A/40/PV.99 General Assembly

We have heard the last , speaker in the debate on this item.

Under rule 69 of the rules of procedure, I call on the Chairman of the Fourth Committee, the Ambassador of Nicaragua. Mr. CHAMORRO MORA (Nicaragua), Chairman of the Fourth Committee (interpretation from Spanish): I wish first, on behalf of My people and Government, to reiterate the deep satisfaction we feel at having been recognized and elected to preside over the Fourth Committee's work this year. If there is an area in the work of the United Nations where a very large number of people have seen concrete results and worked towards their just objectives with great hopes it is undOUbtedly the area of decolonization. That is why my people, which struggled so courageously against colonialism and today is ready to sacrifice the last of its children to preserve its independence and dignity in the face of neo-co10nialist policies that attempt to return us to a past of servitude, agreed this year - such a significant year for free peoples and those which have not yet attained their independence - to preside over the Committee dealing with our Organization's work for decolonization. As Chairman of the FOurth Committee and the representative of a country which fully identifies with the just objectives of that Committee, I wish to express our gratitude to the Secretary-General for his support, his co-operation and his deep interest in our work, which enabled us to labour skilfully and dyn2lJDically, with satisfactory results and high hopes. We also wish to thank you, Mr. President, for the valuable co-operation we have always received from you and the other members of the Bureau, for your support and for the excellent manner in which you have led our work. These were determining factors in the fulfilment of our responsibilities. FOurth Committee) FOurth committee) We wish to express o~r deep gratitude for the support which we continuously received from the Under-Secretary-Genaral of the Department of Political Affairs, Trusteeship and Decolonization, Mr. Ahmed, and from the Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Rifai, and for the experience, bnpartiality and wise counsel of Hr. Tanaka, the Secretary of the FOurth COl1ll1ittee. We are alsQ deeply grateful for the excellent work done by the Special Committee on decolonization, with whose Chairman, Ambassador Abdul Koroma, we were in constant cOIllIlunication and from whom we received extremely valuable support. The Special Committee, known as the Committee of 24, has through its excellent work earned the admiration and respect of many peoples whose national liberation movements placed great hopes in it and expected support for their just struggles and who are today among us as independent peoples. The co-operation and support which we receive from the United Nations Council for Namibia are also of enormous value. Its Acting Ch~irman, my friend Ambassador Sinclair, was always in constant touch with us and offered us his support and counsel. The FOurth Committee wishes to express to him its deep gratitude. It is a shame that we, the international community, had to celebrate, this year, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial COuntries and Peoples without having fully freed ourselves from colonialism. There are still many examples of colonialism which are a blot on the human conscience. At this stage, when civili2ation has attained an extremely high degree of technological progress, where trips to the moon are easily grasped by man's imagination, it is shameful and inadmissible to have peoples whose independence and self-determination are still a distant goal. Territories in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, whose peoples still live under colonial domination, have become a challenge and a major objective for our Organization and for the work of the POurth Committee. Each of these Territories deserves the careful attention of the international community to help it achieve its independence and self-determination without its size, geographical location or number of its population being an obstacle to attaining those rights. The most shameful and reactionary example of colonialism is Namibia. After almost 100 years of colonial occupation, Namibia continues to be the victia of a situation which is an affront to the international community and which violates all principles governing international relations. Despite numerous appeals by the United Nations to halt co-operation with South Africa and to suspend immediately all transnational investments in that country, some Governments and transnationa1 corporations continue their policies towards SOUth Africa without fundamental changes, thus being accomplices in the crime against mankind being perpetrated in that country. There is no doubt that the racist regime in South Africa, with its illegal occupation of Namibia, its insistent policy of destabilization against the front-line States and especially against Angola and its manoeuvres aimed at intensifying and institutionalizing the apartheid regime, is kept in power as a result of the co-operation of its allies and the economic benefits it derives f£om foreign investments in its territory and in Namibia. A few weeks ago our Organization witnessed the joint veto of the United States and the United Kingdom to a draft resolution in the Security Council which responded to the universal call for mandatory economic sanctions against and the isolation of, the South Africa regime. FOurth Committee) The policy of the United States towards South Africa continues without change or reform of any kind. The support and the co-operation which the South African regime receives from the so-called policy of constructive engagement are directly responsible for the illegal occupation of Namibia, for aggression against front-linecountries and for the perpetuation of the martyrdom of the South African black majority. Transnational corporations with branches in Namibia operate in an illegal framework since their activities are not authorized by any legitimate Government, nor will they ever be, so long as racist troops occupy that Territory ~p.d there is no strict compliance with Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978). These firms are exploiting very valuable non-renewable resources which are the sole property of the Namibian people and whose use has not been authorized by the United Nations COuncil for Namibia, the entity which is responsible for that Territory until Namibia attains its independence. Our Organization has affirmed that South Africa's occupation of Namibia is illegal. This has been reaffirmed by the International COurt of Justice. However, these affirmations are defied by transnational corporations, some of which have State participation and which carry out activities in Namibia further helping to consolidate the Pretoria regime. Military activities by South Africa in Namibia provide the basic security framework for the pillage and plunder of that Territory by the racists and by the transnationals which sustain them and Which, by the mere fact of their presence, violate international law. More than 100,000 racist troops are occupying Namibia and using it as a spring-board to launch actions against its neighbours, mainly Angola and Mozambique. Acts of sabotage, training, financing and infiltration of FOurth Committee) mercenary bandits, very much like similar actions undertaken against my country by the United States, are carried out from occupied Namibian territory. Military activities in Namibia and in all Territories under colonial domination are an obstacle to the implementation of resolution 1514 (XV) and should be immediately discontinued. OUr Organization must set for itself the historical goal of celebrating next year the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of resolution 2145 (XXI) with a free and independent Namibia represented at the United Nations by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), its sole and legitimate representative. Another cause of deep concern to our Organization is the situation which prevails in Western Sahara. In considering this situation it is distressing to see that an African country with a glorious history of anti-colonialist struggle, has decided to keep the Territory of Western Sahara in a colonial status. The people of the Sahraoui Democratic Arab Republic, with its vanguard, the POLISARIO Front, for a long time has been struggling to conquer its inalienable rights. As a .ember of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, Nicaragua again expresses its support for all the points on western Sahara contained in the Final Declaration of the Ministerial Meeting of the Movement held in Luanda. The question of western Sahara is, in the final analysis, a question of decolonization. That has been recognized by our Organization and the international community. We repeat that the solution to the problem lies in the implementation of resolution AHG/104 of the Organization of African Unity, adopted at the Nineteenth Conference of Heads of State or Government, held in Addis Ababa in 1983. At the concluoion of its deliberations on agenda item 18, the Fourth Committee adopted a draft resolution in which it stressed the need for the two parties to the conflict to sit down at the negotiating table with a view to reaching an agreement on a cease-fire that would make possible, after the withdrawal of the Moroccan troops and administrative machinery, the entry into force of the pan-African plan for a peace-keeping force and the creation of the necessary conditions for the holding of a referendum for self-determination, under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations. As stated in the African peace plan, the referendum should be carried out without military or administrative pressures. A large number of the Territories under colonial domination are in Latin America anil the Caribbean. In the Caribbean, there are Territories whose peoples, far from having seen any progress in the fulfilment of their aspirations to independence, are being subjected to even broader and more harmful occupation. Nicaragua believes that the case of Puerto Rico is a clear example of what I have just said, since its inhabitants are bombarded with colonialist propaganda, its resources are exploited by the metropolitan Power and it has become an enormous military base from which invading adventures depart for neighbouring countries, inclUding my own country, Nicaragua. Fourth Committee) Nicaragua also shares the concern of the international community and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries at the 1ncreasing militarization of the Malvinas Islands. We repeat our position that the Malvinas Islands are Argentine and that a solution to this problem should be reached through direct negotiations between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom. Latin AmErica attaches vital importance to the prompt and final solution of this problem. We are deeply concerned at the fact that in some Non-Self-Governing Territories the true purpose of resolution 1514 (XV) and subsequent General Assembly rGsolutions and decisions is not being fulfilled. We must insist that the administering Powers continue, without interruption, to submit information on the situation of the Territories under their administration, in conformity with Article 73 of the Charter. We have travelled far on ~,~~ difficult road of deco10nization, but we cannot allow ~urse1ves to be satisfied so long as there are still colonized peoples. I am not referring only to the purely political or administrative colonizati~t. of a Territory. Today there are countries in our community of nations that are allegedly independent but that really live in a profoundly colonial situation. Their economies are colonized, they work and operate for and in accordance with the designs of the metropolitan country. The minds of their peoples are injected every day with very subtle doses of propaganda that distorts their own culture. The information that reaches them has been manipulated or embellished in favour of the metropolitan country or foreign interests. The education of their citizens is directed by people who are not interested in ensuring that a sense of nationalism, patriotism o~ the common good prevails over personal gain. We must be belligerent, intolerant and inflexible against that type of colonialism also. That is a more harmful and distorting kind of colonialism and is even more dangerous. The international community and our Organization must also struggle on all fronts against the most modern and sophisticated form of colonialism - nee-colonialism, of which so many peoples are victims - until it is eliminated once and for all from the face of the earth. For that reason, and given the difficult task ahead, we must strengthen the Special Committee of 24 and the work of the Fourth Committee. For the peoples living under colonial domination and for those sUffering from the onslaught of nee-colonialism, that work must continue and be reinforced. With the support of the Committee of 24 and of the Fourth Committee, our peoples will continue their ardent struggle for a world free of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, a truly free world.

The Rapporteur of the Fourth Committee, Mr. Stefano Stefanini of Italy, will present the six reports of the Committee in one intervention. First, however, I call on the representative of Papua New Guinea on a point of order. Mr. LOHIA (Papua New Guinea): r apologize for interrupting the proceedings at this stage but, in order that the Assembly may properly conclude the general debate on this item, I would request you, Mr. President, to allow my delegation to make a statement in exercise of the right of reply before the Assembly proceeds to the vote. I am of course prepared to abide by your ruling, Mr. President.

I would point out to the representative of Papua New Guinea that statements in exercise of the right of reply are made at the end of meetings. In any event, the Rapporteur of the Fourth Committef,' t\ilS not yet presented the reports, and I would be grateful if the representative of Papua New Guinea would bear that in mind. 'Ir. Stefanini (Italy), Rapporteur of the Fourth Committee, presented the ~rts of that Committee (A/40/906, A/40/8S4, A/40/883, A/401885, A/40/886 and A/CO/88?) and then spoke as follows: Mr. STEFANINI (Italy), Rapporteur of the Fourth Committee: I have the honour to present to the General Assembly for its consideration six reports of the Fourth Comnlittee relating, respectively, to items 18, 109, 110, III and 12, 112 and 113 of the agenda~ As these reports are self-explanatory, I shall simply point out the main t.hrust of some of the recommendations contained therein. The first report, contained in document A/40/906, relates to those Territories which were not covered by other items of the agenda and which the Committee took up under agenda item 18. Set out in the report ar~ 10 draft resolutions, three draft consensuses and one draft decision. These draft proposals of the Fourth Committee relate to: Tokelau, Pitcairn, St. Helena. American Samoa, Guam, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla, the United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar and Western Sahara. By adopting these proposals the General Assembly would reaffica the full application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the right of the peoples of the Territories concerned to decide their own future political status, irresPeCtive of-the size of their population or their geographical location, in accordance with the Declaration and their freely expressed wishes. The Assembly would also urge the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system to increase their assistance with a view to accelerating the social and economic development of these Territories. In noting with appreciation the continuing co-operation of the administering Powers concerned in that regard, the Assembly would emphasize once again the importance of dispatching visiting missions to these small Territories to enable the United Nations to be fully apprised of the conditions obtaining therein. In this regard, the Assembly would welcome the invitation extended to the Special Committee jointly b}o the Government of New Zealand, the administering Power concerned, and the people of Tokelau to send a further Visiting mission to the Territory in 1986. As regards Western Sahara, the General Assembly would, inter a!!!, reaffirm that ftthe question of Western Sahara is a question of decolonization which remains to be completed on the basis of the exercise by the people of Western Sahara of their inalienable right to self-determination and independenceft • With respect to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Fourth Committee decided without objection to adopt the Chairman's suggestion that the fourth Committee should not take any action at this stage with respect to the televant draft resolution submitted by the Special Committee. The seCond report (A/40/884) relates to agenda item 109, on information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 ~ ef tha Charter of the United Nations. The Fourth Committee recommends, among other things, that the Assembly reaffirm that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly itself that a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter, the administering Power concerned should continue to transmit information under Article 73 ~ with respect to that Territory. The third report (A/40/883) relates to agenda item 110, on the activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of the Declaration a~ efforts to eliminate apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa. Among other provisions, the General Assembly, in condemning the intensified activities of those foreign economic, financial and other interests which continue to exploit the natural and human resources of Namibia and other colonial Territories, would call once again on all Governments to take the necessary steps to put an end to such activities and to prevent new investments which rUQ counter to the interests of the inhabitants of those Territories. The General Assembly would also urge the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and the other colonial Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over their future development. In a separate decision on the military activities and arrangements in colonial Territories which might be impeding the hnplementation of the Declaration, the Fourth Committee recommends to the General Assembly that it once again call upcn the colonial Powers concerned to terminate such activities, in compliance with the relevant resolutions. The fourth report (A/40/885) relates to items 111 and 12 of the agenda, concerning, respectively, implementation of the Declaration by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations and the report of the Economic and Social Council. The General Assembly would ellPhasize, among other things, the need for co-operation between the organizations concerned and the Organization of African Unity and request them to render or . continue to render, as a matter of urgency, all possible moral and material assistance to tbe colonial peoples struggling for liberation from colonial rule. Focusing on the critical situation in southern Africa, the General Assembly would also reiterate its conviction that the specialized agencies and other organizations and bodies of the United Nations system should refrain from taking any action which Right imply recognition of or support for the legitimacy of the occupation of Namibia by South Africa. The fifth report (A/40/886) relates to item 112, on the United Nations Educational and Training Programme for Southern Africa. In expressing its appreciation to all those that have supported the Programme by providing contributions, scholarships or places in their educational institutions, the Assembly would once again appeal to all States, institutions, organizations and individuals to offer greater financial and other support to the Programme to ensure its continuation and expansion. The last report (A/40/887) relates to offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories - agenda itesa 113. In expressing its appreciation to those Member States that have made scholarships available to the inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories, the Assembly would invite all States to make or continue to make generous offers of study and training facilities to the peoples of the Territories. On behalf of the Fourth Committee, I should like to commend these reports to the serious attention of the General Assembly. Before concluding, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Fourth Committee, Ambassador Javier Chamorro Mora of Nicaragua, for his outstanding leadership and for his constructive advice and guidance to me in connection with m¥ tasks as Rapporteur of the Fourth Committee. I should also like to express my gratitude to members of the Fourth Committee for the co-operation and assistance extended to me during the session. After a few years as a representative at the United Nations I am grateful to have had this opportunity to work more closely with the Secretariat. In particular ! wish to express my appreciation to the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Abmed, and his Deputy. Mr. Rifai. Last, but not leas~, I should like to mention the Secretary of the Committee, Mr. Tanaka, and his invaluable staff. I am convinced that all members of the Fourth Committee would agree with me in acknowledging the credit they deserve for the smooth and effective organization of our work, and most particularly for my report.

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss those reports of the Fourth Committee. It was so decided.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations on the various recommendations of the Fourth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind delegations that, in paragraph 7 of its resolution 34/401, the General Assembly decided that when the same draft l~;olution was considered in a Main Cc~ittee and in a plenary meeting a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote once only, that is, either in the Committee or in the plenary meeting, unless that delegation's vote in the plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee. May I also remind the Assembly that, in accordance with resolution 34/401, explanations of vote should be limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. The Assembly will now consider the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 18 (A/40/906) concerning chapters of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to specific Territories not covered by other agenda items. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting on any or all of the recommendations of the Fourth Committee in its report on this item. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their vote after all the votes on this report have been taken. Mr. ENGO (Cameroon): My delegation will vote for the series of draft resolutions in document A/40/906, but we intend to make some comments in explanation of our vote and our perspective with regard to the draft resolution in document A/C.4/40/L.2/Rev.l, touching upon the SUbject-matter of Western Sahara, because we think it is consistent with the spirit of the decisions taken b¥ the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity. Our position ~egarding decolonizaticn as a whole ard its kindred institutions is generally well known and we do not wish to reiterate it here. With regard to Western Sahara, we would like to reiterate our nation's concern for international peace and security, especially in the African region, wheze problems of development make armed conflict undesirable and good-neighbourliness imperative. We continue to share a sense of common destiny with our sister countries and fraternal peoples of the north western part of the continent. It has never been our policy or desire to aid any process of destabilization or to disrupt the bonds of friendship we maintain with all the parties concerned. We expect our perspectives to be judged against that background. We wish to seize this opportunity to appeal to our Moroccan friends not to abandon their quest for a peaceful and speedy solution to the problem of Western Sahara. Their nation is much too settled in a tested civilization to be dissuaded in a just cause for peace by the simple rejection of a draft resolution. We appeal to all in the African region to join in a collective effort to help restore elements of lasting peace and security in that subregion. Africa must address problems of development and of survival in general. We cannot afford the luxury of permitting ourselves to drift aimlessly along, dangerously providing an opportunity for others to benefit from an immoral trade in arms and other weapons of destabilization and destruction of wealth, by which the sanctity of human life is systematically undermined.

We will turn first to the 10 draft resolutions recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 28 of its report (A/40/906). Draft resolution 1 is entitled "Question of American Samoa". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May 1 take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution 1 was adopted (resolution 40/41).

Draft resolution 11 relates to the question of Guam. The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May 1 take that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 40/42).

Draft resolution 111 deals with the question of Bermuda. The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May 1 take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution 111 was adopted (resolution 40/43).

Draft resolution IV is entitled "Question of the British Virgin Islands". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 40/44).

The Assembly will turn next to draft resolution V entitled "Question of the Cayman Islands". That draft resolution was adopted by the Fourth Committee without a vote. May"1 take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 40/45).

Draft resolution VI y entitled "Question of Montserrat", was adopted by the Fourth Committee without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 40/46).

Draft resolution VII deals with the question of the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 40/47).

Draft resolution VIII deals with the question of Anguilla. The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the SaJl!<:=? Draft resolution VIII was adopted (resolution 40/48).

Draft resolution IX is entitled "Question of the United States Virgin Island~". The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution IX was adopted (resolution 40/49) •

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution X, entitled -Question of Western Sahara-. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola,· Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Senin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jamaica., Kenya, Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, MOzambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, poland, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sudan, Surin~ue, Swaziland, ~~eden, Syri~, Arab Republic, TOgo, Trinidad and Tbbago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guatemala, Morocco, Philippines, Zaire Abstaining: Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Burma, Canada, Chad, Chile, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guinea, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Portugal, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution X was adopted by 96 votes to 7, with 39 abstentions (resolution 40/50).* *Subsequently the delegation of Honduras advised the Secretariat that it had intended ~o abstain.

I now invite representatives to turn to the draft consensus recommended ~ the Fourth co.mittee in paragraph 29 of its report (1V~Q/9C5). Draft consensus I is entitled -Question of Tokelau·. The FOurth Committee adopted draft consensus I without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft consensus I was adopted.

Draft consensus 11 deals with the question of Pitcairn. The Fourth Committee adopted draft consensus 11 without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise? Draft consensus 11 wa~ adopted.

Draft consensus III deals with the question of Gibraltar. The Fourth Committee adopted draft consensus III without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft consensus? Draft consensus III was adoPted.

We turn next to the draft decision on the question of St. Helena recommended by the FOurth Comaittee in paragraph 30 of its report. I shall now put that draft decision to the vote. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Against: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaini~: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, SOlomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Turkey The draft decision was adopted by 121 votes to 2, with 31 abstentions.*

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes. *Subsequent1y the del~~3tion of Brunei Darussalam advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. I Mr. SARRE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): My delegation voted for the ----, ~-- -- "'"",,"u.&.u vu VII the Western Sahara, because we are convinced that it contains valid elements for a just and lasting solution of the question, which, as we are all aware, is a source of concern to the Organization of African Unity {OAU). Whilst it gives the Secretary-General a very important role, the resolution entrusts to the current Chairman of the OAU, President Abdou Diouf of the Republic of Senegal, a mission of the highest importance, extending his pan-African responsibilities. On his behalf, I thank the General Assembly for the confidence it has thus shown in the Head of State of Senegal. In carrying out that mission during his mandate, President Abdou Diouf will appeal for the co-operation of all men of good will - above all, the secretary-General. Here I am happy on behalf of the current Chairman of the OAU to pay tribute to the Secretary-General's dedication, objectivity and willingness, qualities he has always shown in carrying out his task. His report on the question of the Western Sahara was a shining example of that. The current Chairman of the OAU also hopes to count on the full co-operatio:l of all the parties and States involved. He is convinced that if we all show both political will and creative imagination in implementing both the let:~r and the spirit of the resolution our efforts can lead to a just and final solution to the probl~~ of the Western Sahara. Mr. ALAOUI (Morocco) (interpretation from French): For more than 10 years the Kingdom of Morocco has ceaselessly made every effort at the bilateral, regional and universal levels to contribute to working out a harmonious, compromise solution to end once and for all the tension artificially created in our region. Since 1981 my country has told the international community at the highest level - through His Majesty Ring Hassan 11 himself - that ~~ accepts the organization of a referendum on self-determination to enable the international community to note the free and democratic expression of the will of the people of the Western Sahara. The Ring of Morocco repeated that proposal for the second time in his message to the United Nations on its fortieth anniversary, stmultan~ously announcing a unilateral cease-fire. Those proposals took shape in a draft resolution submitted by a number of sponsors to the Fourth COfmnittee, but unfortunately it came up against the manoeuvres of those who try to distort all peace initiatives, in such a way as to leave the matter at an impasse. In voting against the draft resolution that the General Assembly has just adopted, the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirmed the position it had already expressed in ComEJittee t'lith regard to a completely negative text, whose ul1\stated purpose is to prevent the free and democratic expression of the wishes of the population and to continue,-if not worsen, the state of tension. As the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of ~crocco told the FOurth COmmittee on 12 ~vember this year: -Morocco will respond to that tension with the calmness and determination that springs from the unanimaas will of its 25 million inhabitants, who, together~ &peaking with one voice, have stood up against all a.ttempts at destabilization in the region and all attempts at hegemony, which result from outdated and totally obsolete ideas-. All the observers have noted the sacrifices made by my country, which has exhausted all possible recourses and encouraged all initiatives designed to bring about conciliation and compromise and reach the just, equitable and lasting solution that all the peoples of the international community desir~. But while, in keeping with our traditions and our past, we have always been faithful to dialogue and COIIpromise, we have never compt:omised and will never compromise our principles. Everyone will recognize and unde~stand, therefore, that Morocco can no longer participate in debates or discussions which have proved vain and which are now bogged down and totally deadlocked. We are sorry to note that what is called ~~e question of Western Sahara has now been built up into a huge item of mystification which the Kingdom of Morocco, concerned for its own credibility and that of our Organization, does not intend to sanction in &ny way. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, the file on this itea is closed for this Assembly and all its commissions and committees. Morocco is not trying in this way to sidestep the issue or to avoid it. We are dedicated to the fundamental principles of our Charter, which ..,e champion, and shall continue to champion in all forums of our Organization. As regards the search for a just and definitive solution to this question, the so-called question of Western Sahara, our country remains ready to assist. As our Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the statement from which I have already quoted: 8The Secretary-General of the United Nations has our full confidence and the day the General Assembly deems it necessary or timely to enable him to exercise his prerogatives in accordance with our Charter, and gives ht. the means to facilitate a peaceful and just solution based on the organization of a referendum, he will find in Morocco a dedicated and trusting interlocutor. 8 I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the Secretary-General for his tireless action in promoting a climate conducive to ~~e re-establishment of confidence and healthy co-operation in Morocco. I once again assure him of the continuing readiness of Morocco to take any steps which may be deemed useful to find a way out of the impasse and to promote the advent of peace in the region.

The Assembly has thus concluded consideration of the report of the FOurth Committee on a~enda item 18. We turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 109, entitled -Information on Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 ~ of the Charter of the United Nations" (A/40/884). The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report (A/40/884). A recorded has been requested. A reqorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria r Burkina Faso, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, "Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principa, I Against: NOne Abstaining: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America The draft resolution was adopted by 149 vot,es to none, with 3 abstentions (resolution 40/51).*

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 109. The Assembly will now take up the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 110, entitled -Activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to COlonial Countries and Peoples in Namibia and in all other Territories under colonial domination and efforts to 01iminate colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa- (A/40/883). The ,Assembly will take a decision on the draft resolution recanmended by the ~urth Committee in paragraph 9 of its report (A/40/883). A recorded vote has been requested • A recorded vote was taken. *Subsequently the delegation of El Salvador and the United Republic of Tanzania advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Beiiiii, Baut;liii, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Repu~lic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Gh~~a, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian 'Arab Republic, Thailand, TOgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet SOCialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Belgium, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Austria, canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Norway, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden The draft resolution was adopted by 125 votes to 9, with 16 abstentions (resolution 40/52).*

The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft decision recommended by the FOurth Committee in paragraph 10 of its report (A/40/883). A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. *Subsequently the delegations of El Salvador and the United RepUblic of Tanzania advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour, the delegation of Botswana had intended to abstain. I In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and ~rbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, 'Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgari~, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Repqblic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, r~dagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, MQngolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tbgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet SOCialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Belgium, canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden The draft decision was adopted by 125 votes to 10, with 15 abstention~.*

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 110. *Subsequently the delegations of El Salvador and the United Republic of Tanzania advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour, the delegation of the Netherlands had intended to vote against; the delegation of Botswana had intended to abstain. The PRESIDBNT (interpretation from Spanish): we turn now to the report of the FOurth Committee on agenda item 111, entitled -Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples b¥ the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the united Nations-, and item 12, -Report of the Economic and Social Council- (A/40/88S). The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommend~ b¥ the FOurth Committee in paragraph 9 of its report, (A/40/88S). A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic In favour: Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, GaJlbia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, MoZambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, TOgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of So~iet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg" Malawi... Nethe!:lands" Ne!'! Zealand" Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden The draft resolution was adopted by 126 votes to 3, with 22 abstentions (resolution 40/53).* The PRESIDElft (interpretation from Spanish): This concludes our consideration of agenda. item 111 and of chapters I and VI, section E, of the report of the Economic and Social COuncil. We now turn to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 112, entitled ·United Nations Educational and Training Programme for SOUthern Africa· (A/40/886). The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendation of the Fourth Comaittee in paragraph 8 of its report, (A/40/886). The Fburth COmmittee adopted this draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 54).

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 112. We turn next to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 113, entitled ·Offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories· (A/40/887). The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report (A/40/887). The Fourth Committee adopted that draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (~esolution 55). * Subsequently the delegation of El Salvador and the United RepUblic of Tanzania advised the Secretariat that they have intended to vote in favour.

This concludes our consideration of agenda item 113 and of all the reports of the Fom:th Committee.

The Assembly has before it various draft resolutions and recommendations in the report of the Special Committee (A/40/23 (Part 11» and documents A/40/L.21 and A/40/L.22. I have to announce the following additional sponsors of draft resolutions before the Assembly: draft resolution A/40/L.21: Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Madagascar, Mongolia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Byelorussian soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Venezue1a~ draft resolution A/40/L.22: Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Madagascar, Mongolia, the German Democratic Republic, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Romania and Venezuela. The Assembly will now take decisions on the recoll1llendation in paragraph 42 of the Special Committee's report (A/40/23 (Part 11» and on draft resolutions A/40/L.2l Qnd A/40/L.22. I shall first call on representatives who wish to explain their votes before the voting on any or all of those draft resolutions. Mr. JOFFE (Israel): Much to our regret, my delegation cannot support draft resolutions A/40/L.2l and A/40/L.22 because they both refer in the first I preambular paragraph, to the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Draft resolution A/40/L.2l refers to the above-mentioned report, which in its chapter VII, page 12 - recommendation of the Special committee - singles out my country in its eighth preambular paragraph, while draft resolution A/40/Lc22 refers to the same report, which in its chapter Ill, page 11 - conclusions and recommendations - also singles out my country in a discriminatory way. The committee is dealing with a most important issue, that of the granting o£ independence to colonial countries and peoples. If it wanted to ensure the full co-operation of all united Nations Members it should have carried out its important task objectively and not succumbed to the pressure exerted by some Member States carrying out their political and propaganda warfare against certain Member States. If singling out han been justifi~d, the Committee should have published a list of at least 50 Member States from all political and regional groupings that maintain various trade, commercial, economic and other links between their countries and South Africa. In tbe plenary meeting and in the Third and FOurth Committees the representatives of ray country were able to furnish documentation on clandestine ties, especially in the oil supply business, between some Arab oil suppliers and South Africa. As a blatant example: on Wednesday, 30 OCtober 1985, during the afternoon session of the plenary meeting debating item 35 -Policies of Apartheid of the Governaent of South Africa-, the representative of the Islamic RepUblic of Iran, speaking in exercise of his right of reply, stated: • •••all the oil tankers carrying oil from the Islamic Republic of Iran have P~OIli8ed not to deliver thsir car-go to SOuth Africa. Thus, all such claims have been carefully investigated by my Government, and we have come to the conclusion that in all the suspect cases evidence has been produced that the oil in question was unloaded in one of the European ports.- (!l40/py.55, p. 176) What an unfortunate coincidence: On the same day as the I1:anian representat!vels declaration, the latest survey of the Shipping Research Bureau dated 30 OCtober 1985 was published in Amsterdam, dealing especially with clandestine Iranian oil supplies to South Africa. I quote from page 13 of that reporta -A crew member of the oil tanker KAREN MAERSK has been interviewed: ITh\.'} eB,Pty KAREN MAERSK was anchored off Port Bahrain in the Arabian Gulf. We stayed there for a long time waiting for orders. Then suddenly·a Chinese tanker came alongside and pumped about 20 thousand tons of oil into our ship. Next we sailed to IranJ there our tanker departed fUlly loaded. The purported destination was Italy, however, we once more sailed to Bahrain where we II anchored off for about two weeks. In these weeks a Dutch Antilles tanker, the PLBtJRTJE and a Norwegian tanker, the HAVDROTT cam~ alongside. Each did mix part of its cargo with the oil on board of the KAREN MAERSK. As a result of this blending, it was no longer possit':-le to identify - by laboratory analysis - the country of origin of the cargo. This camouflage was performed because Iran officially boycotts South Africa. After the mixing operations, we sailed to South Africa. Near Durban, the radio operator started to use the code nue -813- to make sure that the name KAREN MAERSK would not appear in any of the official shipping documents'.w Distortion and hypocrisy characterize United Nations discussions about Israel's attitude to South Africa when dealing with apartheid, Namibia, SOuth Africa or decolonization. We are accused of conducting massive trade with SOuth Africa and are singled out as if we have a unique co-operation with South Africa in every field. We cannot lend a hand to this policy and that is why, regretfully, we will be obliged to cast our negative vote. Mr. de MEDINA (portugal) (interpretation from French): The work of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial COuntries and Peoples has always been of the greatest interest to my delegation because of the importance and scope of that Committee's work. Allow me tharefore to express my delegation's appreciation for the competence and dedication demonstrated by the Chairman of that Committee, Ambassador Koroma. I am merely reaffirming here what I had the opportunity of saying when my delegation took part in the extraordinary meeting in Tunis to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of resolution 1514 (XV). My delegation's devotion to the principles contained in the Declaration on thP. Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - in particular, the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination - is well known to this Assembly. I would not emphasize this now if it were not that my delegation finds itself obliged to abstain on paragraph 42 of document A/40/23 (Part 11) although it supports draft ~eeolutions A/40/L.2l and A/40/L.22. In fact, although we suppo!:t most of the recommendations contained in the first-mentioned resolution, and the general thrust of the text, m¥ delegation regrets that it cannot support that draft resolution, in particular because of SODe af the wording that has been used, certain associations of ideas, and references to measure~ that my delegation is unable to support in a text which, in our view, ()ught to have hsen conceived in such a way as to win consensus. Mr. OKU~ (United States of America): The role of the united States in· eBcouraging the decoloi'lization movement which has swept across the globe, beginning .s-., the eigbteenth century but with mounting force after the Secon.~ World War, is well ~~own. As a nation whose revolution against colonial rule served as an inspiration to other. peoplas, first in Europe and Latin America, later in Asia and At~ica, om: birth;<:'ight compelled us to leadership in the fight :;)l self-determination. Americans fervently believe that the right of people to rule thems'3'.ves.. and to resist foreign masters - so dear to Americans from our own experience - cannot be restricted to one race, one creed, one class or one nation. American support for self-determination and decolonization has not been marely theoretical. It has found practical expression from Thomas Paine, whose support for the rights of man led him to support movements of liberation throughout the European continent in the 1190's, through the 1820's, when American statesmen provided critical moral and political support to the founding fathers of Latin American independence, led by Simon Bolivar, San Martin, 8ida1go and MorazanJ through the struggle for self-determinatin in Italy, in Germany and I~el~~d with which so many Americans so passionately identify, to President Wilson's 14 "Points, which championed the rights of the peoples of Eawtern Europe to self-rule and nationhoodJ and finally to the close of the Second World War, when the American granting of independence to the Philippines began the movement which was to sweep the world. (Hr. Okun, United States) With that birthright and that history, the United States of AIIerica of course has supported peoples seeking to exercise their right to self-determination both before and since the founding of the United Nations. This strong Alterican position on occasion has caused us international difficulties ~ pitting our principles against the short-term interests of friends. Thus, the American commitment to self-determination and decolonization, conceived in the intellectual ~tmostphere of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, has been te~,ed in the hard experience of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and has been strengthened by that test. That is history. But where are we today? Some 159 countries, lUny fomer colonies, are Members of this Organization. The United Nations list of NO'J}-Self GOverning Territories, the yardstick for measuring the progress of decolonization, has only a handful of small Territories remaining on it. The total population of the Territories on the list still under the administration of Western countries subject to the scrutiny of the General Assembly, excluding the particularly difficult case of Namibia, is about 400,000. Of these Territories, only the people of Namibia are seeking independence. We are voting on a nwnber of resolutions today. Although my comments in explanation of ~ote are offered on the new resolution the Assembly is conside~ing this year on tb'!.: twent~'-fifth anniversary of resolution 1514 (XV), most of what I have to say applies with even greater force to the other resoluti~ns not previously considered by the Fourth Committee. In reading the resolution before us, I am reminded of the light cast from a burnt out star. The source has ceased to generate energy, but the light continues to reach us years later. This resolution, like many decolonization resolutions which we consider, seeJU to datefrCllll a bygone era. It presUJ1leS that imperialism is acontint,ling Presence, a continuing threat intbe developing world, against which peoples JlUst ~truggle with the full reSO\iirces of the United Nations and its specialized agencies mobilized behind them. Again, leaving aside the important . . question of Namibia, to whose self-deteraination under Security Council resolution 435 (1978) the United States is firmly committed, this presumption simply does not describe the realities of our world and has net for many, many years. To continue to assert that it does, contrary to fact, serves the interests of those who seek to stoke burnt out embers and feed old resentments. (Mr. Okun, United States) Indeed, it would seem that the purpose of some in keeping alive this outdated notion of an imperialist Western threat in the developing world is precisely to obscure the real colonial threat. To be a colonialist one need not send navies and conquistadores to conquer overseas lands. Those who dispatch troops, install proxy Governments and maintain armies of occupation in neighbouring or nearby States vU the Eurasian land mass are every bit as colonialist. To be dominated and oppressed by a neighbour is no more pleasant for a proud people than to be oppressed from afar. This kind of domination is the true colonial problem of the modern age. I do not propose a detailed examination of the provisions of the draft resolution before us, since as I have explained our decision not to support it is based as much on its ethos as upon its details. I would simply note that by focusing exclusively on resolution 1514 (XV) as the fountainhead of decolonization, the draft resolution does a disservice to history. In fact, the majority of former Territories had achieved independence long before resolution 1514 (XV) was adopted. Indeed, it is the international community, whose ideals were embodied in the United Nations Charter, and the peoples of the Territories themselves that deserve the lion's share of the credit for this achievement, worked out in most cases relatively peacefully with Administering Authorities. I should also point out that resolution 1514 (XV), most of whose ideals and objectives my Government supported, was not the only important document on decolonization promulgated by the United Nations. There was also resolution 1541 (XV), adopted the following day, which listed independence, free association and integration into another independent State as acceptable outcomes of the self-determination process. I would also note that there are sections in this draft resolution which seem to encourage po1iticization of the United Nations specialized agencies, assert principles of sovereignty ove~ resources in Territories contrary to internationally accepted principles and call for courses of action in southern Africa under the United Nations Charter contrary to the policy of my Gover~nt. Because of these and other specific defects, but also because of the seeJlingly urgent c&1l for action on a problem which, we are thankful to say, is largely behind us, JI1.':l delegation has decided to abstain in the vote on this dr~ft resolution. In voting sgainGt ~ other draft resolutions today on the tDple-entat!an of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, draft resolutions A/40/L.2l and L.22, I should also like to note -r Gover~nte. opposition to singling out countries for selective condemnation. While the draft resolutions do not do so, the reports which they endorse contain such unacceptable references. Mr. KURPERSHOEK (Netherlands): This year the united Nations comIellOJ:2tGt1 not only the fortieth anniversary of the Organization but also the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adopUon of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It seems indeed appropriate that the two anniversaries should coincide, for the alaost cCllpleted process of decolc;nization stands as one of the proudest achievenents of this world body. In the year of the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV) no fewer than 17 countries acceded to independence. Now, 25 years later, the original .&abership of 51 nations has expanded more than threefold to 159 Mellber States. therefore be justified in concluding that the goal of global aeabersbip ha.. a~t been attained. On the occasion of the commemoration of this landmark event in the history of the united Nations, ay delegation hopes th&t the recognition thus given to the I (Mr. Kurpersboek, Netherlands) fundamental importance of the principle of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples will provide us with an added impetus towards achieving the purpOe~s aentioned in Article 1 (2) of the Charter - the development of friendly relations among nations and the strengthening of univ~rsal peace. If there is reason to look back with s~tisfaction at the progress in the domain of decolonization over the past decades, we should also remind ourselves that one major exception continues to claim the attention of the international community. I refer of course to the question of Namibia. As long as the Territory of Namibia remains under South African occupation and its people are denied the exercise of the right to self-determination and independence in accordance with security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), the chapter on decolonization will remain uncomplete. In view of the commemorative character of this session and the unanimous feeling that this Organization has played a particularly useful role in the decolonization process, it was only natural to expect that a draft resolution on this sUbj~t would reflect the existing consensus. To our surprise and dismay, ~ever, the text submitted to us ignores the great strides which have been made towards the implementation of resolution 1514 (XV) and clings to the fiction that colonial domination is still the predominant reality in many parts of the world. Furthermore, the draft resolution is needlessly unbalanced and grating in its comments on the role played by the colonial ?owers. The Netherlands is fully confident that the Powers administering the remaining dependent Territories continue to do so ih the best interests of their inhabitants and in accordance with the Charter. We deeply regret that the Special Committee has submitted this text without conaideration ol the need for consultations with other Members and has chosen to forgo an opportunity to enhance the lustre of the commemorative event by a (Mr. Kurpersboek, Netherlands) display of united resolve. Instead it has led to unnecepsary controversy, for it was clear from the outset that this draft resolution would not cORDand unaniaou8 approval. One of the flaws in the text submitted to us is its persistent suggestion that independence is the only possible outcome of the exercise of the right to self-determination. It also overlooks the fact.that independ~nce has not invariably been wrestled from the grip of a reluctant oolonial Power. Furthermore, my delegation cannot agree to the characterization of the situation in South Africa as a oolonial one. The dangerous equation of apartheid with oolonialimn seems responsible for the curious suggestion in the sixteenth preambular paragraph that racial discrimination is practised not only in Namibia but also in other Territories entrusted to administering Powers. We also object to the notion implicit in operative paragraph 5 that those Powers administer the remaining dependent Territories against the wishes of their inhabitant~ and in violation of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For these reasons my delegation feels compelled to abstain in the vote on this draft resolution. I shall now turn briefly to the other two draft resolutions under this agenda item. My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/40/L.21 because of the traditional support of the Netherlands for the full implementation of the principles embodied in resolution 1514 (XV). We continue to have reservations, however, on some elements in operative paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 8 and 10. The Netherlands will abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/40/L.22, concerning the dissemination of information on decolonization. We regret that once again the report of the Special Committee (A/40/23 (Part 111» does not focus on the existing consensus on the subject of deoolonization and that some of its recommendations seek to use the resources of this Organization for a campaign of unwarranted and selective criticism against one particular group of countries. Hr. AOKI (Japan): !t.i delGgation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/40/L.21 and A/40/L.22 because we firmly support the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and hope that it will be duly i:plemented. My delegation appreciates the efforts of the authocs of these draft resolutions to avoid the insertion of various unnecessary and controversial elements, which have often appeared in resolutions relating to decolonization. At the same time, however, my delegation IIIlst regretfully express its reservations on certain provisions contained in these documents. we cannot support some parts of the report of the Special Committee, to which operative paragraph 5 of L.21 and oper6ltive paragraPt 1 of L.22 give unreserved approval, and it thus wishes to indicate its reservations on these paragraphs. For reasons we have made clear on a nuBber of occasions, including meetings at this session of the General Assembly, my delegation has reservations on other paragraphs of L.21; particularly operative paragraphs 4, 6 and 10. Moreover, it is our understanding that operative paragraph 7 of the same draft resolution is not intended as a condennation of all foreign economic activities, but rather of a particular type of them which in fact impedes the process of self-determination 1."'1 the Non-Self-Governing Territories. My delegation will abstain in the vote on the draft resolution contained in document A/40/23 (Part 11), Chapter I1, paragraph 42, entitled -Twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesbecause my delegation finds that certain paragraphs, in particular, operative paragraphs 20 and 21, do not fit in with our position. Mr. BROWNE (New Zealand): New Zealand's support for decolonization and for the achievements of the United Nations in this field has been ex>nsistent for 40 years. The record of that support has already been outlined in the debate on this itea. That support will ex>ntinue. New Zealand will vote for the three draft resolutions bef-ore us today. My delegation wishes to record, however, that New Zealand continues to have difficulty with operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution A/40/L.2l. In addition, we wish to make it clear that the reference to the liviolations of the right to self-determination and basic human rights of the peoples of colonial Territories· in operative paragraph 2 of that draft resolution has no relevance or applicability to Tokelau, which is the one remaining Non-self-Governing Territory for which "New Zealand stUl has responsibility. The records of the Special Committee on decolonization, and especially the reports of the Visiting Missions from that Committee to Tokelau, demonstate this clearly. Sir John THOMSON (United Kingdom): My delegation was both surprised and disappointed that no attempt was made to consult us on the drafting of the twenty-fifth anniversary draft resolution contained in document A/40/23 (Part 11). We are aware of the strenuous efforts of some delegations to produce a ~xt that was both mderate and balanced. But it will come as no surprise when 1 say that the version before the General Assembly this afternoon still contains much to which ~e take exception. In the first place, we are struck by its inordinate length: does it really require 17 preanOula~ and 24 operative paragraphs to commemorate the adoption of a United Nations resolution 25 years ago? The answer of course is that this draft resolution serves less as a commemoration than as yet another vehiole from which to trumpet tendentious propositio~s about colonialism. The draft resolution is flawed in a number of respects. For example, it talks disparagingly of the needs for ·speedy eradication" of colonialism, as if it were some sort of political virusJ it implicitly and patronizingly pours contempt on colonial peoples by calling for the removal of the remaining "vestiges" of colonialism, irrespective, apparently, of the wishes of the people concerned. It refers dismissively to colonialism in terms of ·oppression" and "domination· J and it comes very close to equating colonialism with racial discrimination and violations of basic human rights. There is more to which we object and on which, as a vitally interested party, we should surely have been consulted. Suffice it to say that this Oocument is at be~t grudging in its acknowledgement of the great strides made in the field of Uecolonization over the years. Moreover, it fails to recognize that the era of colonialism, at least colonialism in the sense generally accepted by the United Rations, is all but over. It is time we recognized this fact. It is time we set aside the disobliging rhetoric of past decades that has served only to keep this subject artificially alive and to deflect our attention from other more pressing matters, such as the military occupation of a small non-aligned country, or the application of self-determination to Namibia. This draft resolution does indeed have a good deal to say about the situation in Namibia. It is right that it should do so since, with the exception of Namibia, the ~ocess of decolonization is close to an end. No one is more concerned than we to see the peaceful transition of Namibia to independence. We are staunch upholders of the principle of self-determination in Namibia as elsewhere. Nevertheless, Namibia is sui 2eneris. It is in effect a ward of the united Nations and is in a different legal position from all other Territories. Accordingly, the spe~ .~'iit provisions that apply to Namibia should be taken for what they are, namely, special arungements to apply to a unique and particular set of circumstances~ they do not apply elsewhere. This draft resolution is as irrelevant to the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on decolonization as it is to the real needs of the people of our dependent Territories. We regret that we have no alternative but to abstain in the vote• . . I need say less on the other two draft resolutions, A/40/L.21 and A/40/L.22, since they are virtually indistinguishable from their counterparts in previous years, which we voted against. Our views on both drafts are well known. It will come as no surprise when I say that we shall vote the same way again this year. Like the twenty-fifth anniversary draft resolution the language in both drafts is disobliging lmd ungen'erous. L.21, on the -Implementation of the Declaration - ... , takes scant account (;)f the real needs and wishes of dependent peoples; L.22, on -Dissemination of information ••• -, calls for an intensification of information work in the decolonization area when, in our view, this should diminish as the era of decolooization draws to a close. But to come back to the twenty-fifth anniversary, the distortion and falsity which characterize some parts of the commemorative draft resolution damage the rupect which ought to belong to those in the United Nations concerned with decolmization. Decolonization has been one of the great success stories of the United Nations and my delegation wishes that this commemoration could have brought out that fact and treated it as a matter for congratulation and not for msrepresentation. With the exception of Namibia, the process of decolonization is virtually at an end •. Nevertheless, in so far as that process still has a future, J1JY Government reaffirms that our policy towards our remaining dependent Territories wUI cootinue to be guided by the principle of self-determination. We regret that the overriding importance of that principle, which was so lightly treated in last week's vote on the future of the Falkland Islanders, does not appear to be shared by others, including, notably, members of the Committee of 24. However, we will stick by our principles. We respect the wishes of the peoples of our dependent Territories as we take seriously the obligations placed on us by the Charter of the Q'aite4 Nations as an adainistering Poweri and we shall do nothing to stand in their peoples _0 wish to exercise their right of self-determination in favour: of way if independence is what they want. Meanwhile, those who attack the smll retaining their links with the United Kingdom should reread the Charter and rec1ecUcate the.elves to the principle of self-deteraination. That would be appcopciate to a twenty-fifth co-emoration. I had not intended on this occasion to enter into the substance of the Falkland Islands question. However, I listened with astonishment, about an bour ago, to the speech of the Chairman of the Fourth CoIlmittee. My delegation is a member of the Fourth camaittee, so he is my Chairman as well as the Chairman of other delegations, including the Nicaraguan delegation. It is, I believe, the convention of the General Assembly that Chairmen of its CoDIaittees should behave impartially when acting as Chairmen. I thought of raising a point of order, but as a matter of courtesy I refrained. However, it would also be an act of courtesy if Chairmen refrained from taking partisan positions lifhen acting in their capacity as Chairmen. If I heard correctly, the Chairman of the Fourth Committee spoke of his suppor't for Argentina's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Is that an impartial position? Hardly. How could the Chairman of the Fourth Committee - of all Committees - fail to refer to the wishes of the Falkland Islanders? What does the Chairman of the Fourth committee think of operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution before us? It reads: -Reaffirms the inalienable right of all peoples under colonial rule to self-determination and independence in accordance with the Declaration on th~ Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) -. (A/40/23 (part It), p. 10) When the very first operative paragraph is neglected in that way, no wonder we have to abstain. Mr. ROWE (Australia): The fortieth anniversary of our Organization and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples have given us all a further opportunity to reflect on the very substantial contribution made by the united Nations in the field of decolu~j~ation. Australia is proud to have played its part in furtherance of this caus~ @~~ in bringing all Territories for which it was previously the administering Power to self-determination. we remain fir.aly wedded to the goal of self-determination for the PeOple of all Non-Self-Governing Territories,-in accordance with their wishes. Despite the substantial progress that has been made in the field of decolonization, we share the particular conce~n of the international community at the situation in Namibia, where South Africa has consistently refused to bring the Territory to independence in accordance with the United Nations plan. As a country in the South Pacific, our attention is focused naturally on thoSg Territories in our region which have yet to complete the process of self-determination. In ~is regard, Australia fully supports the conclusions arrived at in the communique issued by the Sixteenth South Pacific Forum, held at Rarotonga in August this year. The Forum welcomed the progress wiaich had been made by the people of Micronesia in achieving self-determination and looked forward to early termination of the Trusteeship Agreement by the United States, in accordance with the wishes of the people. The Forum also reaffirmed its support for the self-determination and early transition to independence of New caledonia, in accordance with the innate active rights and aspirations of the indigenous people and in a mannet" that guaranteed the rights and wishes of all the inhabitants of that multiracial society. The Forum will consider developments in the Territory at its next meeting, in 1986. Australia believes that the course of action upon which the French Government has embarked contains positive elements appropriate to as~isting New caledonia in its eVOlution to independence, and welcomes these actions. Turning to the draft resolutions before us, Australia will vote in favour of the draft resolutions contained in paragraph 42 of document A/40/23 (part 11) and in docUllents A/40/L.21 and Al40/L.2:'., despite :eservations we have about certain elellenu contained therein. In particular, Australia does not believe that the existence of NOn-self-Governing Territories constitutes a threat to international peace and secu;:it.y, as asserted in operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/40/L.21. Moreover, Australia has cona!stently dissociated itself from any endorse-ent of az.ed struggle and remains committed to the view that this Organization ought to seek to resolve international disputes by peaceful means.. We cannot, thus, support the implied endorsement of armed struggle in operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution A/40/L.2l. ~e PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): The General Assembly will ~~ begin the voting process and will take decisions on the draft resolution recca.ended in part 11 of document A/40/23 and on draft resolutions A/40/L.2l and A/40/L.22. The prograa.e budget implications of those draft resolutions are contained in the report of the Fifth Coasittee in document A/40/955. '!'he Aaseably vill vote fi~st on the draft resolution contai.ned in par~t"~ph 42 of part 11 of the report of the Special Committee of 24 in document A/40/23. ~ recorded vote has been requested. A recorded ~ote was taken. In favour: Afgh-. ilistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, cameroon, Cape Ver.de, central African ~public, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, COmoros, Congo, Coflta Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, DeJt:)craf::ic Yemen, Denmark, Dj ibou~j.. Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egy-pt, El Salvador, Equatorial GuL"'",.:l, Ethiopia, Fiji, FinlC'..nd, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras~ Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao TOme and Principe, Saudi A~abia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon 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, Yugo~lavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabw~. Against: None. Abstaining: Belgium, Canada., France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of G~eat Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The draft resolution contained in paragraph 42 of document A/40/23 (Part 11) vas adopted bY 139 votes to none, with 13 abstentions (resolution 40/56).

The AsI:lembly will now vote on draft resolution A/40/L.2l. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet. Socialist Republic, Cameroon, cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea. Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People'R Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar .. Mai.aysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Against: Israel, united Kingdom of Great Britain a~d Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi. Draft resolution A/40/L.2l was adopted by 141 votes to 3, with 7 abstentions (resolution 40/57).*

I now put to the vote draft resolution A/40/L.22. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angol~, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, 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, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Ronduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic ~pubJic of), Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon~ Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand~ Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, *Subsequently the delegation of the Dominica~ RepUblic advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. Singapore, So1Ollon :Islands, SotI.alla, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, $uriname, SWaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo,Trinidad and ~go, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraini.an S~iet Soci.alist Republic., Union of so~iet SOCialist Republics, Unite:1: 1'uab E!liraws, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Ham, Yeaen, Yugoslavia, zaire, lamia, ZiT..J)abwe. Again~1 Israel, united. Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. ~atainingl Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, LuxeJlbourg, Netherlands. Draft resolution A/40/L.22 was adopted by 142 votes to 3, with 6 abstentions (resolution 40/58).* *Subsequently the delegation of the Dominican Republic advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.

I shall now call on the representatives who wish to explain their votes. Hr 0 REISALO (Finland): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The Nordic countries' abiding commitment to the process of decolonization is well known and was explained in their statement laEt Friday on item 18. That process has very nearly run its course. This is one of the historic achievements of this Organization. However, a most important and urgent colonial issue, that is, Namibia, remains to be resolved. The Nordic countries voted in favour of the three draft resolutions just adopted. we regret, however, that we could not do so without reservations with regard to all three resolutions. For example, operative paragraph 4 in draft resolution A!40/L.2l contains formulations to which we cannot give our consent and which are contrary to the principle upheld by the Nordic countries that in conformity with its Charter the United Nations should always encourage only peaceful solutions. Furthermore, we find operative paragraph 10 too general, and too categorically formulated and it shOUld, in our view, have been restricted to those activities that are detrimental to the peoples of the non-self-governing Territories and their right to self-determination and independence.* Furthermore, our vote on operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution A/40/L.22 regarding the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on Decolonization relating to the dissemination of information should, in our view, not be interpreted as an approval of all the specific parts of that chapter. *Mr. Moseley (Barbados), Vice-President, took the Chair. Hr. ERKMENOGLU (Turkey): My delegation voted in favour of the resolution concerning the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in document A/40/L.21, in k~eping with the fira support of the Turkish Government for the efforts being exerted for the total elimination of colonialism in the world today. At the same time, I wish to place on record our reservation with regard to operative paragraph 10 of the resolution, as we do not believe this paragraph has been drafted in a sufficiently balanced manner. Ms. O'FARRELL (Ireland): Ireland has, whenever possible, supported resolutions under this item in order to reaffirm its support for the process of peacefUl decoloniZation based upon resolution 1514 (XV) and for the work of the United Nations generally in the decolonization field. In this spirit, my delegation has voted in favour of the draf1: resolution in paragraph 42~ chapter II of document A/40/23 (Part 11), relating to the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. we also voted in favour of draft resolutions A/40/L.21 and A/40/L.22. My delegation, however, has reservations on some of the generalizations in A/40/L.2l. We also have reservations in relation to some of the recommendations and decisions of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, although we support in general the work of that Committee. With regard to operative paragraph 10 of A/40/L.2l, I should like to reaffirm that in determining our attitude towards specific military bases and installations, my delegation will be guided by the attitudes, freely expressed, of the inhabitants of the Territories in question. Hr. STEFANINI (Italy): It is with some regret that Italy has abstained on the resolution on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on decolonization. Unfortunately, in cur view, the commemorative character of this resolution would have been better served by avoiding some of the elements contained in the text just adopted by this Assembly. In particular, we cannot fully agree with operative paragraphs 10, 19, 20 and 21. It is unfortunate, we believe, that after ~5 years we are not able to reach a consensus on the celebration of decolonization, which is undoubtedly a most remarkable success story at the United Nations. Nevertheless, we remain firmly committed to it. We are aware that there are still peoples waiting to be freed from colonialism, Namibia being by far the most significant and urgent case. In this context, Italy wishes to reaffirm its support for a free and independent Namibia under the United Nations plan, and its condemnation for the policies of South Africa in the region. With regard to our vote on the text on the dissemination of information, I can only recall our statement of last year. We put on record our strongest reservations on a particular section of the report of the Special Committee. We find very little change in this part of the report {chapter III of document A/40/23, part Ill). Therefore, we have once more abstained in the vote on this question. Let us be absolutely clear about our position. We believe that information has been and still is instrumental in carrying out the DeClaration on decolonizati.on. To the extent that the process of decolonization has not yet been fUlly completed, that inf.':>rmation still has a role to play, we all agree. .But we cannot agree on unjustified criticism of Member countries or groups of countries, or on references to questions which are not included within the mandate of the Committee of 24. Moreover, we see as inappropriate any request to the Department I of Public Information which might result in unfriendly activities towards Member decolonization constitutes one of the outstanding achievements of the United Nations. Austria has therefore consistently supported the efforts of the United Nations in this regard. It is because of its sincere commitment to the process of decolonization and to the right of peoples of self-determination that Austria has supported all three draft resolutions submitted under item 18. However, that should not be interpreted as approval of all the provisions contained in these three texts. We have reservations with regard to some of them. In particular, I should like to refer to operative paragraph 4 of resolution A/40/L.2l and to underline that Austria understands that paragraph as referring exclusively to the struggle b¥ peaceful oeans as behoves an o~ganization which is built on the principles of non-use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Mr. SVOBODA (Canada): The story of decolonization has been one of the United Nations great success stories over its first four decades. This historic process is, with certain major exceptions, now unquestionably drawing to a close. Canada firmly supports the view that these remaining questions should continue to be pursued with all appropriate means, taking into account limited resources available for the purpose, but of course bearing in mind the importance of the process involved. Canada has supported and continues to support the process of decolonization, and we would have wished to have voted for all of the resolutions that have just been considered, in paragraph 42 of document A/40/23 (Part 11), as well as in documents A/40/L.2l and A/40/L.22. We sincerely wanted to do so, both because this year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the G~anting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and because of the symbolic value of the resolutions themselves. (Hr. SVoboda« canada) Unfortunately, however, due to the inclusion An certain paragraphs of those draft resolutions of what we consider to ~ unnecessarily repetitive and excessively polemical phraseology, we could not support the first two draft resolutions. We do not believe such hortatory language contributes to the effective actir.m that should ideally have the cons~nsus endorsement of this Assembly.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in e~ercise of the right of reply. May I remind representatives that, in accordance with Gene~al Assembly resolution 34/401, staternents in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and five minutes for the second, and that they should be made by representatives from their seats. Hr. LOBIA (Papua New Guinea) : ()l..llring the course of my statement in the general debate on agenda item 18 on Friday, 29 November, the representative of France saw'fit to interrupt me three times in succession and challenged the right of my delegation to refer to New caledonia. On his third intervention, moreoever, he had the temerity, in purported retaliation, to refer to internal affairs of my country. The.fact that the representative of France apparently suffered a temporary lapse of memory, and disregarded one of the basic obligations assumed ~ ~embers of this Organization - namely, non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State - does not cam~ as any surprise at all to those of us who are familiar with the now well-known practice and policy of his Government, as amply demonstrated in the Greenpeace affair, as well as in Lzance's continued nuclear testing in the Pacific, in total disregard of the well-being of the peoples in the region. In order to set the record straight, and in the hope that the representative of France may in future refrain from being disruptive, discourteous and out of order, and from couwitting the same procedural errors as he did at our earlier meeting, I should like to draw his particular attention to the fact that, by virtue of its own declsions, the ultimate authority rests with the General Assembly itself in respect of the list of Territories to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples is applicable. In this connection, the Assembly has requested the Special Committee of 24 to undertake annually a review of the list and to make aFpropriate recommendations thereon. In pursuance of its mandate the Special CoIIIIIi.ttee has this year once again submitted a report on an item on its agenda entitled -Question of the list of the Territories to which the Declaration is applicable-, as set out in section G, of chapter 1 of Part I of document A/40/23. Accordingly there should be no doubt whatsoever that the question has been, is and will be a proper subject to be discussed within the context of the general aspects of the process of decolonization under the present item of the agenda. I should like, therefore, to underscore the right of any Member State to submit its views under the present item as to why a particular Territory should or should not be included in the list of Territories. 1 should like also to remind the representative of France that my delegation requested the Special I~ittee to examine at its 1980 session the applicability of the Declaration to New caledonia, having ragard to the fast deteriorating situation in that Territory. Mindful of the related developments in respect of New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea chose not to press for Committee action at its subsequent session. (Mr.. Lahia, Papua ~ew Guinea) During the course of this year, however, the world has witnessed a further deterioration in the situation in that Territory, including the loss of innocent lives, bloodshed and a stepped-up military presence. The concern shared by Member States over these developments led to the 'doption of a passage relating to Hew caledonia in the Rarotonga (COOk Islands) Declaration of the SOuth Pacific Forum adopted on 6 lWgust 1985. That document has now become an official document of the United Nations General Assembl~ and the Security Council. Against that background, on 2 OCtober this year my delegation addressed a letter to the Chairman ,)f the Special Committee, drawing the atten,t.ion of the Committee to the relevant passage of the Rarotonga Declaration and requesting it to take up once again the question of the applicability of the Declaration to New Caledonia in the light of the concern expressed by the Forum ~mbers. As will be noted from the draft resolution A/40/L.21, just adopted ay the General Assembly, the Assembly approved, among other things, the report of the Special Committee, including the section of the report to which I have referred. In so doing it requested the Special Committee to continue to review the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable. I wish to express my sincere hope that, in lis~harge of that task, the Special Committee will at i~s 1986 session take into aqcount in particular some of the points I raised in my statement on 29 November. Having clarified beyond a shadow of doubt ~ I hope - the legitimate right of any delegation to refer to the deplorable colonial situation obtaining in New Caledonia within the context of the present item, I should like a.~ this stage to place on record my delegation's strong reservations on the high~( irregular manner in which the presiding officer at our earlier meeting dealt with the so-called points of order raised by the representative of France, which 'in fact were out of order. Twice the presiding officer requested me to '>ear in mind the re_Eka _de by the rcepresentative of France. When I was interrupted for the third t~ the presiding ~fficer requested me to conclude my statement forthwith at that stage. With due deference to the high office of the Assembly presidency, I did not at that s~age insist on completing my statement. I should therefore now like to be allowed to deliver that part of my general debate statement which I was prevented frOll delivering due to the incorrect and inappropriate proceedings at our meeting of 29 November. Hot only did the representative of France interrupt my statement, he also chose the occasion to sma,ar the reputation of my country by making outrageous allegations of human rights violations, crime and corruption in Papua New Guinea. I wisb to assure the representative of France that such undignified tactics will not stop Papua New Guinea from addressing the issue of New caledonia's decolonization. Papua New Guinea is a developing country and, like any other country whether developed or developing - perhaps with the exception of France - we have our share of crt.e and of unemployment problems but we are not ignoring themJ we are doing IJOII8thing about them. Perhaps we can learn from France how it manages to avoid proble...:,.s of crime and ~nemployment and other social evils. New Caledonia was included in the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in re801ut:vn 66 (I), of 14 December 1946, concerning information on Hon-Self-GoverningTerritories to be transmitted to the United Nations by the administ0ring Power under Article 73~ of the Charter. In 1947 France unilaterally ceased to transmit information on New Caledonia and a number of other Territories under its administration. That action led to resolution 222 (Ill), adopted after a heated debate, requesting information on the consitutional position and status of such Territories.

I must, with regret, remind the representative of Papua New Guinea that the period allocated to him has expired, and ask him if he would be good, enough to conclude his statement. Mr. LOBIA (Papua New Guinea): I have much to say, Mr. President. As I have already shown, I was unable previously to complete what I had to say. Wh~n m¥ delegation speaks of human rights, rights to self-determination, freedom and equality, it believes in their universal application, nat their selective application to one's own advantage. Human rights, freedom and the equality of women in Papua New Guinea are well enshrined in our Constitution. Hr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): I wish to exercise my right of reply to refer to an intervention by the representative of the Zionist base occupying Palestine, in which he spoke of the sale of Persian Gulf oil to SOUth Africa. That load of rubbish has previously been poured out from the same mouth in the Assembly, but such false allegations will bear no fruit, no matter how often they are repeated. They are false and definitely have certain political ~tivations behind them. (Mr. Rajaie-Khorassani, Islamic Republic of Iran) As for the substance of the point, as I have said before, we sell our oil to certain legitimate and legitimately registered companies which have committed themselves not to carry or sell our oil to the Pretoria regime. But they usually unload the cargo at European ports, and we do not know what happens to that oil when it goes frcw there through certain chains of transactions. Internationa~ Zionism has a very powerful network, and everybody's oil might well go to South Africa 'through that network. The Zionist reqime occupying Palestine does not have oil. Where does it get its oil? It gets it from the Zionist network that governs many international companies and multinational corporations. However, I think that the point was not made simply for its substance. Indeed., it has no substance. The idea was to hide the dirty face of Zionism behind such allegations, because the zionist regime occupying Palestine has the closest co-operation of all kinds with the South African regime. They are both racist. They are both Zionist. They collaborate and co-operate in various technical fields, and they also co-operate in the intelligence and information fields. The conspiracies, rpying and intelligence activities of the Zionist base occupying Palestine are now&days even known to its mother country, the United States. It is now biting its own mother, and I think the mother deserves that bite. However, it is a great shame that an illegitimate entity can gain recognition in thia Assembly and then make allegations against everybody else. If the independent States could have united and defended the right of the Palestinian people honourably and fully, permission would never have been given to such illegitimate entities to come here and make baseless allegations against other people. Mr. de KEMOULARIA (France) (interpretation from French): I shall be brief, because the representative of Papua New Guinea does not deserve a long answer, owing to the weakness of his arguments. He brought the matter down to a personal level, the texts that he read with such emphasis were only the result of his personal initiative. It is not he who has the duty of interpreting the rules of the Assembly and deciding when they apply. The question of New Caledonia is a delicate and painful one. Never has.a Government done so much to find a just and balanced sOlution. I was happy to hear the representatives of Australia and New Zealand pay tribute to the efforts of the French Government. Everyone in the Assembly knows that New Caledonia is not on the Assembly's agenda. Mr. Lahia is making personal efforts of a personal nature, which do not deserve any further answer.

I now ~all on the representatives who wish to exercise their right of reply for the second time and remind them that second interventions are limited to five minutes. Mr. LaHIA (Papua New Guinea): I wish to declare at the outset that my statement is in accord with the views of my Government. We are told that in the French colony of New Caledonia the French police force and army have been collaborating with anti-independence white settlers to carry out violent actions against the Kanak people, in order to demobilize them. Kanaks have been killed. French forces are known to raid villages. Kanaks are being arbitrarily arrested today. White settlers continue to attempt to bomb Kanak radio stations. It is no longer possible for Kanaks to demonstrate. Their freedom has gone. Only the settlers and other foreigners are enjoying such freedoms. I repeat that our statements in the Assembly are very much in line with the policy of my Government. I also remind representatives that althou~h we have just had a change of Government our policy on decolonization rema\ins firm. Kr. de ~ (France) (interpretation froa French): What the representative of Papua New Guinea has just stated so emphatically does not deserve any reply.

The recommendations of the Fifth Committee, contained in paragraph 6 of its report (A/40/957), consist of draft resolutions A and B. The Assembly will take a decision first on draft resolution A. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, cameroon, canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SWaziland, SW'eden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Albania, Syrian Arab Republic. Abstaining: Afghanistan, Algeria, Benin r Bulgaria, Byeloiussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Iraq, Morocco, Union of Soviet SOCialist Republics, Yemen. Draft resolution A was adopted by 96 votes to 2, with 13 abstentions (resolution 40/59 A).* *Subsequently the delegation of Viet Nam advised the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution B. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cent!'al African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombic Congo, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet SOCialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Syrian Arab Republic, Union of SOviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Algeria, Benin, Iraq, Morocco, Romania, Yemen. Draft resolution B was adopted by 93 votes to 10, with 6 abstentions (resolution 40/59 B).

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 126. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

Before adjourning the meeting, I should like to inform the General Assembly that I have received one additional formal request to extend the deadline for the submission to the Fifth Committee of all draft resolutions with programme budget implications. The Chairman of the Third Committee has requested an extension until 3 December in connection with agenda item 106. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to extend the deadline accordingly? It was so decided. The meeting rose at 7.20 p.m•.