A/40/PV.111 General Assembly

I draw the attention of the General Assembly to document A/40/1014, containing a Note by the secretary-General, under agenda item 16 (f), relating to the election of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In his No ~, the Secretary-General has the honour to propose to the Assembly that it elect Mr. Jean-Pierre Hocke (Switzerland) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for a period of three years, beginning on 1 January 1986 and ending on 31 December 1988. May I take it that the General Assembly approves that proposal? It was so decided.

I declare Mr. Jean-Pierre Hocke elected United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1986. I congratulate Mr. Hocke upon his election and I wish him every succa~s in his important task. I now call on the representative of Burundi, who wishes to speak on behalf of the Group of African States. !r. BWAKIRA (Burundi) (interpretation from French): The election of the united Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is a ~Jestion of great importance to the African continent. The African states, which are count~ies of origin as well as countries of asylum for more than 5 million persons, ~re constantly faced with refugee problems, whatever the origins and causes. That is why the Organization of African Unity (O~U), in its effort to make a further contribution to the study and solution of refu, Je problems, decided at the beginning of this year to present an African candidate with high qualifications and an international reputation. In so doing, the OAU was aware that the practice in this respect permitted the presentation of other candidates from other regions and other countries outside Africa. The Group of African States therefore notes with satisfaction that, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 13 of the statute of t~~ Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Secretary-General proposed to the General Assembly - and the Assembly has just adopted that proposal - the election of Mr. Jean-Pierre Rocke, of Swiss nationality, as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1986. The Group of African States is gratified that the consultations conducted by the secretary-General resulted in a consensus on the designation of a new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There can be no doubt that Mr. Hocke's moral and intellectual qualities and experience will enable him to discharge his lofty functions as High Commissioner for Refugees to the satisfaction of everyone and in the interests of all the refugees in the world. I can immediately assure Mr. Hocks of the confidence and who1e-hearted co-operation of all the African states. On behalf of the Group of African states, I wish him every success. I cannot conclude this brief statesent without expressing, on behalf of all the African States, our gratitude to Mr. Poul Bartling, the outgoing United Nations Bigh COBIlissioner fOE' ~fugees, for the efforts he _de in the service of refugees not only in Afr iea but throughout the war ld.

1 now call on the representative of Italy, who will speak on behalf of the Group of western European and Other States. Hr. Zuca:>NI (Italy): I should like to take this opportunity to express the most sincere and deep-felt gratitude of the Governments and peoples of the Group of western European and Other States to Mr. Poul Bartling, who at the end of this month will conclude his eight-year term as High Commissioner for Refugees. Mr. Hartling has carried out with competence and dedication the delicate task that the international community entrusted to him. Under his able guidance the Geneva organization h~s coped successfully with the ever-9rC'Win~ phenomenon of refugees, setting high standards of efficiency and human concern. Efforts Wldertaken by Mr. Bartling and by the organizatio:n in the field of assistance and emergency relief to refugees during the past years have been of a highly humanitarian value, in so far as they have contr ibuted to reducing the effects of one of the most drallatic social problems of our time. Also on behalf of the Group of 'Western European and Other States, I extend our congratulations to the newly elected High Commissioner. Mr. Jean-pierre Hocke is a citizen of a country which has an outstanding tradition in the humanitarian field. He has personally shown, through his long experience with the International Committee of th"! Red Cross, an uncommon capacity for cancer nand dedica tion to the well-being of people who find themselves living in adverse conditions. We wish him well in the important post to which he has just been elected. ~r. Bwakira, Burundi)

Before we conclude this item, I would like to e~press my sincere appreciation and thanks to Mr. Poul Bartling and wish him success in his future endeavours. That concludes our consideration of sub-item (f) of agenda item 16. Before proceeding to the next item on the agenda, I should like to inform members that the election of 19 members of the Governing Council of the united Nations Environment programme will have to be postponed to a subsequent meeting, to be announced in the Journal, due to the fact that endorsed candidates have not been received from all the regional 9roups. The Assembly will now consider agenda item 16 (b), entitl~d -Election of twelve members of the World Food Council-. In this connection, the ASSembly has bef~re it, in document A/40/404, the recommendation of the Economic and Social Counr.:il. The 12 retiring members are: Australia, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Nicaragua, Nigeria~ Union ef soviet socialist ~epublics, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. The following States have been nominated by the Economic and Social Counr.:tl: three African States for three vacancies: Guinea, Mali and Somalia; four Asian States for two vacancies: Bangladesh, Cyprus, Irdia and the Syrian Arab Republic; three Latin American States for three vacancies: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic and Honduras; two Eastern European States for two vacancies: the German Democratic Republic ~nd the Union of Soviet Socialist ~epublics; two Western European and Other States for two vacancies: Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany. Mr. SHUKLA (India): India has decide to withdraw its candidature for the world Food Council in the spirit of accommodation and compromise. Our delegation counts on the sUpPOrt of the Asian Group and all other delegations when it presents its candidature for the Committee on Food Aid Policies next year. Mr. AL-ATASSi (Syrian Arab Rep~blic) (i~~erpretation from Arabic): In the same spirit of consensus, due to our keen desire to maintain the unity of the group, and in order to reach an agreed list of two candidates, the Syrian Arab Republic has decided to withdraw its candidature for the World Food Council in favour of Cyprus and Bangladesh.

Me~~rs have heard the statements of the representatives of India and the Syrian Arab Republic. Therefore the number of candidates from among the African group, the Asian group, the Latin American group, the group of Socialist States from Eastern Europe and the group of W~stern European and other States is equal to the number of seats allocated to each of those groups. In accordance with paragraph 16 of decision 34/401, the ~ssembly may dispense with balloting when the number of candidates from among the groups is equal to the number of seats allocated to each of those groups. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to declare those States elected members of the World Food Council for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1986? The following countries were elected members of the World Food Council for a period of three years beginning on 1 January 1986: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guinea, Honduras, Mali, Somalia, Union of Soviet Sociali~t Republics.

I wizh to congratulate the states which have just been elected members of the World Food Co~~~il. The Assembly has now concluded its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 16. The Assembly will now turn to agenda item 16 (c), entitleo "Election of seven members of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination". In this connection, the by the ECOn~ic and Social Council to fill the vacanci~s in the Committee which will occur as a result of the expiration on 31 December 1985 of the terms of office of the following countries: Argentina, Chile, Ethiopia, France, Nigeria, the Union of soviet Socialist Republi\.~s and the United states of America. The following states have been nominated by the Economic and Social Council: two African States for two vacancies: Benin and Zambia; four Latin American States for two vacancies: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru; one Eastern European State for one vacancy: the Union of Soviet Socialist ~epublics; two western European and Other States for two vacancies: France and the United States of America. Mrs. ASHTON (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): Upon inst';ctions from my Government I wish to state that, in the interests of the unity of the Latin America group, my Government has decided to withdraw Bolivia's candidacy for the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination. At ~he same time, my delegation hop~s that it will receive the support of the Latin American and other groups for its candidacy for the Economic and Social Council during the forty-first session of th~ General Assembly. Mr. GILLET (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Our country had for a time been a member of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination. Over that period Chile has worked with great dedication to enhance the important work performed by that body. My country wishes to express its willingness to stand down now in favour of our brothers from Peru and Argentina, and we hope that we will thus once again be helping to increase the unity so important to our cherish~d Latin America. (The President)

MenDers of the Assembly have heard the statements of the representatives of Bolivia and Chile. The nurtber of candidates from among the African Group, the Latin American Group, the Group of Socialist States of Eastern Eur:ope and the Graup of Western European and other States is therefore equal to the number of seats allocated to each oi: those groups. In accordance with paragraph 16 of decision 34/401, the Assertbly may dispense with balloting when the number of candidates from among the groups is equal to the number of seats allocated to each of thor.lSe groups. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to declare those States elected menbers of the Co~ttee for Programme and Co-ordination for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 19861 The following countries were elected members of the Committee for Programme and eo-ordination for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1985: Argentina, Benin, France, Peru, Union of Soviet Soci@list Republics, United States of America and Zall'bia.

I congratulate the States which have just been elected. That concludes the Ass~mbly's consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 16. The General Assembly will now proceed to the election of 19 members of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to replace those members whose term of office expires on 15 June 1986. The 19 outgoing members are: Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, the Federal RePublic of Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iraq, Italy, Kenya, Peru, the Philippines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain, Trinidad and TObago, uganda, the United States of America and Yugoslavia. Those members are eligible for immediate re-election. I s.tt(mld like to remind mefiVers of the Assembly that after 16 June 1986 the following States will still be inembers of the Governing Council: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Brazil, the Central African Republic, China, Egypt, France, the German Democratic Republic, Japan, Mexico, Niger ia, Singapore, Sweden, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the ~ited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Republic of Tanzania. Those 17 States are therefore not eligible for re-election. Under rule 92 of the rules of procedure, all elections must be held by secret ballot and there shall be no nominations. May I, however, recall paragraph 16 of General Assembly decision 34/401, whereby the practice of dispensing with the secret ballot for elections to subsidiary organs when the number of candidates corres~nds to the number of seats to be filled should become standard, unless a delegation specifically requests a vote on a given election. In the absence of such a request, may I take it that the Assembly decides to proceed to the election on that basis? It was so decided.

The Chairmen of the I regional groups have informed me of the following candidatures: for four seats from among the African Group - Kenya, Lesotho, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Sierra Leone~ for four seats from among the Asian Group - cyprus, India, Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran~ for three seats from among the Group of Socialist States of Eastern Europe - Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia~ for four seats from among the Latin American Group - Argentina, Chile, Cuba and Uruguay~ and for four seats from among the Group of Western European and other States - Italy, the Nether lands, Spa in and the United States of Amer ica. (The President) Since the number of candidates from each group corresponds to the number of seats to be filled from that group, I declare those candidates elected members of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for a three-year term beginning on 16 June 1986. The following countr ies were elected members of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for a three-year term beginning on 16 June 1986: Argentina, Chile, Cuba, GYprus, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Netherlands, Sierra Leone, Spain, United States of America, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. I congratulate all the States which have been elected memers of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The Assembly has concluded its consideration of sub-item (e) of agenda item 16.

May I remind representatives that the debate on this item was concluded at the 57th plenary meeting, on Thursday, 31 October 1985. I shall first call upon those representatives who wish to introduce draft resolutions. (The president) Mr. GMmA (Nigeria): I have the honour, on behalf of the co-sponsors 8 to introduce three draft resolutions entitled respectively ·COIIprehensive sanctions aga inst the I'acist regime of SOuth Afr iea· (A/40/L. 26); ·Si tuation in South Afr iea and assistance to the liberation mcwements" (A/40/L.27); and "World Conference on sanctions against racist SOuth Africa· (A/40/L. 28/Rev.l). We know that pressure and sanctions against racist South Africa are directly correlated to change in that country. The facts speak for themselves and the evidence is incontrovertible as well as statistically verifiable that the only time the Pretoria regime talks, ~lbeit with dishonest intentions, about "reforms", is when it feels the weight of international pressure. It is also true that the banning by the regime of foreign electronic and pr int media from cover ing the increasingly militant position of the brave indigenous majority is due to its fear of mounting and coalescing international pressure. It is for those reasons, and more, that I now refer to draft resolution A/40/L.26 entitled ·Comprehensive sanctions against the racist regime of SOuth Africa". That resolution underscores the imperative need for the international community to take decisive action against the apartheid regime to end apartheid. That is logical, since we already know that the only language Pretoria understands is pressure and sanctions in conjunction with militant and militarized opposition to the regime. This draft resolution illustrates two principles: the first manifesting the deep concern of the international coBllunity agains,: apartheid as an attack on the dignity of man, and the second demonstrating the obligation of the international community to assist the struggling people of South Africa to end apartheid. This draft resolution contains 19 preambular paragraphs and 20 operative paragraphs. In the preambular paragraphS it recalls relevant resolutions of the General Assemly and the security Council c~lling for concerted international action to force the racist regime to eliminate apartheid. It fn=ther expresses concern over the breaches of peace and the threat to international peace and security resulting from the escalation of violence against the oppressed people of South Africa by the regime. On the fortieth anniversary of the General Assembly this draft resolution is meant to reaffirm not only support for the struggle of the people of South Africa for the exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination and the establishment of a democratic and non-racial society but also to reaffirm the conviction that comprehensive and mandatory sanctions universally applied would be the most appropriate and effective peaceful means by which the international community can assist the legitimate struggle and discharge its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security. In its operative paragraphs the draft resolution condemns the racist regime for the brutal oppression, repression and violence that it is committing against the peop~e of SOuth Africa on a daily basis, its illegal occupation of Namibia and its repeated acts of aggression, subversion, terrorism and destabilization against independent African States. While declaring that the United Nations and the international community have special responsibilities to assist the people of SOuth Africa, the draft resolution once again calls on the security Council to apply comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa, while at the same time requesting all States that have not yet done so to adopt legislative and/or other comparable measures to ensure the total isolation of South Africa. The second draft resoluti~, contained in Obcument A/40/L.27, entitled ·Situation in South Afr ica and assistance to the liberation movements", reflects the danger and the gravity of the situation in that country. In its preanbul ar paragraphs it recalls the maL~y resolutions ado..;)ted by the General Assembly and the security Council culminating in security Council resolution 569 (1985) of 26 July 1985 in which the security CouncIl demands, inter ali~, the cessation of the uprootings, relocation and denationaliza~ion of the indigenous African people and demanding the immediate lifting of the state of emergency. In its operative par.agraphs it strongly condemns the illegitimate minority regime, again proclaims full support for the liberation movements of South Africa, commends the massive united resistance of the oppressed peC»ple of South Africa and reaffirms the legitimacy of their struggle. It further appeals to all States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, anti-apartheid and solidarity movements, trade unions, religious bodies ~tudent and other public organizations, city and local authorities and individuals to provide increased political, economic, educational, legal and other humanitarian assistance to the national liberation movements of South Africa to exercise their right of self-determination. On the occasion of this fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, this draft resolution reaffirms that only the total eradication of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial democratic society based on majority rule, through the full and free exercise of adult suffrage by all the people in a uni ted and unfragmented South Africa can lead to a just and lasting solution of the explosive situation in SOUth Africa. (Mr. Garba, Riger ia) The third draft resolution, entitled ·World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa·, contained in document A/40/L.28, calls for the convening of a world conference so that the international community can in all seriousness consider measures that it can take in the absence. of the secur i ty Council's decision to apply ece:momic and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. In its preambular part, the draft resolution takes note of the decision ado~~')d by the Organiza·tion of African Unity and of the statement mde by the Chairman of that Organization on 21 OCtober 1985 for the convening of the world conference on san{;~ions against South Africa. If the Assembly adopts the decision, the special Committee against Apartheid, in co-operation with the Organization of African Unity, will undertake the responsibility of organizing the conference, and as Chairman of that Committee I request the full co-operation of all Member States. In my statement to the General Assembly introducing agenda item 35, I reviewed ~ detail the situation in South Africa, and the threat to peace and security that apartheid represents, not only to its internal population but to its neiqhbours, to the continent of Africa and to the international community. Let me underscore the ser iousness of the si tua tion in SOuth Africa and the need for concerted international action. Since september last year, the world has witnessed the brutality of apartheid that has resulted in the imprisonment and detention of many peaceful leaders, and the death of approximately 1,000 people, including women and children. The black majority in South Africa are today watching the voting screen in this Assembly with greater attention and apprehension. It will be a disservice to their valiant struggle were tte General Assembly to ignore the fundamental political objectives of this Organization and descend to subsidiary and undignified quibbles on teChnicalities. In conclusion, Memor States are a1k:eady aware that these draft resolutions are the product of intensive and extensive consultations. It is my hope that the General AssenOly will act in concert, with unity and wisdom, and thus send a clear signal to the illegal minority regime that time has indeed run out for apartheid. Mr. BIERRnm (Denmark): It is a special honour for me to introduce this afternoon this year's draft resolution on concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid contained in document A/40/L.40. A simil~r draft resolution was for the first time submitted last year as the result of a join~ effort by Western - including the five Nordic - and African countr ies and with the aim of rallying the broadest possible support of the international community without which the endeavours of this Organization to eliminate apartheid w.;'::"l not succeed. Also this year we have had constructive and fulfilling co-operation among the sponsors, for which I wish to express my heartfelt thanks on this occasion. The draft has this year been brought up to date in the light both of developments within South Africa and of the rapidly increasing number of national, regional and other measures that have been introduced against the apartheid policy of SOuth Africa. (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) Thus the state of emergency in South Africa, as well as the killings, the arbitrary mass arrest& and the detention of members of mass organizations and individuals, are reflected in the draft resolution. These developments have given rise to considerable concern in the international community and increase the need for urgent and concerted international action to put pressure on South Africa to abolish the apartheid system. Thus the sponsors of the resolution have fully taken into account the growing threat to regional stability and international peace and security resulting from the continued oppression of the majority population in South Africa. The draft specifically demands that the authorities of South Africa release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners and initiate without pre-conditions a political dialogue with genuine leaders of the majority population with a view to dismantling apartheid without delay and establishing a representative government. Our acknowledgement of the continued need for assistance both to the oppressed people of South Africa and to the neighbouring states is reflected in appeals to increase humanitarian, legal and educational assistance to the victims of apartheid as well as assistance to the front-line States and other members of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). While continuing to favour effective mandatory sanctions by the Security Council the draft resolution, pending such action, contains appeals to increase the pressure on the apartheid regime of South Africa by implementing a large number of voluntary measures. Those have been carefully selected, taking into account not only what has already been decided by various countries and groups of countries, but also what the sponsors regard as necessary complementary action to widen the scope of the international efforts. (Mr. Bierring, Denmark) This year the sponsors have also been guided by the desire to ensure the broadest possible consensus in the international community on ways and means finally to convince South Africa of the need to dismantle apartheid without delay. It is in the spirit of a concerted approach with a view to a peaceful solution and in the light of the urgent need for joint international action that we recommend this draft resolution for adoption by the General Assembly. Mr. KRISHNAN (India): On behalf of all the sponsors, I have the honour to introduce for consideration and adoption by this Assembly the draft resolution on the policy of apartheid of the Government of South Africa entitled "~ublic Information and Public Action against Apartheid" in document A/40/L.29. We note with dismay that we are no nearer to the objective declared almost four decades ago, to eradicate the evil of apartheid. In fact one of the darkest and most shameful chapters of history is being enacted by the illegal South African regime, which is unleashing with savage ferocity a criminal system of organized brutality and terror on millions of innocent men, women and children. At the same time, we are inspired by the spirit of defiance, courage and heroism of the people of all backgrounds - African, Asian and even European - in the struggle against the monstrous evil of racism for a future in which all the people, irrespective of race, colour or creed may live together in peace and harmony. Their growing unity in struggle has left the minority regime in considerable disarray and will eventually bring it down. But the violence and bloodshed will continue unless there is urgent and decisive international action against the racist regime in support of the people's struggle. The power of knowledge must be effectively directed against the apartheid regime. People all over the world must be informed of the horrors of the apartheid system. It is essential that the international community be kept fully informed (Mr. Bierring, Denmark) about developments in South Africa by a continuous exposure of the regime's brutality and inhumanity. The press censorship imposed by the racist regime must be overwhelmingly condemned by all those who cherish the concept of the freedom of the press and the right to ir.~orm. The news black-out places an even greater responsibility on the international information media. They must rise above the politics of ideology and became the torch bearers of humanity, of freedom and of justice. They must arouse the conscience of the peoples throughout the world and thereby ensure international action against the apartheid regime. The text of the draft resolution requires no elucidation. Public information and involvement can be uses as a very effective means in the struggle for the elimination of apartheid. The resolution seeks to promote that by a wider dissemination of information on the evils of apartheid. In that task, the Department of Public Information and all United Nations offices and agencies should co-operate fully with the Special Committee and the Centre against Apartheid. The resolution appeals to all Governments, information media, non-governmental organizations, intellectuals and other public leaders and, indeed, all individllals to join in this effort to arOUse the conscience of the world against apartheid and to intensify further the international campaign for the release of Nelson Mandela, Zephania Motopeng and all South African political prisoners and detainees. There is also a renewed appeal for more generous contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for pUblicity against apartheid. On behalf of the sponsors, including my own delegation, I express the sincere hope that the draft resolution will receive the unanimous support of ~ll the delegations present, representing countries which cherish freedom, equality and human dignity. (Mr. Krishnan, India) : Mr. HAMRA (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation Is pleased to present draft resolution A/40/L.30 concerning relations between Israel and South Africa under item 35, the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of South Africa. I do not wish on behalf of sponsors to delve at this stage into an enumeration of the negative implications of the broadening of the relationships between Israel and south Africa. That aspect is contained in the report of the Special Committee Against Apartheid that has alr~ady been submitted to this Assembly. The draft resolution before the Assembly states that the General Assembly reaffirms its previous resolutions on this issue and notes with appreciation the efforts of the Special Committee to expose the increasing and continuing collaboration between Israel and South Africa. It also reiterates that the increasing collaboration, especially in the military and nucl~ar fields, is in defiance of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council and is a serious hindrance to international action for the eradication of apartheid; it is also an encouragement to the racist regime of south Africa to persist in its criminal policy of apartheid. It constitutes a hostile act against the oppressed peoples of South Africa and the entire African continent and poses a threat to international peace and security. In the operative ~art, the General ASOQA!bly commends the Special Committee against Apartheid for publicizing the growing relations between Israel and South Africa, condemns such collaboration in the military and nuclear fields, and demands that Israel desist from collaboration with South Africa forthwith and abide 8crup~10usly by the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the security Council. ~ne draft resolution calls upon all Governments and organizations to influence Israel to refrain from such collaboration. It also requests the Special Committee to continue to publicize, as Widely as possible, information on relations between Israel and South Africa, and again requests the Secretary-General to render all possible assistance to the Committee in this respect. The Assembly further requests the Special Committee to keep the matter under constant review and to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council as appropriate. My delegation, since it has introduced the draft resolution, wishes to confirm that the support of member countries will have positive implications for our common efforts aimed at the eradication of the hideous apartheid regime.

I now call on the representative of Burundi who will introduce draft resolution A/40/L.3l. Mr. BWAKIRA (Burundi) (interpretation from French): I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/40/L.3l entitled ·Policies of Apartheid of the Government of South Africa· and ·Programme of Work of the Special Committee against Apartheid", on behalf of the following sponsors: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic ~e~en, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guine&, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, M~dagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, RW3nda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe and my country, Burundi. The essence of this draft resolution comes from the relevant report of the Special Committee against Apartheid, reference to which is made in the sole preambular paragraph. As members present here will recall, all speakers expressed their satisfaction with the praiseworthy work of this Committee during the debate on the question of apartheid and encouraged it to intensify its activities given the aggravation of the situation in South Af~ica, which continues to concern the international community. By adopting the operative part of the draft resolution, made up of five paragraphs, the General Assembly, paying tribute to the work of the Special Committee against Apartheid, will seek to ensure the implementation of its programme of activities as contained in paragraphs 400 to 404 of its report. In operative paragraph 1, the General Assembly will commend the Special Committee against Apartheid for its efforts to promote concerted international action in support of the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed people of South Africa and in implementation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. In operative paragraph 2 the General Assembly will endorse the recommendations of the Special Committee contained in paragraphs 400 to 404 of its report relating to its programme of work and activities to promote the international campaign against apartheid. By adopting operative paragraph 3, the General Assembly will authorize the Special Committee to organize or co-sponsor conferences, seminars or other events or missions of information or campaigns against apartheid within the (Mr. Bwakira, Burundi) financial resources allocated under this resolution and will authorize the Secretary-General to provide the necessary staff and services for these activities which, as all speakers stressed during the debates on this question, are of great importance in eradicating apartheid, one of the main objectives of our Organization. In operative paragraph 4 the General Assembly decides to make a special allocation to the Special Committee for 1986 of SUS 500,000 from the regular budget of the united Nations, to finance its special projects. The sponsors of this draft resolution, stimulating in this way the awareness of international opinion and of Governments and international companies which are envisaging the application of limited sanctions or disinvestment measures against the apartheid regime, consider that these additional means will enab]0 the Committee to intensify its activities in order to increase international awareness so as to eliminate as soon as possible the inhuman system of apartheid, whose survival is a shame for mankind. Finally, in the last paragraph, the General Assembly again requests Governments and organizations to give their support, particularly financial, to the work of the Special Committee. The sponsors of this draft resolution hope that it will be adopted by consensus, thus testifying to the importance which the international community attaches to the elimination of the hateful system of apartheid.

I now call on the representative of Barbados to introduce draft resolution ~/40/L.32. Mr. HAYCOCK (Barbados): I have the honour, on behalf of the 61 sponsocs, to introduce the draft resolution in document A/40/L.32. (Mr. Bwakira, Burundi) I .ust say fraa the outset that the draft convention annexed to draft resolution A/40/L.32 is the result of good will and of persistence. Despite differing concerns and, in some cases, conflicting interests, the members of the Ad Hoc eo.ittee constantly kept in mind the ultiillate objective of the exercise and co-operated to produce this final draft. The draft conv_4tion seeks, in draft articles 3, 4, 5 and 6, to establish cer-tain obligations for States parties in respect of their own nationals, all aimed at discouraging and/or preventing sports contacts between their nationals and apartheid sport. (Hr. Haycock, Barbados) In draft articles 7 and 8 and paragraph 3 of draft article 10, states parties are required to take m~tion aimed at the isolation of apartheid sport. Draft article 9 and paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of draft article 10 envisage collective action on the part of States parties in the event that apologists for and supporters of apartheid sport seek to negate the aims and objectives of the draft convention. Draft articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 address the operation of the commission against apartheid in sports, which is expected to play a signif,icant role in ensuring proper implementation of the provisions of the draft convention. The final provision~in draft articles 15 through 22, conform with current practice. I think it only fair to make the point that the draft convention conforms in large measure with current practice in the ongoing campaign against apartheid sports. States parties will not be called upon to impose draconian measures on their citizens, and measures to be taken against non~9itizens have been carefully and clearly defined. I think it is also important to note that the Ad Hoc Committee did not want to pre-empt the functioning of the international commission and therefore left the establishment of rules and procedures to the commission itself. It was clear, how~ver, that the general feeling in the Ad Hoc Committee was that the commission would best perform its duties by reaching decisions on the basis of consensus. The draft resolution contains eleven preambular and five operative paragraphs. The preambular paragraphs r~call previous General Assembly resolutions and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid; emphasize the special responsibility of the United Nations to eliminate apartheid and racial discrimination in sports and in society; reaffirm unqualified support for the Olympic principle of non-discrimination in sports and the necessity of ensuring the continuation of the boycott of apartheid sport; commend the Special Committee against Apartheid for its efforts to isolate apartheid sport and in (Hr. Haycock, Barbados) particular for the publication of the Register of Sports Contacts with SOUth Africa~ and commends sports bodies, teams and individuals that have denounced sports contacts wi th SQUth Africa. The preanbular paragraphs also express the conviction that the international convention will be an important instrument in the campaign to isolate apartheid sport. Operative paragraph I would have the General Assembly adopt and open for signature and ratification the international convention against apartheid in sports. Operative paragraph 2 appeal~ to all States to sign and ratify the convention as soon as possible. Operative paragraph 3 requests all Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to disseminate the text of the convention as widely as possible. Operative paragraph 4 requests the secretary-General to ensure urgent and wide circulation of the text of the convention. Operative paragraph 5 (xurmends the efforts of the Specild Conmittee against Apartheid and requests it to continue to publish the Register of Sports Contac·ts with South Africa until the establishment of the conmission against apartheid in sports. It is particularly timely, I believe, that we have been able to reach agreement on the draft convention at this stage when the evil system of apartheid, is under such diverse pressure. Let us hope that this draft convention, when adopted by th~ General Assembly, will help to make a significant contribution to the early demise of that system. Of course, it would also be appropriate, to my mind, for the draft convention to be adopted by the General Asseni>ly during the current session, which is also the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. I should like to express my gratitude to the mel'lbers of the secretariat, to the members of the WOrking Group, as well as some very a~tive and articulate observers who attended the meatings of the Working Group, and particularly to the officers of the Committee for the unstinting support which they provided during the year. I conmend draft resolution A/40/L.32 to the General Assembly for favourable consideration. Mr. HALINEN (Finland): On behalf of the sponsors, I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/40/L. 39, on the United Nations Trust Fund for SOUth Africa. The main objective of the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa, which the General Assembly established in 1965, is to alleviate the suffering caused by the policy of apartheid of the Government of South Afr ica and to assist the victims of apartheid. The Fund is made up of voluntary contributions from States, organizations and individuals. Since its inception the Trust Fund has been able to give assistance to the following purposes: first, legal assistance to persons persecuted under the repressive and discriminatory legislation of South Africa; secondly, relief to such persons and their dependants; thirdly, the education of such persons and their dependants; fourthly, relief for refugees from South Africa; and, fifthly, relief and assistance to persons persecuted under the repressive and discri~inatory legislation in Namibia. The fight against apartheid is one of the few issues on which the international community stands united. We are gravely concerned about the imposition of the state of emergency, the widening repression and the growing number of political trials and detentions and the harsh sentences, including the death penalty, imposed on opponents of apartheid. Increased humanitarian assistance to those persecuted under the repressive and discriminatory legislation (~YCOck, Barbados) is essential.. The international community has responded positively to the growing need for such assistance .. However, there is a continuing need for contributions and we are appealing to all Meuoer States to contribute generously to the Trust Fund.. FurtherlID!:e, the sponsors hope that the! General Assembly will again this year demonstrate its solidarity with the victims of apartheid by adopting this draft resolution unanimously~

I shall new eall on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the votictg on any or all of the nine draft resolutions. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their vote after all the votes have been taken .. I should like to remind the Assetibly that, under rule 88 of the rules of procedure, the President shall not permit the proposer of a proposal or of an amendment to explain his vote on his own proposal or amendment. I also remind representatives that statements in explanation of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. ENoo (Cameroon); we feel compelled by the pressing imp"!ratives of this historic moment to explain the perspectives that condition our voting on issues relating to southern Africa. If only the draft resolutions presented by a number of Afr iean States and fr iends had been before the Assembly, I would not have spoken, but, looking at the whole spectrum of draft resolutions that have been placed before the General Assembly, we feel obliged to explain the perspectives from which we see the problems. (Mr .. Ralinen, Finland) we shall vote, of course, for the overall draft resolutions because, politically as well as in the nature of things, we do not have much choice. The single option presented to us constitutes a bully by circumstance; indeed a bitter pill to swallow. Once again we are assembled here stirred by yet another illusion of triumph to adopt lIore draft resolutions that define our incapacities and the scope of our" unWillingness to address the central issues in southern Afr iea. we seem to anticipate satisfaction that our labour is done and therefore that the sacred duty perforaed by the mere adoption of resolutions. we fail to address the worthlessness or the worthiness of tile diatribe that led to draft resolutions that we cannot adopt unanilllOusly or by CG1nsensus, in which we spoke at instead of to one another and accused one another of not lDOII'ing far enough. Instead of encompassing a review and a debate on critical issues, our endeavours were characterized by attempts to apportion blame to others, the powerful accusing the weaker nations of impatience, of lack of understanding and of mounting the tyranny of the powerfUl majority; the weak, in return, accusing them of hypocr isy and indifference. In some instances there was a hint of racism, each side embracing self-righteouness at its most obvious and ridiculous. In this process we have all failed to use the facilities of this universal bOdy as a centre for the harmo.~ization of the action and even the perspectives of States. Instead, we have tended to convert this Organization into a centre for fanning the flames of disharmonism. If these conditions were simply academic we would disregard the arrogance, the undesirable generalizations, the cries of frustration. But, no, these diversionary passions have successfully diverted our collective efforts from the noble role of seeking the firm arrest of conditions of war and destruction, of death and suffering, of doors being steadily shut to possibilities for freedom, to (Mr. Ens<> il Caaeroon) fundamental freedoms, to the right to life and to a decent living, to the opportunity for peoples to live in peace, rid of oppressive racist forces, to a rational definition of the true meaning of the sufferings and the potential explosion in that subcontinent. We therefore vote without contentment of heart. In a collJllemorative year we would have expected resolutions which declare our joint resolve to save generations of our brothers and sisters in southern Africa from the scourge of injustice, oppression, deprivation, death and destruction. Let us not be railroaded helplessly year after year into repetitive declarations which sp21l out the scope of our own indifference. Let us curse one another in our speeches to soothe the passions we nurture within ours~lves. But, when we declare or adopt our resolutions, let us ask or first determine their worth; let us ourselves aSk the granting of that which we seek for ourselves in truth. If we fail to do this, we serve the gr~tifioation of the oppressors, not their victims, in southern Africa. As we approach this festive season of Christmas, the Ch~istian world, including supposedly the South African racists and those who find cause to show them complaisancy or support, unites to sing praises 'cO God for sending down a Man of peace - Jesus. We chant hyens of adoration, wishing for peace on earth, good will to men. We express gratitude to God fo[ our so-called liberty in a world enslaved by institutionalized barbarism of the spirit, at a moment in history when cruelty, murder and injustice find full gratification in the actions and passions of man. Those in whose hands history has Plt batons of contemporary power fa il to safeguard the imaginations of the great among their ancestors, defeating values claimed and the promise held out to the present generations of peace, security an1 progress in development. OUr lives are littered with unfulfilled hopes. While the hypocrisy and the commercialization of Christmas persist, some frightening and lamentable prophecies of many a great writer are fulfilled in the (Mr. Engo, Carneroon) realities of the black man's predicament in southern Africa. The prophecy of Tennyson, who sighed: ·Ah, what shall this world be at 50, if the world is so bad when I am but 251·. That of Shakespeare who, through the mouth of Mark Antony, predicted in similar circumstances, ·'rhat IIDthers shall but smile when they behold, Their infants quartered with the hands of war". CJulius Caesar, III:i) Those circumstances were such that "Blood and destruction shall be so in use, and dreadful objects so familiar". We should take a look at the films of mounting civil strife in South Africa to&? and see how indeed l10thers are but smiling at the heroic sacrifice and death of the young, who find no comfor t in th is type of imposed peace. we should take stock of our atti tudes and our responses to the a trocities designed in Pretoria. FOr While we show arrogance of power; while we call names, selectively or collectively; while we call for resolutions we know well we cannot all participate in supporting; while we adopt obstructive measures to prevent a consensus on effective action in foruras established under the united Nations Charte~; while we shout at one another instead of reasoning and talking with sobriety and humility to one another, blood, human blood, flows senselessly. We owe it to ourselves, to our Charter and to generations to come to present a better record of concern and commensurate action. We cannot cease to appeal to the great Powers of this age to use their privileged circumstances to end the torture and death that haunt the conscience of our generation. The two super-Powers raised hopes by their recent summit meeting in Geneva in this commemorative year. We ask them to meet the aspirations to disarmament and peace in southern Africa. We would vote with them and the developed and developing countries to launch a new al'ld effective programme for lasting peace and secur i ty in the area. CMr. Engo, Cameroon) International public ~pinion is already mobilized against the evils of apartheid. Governments and legislatures are instituted to implement the wishes of their people. We ask them to do this now. The future is distant and will bring medicinal peace when it is too late for good race relations. we shall not vote for anything that- has not improved the lot of our peoples in the past. We ask that our vote be judged in the light of our perspectives. Let us translate the expressions of resentment and enntions of frustration into a forward march - indeed a new movement to establish and maintain conditions of lasting peace and security in southern Africa. Hr. PHILIPPE (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French); Our ing the debate on the policies of apartheid of the South African Government the 10 meaber States of the European Community, Spain and Portugal, whole-heartedly condemned the apartheid regime in South Africa. Therefore our attitude should not give rise to the slightest amiguity for our objective is the total dismantling of apartheid and its replacement by a system of government based on the principles of representative democracy. Consequently, we regret that some of the wording of the report of the Special Committee against Apartheid (A/40/22), calls into question our determination to make a contribution to the abolition of apartheid, and gives an incorrect picture of our common position. We feel that the United Nations has a pr imary role to play in eliminating the inhuman system of apartheid. (Hr. Bngo, Cameroon) The debate has shown that the Asselllbly's opposition to apartheid is unanillDUs. It ..eems to us, therefore, that an effort should have been made to reflect this 'J~.ei7al oPF"'Ait!a: !!«e fa!thfgUy in te:cts that could be approved by all mel!lbers. We regret that once again elements of disagreement alien to the debate have been retained in some of the texts. The Ten and Spain and Portugal believe that, in accordance with the division of competence between the General Assellbly and t.tle security Council, as laid down by the United Nations Charter, only the secur ity Council is empowered to adopt decisions binding on Hemer States. We wish to state again, moreover, that universality is one of the fundamental pr inciples of the United Nations, and we cannot accept its being called into question. The universal character of the specialized agencies and the provisions of their rules should also be respected. Although we understand the despair of the people of South Africa, and even if the persistence of the system of apartheid might lead some to think that only armed struggle can put an end to the system, we remain convinced that a process of peaceful change is still possible there and that the United Nations has the obligation to promote such a process, in accordance with the Charter. For that reason, we cannot agree that resolutions adopted by the General Assembly should endorse the use to force. The Ten and Spain and Portugal do not believe that the situation in South Africa is a problem of decolooization. Our opposi tion to apartheid aims at the establishment in SOuth Africa of a multiracial, free and democratic society. we cannot support the calls for the breaking of all relations wi th SOUth Afr~ca, because isolating it would be contrary to the goal sought by the Assembly: the total elimination of apartheid. Channels of communication with South Africa must remain open in order to enable the outside world to maintain and increase its pressure on the SOuth African Go'lernment for the establishment of a free and democratic society, without any racial oppression. The Ten and Spain and Portugal remain faithful to the Olympic ideal of non-discrimination, and they reject all forms of apartheid in sports. They recall, however, that sports activities are organized in their respective countries on private initiative. The sports organizations ther~ are aware of the opposition by Governments to sports competitions that violate the Olympic ideal. The Governments of the Ten and Spain and Portugal continue firmly to discourage all sports contacts that have any implication of racial discrimination, out of their respect for the fund:. ;antal rights of their citizens. The Ten and Spain and Portugal reject all arbitrary and unjustified attacks, whe ther by name or implicitly, on Member States or groups of countries. The Ten and Spain and Portugal regret that, for the reasons I have just stated, they will not be able to vote in favour. of all the draft resolutions submitted under this agenda item. They repeat their commitment to act collectively and individually to exert pressure on the South African Government to induce it to put an end to the system of apartheid and to introduce the basic changes demanded by the international community. Mc. TELIMANN (NOrway): I have the honour to make a statement in explanation of vote on behalf of the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and my own country, Norway. The Nordic countries have consistently condemned the apartheid policy of the South African Government as a violation of fundamental human rights as laid down in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the view of the Nordic countries, apartheid also constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. Consequently, the security Council should adopt (Mr. Philippe, Luxembourg) mandatory sanctions against South Africa as a means to achieve the peaceful abolition of apartheid. Pending such sanctions, the Nordic countries hold the opinion that individual countries should adopt unilateral measures in order to increase the pressure upon the Government of South Africa to abolish apartheid. For that reason the Nordic Foreign Ministers, at their meeting in Oslo on 17 and 18 September this year, adopted an extended Nordic Programme of Action agains~ South Africa, which has been circulated as document A/40/784. In essence the extended programme contains measures to increase the pressure On South Africa both through action by the United Nations - in particular the Security Council - a~A through further national measures. An increasing number of unilateral measures are introduced in order to put pressure on South ~frica. These measures are aimed at further isolating the apartheid regime in the fields of sports, culture and science and at reducing trade and other Commercial links with South Africa. Furthermore, the Nordic countries have decided to increase humanitarian assistance to refugees and liberation movements as well as development assistance to the front-line States and the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). The Nordic countries agree with the main thrust of the draft resolutions. Regrettably, some of them continue to raise difficulties concerning important questions of principle. I shall briefly describe them: First, the Nordic countries consider universality as a basic principle with respect to the United Nations organizations and we cannot, therefore, accept any formulation that in one way or another seems to put this principle in doubt. Secondly, peaceful solutions to conflicts is a fundamental principle of the Charter of the united Nations. Therefore, we cannot accept endorsement by the United Nations of the use of armed struggle• (Mr. Tellmann, Norway) Thirdly, the Ncxdic cowatries deplore the continued practice of selectively singling out individual countr ies and groups of countries as responsible for the policies pursued by the ~~~~ Afriean GGv~naent. This practice - .est evident in the draft resolution (A/tOIL.30) on relations between Israel and South AfKica - sakes it all the .ace difficult to achieve international consensus in the struggle against apartheid. Fourthly, because of the striet adherence of the Nordic countr ies to the provisions of the Charter, we must reserve our position with regard to formulations whiCh fail to take into account the fact that only the security Council can adopt decisions binding on Mellber States. Fifthly, the iapleMentation of sa.e of the draft resolutions would encroach upon the constitutional freedo_ and rights of Nordic citizens and private organizations. This applies in particular to the proposed International Convention for the Prevention of .!e!!:theid in Sports. In view of the atrict and active policy of the Nordic countries against sports contacts with South Africa, the Nordic countries regret t!lat they cannot endocse the draft convention. The situation in SOuth Africa has deteriorated further. Hundreds of people have lost their lives during the past year, and hundreds of political opponents have been detained. Witbout fundamental p.>litical reforms in South Africa, leading to the eradication of apartbeid and the establishllent of a delDcratic society, a further escalation of violence seeu inevitable. The responsibility for this situation rests with the South African Government, but the world community cannot ' remain indifferent to the suffering of the people of South Africa. The world co_unity must continue to voice its condemation of apartheid and strive to agree on concrete steps to prOJlOte a free and dellOCratic society in South Africa • Kr. LEQiAILA (Botswana): The h,uu geopolitical circullStances in which we find ourselves today in southern Aftica, eoapounded by the equally harsh realities of history':, malCe it illPracticable for Botswana at this stage of its economic developtlent to parti.ci.pate in any aeaningful way in the iapaeition of comprehensive IIandatory sanctions against SOuth Africa. we are therefore constrained to reserve our positiClft Clft any paragraph in the draft resolutions under consideration which seeks the illpOs 'it>n of econ01l1c sanctions against SOuth Afrlea • But, lest our position on sanctions be misconstrued, allow us to set the record straight. While we value highly international sympathy for our predicament, we should not be understood to wish that those who enj~ the comfort of distance and whose fates are not so closely linked with that of South Africa should seek refuge behind that sympathy by opposing sanctions against South Africa ostensibly for our sake. They should not use our predicament to conceal their true intentions towards South Africa and to shed their responsibiiities. We are not opposed to sanctions, even if the necessity of their imposition against a South Africa which violently refuses to listen to reason puts the fear of God into us. We are none the less prepared to suffer the consequences if in the end a new South Africa could be brought into being with the barest minimum of violence. In other words, we fear more the consequences of perpetual violence in South Africa than the transitory dislocations of economic sanctions. Mr. JOFFE (Israel): Our revulsion and opposition to apartheid has been expressed often and in many forums by Israel's representatives and our leaders. Because of our moral origins we, as Jews, have always identified with the sufferings of others, and foremost of all with the victims of slavery and racial discrimination. Our identification with the blacks suffering today under apartheid is also the result of our historical experience in the two millennia since the period of our prophets. We suffered in our exile incomparable oppression, degradation, humiliation, mutilation and butchery at the hands of others, culminating in the holocaust, in which six million of our brethren were burned in the ovens of nazism. In commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp the Secretary-General of the United Nations has officially opened, today at 5 p.m., an exhibition in the General Assembly pUblic lobby. Israel's genuine affinity with the struggle of blacks is what led us to share ou~ newly found experience in nation-building with the newly independent African states. The false accusation of Israel supporting apartheid is not an ordinary trampling of the truth. It is propagated by the worst offenders in history against the rights of blacks: by the Arab slave-traders. Accoraing to Livingstone. the number of Africans who were captured. killed or exported during the four and a half centuries of the slave trade amounted to 120 million. The same distortion and hypocrisy characterize the discussion about Israel's attitude towards South Africa. We are accused of conducting massive trade with South Africa and we are singled out as if we have a unique co-operation with Pretoria. Until rp.cently. the Arab States enjoyed immunity from public exposure of their trade with South Africa. There was a kind of conspiracy of silence in the international community to shield the truth. While trading in the billions with South Africa the Arabs hurled accusations at others. partiCUlarly at Israel, for the practices they themselves were involved in up to their necks. Arab oil exports to South Africa reach about $2.2 billion per year. Supportive documentation and evidence have been presented by us in the plenary meetings and in the various committees describing sophisticated methods of camouflage and oil-blending. It is time now to tear off the mask of Arab hypocrisy. we note with interest the new operative paragraph 20 of draft resolution A/40/L.26, which states: "Further requests the Special Committee to keep the matter of collaboration between South Africa and Israel and between South Africa and any other State under constant review••• ". Apartheid is too great an evil to be cynically manipulated as a tool ~f obsessive hatred for Israel. Racism is indivisible; so is the battle against apartheid. Unity and co.on effort is the order of. the day. All the various draft resolutions related to item 35 should have been adopted by consensus. Only consensus can give the- the .aral and international support that the fight against apartheid deserves. Unfortunately, the virulent campaign of defaaation and slander, false accusation and singling out ~kes it impossible to reach this goal. Rather than a united stand in this United Nations, we will once again witness the negative votes and tbe abstentions with which we have all become faailiar. Sir John THOMSON (United Kingdom): As the representative of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the .embers of the European Community, has already expressed vie\lfS shared by ay Governaent, I need COIIIIent only briefly on the reasons why the united Kingdoa will not be able to support most of the draft resolutions before the Assellbly. Four of the draft resolutions concern themselves with the application of aandatory sanctions against South Africa. My delegation's views on the matter were explained with great care in our statement during the plenary debate on apartheid. For us, the essential question is whether mandatory sanctions would be an effective .eans of achieving the common objective of dismantling apartheid or whether they aight have the reverse effect of consolidating support for apartheid. No one can answer these questions with certainty. Those who claim that they know that aandatory sanctions will bring down apartheid should consider the history both of sanctions and of South Africa. Some who have studied those histories argue, nevertheless, that mandatory sanctions should be tried in case they work. I can understand that, but I ask the. to understand that we are concerned that they will work the wrong way. A close study of the evidence of history and of the circulIlStances of South Africa leads us to that conclusion. Far from hastei"l'l:ng the end of apartheid, Jllandatory sanctions would probably delay it. Therefore we do not vote for thes. In OCtober and November, in this very hall, the nations of the world devoteeS seven working days and 200 speeches to a discussion of sanctions against South Africa. Non-governmental organizations ga.a their views in the Special Political Committee. The Fourth Committee gave its views. The pattern will be repeated next year. The Security Council confers frequently on this subject, again with many speakers. Accordingly, we see expensive duplication in the proposal in draft resolution A/40/L.28/Rev.l for a World Conference on Sanctions againt Racist SOuth Africa. What will be said and done there that is not already said and done here many times over? Is it the task of the United Nations to reproduce in an endless series of gilded mirrors the work of the United Nations? There is a host of causes, many of them in Africa, where there is a grave need for United Nations action to help those in distress. If there is any spare cash, it should go for that sort of cause. We should not be spending $900,000 or more on expensive travel and luxury hotels to discuss a subject which is properly and almost continuously discussed in this building. We very much regret that the Special Committee against Apartheid has failed to heed the swelling chorus of disapproval which has been heard in this Assembly over the past few years and which will be reflected in the inability of my delegation to approve that Committee's programme of work. The report presented to the Assembly this year (A/~O/22) is a lamentable of the policy of members of the European Community, of the Luxembourg measures, of the visit to South Africa by three European foreign ministers and of the code of conduct for businesses. Finally, with regard to the proposed draft international convention against apartheid in sports, I reiterate that my Government's attitude is unchanged. For many years now, in accordance with the Gleneagles Agreement with the Commonwealth, we have discouraged sporting contacts with South Africa. However, certain provisions of the proposed convention, notably those which would restrict freedom of movement, are unacceptable to my Government and would infringe the liberties of the individual. Mr. MAKEKA (Lesotho): My delegation will Vf.)te in favour of some of these resolutions because of our revulsion against the inhID~n policies of apartheid. However, we shall abstain on those dealing with sanctions, for the simple reason that because of our geographical position we are not in a position to impose sanctions against the apartheid system. We would like to make it very clear that we do not accept to be used as a shield or as a hostage either by South Africa or by any other country to justify inaction against apartheid, which has been declared a crime against humanity. Mr. McDONAGH (Ireland): The Irish Government's condemnation of apartheid was most recently expressed in our statement on 28 OCtober 1985, in the general debate on this issue. In kE!~ping with the views set out in that statement the delegation of Ireland was pleased to be a sponsor of two of the draft resolutions before us today, A/40/L.39, on the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa and A/40/L.40, on concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid. (Sir John Thomson, United Kingdom) Unfortunately, however, we are unable to support all of the draft resolutions under this item, since they contain some formulations and ideas which are not consistent with the approach of my Government to apartheid. I would also say that we share the reservations held in common by the Member states of the European Community plus Spain and Portugal, which have just been set out by the representative of Luxembourg. I turn first to the draft resolutions which Ireland will support. My delegation will support draft resolution A/40/L.28/rev.l, dealing with a world conference on sanctions against South Africa. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland indicated in his statement to the General Assembly on 27 S~ptember this year, Ireland believes that only collective action by the international community as a whole will eventually succeed in persuading those who hold power in South Africa to make the commitment to abandon apartheid. Ireland has frequently indicated in this Assembly and elsewhere that it would favour the imposition of carefully chosen, graduated, mandatory sanctions against South Africa, to be imposed by the United Nations Security Council and to be fully implemented by all. From past experience we know that it is not always easy to achieve results by these means. However, if it is properly handled and carefully directed, we believe that the international pressure we might bring to bear on South Africa in this manner could be made effective. Ireland will vote in favour of draft resolution A/40/L.29, on public information and public action against ~partheid. My Government believes it to be of the utmost importance that information about the abominable practic~s of apartheid should have the widest possible dissemination. We are deeply concerned. at recent restrictions on the press and information media in South Africa in relation to their reporting of the situation there. The plight of political prisoners in South I (Hr. McDonagh, Ireland) support to all appropriate efforts for their release. Ireland will vote in favour of draft resolution A/40/L.31, on the programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid. Of course our attitude to the r~ndations in the report of the Special Committee must be understood in accordance with the general policy of my Government on apartheid, outlined in thi~ and previous statements of our position. Ireland will abstain on draft resolution A/40/L.27, on the situation in South Africa and assistance to the liberation movements. My delegation would have wished to be able to vote in favour of this draft resolution, which contains so many provisions which we support. However, we cannot accept the explicit endorsement of the arMed struggle in this resolution. My delegation has made it clear in the past that we do not wish to see this Assembly endorse violence. Even if we can Understand the sense of growing hopelessness and bitter frustration from which such violence May spring, my Government cannot condone it. Ireland will abstain on draft resolution A/40/L.32, on the in~ernational convention against apartheid in sports. We would have wished to be able to support this draft resolution as we have consistenly supported t~~ drafting of an tnt~cntional convention on this topic. Ireland supports the principle of non-discriMination in sport. The Irish Government, therefore, will do everything possible to prevent international sporting contacts between Ireland and South Africa and refuse to give financial aid to Irish sports organizations which engage In contACts with South ~frica. The Government has also prevented representative South Af~ic~n team6 frOffi taking part in sports competitions in Ireland. There is Much, theref~re, in the draft c~nvention annexed to draft resolution A/40/~.32 which Ireland could sup~~rt. Regrettnbly, however, it als~ contains a number of (Mr. McDonagh, Ireland) Irish Constitution. Ireland will vote against draft resolution A/40/L.28. on cQllPrehensive sanctions against the racist regime of South Tlfrica. There are uny eleJIents in this text wh.:.:;b do not accord with the approach of .y Governllent to apartheid. Ireland's commitment to the principle of universality of international organizations is well known. We also believe that under a policy of total isolation of South ~frica. as called for by this draft resolution. the outside world would have increased difficulty in continuing to DOnitor the situation of black South ~fricans. In such circumstances Ireland would have the gravest fears for their welfare. especially in view of the tragic events which the world cOllllunity has recently witnessed in South ~fric",. It is our firm belief that the complete severance of all contact with South Africa would only have the effect of abandoning black South ~fricans to the whim of the South ~friean authorities. who without the reprobation of the international community would be even freer from restraints on their treatment of black South ~1ricans. As I indicated earlier, Ireland supports the application by the Security Council of selective mandatory sanctions against South ~frica. We would have been able to support many of the specific measures itemized in operative paragraph 7 of that draft resolution, which are in accord with our policy on apartheid. We continue to have doubts, however, about the wisdom of calls for comprehensive sanctions at the present juncture. We ~lieve that the right policy for the international community is one of steady and graduated pressure for ~hange through carefully chosen, selective, mandatory sanctions, to b~ properly implemented by all. ~s in previous years, Ireland will vote against the draft resolution on relations between Israel and South ~frica, in view of its selective singling out of I (Hr. McDonagh. Ireland) Miss DEVER (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Two months ago, from the General Assembly rostrum, Mr. Leo Tindemans, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Afairs, referred in the following terms to the events which had occurred in South Africa over the previous six months: -Racial discrimination leads to violent confrontation, with the number of innocent victims running into the hundreds. The threat of civil war looms larger with its train of sufferin9 and misery leading to the economic collapse of half the continent. Like so many others, I, too, should like to appeal, from this rostrum, to the Government of the Republic of South Africa to undertake forthwith the dismantling of apartheid which Belgium condemns unreservedly.- (A/40/PV.Il, p. 31) As in every previous year, my delegation had hoped to be able to join unreservedly with the international community in expressing its absolute repudiation of the policY of apartheid and its growing disappointment at the slow and inadequate nature of the measures announced by the South African authorities to put an end to that system. condemnation of apartheid with a number of forllulae which it is hard for my country to accept. I am referring to those which depart from the peaceful, conciliatory approach which reflects the very essence of our Organization. I am also referring to those which divert the draft resolutions from their major concern, namely, the abolition of apartheid, in order to attack certain countries or abusively introduce the elements of a national political solution, something which can be de3ated and defined in a democratic context only by the South Africans themselves. The observations which the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg has just made on behalf of the European Economic Community clearly reflect the views of my delegation. I shall therefore refrain from reverting to all the matters dealt with. My Government is convinced that the treatment of the queGtion of apartheid and of South Africa's problems must not be influenced by considerations connected with East-West confrontations. If that conviction is really shared by the great majority of Members in our Assembly, the draft resolutions presented to us should have reflected this and should have expressed above all the unanimity which binds us. My delegation particularly regrets the terms in which the report of the Special Committee desc~ibed the steps taken by the member countries of the European Community in respect of South Africa. Those measures Which recognize and are intended to promote the rights of the majority of South Africa's citizens, restrict freedom of trade in certain sensitive sectors and represent a real warning to the South African authorities. Do they therefore deserve to be dismissed so lightly? Many Member countries which, for reasons of geography or historYf have never had sustained relations with South Africa adopt a resolute attitude in favour of an inflexible approach and comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. My country (Miss Dever, Belgium) position tc be considered objectively free a standpoint which takes into account not Merely the past but also and above all the future of all the inhabitants after South Africa has been delivered frOl8 the scourge of apartheid. If we are all o agreed about the need to eliminate apartheid, there are dif~erences of opinion as to the best way of actually bringing that about. For the reasons nentioned above, SlY delegation wUl vote against draft resolutions A!40/L.26, L.27, L28 and L.30, entitled respectively~ ·Comprehensive sanctions against the racist regi-e·, ·Situation in South Africa and assistance to lib9ration movements·, ·World conference on sanctions· and -Relations between Israel and South Africa·. It will abstain on draft resolution A/fOIL.31, relating to the Special Committee's progra.-e of work. It will also abstain on draft resolution A/fO/L.32 relating to the International Convention against aeartheid in sports. For constitutional reasons, certain clauses of that Convention are clearly i~ing its ultimate ratification by the Belgian Parliament. The authorities will continue, however, to discourage sports contacts with South \frica and will continue to ban the entry into Belgium of South African sportsmen and wo.en who wish to take part in sports competitions BelgiUM's commitment within the context of United Nations action to bring about the abolition of apartheid will lead it to vote for draft resolution A/40/L.29 entitled wpublic information and public action against apartheid-, as well as for draft resolution A/40/L.40 on international action against apartheid, notwithstanding the serious reservations it has on some of the paragraphs. (Miss Dever, Belgium) Mr. MEESMAN (Netherlands): In the debate on the question of apartheid the views of the Netherlands concerning South Africa's systeM of institutionalized racial segregation and repression have already been put on record. With regard to the draft resolutions ~fore us, the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg has set forth certain principles to which the Ten, and Spain and Portugal, commonly adhere. We fully endorse that statement. In our view, the only hope for achieving peaceful.and rapid c~nge in South Africa lies in collective action aimed at bringing to bear effective pressure on the Government of South Africa. The Netherl~nds Gcvernmant gt~nds ready to contribute to that end. My delegation also firmly believes that, in the final analysis, the successful outcome of our endeavours will be determined by our willingness to translate the existing broad consensus regarding the evils of apartheid into a statement of principles and a programme of action which will have widespread support. Unfortunately not all of the texts before us seem to have been drafted with this precept in mind. First of all, the Netherlands rejects name-calling and unwarranted criticism directed at one particular group of countries. This can only poison the atmosphere in which the deliberations of this body take place and tends to divert attention from the subject under consideration to other unrelated areas of internation~l rivalry. My delegation also disagrees with some of the other elements in the draft resolutions. Under the Charter of the united Nations we are specifically bound to refrain from the use of armed force and to promote the settlement of disputes or situations Which threaten international peace and security by peaceful means. Therefore we cannot endorse expressions of support for the concept of armed struggle. Furthermore, the situation in South Africa does not fit the terminology of decolonization. Hence, the Netherlands regards the ~frican National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania as anti-apartheid MOvements, but we do not recognize them as liberation movements. In this context we wish to express our reservations about the applicability of prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Additional Protocol of 1977. These considerations apply specifically to the draft resolutions on comprehensive sanctions and on the situation in South Africa and assistance to the liberation movements. We cannot subscribe to the general thrust of the latter draft resolution, which postulates the existence of a colonial situation in South Africa and refers to armed struggle as a legitimate means of addressing South Africa's p~oblems. On the other hand, the Netherlands has on numerous occasions voic~~ its strong support for a number of the important and concrete demands listed in the draft resolution, such as the unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners and detainees, inclUding Mr. Nelson Mandela, and the immediate lifting of the state of emergency. These considerations will lead us to abstain. My delegation finds itself in disagreement with many elements in the draft resolution on comprehensive sanctions, and we shall therefore vote again~t it. In all probability the total isolation of South Africa and the imposition of comprehensive sanctions would bring about an uncon~rollable situation and exacerbate tensions throughout the region, while South Africa's people and those of neighbouring States would be subjected to great hardships. Why should we embark on this extreme course? If we wish to promote a peaceful transition to a non-racial, democratic society in South Africa, there is a whole range of as yet untested selective measures which eould be applied in order to bring to bear the required pressure on the South African Government. For these measures to be effective, however, they must be based on mandatory decisions of the Security Council or be applied by a significant number of relevant countries. (Mr. Meesman, Netherlands) In our view, some of the cwasures called far in operative paragraph 7 could lend themselves to such a selective approach. The Netherlands strictly observes the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa established by resolution 418 (1977) and during its membership of the Security Council it initiated the consultations leading to the adoption of resolution 558 (1984), which bans'the ~rt of arms from South Africa. Furthermore, my country has consistently advocated the establishment of a mandatory oil boycott against South Africa and, within the context of the European politic~l co-operation procedure, has firmly supported the measures agreed upon with our partners of the Ten to cease oil exports to South Africa. As we did last year on a similar resolution, we shall vote in favour of draft resolution A/40/L.40, on concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid. In our opinion this draft resolution represents a very welcome effort to combine a number of widely shared principles and concrete measures into a programme for political action designed to attract the broadest possible support. My Government also appreciates that the drafters of the text have deliberately avoided unnecessarily controversial elements in order to preserve the draft resolution'S consensus-building potential. The Netherlands whole-heartedly subscribes to the demands formulated in operative paragraph 4. Operative paragraph 8 fully accords with the Netherlands traditional policy of encouraging the forces of peaceful change in South Africa and alleviating the suffering of the victims of apartheid. In this context it should be mentioned that my Government, during its forthcoming presidency of the Twelve, hopes to contribute to the successful outcome of the meeting between the front-line states and the member States of the European Community which will be convened early next year. However, our support for this draft resolution needs to be qualified in relation to a few points. Apart from the reservations on the general principles (Hr. Meesman, Netherlands) mentioned earlier in my statement, my Government cannot endorse certain aspects of operative paragraph 7, such as subparagraphs (a) and (e). My Government believes that the collective action of the international community to curtail further investments in South Africa could be an important step towards increasing the pressure on that country's Government. For such a measure to be truly effective, however, it must be based on a mandatory decision of the Security Council, or at least enjO¥ the support of a significant number of countries with economic interests in South Africa. Also, the Netherlands considers it imperative that South Af~ica be denied any military nuclear capability. It would have been proper, therefore, to call on South Africa to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or to accept full-scope safeguards on all its nuclear installations. I wish to recall that in September of this year the Ten, together with Spain and portugal, decided to harmonize their attitude on the prohibition of all new collaboration with South ~frica in the nuclear sector. I shall now turn briefly to some of the remaining draft resolutions. The Netherlands will abstain on draft resolution A/fO/L.3l, concerning the programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid, because of our growing uneasiness at the content of the Committee's report. We deeply regret that the report of the Special Committee against Apartheid contains, even more than past reports, a great deal of unwarranted criticism of a particular group of couhtries. The 10 member States of the European Community have already reacted in writing to the report's distorted presentation of the common measures taken by the Ten against South Africa. We also note that the allocation to the SPeCial Committee has been increased in spite of the pressing need for bUdgetary restraint. My delegation does not favour the convening of a world conference on sanctions against South Africa and (Mr. Meesman, ~ether1ands) will abstain on draft resolution A/40/L.28/Rev.l, concerning this proposed event. As I have explained, the Netherlands has consistently advocated the imposition of selective mandatory sanctions by the Security Counnil. It seems open to serious dOUbt, however, that the proposed conference could make a helpful contribution towards that end and would justify the expenditure involved. In conclusion, the Netherlands will abstain on draft resolution A/40/L.32, On the international convention against apartheid in sports because some provisions of the proposed convention' infringe upon certain constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in my country. However, my Government believes that a sports boycott is an effective instrument in international efforts to eradicate apartheid. Accordingly, the Netherlands has introduced visa requirements for South ~fricans, enabling the Netherlands authorities to bring South African participation in sporting events in the country virtually to a halt. Mr. McDOWELL (New Zealand): New Zealand's rejection of South Africa's policy of apartheid was stated unequivocally when my P~ime Minister spoke recently to the Special Committee against Apartheid. That rejection is confirmed in practical terms by New Zealand'5 support for the Commonwealth Accord, adopted in Nassau in October, and by the concrete measures recently put into effect by the New Zealand Government. It will be made clear again in our votes on the draft resolutions before us. In particular, New Zealand's sponsorship of draft resolution ~/40/L.40, eloquently introduced by the representative of Denmark, is an affirmation of our determination to see carefully conceived and carefully targeted international action taken to bring an end to the offensive system of apartheid. In line with the general thrust of our po~,icy, New Zealand will vote for draft resolution A/40/L.28, although we regard the expenditur~ r~qui(ed to hold the world conference on sanctions to be higher than necessary. (Mr. Meesman, Netherlands) Similarly, to demonstrate our support for the objectives of the Special .~ Committee against Apartheid, we shall vote for draft resolutions A/40/L.29 and A/40/L.3l, despite some reservations about the aspects of the work programme in draft resolution A/40/L.31 and the funding sought in paragraph 4 of that draft resolution. My delegation will abstain on draft resolutions A/40/L.26 and A/~O/L.27. Although we support many of their essential proposals, we have reservations about some of the extravagant rhetoric they include. We do not support the call for this Assembly to endorse armed struggle; we doubt that the purposes of the international community would be well served by the exclusion of South Africa from all international organizations; and we see little merit in the assertion that every country that maintains any sort of relationship with South Africa is guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of human rights violations or of encouraging the South African Government to intensify oppression or undertake aggression. New Zealand has closely followed the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Drafting of an International Convention against Apartheid in Sports. The New Zealand Government has actively discouraged New Zealand sportsmen and sportswomen from having contact with South Africa until such time as apartheid is abolished. It will continue to do so. Many of the provisions of the draft convention, inclUding the denial of vis~s to South African sportsmen to compete in New Zealand, form part of New Zealand's policy on sporting contacts with South Africa. We see a number of difficulties, however, in the draft convention, in particular its incompatibility with cer.tain fundamental rights to the observance of whi~h New Zealand is committed. New Zealand must therefore abstain on draft resolution A/~~/L.32, although it reiterates its general support for the broad objectives of those that drafted the convention. (Mr. McDowell, New zealand) Mr. MONTEIRO (Portugal): The Permanent Representative of Luxemburg, speaking on behalf of the 10 Member States of the European Community, as well as Portugal and Spain, has already commented on the draft resolutions on which we are about to vote, recalling crucial principles shared by all those countries. My delegation has frequently expressed Portugal's opposition to all forms of racism and to the princip~~~ inherent in any society which is based on racial exclusivity or superiority. We have also often reiterated our support for any initiatives whose purpose is to promote the scructural changes necessary for the creation of a social system that will eliminate the tensions originating in a regime based on the systematic and institutionalized practice of discrimination. The Portuguese Government has always worked to attain that goal by peaceful means, believing that resort to indiscriminate violence is not a valid way of making South Africa a free, democratic and multi-racial society and at the same time bringing peace and prosperity to southern ~frica. Similarly, the Portuguese delegation does not believe that the total isolation of South Africa can serve our essential purpose of bringing about the fundamental changes that we have called on that country to make. We are, however, profoundly convinced that it is necessary for the international community to remain constantly mobilized in its efforts against apartheid. In tbis context ~ delegation will not change the votes it has often cast in ,j tbe General Asseably. We have reservations about certain aspects of these draft resolutions, which encourage violence and contain discriminatory and unjustified references, as well as arbitrary language. As last year, ~ delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/40/L.40, on concerted international action for the eU_ination of apartheid.. However, lIlY delegation would like to stress that it has reservations on certain of its formulations such as those in paragraphs 5 and 7 and, in particular, J.;)aragraph 1, since Portugal does not consider the situation in south Africa to be a pcoblea of decolonization. Mr. de KEfII>OLARIA (France) (interpretation from French): The French delegation would like to add the following comments to the statement made by the representative of Luxeabourg on behalf of the 10 members of the European Community, Spain and PortU9al. ~rance unequivocally and wholeheartedly condemns the South African Government's policy of apartheid, which it regards as an intolerable attack on fundamental human rights. The French Prime Minister had the opportunity solemnly to recall that vell-known position in his statement of 24 July 1985. Mr. Laurent Fabius spoke in the following terms: -For all persons devoted to justice and human rights, the apartheid regime in SOuth Africa is inadmiseible. It institutionalizes racial discrimination; it attacks the moral and political principles that underpin our society." Greatly concerned by the deterioration of the situation and by the unleashing of violence provoked by the system, the French Government decided to recall its Ambassador from South Africa and to suspend all new French investment in that country.. My Government also informed the Security Council, which on 26 July 1985 adopted, on my Government's proposal, it~ resolution 569 (1985). That resolution strongly condemns the system of apartheid and the pol\cies and practices deriving therefronaJ calls for the i1lllediate lifting of the state of emergel'lCY and for the unconditional release of all political prisoners, and abO'\le all Mr. Nelson Mandala. Moreoyer it calls on Memer States to take a number of 1oluntar~' lIeaaures against South Africa. Since its adoption France has worked for a uni~ied position on the part of the countries of the European COIMlWlity, which decided on Cl progranme of measures in Luxembourg on 10 Septel\t)er 1985. In response to the same concerns, my delega tion will support draft resolution A/40/L.40, or. international concerted action to eliminate apartheid. This p)sitive vote confirms our commitment to a policy of pressure on the South African Government. Support for that draft resolution should not, however, be interpreted as suggesting that the competence which the Charter grants the security Council alone is being called into question. Moreover, the voluntary measures recolllllended in para~raph 7 do not necessarily cover the national measures which France might decide ttl ta~e in order to exert pressure on SOuth Africa. In that spirit, any measure ~9ainst Pretoria should meet the twofold concern of progressiveness and respect for oomnitments assumed. Likewise, my delegation will support draft resolution A/40/L.29, which encour~ges th& united Nations to promote information and ac~ion by the public against aparti.eid. Th~ French Govern~~nt has expressed its support for such action, and hopes it will be developed. Although it is totally opposed to all practices of apartheid in sports, my delegation will have t6 abstain on draft resolution A/40/L.32, on the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports. My country quite reCEntly adopted measures to discourage sporting contacts; wi th South Africa, but it canno\,; wi thout prior in-depth consideration approve a convention containing elements likely to cause serious problems of compatibility with its Constitution and legislation. France supports the Special COmlDittee Against Apartheid in its continuing work of prOl7iding information and denouncing that policy and its consequences. However, my delegation regrets the arbitrary and systematic criticisms made in the Committee~s report of certain countries" and particularly the European Community. It is for that reason that my delegation will abstain on draft resolution A/40/L·.31, relating to the Conmittee's prograume of work. In general, France would have liked to have been able to support all the draft resolutions submitted to the General l\ssenbly on the question of apart.'1eid. My delegation regrets that some of the wording contained in the draft resolutions before us weakens their scope and make it impossible for them to receive the support of all the meIlbers of the Assembly. !£~~theid is condemned unanimously in this Assembly. A unanimous vote on the texts adopted would have given them an indisputable impact, and that wOl.1ld have been a major political signal to the South African Government. That would have been - and I stress this - a desirable goal. My delegat:lon regrets that it has not been reached. Mr. S'l'EFANINI (Italy); In his earlier statement the Permanent Representative of Luxemourg expressed the views of the 10 meIIber states of the Europaan Community, as well as Spain and Portugal, on the draft resolutions before us under agenda item 35. Italy entirely supports his remarks, and is actively involved in the follow-up of the measures towards South Africa adopted by all the 12 countries in September last. With those measures, specific and concrete steps have been taken to put pressure on South Africa and promote an early and peacefUl change in that country. Regrettably our efforts are not adequately reflected in the report of the Special Committee to the fortieth session (A/40/22). In particular, the presentation of the troika mission to Pretoria, which led to the measure of. (Mr. de Kemoularia, France) 10 septenbet, seems to be rather misleading. The criticism that prevails in the report is hardly justified, as ~':Neral African countries, especially the front-line States, have commented positively on our recent stand and on our initiatives towards South Africa. We also believe that the Special Conmittee should adopt a more positive attitude towards the action that ltaly and the Community have taken to bring about the prompt termination of the segregation policy, a goal we all share and endorse, and the start of a constructive dialogue in SOUth Africa. Italy hopes that the Special Committee will take those remar ks into consideration. We generally support its activity, and we would have liked to vote in favour of the relevant draft resolution contained 1n document A/40/L.3l. However, because of the unbalanced comments in the report that I have just mentioned, we shall abstain. Let me turn now to draft resolution A/40/L.32. Italy is strongly opposed to any practice of apartheid. with regard to sports, we support the principle of establishing a set of international measures to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. Bearing in mind that goal, we voted in favour of previous General Assetrbly resolutions on the drafting of the Convention against Apartheid in Sports. However, we find some unacceptable elements in the draft convention contained in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee (A/40/36). We refer in particular to articles 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10, which are incompatible with the Italian Constitution and political system. At the national level, Italy has long been taking effective steps to oppose apartheid in sports and to discourage sporting contacts with countries practising racial discrimination. We shall continue to Jo so. In that context, we want to stress our positive assessment of parts of draft convention, namely articles 2, 5 and 9. Italy intends to draw the attention of its national organizations, which have full jurisdiction in this matter, to these elements and to reco.mend that they be implemented. Italy will support the draft resolution on co~certed international action for the e1tmination of apartheid, because we share its main objectives and thrust, if not all its elements. Th~ elimination of apartheid is a must for the international community. In that context, I want to recall once again the European measures of 10 September, as they represent a concrete contribution to increasing pressure on South Africa. In the text before us, the sponsors have tried to avoid the inclusion of the extraneou" and divisive elements that are found in many other draft resolutions. However, Italy wants to put on record its strong reservations concerning paragraph 5 and some elements of paragraph 7. As for paragraph 5, we believe the matter of mandatory sanctions to be within the exclusive competence of the Security Council. With regard to paragraph 7, our reservations relate not only to some of the measures listed therein but also to our concern that the paragraph does not take into account the negative effect that the measures envisaged could have on the populations Which are the victims of apartheid and on neighbouring States. (Mr. Stefanini, Italy) Ms. BYBNE(United States of AIIlerica): The United states joins other meMbers of the General Assembly in condemning without reservation the system of apartheid institutionalized by tba South Afr~can Government. As we have stated throughout the united Nations system on numerous occasiO!'ls, apartheid is socially unjustifiable, politically impt::acticable and psychologically demeaning. It is a system that drowns hope and cuts man off from his inalienable right to stand as an equal a~ng his fellow men. Once again, we find ourselves constrained to vote against many of the draft resolutions before us. The draft resolution on comprehensive sanctions reaffirms that: "comprehensive and mandatory san~tions imposed by ~he Security Council under Chapter VII of the Chart~r. ••• would be the most appropriate and effective and peaceful means· to assist the people of South Africa. The draft resolution asserts that by imposing sanctions we can discharge our "responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security" (A/40/L.26, eighth preambular para.). Can we? Can acts that lead to a hardening of positions on both sides really contribute to a peaceful resolution of the problems of apartheid? Are blanket economic sanctions and the total isolation of South Africa effective in promoting reconciliation? Furthermore, the United States makes no apology for constructive engagement, which is condemned so unjustly in this draft resolution. On the contrary, we believe that it has contributed directly to the very limited improvements that have been effected so far in the lives of oppressed South Africans. On that same basis, we shall vote against the draft resolution on concerted international action for the elimination of apartheig. It too urges "the Security Council to adopt mandatory sanctions. The draft resolution on the situation in South Africa also requests the "take all ••• measures, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Chart~r. ••• , to avert the further aggravation of tension and co~flict in South Africa". (~/40/L.27, para. 15) Again, let me state that we fail to understand how the imposition of Chapter VII sanctions will lessen tension or promote dialogue and negotiations. Nor can we support the calling of a world conference on sanctions against South Africa, as urged in another draft resolution. Since that draft resolution regrets "that the Security Council has thus far failed to take ••• action under Chapter VII of the Charter" (A/40/L. 28/Rev. l, fourth preambular para.), we assume that any conference will focus on the unacceptable goal of mandatory sanctions and will be ineluctably and unfairly destined to condemn the united States and other permanent members of the Security Council. We believe that each State should be free to impose the peaceful measures it deems to be most appropriate for bringing about change in South Africa. My delegation will also vote against the draft resolution on relations between Israel and South Africa, because we believe it unjust to single out one State when, as this body well knows, numerous countries around the world, including many countries on the African continent, continue to co-operate with South Africa, especially in matters of trade. As regards the draft resolution on the Special Committee against Apartheid, we are unable to support a draft resolution that commends the work of a Committee advocating mandatory sanctions. Furthermore, we do not believe that under the phase of austerity currently confronting both the United Nations and its Member states it is desirable to authorize a special compulsory allocation of $500,000 to promote the goal - no matter how laudable - of campaigns against aparth~id. (MS. Byrne, United States) My delegation will abstain in the vote on the draft resolution on public information and public action against apartheid, as we have on similar texts in previous years, because we do not believe that States' reactions to apartheid, however hateful the system may be, should be mandated by this body. Likewise, we shall abstain in the vote on the draft resolution on the international convention against apartheid in sports. We cannot vote in favour of a draft resolution that urges States to adopt legal measures contrary to our own laws. The United States will not sign ~hat flawed convention. My delegation will join a consensus in favour of the draft ,esolution on the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. We supported the 1965 resolution that set ~p the Fund, and we contribute generously to it each year. Much of the language in the draft resolutions under consideration here today we support. For instance, we wish to see a halt to violence, killings and mass arrests. We are working, and will continue to work, for the total eradication of apartheid and for a system of government in South Africa based on the consent of all of the governed. We have implemented an arms embargo and have imposed selective measures to impress upon the South African Government the seriousness of our opposition to its unacceptable political system. We agree that apartheid is a highly destabilizing force that is doomed to failure. Thus, we regret sincerely that many of this year's crop of draft resolutions, as in the past, are overly simplistic and not conducive to the goal of eradicating apartheid. In some cases, in fact, they are unhelpful. The United states remains as committed as ever to the establishment of a free, just and democratic society in South Africa. We are working to achieve that goal and shall continue to do so. We remain convinced that the six draft resolutions which we are compelled to vote against will serve merely to harden pORitions. They are detrimental to a peaceful resolution of South Africa's problems. (Ms. Byrne, United Stat!!) Mr. PISCBER (Austria): Austria is on record as having consistently condemned and opPOSed the practice of aeartheid as a particularly serious violation of human rights. In light of the principles of equal rights and justice there can be no justification for a political system that deprives the majority of South Africa's citizens of their political and civil rightse We therefore hold the view that the abolition of that system of institutionalized racial segregation remains one of the important challenges confronting the United Nations. Por those reasons we find ourselves in agreement with the general thrust of the draft resolutions submitted under this a~enda item. There are, however, a number of provisions in the draft resolutions that Austria cannot support. Austria has always held the view that the United Nations should concentrate all its efforts on bringing about political and social change by peaceful means, and it cannot therefore support the concept of armed struggle. Moreover, Austria opposes any provision that runs counter to the recognized goal of universal membership in the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Furthermore, Austria believes that the General Assembly should respect the prerogatives of t~~ Security Council with regard to coercive meagu~es= In this context I should like to refer to the decision of the Austrian Government to adopt six autonomous measures in accordance with Security Council resolutions 566 (1985) and 56~ (1985), as mentioned in Austria's statement in the general debate on this agenda itell. Finally, I should like to reiterate that Austria, as a matter of principle, is against singling out Member States in General Assembly resolutions. In the light of those conside~ations, the Austrian delegation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/40/L.29 and L.3l. Furthermore, Austria is a sponsor of draft resolution A/40/L.39 and L.40. Austria will abstain in the voting on draft resolutions A/40/L.26 and L.27. As for the proposed convening of a world conference on sanctions against South Africa, Austria believes that the prerogatives of the Security Council in this regard have to be respected. Auotria will therefore abstain in the voting on draft resolution A/40/L.28. Although Austria has already taken additional measurea aimed at further limiting sports relations with South Africa, Austria feels obliged for legal and constitutional reasons to abstain in the voting on draft resolution A/40/L.32. Austria, for reasons I have already stated, will cast a negative vote in the voting on draft resolution A/40/L.30. Our votes on those draft resolutions have to be seen as an expression of support for all the efforts deployed to brin~ democracy to all the peoples of South Africa. ~. CASTRO de BARISH (Costa Rica) (interpretation from Spanish): In view of the fact that the position of Costa Rica expressed during the genecal debate on agenda item 35, Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa is fully in keeping with the views contained in draft resolution A/40/L.40, submitted by the delegation of Denmark, my delegation wishes to join the sponsors of that dr~ft resolution, who seek a concerted international approach in dealing with this serious problem confronting the international community in its efforts to establish "a non-racial, democratic society in South Africa in accordance with the the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," as stated in o~rative paragraph 12 of that draft resolution. For the same reasons, we would also like to associate ourselves with the sponsors of draft resolution A/40/L.39 on the United Nations Trrust Fund for south Africa. We shall abstain in the voting on draft resolution A/40/L.30 because we arc not in favour of selectively singling out particular States in connection with situations in which Israel and certain Western States are not the only States to (Mr. Fischer, Austria) co-operate with South Africa in different ways in various areas. Were separate votes to be taken on operative paragraphs 2 and 3 of that draft resolution, Costa Rica will vote against them and abstain in the voting on the draft resolution as a whole. In connection with draft resolution A/40/L.26, Costa Rica would for the same reasons abstain in the voting were the twelfth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 20 to be put to a separate vote. However, we support most of the provisions of that draft resolution, and we will therefore vote in favour of it. We will also vote in favour of draft resolution A.40/L.32 on the International convention against Apartheid in Sports introduced by the delegation of Barbados: but we wish to say that the signature and ratification of that legal instrument will be subject to legislative approval by the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly. In the same spirit of solidarity, Costa Rica will vote in favour of the other draft resolutions on agenda item 35. Mr. LUPlNACCI (Uruguay) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/40/L.27, with whose contents we are in general agreement. With regard to operative paragraph 9, however, we should like to say that the foreign policy of my country is to support the peaceful settlement of disputes without the use of force.

The General Assembly will now begin the voting process and take a decision on the various draft resolutions before it. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of these draft resolutions is contained document A/40/1022. Recorded votes have been requested on all the draft resolutions except A/40/L.39. The Assembly will first take a decision on draft resolution A/40/L.26 and Corr.l, ·Comprehensive sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa". A recorded vote has been requested. (Mrs. Castro de Barish, Costa Rica) A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria., Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bra2il, Brunei Darussalaa, Bulgaria, Butkina Paso, Bur1ll2l, Burundi, Byelorussian SOI1iet SOcialist Republic, Cameroon, cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colomia, CollOros, Cmgo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kaq)Uchea, DellOCratic Yellen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabm, GaDlbia, German DellOcratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, GUinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hmduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic C-'f), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DeBDcratic RepubUc, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jauhiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, MOngolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, OIIan, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, sac Tome and Principe, saudi Arabia, senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, SOmalia, Sri lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republ!~, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SOviet Socialist Republic, Union of SOI1iet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, za ire, zallbia, ZiDbabwe Against: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxemourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Botswana, Fiji, Finland, Greece, Ivory Coast, Lesotho, Malawi, New Zealand, Samoa, Solomon Islands, SWaziland, Sweden Draft resolution A/40/L.26 and Carr.l was adopted by by 122 votes to 18, with 14 abstentions (resolution 40/64 A).

We turn next to draft resolution A/40/L~27 and Corr.l, entitled "Situation in south Africa and assistance to the liberation movements·. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central Afr iean Republic .. Chad, China, Colonnia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, CzechoslOVakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equator ial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gannia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao people I s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liber ia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozannique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, POland, Qatar, Romania, Rwandb, saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Eyrian 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 Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against~ Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Luxennourg, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, spain, Sweden Draft resolution A/40/L.27 and Corr.l was adopted by 128 votes to 8, with 18 abstentions (resolution 40/64 B). The PRESIDENT (in~erpr~tation from Spanish)~ We turn next to draft resolution A/40/L.28/Rev.l and Corr.l, which is entitled "World conference on sanctions against racist South Africa". A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brun~i Darussalam, Bulgaria, Bqrkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colomia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kaq>uchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gamia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozanbique, Nepal, New zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vineent anii the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and Principe, saudi Arabia, S~~egal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, To9o, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uqanda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Sovi~t Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Belgium, ~rmany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America Abstaining: Austria, Belize, Canada, France, Grenada, Israel, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Spain Draft resolution A/40/L.2a/Rev.1 and Corr.l was adopted by 137 votes to 6, with 10 abstentions (resolution 40/64 Cj.

The Assembly will now turn to draft resolution A/40/L:29 and Corr.l entitled "Public information and public action against apartheid". A recordc;;~,..,tn;;,;;:l.;:;te.=-w.;.;,a.;;;;s~.;:;t.;;;;ak;,;;,en=. In favo!!S.l Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua an~ Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benm, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgatia, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Bepublic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, CzechoslOl7akia, Democratic Kampuchea, DeBOcratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambiat" GeU'3.n Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissaa, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, ~XeoDourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mau~itania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Moza~:i.que, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Niger ia, Norway, oman, Pak,istan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tbme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, SWe6~r, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tbgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Aga lnst : None Abstaining: Grenada, Israel, Malawi, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America Draft resolution A/40/L.29 and Corr.1 was adopted by 150 votes to none, with 5 abstentions (resoludon 40/64 D).

We turn now to draft resolution A/40/L.30 and Corr.l, entitled RRelations between Israel and SOUth Africa R• n recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Dar~ssalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, ~'elorussian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovak1.a, Democratic KalIIpucbea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republf.c, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, lao People's DelllOcrati-::: Republic, Lebanor Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, MaldivGs, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozani>ique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, '1'090, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrc inian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet SOcialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zini:>abwe Against: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, SWeden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Sta:tes of AIDer iea Abstaining: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burma, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Ccs~ P~ca, Dominican Re~ublic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Panama, Portugal, Saint tucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Spa in, SWaz iland, Uruguay, Zaire Draft resolution A/40/L.30 and Corr.l was adopted by 102 votes to 20, with 30 abstentions (resolution 40/64 E).

We naw turn to draft resolution A/40/L.3l and Corr.l, entitled "Programme of work of the Special Committe~ against Apartheid-. A recorded vote was taken• .!!L!~vour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussa1am, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colomia, Comoras, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, DellDcratic Kaq1Uchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador~ Egypt, El salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, GalTbia, German Derroczatic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), I rag, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan" Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Derrocratic Republic, ~banon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, "'0'1golia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Pol.~~··.i( Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent a."1d the utl:o,.adines, S~moa, sao Tome and Pr incipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Isl..mds, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, SWeden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Uni ted Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Yreland, Uni ted States of Amer lea Abstaining: Belgium, Belize, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, portugal, Spain Draft resolution A/40/L.3l and Corr.! was adopted by 141 votes to 2, with 12 abstentions (resolution 40/64 F).

We turn now to draft resolution A/4U/L.32 and Corr .1, entitled "International convention against apartheid in sports". A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea~ Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico g Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama p Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Pol~nd, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia,. Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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 Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, zambia, zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America .Draft resolution A/40/L.32 and Corr.l was adopted by 125 votes to none, with 24 abstentions (resolution 40/64 G).*

We now turn to draft resolution A/40/L.39, entitled "The united Nations Trust Fund for South Africa". May I take it that the General Assembly decides to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution A/40/L.39 was adopted (resolution 40/64 H). *Subsequently the delegation of Suriname advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. on draft resolution A/40/~.40, ehtitled ·Concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid-. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania,. Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas i Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Boliviac Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Prance, Gabon,' Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana v Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Raiti, Honduras, Hungary, Icela~d# India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao PGople's Cemocratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solo~~n Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Za~bia, Zimbabwe Against: United ~ingdom of Great Britain and Northe~n Ireland, united States of America Abstaining: Germany, Federal Republic'of, Grenada, Israel, Malawi Draft resolution A.40/L.40 was adopted by 149 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions (resolution 40/64 I).

I shall now call on delegations wishing to explain their votes.* *Mr. Sarre (Senegal), Vice-President, took the Chair. Mr. AKYOL (Turkey) (interpretation from French): My Go~ernment's views On South Africa's policies and practices, which underlie the apartheid system, were set forth in detail in our statement of 29 October 1985 before the Assembly. Like the very great majority of Member States, Turkey has indicated that it also firmly undertook to make joint efforts with other States to eliminate this abominable practice which violates the conscience and values of mankind. ~hat is why my delegation has just voted for all the draft resolutions in documents A/40/L.26 to L.32, and L.39 and L.40 concerning the apartheid policy of the South African Government. We are also happy to be one of the sponsors of draft resolution A/40/L.39 on the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. Our firm support for these draft resolutions reflects our desire to participate in the efforts of the international community to eliminate apartheid. However, I must enter certain reservations with respect to some paragraphs of these draft resolutions. Thus, as regards draft resolution A/40/L.26, my delegation feels that the eleventh and twelfth preambular paragraphs and operative paragraph 4 have not been drafted in a balanced way. On the other hand, generally speaking we do not approve of express mention being made of certain countries or groups of countries when it is difficult to make definitive determinations of respective responsibiliti~s. More specifically, my delegation has reservations about the references to Western countries in some paragraphs of the resolutions in question. Mr. IKOSIPENDARHOS (Greece) (interpretation from Spanish): The Greek delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/40/L.32 because of certain elements which it contained and to which we object owing to certain constitutional constraints. Had these elements not been included in the text we would have voted in favour of the draft resolution. It is not necessary to stress the fact that Greece has been firmly and consistently attached to the Olympic ideal and its universality, namely, that no discrimination be allowed on grounds of race or colo~r in sports activities. This attitude is due not only to the fact that Greece is the country where the Olympic Games originated, but also to our traditional respect for human rights throughout the world, the most important of which are those that protect the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of race or colour. Mr. SVOBODA (Canada): I should like to explain for the record Canada's votes on the various draft resolutions under this item. My explanation will cover in particular those draft resolutions on which we abstained. In most other cases our vote speaks for itself. With regard to draft resolution A/40/L.27, on the situation in South Africa and assistance to the liberation movements, Canada's abstention should not be misinterpreted. There was much in this draft resolution which we supported, including the call for the release of political prisoners and the condemnation of the imposition of a state of emergency. Canadian leaders have called on the Government of South Africa to enter into a dialogue with credible black leaders, including the leaders of the liberation movements. At the same time our policy is to promote peaceful change and reconciliation, not destructive violence. For this reason, we had difficulty supporting references to the legitimacy of the "armed struggle", which is moreover contrary to the fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter to settle disputes peacefully. Reference in this resolution to the additional protocols to the Geneva Convention also appeared inappropriate in this context. Regarding draft resolution A/40/L.28/Rev.1, on the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, my delegation abstained. While we have (Mr. Ikosipendarhos, Greec~) adopted many sanctions against South Africa on a national basis, and total sanctions have not been ruled out, we bel.ieve that the Security Coun~il is the appropriate forum for discussing actions under Chapter VII of the Charter. We also regard the proposed cost of this Conference to be higher than necessary, especially in view of the other priorities facing this Organization. My delegation was also obliged to abstain on draft resolution A/40/L.32, that is, the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports. ~ would emphasize that Canada 9upports the principle of sporting boycotts against South Africa and indeed already applies many of them. There are, however f legal and policy inpediments Which preclude the Canadian Government from ratifying the proposed convention at this time. Finally, I would like to explain Canada's vote on draft resolution A/40/L.40, Concerted International Action. My delegation voted in favour of this draft resolution because it is cons~stent with our policy of promoting an end to apartheid by peaceful means and providing assistance to the victims of apartheid. We also believe that sustained p~essure on the South African Government is required and have, for our part, already adopted most of the measures listed in paragraph 7. Other actions are under study. We fully support the demands for the release of political prisoners, the abrogation of discriminatory laws, and the dismantling of the Bantustan structures. We have some question as to which new mandatory sanctions, ~s called for in operative paragraph 5, might be relevant ana effective at this time. That would require careful consideration by the Security Cooncil. Regarding operative paragraph 9, we continue to reject the premise that individual contacts or relations support apartheid. Open and frank exchanges might, however, help change people's minds, and complete isolation, on the other (Mr. Svoboda, Can~~) hand, might very well make change more difficult. we do not therefore int~rpret this paragraph, as worded, to endorse termination of all contacts. In conclusion, we would note that 1985 has been a year of both tragedy and hope in which the pace of events in South Af~ica has accelerated. As these resolutions are implemented, the United Nations must do its part to promote peaceful change and encourage those inside SOuth Afr iea who are struggling for justice. That work must continue until apartheid is relega b'=d to the darker chapters of human history. Tha PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. The AsseJ1t)ly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 35. ~e meeting rose at ~6.50 p.m. (Hr. SVoboda, Canada)