President of the Republic of Kenya and current Chairman of the OAU Assembly, the sponsors of that draft resolution withdrew it. In so doing they demonstrated a spirit of understanding and their desire to cooperate. What is more, they whole-heartedly supported the draft decision in the aforementioned document that was introduced by the delegation of Kenya in its capacity as current Chairman of the OAU Assembly. In the view of my delegation, that draft decision is along the lines of the new approach.set forth by the heads of State and Government of the OAU. 23. However, other delegations felt it necessary to submit the draft resolution on Western Sahara which we are considering today. In my delegation's view, that text introduces elements which had been set aside by the heads uf State and Government of the OAU. Its adoption would be a major obstacle to the attainment of peace and stability in the region of Africa concerned-indeed, in all of Mrica. 24. The General Assembly, which has welcomed and hailed the historic decision adopted at Nairobi; the General Assembly, which has always been concerned with the maintenance of international peace and stability; the General Assembly, the major objective of which is to promote peace, thus has the duty and responsibility to respond positively to Africa's appeal. It must help Africa in itr, quest for unity, fraternity and co-operation. "With our determination, supported by militant faith, Africa will emerge from these meetings more united, more in solidarity with itself and greater. Neither the complexity of the political issues now before us nor the rather discouraging international situation can dissuade us from proceeding along this path, because our work will be crowned with success." That prophecy did come true in Nairobi, and we would praise God for it. 26. Senegal, faithful to the Charter of the United Nations and that of the OAU and anxious to ensure the maintenance of peace and stability in Africa, cannot vote in favour of the draft resolution, which, to say the least, introduces a discordant note into the peace process worked out by the wise men of Africa. However, we shall vote in favour of the draft decision I referred to, which has the advantage and merit of making a positive contribution by helping the Implementation Committee on Western Sahara in the search for a just, comprehensive and honorable solution of the question. 21; 'Mr. TARUA (Papua New Guinea): Papua New Guinea has supported self-determination for the people of Western Sahara and will continue to do so. Therefore, we were pleased to note that the Implementation Committee on Western Sahara of the DAU achieved unity among African countries, in August 1981 at Nairobi, on resolving the issue of self-determination for Western Sahara. Accordingly Papua New Guinea supports the draft decision, which was introduced in the Fourth Committee by Kenya, the current Chairman of the OAU Assembly. Even though we support the principles outlined in the draft resolution, we feel that regional unity on this issue should be encouraged. Accordingly, Papua New Guinea has decided not to participate in the vote on this particular draft resolution.

'As is well known, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, the United Nations has always encouraged and supported the efforts of regional organizations to resolve problems that might endanger pe.ace and stability in a region. 29. The efforts made by the DAU in this particular case, that is, the case of \Vestern Sahara, as well as in other similar situations that we have faced in the past, have been and are consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 30. It was in that spirit that the Zairian delegation, in co-operation with other delegations, submitted, in connection with the question of Western Sahara, a draft resolution ..theintention of which is to encourage and strengthen ' the efforts of the OAU in the interest of peace on our continent and relations of trust among our States in the OAU and between the States Members of the United Nations. 31. The draft resolution we submitted was based on the appeal made by the current Chainnan pf the OAU Assembly, who wanted the United Nations to do nothing, at tqis crucial stage, that might compromise the peace efforts of that organization. Therefore,' in order to respond to his 32. It will be recalled that the essence of the draft resolution that certain delegations, including Zaire, submitted was in keeping with the essence of the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of Kenya, which was fortunately adopted by consensus, as stated in the report submitted to us. In that way the United Nations should be able to make its contribution to the efforts of the OAU. 33. We reject any steps that might increase dissent in the continent and any steps that might create unnecessary obstacles, when all the members of the OAU are agreed that we have reached the point where it may be possible to find a peaceful 'political solution to the problem of Western Sahara in the interests of all concerned.Therefore, in view of the fact that the draft resolution under consideration includes elements of discord, precisely at a time ~hen we should be uniting our efforts to help resolve the problem, we shall not be able to support it and we shall vote against it. 34. Mr. M'RANI ZENTAR (Morocco) (interpretation from French): The draft resolution which the General Assembly is about to consider was submitted by the Algerian delegation and a number of others despite the decisions on Western Sahara taken at Nairobi, which provided for no further debate on the substance and for no further political resolutions on the question of Western, Sahara within the United Nations. Moreover, this draft resolution has been maintained despite the appeal made by President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya, the current Chairman of the OAU Assembly and of the Implementation Committee on Western Sahara, who quite correctly considered that the Implementation Committee and its chairman were the only persons empowered, because of the "authority vested in them, to take the necessary initiatives in the United Nations to obtain the assistance required to ensure the fulfillment of their mandate. 35. The Moroccan delegation and some other delegations had also introduced a draft resolution, which was in complete harmony with the decisions of the OAU, but, in agreement with the sponsors, my delegation responded without hesitation to the appeal made by the OAU and withdrew the text we had submitted in order to leave the' path clear for the Implementation Committee, which wished to fulfil its own responsibilities. 36. The chairman of the Implementation Committee then acted within the context of subparagraph (d) of the decision taken by the Committee at its first regular session, held at Nairobi from 24 to 26 August 1981, by which the current Chairman of the DAU Assembly was called upon to' enter into consultations with the United Nations in order to determine to what extent the United Nations would co-operate in the implementation of the African decisions [see A/36/512, annex]. The representative of the current Chairman of the OAU Assembly, the representative of Kenya, thus introduced a draft decision empowering the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take certain steps, and he quite rightly requested a consensus vote in support of that deCision. 37. The Fourth Committee, at its 21st meeting, responded to his appeal and adopted by consensus what was already an African consensus adopted at Nairobi. The Committee took note of the African decisions on the 38. Thus, the decision asking the Secretary-General to do those things-the only decision required by the OAU and the only one we would accept as a reference in the implementation of the African decisions-was adopted by the Fourth Committee by consensus. Any other decision or resolution could only be superfluous and, indeed, quite damaging in the circumstances, because it would contradi~t the decisions and the very principles accepted by consensus at Nairobi. 39. Indeed, there can be no question of asking for the organization of a ~ferendum on self-determination which would offer the populations the choice between maintaining the present.integration with Morocco and separation, and would dictate in advance a particular attitude on the part of the populations, before they had expressed their will. That would be anti-democratic and contrary to the very principles of the United Nations in respect to referendums, because those principles imply above all respect for the freely expressed will of the populations, without any outside interference. 40. The draft resolution submitted by Algeria and the other sponsors sins by excess in taking a position in the place of the populations concerned, and it is thus in fact a challenge to the OAU decisions and to the very principles of the United Nations and an infringement of the freedom and dignity of the populations consulted. Accordingly, that text should receive no encouragement at all from the Members of the United Nations, whose first duty it is to observe complete neutrality in a matter which is of interest strictly to the populations involved in the referendum, and they alone. 41. The Moroccan delegation will vote against this draft resolution to demonstrate once again its trust in the OAU and the efforts exerted by the Chairman of the OAU Assembly, President Daniel Arap Moi, who deserves our full respect, and to reaffirm our strict devotion to the Nairobi decisions, taken on the initiative ofHis Majesty King Hassan 11. 42. In voting against the draft resolution, the Moroccan delegation will thus be clearly demonstrating its firm opposition to provisions that are the basis of the draft resolutionand the real motivation of its main sponsors. My delegation cannot agree to this draft resolution being re· ferred to in any way in the implementation of the decisions taken at Nairobi on this question.

The Assembly will now proceed to take decisions ('n the recommendations of the Fourth Committee. 44. First, we have the draft resolution entitled "Question of Western Sahara", recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 20 of part I of its report, and the draft decision with the same title, recommended by the Committee in paragraph 21 of part I of its report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution and the draft decision appears in document A/36/709. A recorded vote has been requested on the draft resolution. Against: Central African Republic, Chile, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Morocco. Senegal, United States of America, Zaire. Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Burma, Canada, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon ]slands, Somalia, Spain, Sudan. Sweden, Thailand, Thnisia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Cameroon, Uruguay.

We turn next to the draft decision just mentioned, which the Fourth Committee adopted without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to do so?

We now come to the two draft resolutions recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 16 of part 11 of its report. I have been informed that the expenditures relating to the implementation of those draft resolutions have already been incorporated i~ the budget for the activities 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 for 1982-1983. 47. Draft resolution I is entitled "Question of the United States Virgin Islands". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution WWlOut objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft resolution 11 is entitled "Question of American Samoa". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution also without objection. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to follow suit? 50. Draft consensus I is entitled "Question of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft consensus without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to do so?

Draft consensus 11 is entitled "Question of St. Helena". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft consensus also without objection. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft consensus III is entitled "Question of Gibraltar". The Fourth Committee adopted it without objection. May I. take it that the General Assembly wishes to do so also?

Draft consensus IV is entitled "Question of Tokelau". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft consensus without objection. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? .

I nowcall on those representatives who wish to explain tIleir vote.

The delegation of Chile voted against the draft resolution on the question of Western Sah¥a as we believe that the text digresses from the appeal with respect to this question made by the OAU to the parties concerned. Chile maintains its fIrm commitment to the principle of the self,:,determination of peoples and hopes that that principle will be respected in accordance with the commitments of the OAU.

The delegation of Bangladesh voted in favour of the draft resolution on the question of Western Sahara since we believe in the inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination and national independence, and that principle is applicable in the case of Western Sahara. 57. We have noted with satisfaction the initiative taken within the framework of the OAU as reflected in the unanimous adoption of the decision contained in part I of the Fourth Committee's report. Consequently, in the spirit of that consensus decision, which envisages mutual acceptance and accommodation, avoidance of any specifIc reference in the text of the resolution to any party or parties concerned would have been preferred by us.

The Assembly will now consider the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 92 [AI36/678] and vote on the draft resolution entitled "Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations", recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 9 of that report. A recorded vote has been requested. Against: None. Abstaining: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.

The Assembly will now turn to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 93 [AI361679] and take action on the draft resolution entitled "Question of East Timor" ~recommended by the Committee in paragraph 11 of its report. 60. I call on the representative of Thailand, who wishes to explain his vote before the vote.

Thailand fully supports the right of self-determination for peoples under colonial rule, foreign occupation and alien domination. In the case of East Timor, the Thai delegation holds the view that the people of East Timor have exercised their right to self-determination. The people of that former Territory have made a clear decision to end their dependent status through integration with Indonesia. Also, that decision , has been legally accepted by both the Indonesian National . Assembly and the Indonesian Government, which on 17 July 1976 integrated East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia as the twenty-seventh province of that country. The pr()t.:ess of decolonization in East Timor was therefore terminated in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and other rele/ant resolutiol'!s. 62. The draft resolution before us clearly constitutes interferenc .1 the internal affairs of Indonesia, a sovereign State Member of the United Nations. My delegation will therefore vote against that draft resolution.

I call on the representative of Indonesia to explain his vote.

The General Assembly has just concluded its consideration of the so-called question of East Timor. As in previous years, my delegation, supported by many other delegations, has strongly opposed inclusion in the agenda of the session and any discussion of the so-called question of East Timor by the General Assembly. It is clear that my delegation must categorically reject the resolution which has just been adopted. 66. The reasons are obvious. First, there is no question of East Timor, as the peo1l1e of East Timor themselves, in the exercise of their right to self-determination, decided as long ago as 1976 to become independent through integration with the Republic of Indonesia. Secondly, the resolution constitutes interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign Member State, thus violating Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. Thirdly, this resolution serves no purpose as it has nothing to do with the realities and actual conditions in that province. It'refers, for instance, to a new outbreak of famine in East Timor, which even the sponsors should know is a complete fabrication. 67. Furthermore, continuing to refer to Portugal as the administering Power is tantamount to reintroducing colonialism in that territory. That is clearly unacceptable and should be so to all anti-colonial forces. Portugal deliberately and defrnitively abdicated its responsibilities by running away from the territory in December 1975, abandoning the East Timorese people in their hour of need. 68. Indonesia therefore categorically rejects the resolution on the non-existent question of East Timor.

We turn next to the Fourth Committee report on agenda item 94 [A/36/680] and will take action on the draft resolution entitled '~ctivities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Namibia ~i:1d in all other Territories under colonial domination and efforts to eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa", recommended by the Committee for adoption in paragraph 9 of its report. 70. I call upon the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany for an explanation of vote. 71. Mr. van WELL (Federal Republic of Germany): It is necessary for my Government to go on record once more to say that the Federal Republic of Genli.:llly rejects in the strongest terms the accusations of collusion in the nuclear field and" of military co-operation with South Africa contained in operative paragraphs 9 and 10 of the draft resolution which is to be voted upon. 72. ~e position of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany was made clear in my statement on this item at the 22nd meeting of the Fourth Committee and I do not want to repeat it in detail. I simply wish to mak~ clear once more that such co-o~ration with South Africa does not exist. My Government regards the allegation levelled against it as unjustified, unacceptable and harmful to friendly co-operation. My delegation will vote against this draft resolution.

The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee. The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution is to be found in document A/36/710. 74. We have requests for separate votes on operative paragraphs 9 and 10. If I hear no objection, we shall proceed accordingly.

My delegati:on expresses its opposition to separate votes on those paragraphs.

There is an objection from the representative of Angola to separate votes on paragraphs 9 and 10. In accordance with rule 89 of the rules of procedure, I shall put to the vote the motion for a separate

We shall now vote on the motion for a separate vote on paragraph 10 of the draft resolution. A recorded vote has been requested.

We shall therefore have separate votes on operative paragraphs 9 and 10 of the draft resolution. 79. I call on the representative of the United States to explain his vote before the vote.

Many representatives here realize that, despite inequities and the sometimes irregular patterns of foreign investment, foreign participation in their countries' economies has benefited their peoples greatly. It seems inconsistent, therefore, to declare in the General Assembly that those same activities are automatically harmful to the people of a dependent Territory. This profound inconsistency raises serious questions as to the effectiveness of the radical measures proposed in the draft resolution on foreign economic int~rests in dependent Territories.

We shall now vote on operative paragraph 9 of the draft resolution. A recorded vote has been requested.

We shall now vote 011 operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution. A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly will now vote on the draft resolution as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. •

We turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda items 95 and 12 [A/36/68/] and will take action on the draft resolution entitled ..Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations" recommended by the C...mmittee in paragraph 8 of its report. 85. I shall call first upon those delegations that wish to speak in explanation of vote before the vote.

I should like to make the following observations about the draft resolution. 87. My Government is deeply concerned by the language in operative paragraph 20 of the draft resolution, which is a clear misrepresentation of article H of th~ agreement between the United Nations and the IME My Government is also disturbed by the references to the IMF and the World Bank contained in operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft resolution before us. These organizations are concerned with technical matters and are functional in nature. Accordingly, we consider the politicization of these two bodies, as implied in this draft resolution, to be unacceptable. For these reasons, my Government regrets that it is not in a position to join in support of the draft resolution and will abstain in the vote. 88. Mr. TAN<;; (Turkey): My delegation's .explanation of vote in the Fourth Committee has not been reflected in the Committee's report. I shall therefore repeat it. 89. My delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution in accordance with the firm commitment of the Turkish Government to all the efforts that are being made

A request has been made for separate votes on operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft resolution. If I hear no objection, we shall proceed accordingly.

The Assembly will vote first on operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution. A recorded vote has been requested.

We shall now vote on operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution. A recorded vote has been requested.

I call on the representative of Chile, who wishes to explain his vote. 96.. Mt MONSALVE (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): The Chilean delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution. None the less, we want to record our reservations on paragraphs 6, 7 and 20 in connection ivith the World Bank and the IME In our view, the \Norld Bank and the IMF should be governed strictly by their constitutions, since that would be the best guarantee for Member States that the tasks set for" them from the outset will be properly carried out and their objectives achieved. The same applies to the other specialized agencies of the United Nations family. 97. It is striking that several of the sponsors of the draft resolution are not even members of the organizations mentioned. If there should be some change in the statutes or the constitutions of the World Bank and the IMF, that would be the exclusive responsibility of the member States, not of the General Assembly.

The Assembly will now consider the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 96 [AI361682] and take action on the draft resolution entitled "United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africa" recommended by the Committee in paragr3:ph 8 of its report. 99. The Committee adopted the draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Asse!l1bly wishes to do the same?

We turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 97 [AI361683]. 101. The Assembly will nowtake a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Offers by Member States of siudy and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self- Governing Territories" recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 7 of that report. The Committee adopted that draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?

This is a year in which the international community .has dealt with rare intensity with the tragedy and bloodshed engulfing the southern part of Africa as a whole and Namibia in particular. 122. None of the meetings held this year-here, at New Delhi at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries or at Nairobi at the Assembly of Heads of State and Goveplment of the Organization of African Unity-has failed to condemn South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia. 123. South Africa's persistent denial of the Namibian people's right to self-determination and independeilce and Pretoria's contempt for the resolutions of the United Nations and the OAU on the subject, its ruthless oppression of the peoples of the Territory and the threat to international peace and security which is a natural corollary of all this oblige us to take up today once again the questio:l of Namibia and to take to task all those who, through their co-operation of various kinds with South Mrica, rear the responsibility for blocking the normal process of Namiblan decolonization. 124. Yet, just before the meeting held at Geneva on Namibia, everything seemed to suggest that Namibia by the end of this very year would join the community of free and independent nations. Good faith, good will, moderation and a high sense of responsibility are characteristics of both SWAPO and the United Nations and they constituted the best guarantee of success. 125. So the Geneva meeting had simply to work out the modalities for the cease-fire and for the implementation of the peace pian set out in Securi~y Council resolution 435 (1978). 126. Pretoria transformed tlie peace meeting into a meeting of dupes. Its major concern was to get the international community to recognize the re'presentativity of its accomplices in the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, thereby destroying SWAPO's position, which is universally recognized. 127. Wrongly accusing the United Nations of bias, refusing to negotiate with SWAPO, the sole representative of the Namibian people, and advancing further new arguments that were just as groundless as all the others, such as the establishment of a so-called climate of confidence, Pretoria brought into the open its bad faith, its political ill will and thus its rejection of any peaceful settlement of the Namibian crisis. 128. The inaction of the members of the conta.ct group of Western countries, or at the lea!;t their lack of enthusiasm about putting the necessary pressure on Pretoria, which everyone was entitled to expect of them, and the 129. Once the Geneva meeting on Namibia had failed, and despite the bitterness and frustration that that engendered, the international community as a whole turned to the Security Council, the organ with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It intended thus to exhaust all the means of achieving a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. So it was doing what the Council itself had requested in resolution 439 (1978) when it warned South Mrica that if it did not co-operate in the implementation of resolutions 385 (1976), 431 (1978) and 435 (1978), it would be compelled "to meet forthwith to initiate appropriate actions under the Charter of the United Nations, including Chapter VII thereof, so as to ensure South Africa's compliance with the aforementioned resolutions". 130. Everyone supported that obj~tive. The front-line countries met at Lusaka on 17 February 1981, just a few days after the wrecking of the Geneva meeting on Namibia, and they in turn reconfrrmed their conviction that the South African racist regime could not re led to the negotiating table for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question unless economic and political pressure were exerted on it by the contact group of the five Western countries and the international community as a whole. 131. The Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unit~' confrrmed that analysis at its thirty-sixth ordinary seSSIOn held at Addis Ababa from 23 February to 1 March 1981. 10 That approach met the concerns of those who constantly advocated realism and the benefits of dialogue and negotiation, even though Pretoria had used the negotiations to strip away all substance from the United Nations. settlement plan, to strengthen its hold on the Territof'j of Namibia and to destabilize the front-line countries. 132. South Africa having decided to sabotage the peace negotiations on Namibia, the international community had no oplion ~ut to resort to the political and economic isolation of the Pretoria regime, as recommended in such circumstances by the relevant provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. 133. The Security Council, in refusing to apply mandatory sanctions against South Africa, not only refused to shoulder its responsibilities and went against the universal consensus but also and above all, by its inactIon, implicitly accep.ted the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa. 134. The arguments that were used at the time-that economic sanctions were not an effective means of influencing policy-contradict paragraph 6 of resolution 439 (1978). 136. The front-line countries, in their Lusaka communique, said that, after the failure of the Geneva meeting, SWAPO had no option but to intensify the liberation war in Namibia, and in this respect they reconfirmed their unwavering support for SWAPO. They also appealed to all countries loving freedom and peace to support SWAPO in all sphe.res o including economic, diplomatic and military assistance. 137. Appeals for one-sided patience and moderation really have no bases any more, because four dec~des of negotiations with South Africa have served only to strengthen further Pr~toria's intransigence and aloof attitude. 138. Before concluding, I would simply restate our consistent position on this matter. It was stated clearly by our Minister for Foreign Affairs in the general debate. He said: .. . . . we reiterate our support for the South West Africa People's Organization [SWAPO], the sole representative of the Namibian people. The Namibian question is, in the last analysis, a question of decolonization under the full and sole responsibility of the United Nations. We therefore reject any attempt to distort its nature or deflect its course. "~Ve believe that no country or group of countries has any right to link the independence of Namibia to events or situations that take place or might take place outside its borders. "The decolonization plan for Namibia, as approved by the Security Council in resolution 435 (1978), must be fully implemented. We see no reason to dilute its substance or to delay its implementation. "Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, enacted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974, must be strictly respected. Those who indulge directly or indirectly in the exploitation of Namibian ~esl>urces,. regardless of their origin, must immediately put an end to that outrageous pillage. "We ask the five Western Countnes, members ot the contact group, no longer to tolerate Pretoria's sabotagmg the decolonization plan for Namibia, which is provided for in resolution 435 (1978) anti of which they claim to be the authors." [l9th meeting, paras, 20 to 24.] 139. Those are the main ideas that determine our position on the question of Namibia. Accordingly, my delegation will associate itself with any draft resolution which takes account of the premises that I have stated here.

It is with a deep se~se ofdisappointment and in4ignation that the Ethiopian delegation once again takes part in the general debate on the question of Namibia. Namibia, a Territory for which the United Nations has a unique, legal and moral responsibility, should have been independent long ago. Regrettably, however, the adamant refusal of South Africa to withdraw from the Territory and the acquies- 142. Regrettably, it must be noted in this regard that in recent months we have witnessed an ill-advised and illconceived attempt to alter the United Nations plan through the injection of new ideas which, if accepted, would shift the concern of the international community from the inalienable right of the totality of the Namibian people to the preservation of the entrenched rights of the few. To show concern for a few white settlers while the overwhelming majority of Africans in Namibia are systematically denied their basic rights and fundamental freedoms is, to say the least, both unjust and illogical. 143. The whole world, except South Africa, recognizes the inalienable .right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence. A corollary of this right is the sovereignty of that people to choose the type of constitution and the kind of social and political system that fits its particular needs and aspirations. No one, least of all those that have benefited from the colonial occupation of Namibia, should therefore attempt to impose constitutional principles and political structures on the Namibian people. Ethiopia cannot be a party to any move to deprive Namibia's independence of much of its substance and meaning. Justice demands that the Namibians be allowed to choose freely and democratically their gen~ine representatives in accordance with the expressed provisions of the United Nations plan. Then, and only then, can we speak about the constitutional future of Namibia, and only those that have the mandate of the people can determine the type of constitution they want for the Namibian people. . 144. The history of the relations between the United Nations and the South African regime clearly shows that at no time has Pretoria negotiated in good faith. Indeed, bad faith and prevarication have all along characterized the diplomatic conduct of that racist regime. We are, therefore, of the firm conviction that any future attempt to continue negotiating with the South African regime can have no more success than those aborted attempts of the past. We have time and again said that the process of negotiation is a means and not an end in itself to be pursued irrespective of its real or potential outcome. South Africa has forfeited its right as a partner in international negotiations by its arrogance and intransigence. Consequently, it should be forced, and not entreated, to end its illegal occupation of Namibia. 145. Inasmuch as the Security Council has so far failed ,to shoulder its responsibility under Chapter VII of the .Charter of the United Nations, there seems to be no alternative but to intensify the armed struggle waged by SWAPO, the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia. The Western Powers have not only obstructed enforcement measures by the Security Council, but have overtly and covertly provided racist Pretoria with the requisite sustenance. In this regard, we are obliged to caution all Members that the contact group of the five Western countries, whatever they might publicly dedare or promise, cannot be expected to act against their own. 146. Africa and the entire peace-loving community of nations should henceforth increase their assistance, both material and financial, to SWAPO and the front-line States. In the absence of mandatory economic sanctions, only the intensified prosecution of the legitimate liberation struggle could force racist South Africa to end its occupation of Namibia. 147. Finally, I should like to commend the United Nations Council for Namibia for its positive contribution to the eventual and inevitable attainment of independence by Namibia. The Ethiopian delegation endorses the recommendations of the Council contained in its report [A/36/24, para. 708], and as a result will give them its support when they are put to the vote.

The Territory of Namibia has been a matter of international concern for far too many years. In fact, ever since the United Nations was established 36 years ago it has been dealing with the question of Namibia. During this period many countries on the African continent have achieved independence. NamiLia, however, has regrettably not yet gained that status, in spite of all the efforts which States Members of the United Nations have made over many years. 149. Few delegations represented here today would deny that the process of seeking solutions to international problems is complex and laborious. In establishing a basis for a genuine, peaceful and lasting solution to the question of Namibia, perseverance is required. as is a spirit of cooperation, understanding and negotiation in good faith. Those are qualities which the front-line States and other African countries, as well as the five Western countries, have exhibited in dealing with this question. SWAPO, for its part, has also demonstrated good faith by expressing its readiness to sign a cease-fire agreement with South Africa. This spirit of co-operation, however, has unfortunately not always been shared by the Government of South Africa. Reference is made, for example, to its intransigent attitude at the pre-implementation meeting at Geneva from 7 to 14 January 1981. 150. In numerous debates, including t~ose conducted at the resumed thirty-fifth ses~ion, the Security Council meetings in April, and the eighth emergency special session, many delegations, including my own, have repeatedly expressed their profound disappointment over South Africa's uncompromising attitude. Time and again we expI'( ~sed the hope that the South African Government would correctly understand the present situation and the growing indignation of the world community, and that it would not obstruct efforts to find a peaceful solution to this problem. In his statement last September the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan reaffirmed Japan's view that "the question of Namibia should be solved on the basis of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)" [8th meeting, para. 145] and expressed Japan's hope that "the countries concerned will make further efforts towards an early solution of that problem" [ibid.]. 151. My delegation would like once again to urge the South African Government to consider the matter sincerely so that Namibia can achieve its independence on 152. Another important aspect of efforts in this area is the work of the United Nations Council for Namibia. My delegation attaches importance to the work of the Council, which is the Administering Authority for Namibia until independence is achieved. Its report well describes the Council's persistent efforts, including those in mobilizing world opinion and administering various programmes relating to Namibia. Nevertheless, my delegation has reservations about some parts of the report, such as those related to support for armed struggle as well as its harsh and one-sided accusations directed against the sincere efforts of countries concerned. It is Japan's steadfast conviction that any international conflict or dispute must be resolved by peaceful means, without recourse to the threat or use of force. We cannot support armed struggle, not even in the settlement of the vexing Namibian question. In addition, some parts of the report make sweeping references to Member States, including my own. My delegation hopes that the sincere efforts which the Government and people of Japan have been making will be correctly understood by the Council. Further, my delegation believes that efforts made by all countries concerned towards an early and peaceful settlement are to be commended and encouraged. 153. In this connection, Japan has consistently supported and highly valued the efforts of the contact group of the Western countries in seeking an early and peaceful solution to the problem. Such efforts include their settlement proposal, the adoption of resolution 435 (1978) and their initiatives for conciliation and mediation. 154. After the failure of the Geneva meeting last January, the five Gcvernments affmned their commitment to "vigorous action in the efforts to bring Namibia to independence at an early date. Thus we welcome the recent visit by a mission of the contact group to southern Africa and regard it as a sign of hope and encouragement. It is reported that the mission submitted the so-called constitutional principles and had consultations with many leaders, including those of South Africa, the front-line States, SWAPO and internal parties of Namibia. These consllltatiOlis aimed at achieving an early solution of the question and it is our earnest hope that they will prove to be a breakthrough' in the impasse that has confronted the process since January. 155. My delegation attaches great value to the continuing role played by the contact group and urges it to intensify its efforts. At the same time, we hope that South Africa, SWAPO, the front-line States and other African States will likewise make further efforts, together with the contact group, towards the early implementation of resolution 435 (1978). 156. I should like to reaffmn Japan's readiness to consider seriously all constructive proposals which may be presented for an early and internationally acceptable solution of the Namibian question. As I indicated in my statement at the- 3rd meeting of the eighth emergency special session last September, Japan has taken various concrete measures in connection with the question of Namibia, which have gained the co-operation and understanding of the Japanese people. The Government and people of Japan are clearly committed to co-operating in the effort of the 157. In conclusion, I should like to express the hope of my delegation that the ongoing efforts of the parties concerned will enable Namibia soon to begin to build for itself a peaceful and prosperous future as an independent and sovereign nation. And I am quite sure that many members of the As~embly will agree that a solution of the question of Namibia will not only benefit the people of that Territory, but will contribute to the peace and stability of the entire region. J Frente Revoluciomiria de TImor Leste Independente. 4 The delegation of Jamaica subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain in the vote on the motion. S The delegation of Iamaica subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain in the vote on operative paragraph 9 and the delegation of Liberia infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against the paragraph. 6 The delegation of Liberia subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 7 The delegations of Jamaica and Uganda subsequently informed the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of operative para- graph 6. I The delegation of Uganda subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of operative paragraph 7. 9 The delegation of Jamaica subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution.