A/42/PV.59 General Assembly

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. The Assembly has before it five draft re£olutions recommended by the United Nations Council for Namibia and circulated dooumentA/42/24 (Part Ill) and (Part HI/Con. 1 chap. I). I now call on those repreillentatives who wish to introduce draft resolutions. Mr. ZUZE (Zambia): For a long time now, Namibia has come up for discui)sion in this Assembly, in the Security Council, in the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and in gov~rnmental and non-governmental organizations. It is an issue which is familiar to I.HI all and one on whose speedy resolution there is total agreement. From this rostrum many statesmen from all parts of the world have urged positive change in N~mibi~. 'l'hey have repeatedly demanded South Africa's unconditional withdrawal from the Territory so that fair and free elections can take place under the ~upetvi8ion and control of the United Nations in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). While the international consensus on Namibia is for the immediate and unconditional implementation of resolution 435 (1978), the linkage policy has prevented this from happening. Thus an impasse exists because of this policy. Meanwhile, the situation inside Namibia continues to deteriorate owing to racist South Africa's increased acts of atrocities against the black Namibians. It is againliilt thilil oritical background that the Council for Namibia has prepared draft resolution A, which I have the honour and privilege to introduce to this body. 'r~solution., entitled "Situation in Namibia from the the Territory consid~r'edassessmentofthesituation in and around Namibia, the objectives the Un.lted Nations Council fer Namibia,. ··asthe Adl!!llinistering J\.utnority over the Territory, seeks te achieve. Despite its the ainu3 and objectives of the draft resolution can be stated in only a f~w WOrdS: to bdng to an end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and to ctQate conditions in which the Namibian people can freely exercise thdr inalienable ri9ht to ft:eedolrl, self-determination and independence. By this draft resolution the Council has sought, on the basis of activities and developments over the past year, to make a thoroug h assessment of thesitul\i.tion relating to Namibia and to set an agenda for 198~. The text contains many elements which are familiar, yet they must be reaffirmed year after year because they form the political and legal framework for United Nations action on the question of Namibia. As in the past, the draft resolution reaffirms the Namibian people'. right to self-determination, freedom and national independence and expresses support for their heroic struggle for national independence. It also declares that South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia constitutes an act of aggression against the Namibian people and calls upon the international community to support the just struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), their sole and authentic representative. Under the terms of the text before us, the General Assembly would declare that the liberation struggle in Namibia is a conflict of an international charactClir lfind that all captured freedom-fighters should be accorded prisoner-ef-war statut!l. It would also cO'mlllend SWAPO fot: its continued intensification of the struggl.e on all fronts and affirms that the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, contain'ed in Security Council resolutions 385 (l976) and 435 (.1978) f is the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian que~tion and demands its im.'tliediate implementation without any pi:e-condition. (l4r. Zuze, Zambia) tha<t any~~asu;r'E\:S outsid(2 resoil1tiora 435 (l978) are null and It l\I'Otlld denounce all fraudul:ent constitutHJrral l1lind political SOhell\€1S by 1.1..1e9a1 racist regdmeoontinues with itsatt:emptl1l to blllff the world and perpetuat.e itsoolontal domination of Namibia. It would further reject the persistent atteliPipts made by the Pretoria rei1j imt\i to establish a linkage between the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and extraneous and irrelevant issues, partiCUlarly the presenc\\l of Cuban fOrCegl in M.gola. By this draft resolution, the Assembly would firmly condemn and reject the policy of constructive engagement, which encourages the racist regime to molil"ltain its opposition to the decisions of the international community on Namibia ant:! to continue its apartheid policy. It would strongly condemn the continuing collaboration between South Africa and certain Western countries in the political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural and financial fields and express its conviction that such collaboration helps to prolong South Africa's domination and control over the people and Territory of Namibia. Furthermore, the Assembly would deplore the establishment and operation by racist South Africa of the so-called Namibia information offices in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, aimed at legitimizing its puppet institutions in Namibia, and demand their immediate closure. It would condemn the recent escalation of violent repression and victimization of Namibian workers by racist South Africa and Western transnational corporations operating illegally in Namibia, and the recent arrests and imprisonm(!lnt ef SWI\PO'lfl leaders and its members, and demand again that South Africa irnm(0diatfflly r~letHH~ tilll Namibian political prisoners. (Mr. Zuze, Zambia) Under the draft resolu,tion the General Assembly would also condemn South Africa ror its illegal use of !'~amibia as a springboard for perpetrating armed invasions, subversion, destabilization and aggression against neighbouring African States and appeal to the international community to contribute generously to the AFRICA Fund of the Non-Aligned Movement for the benefit of the peoples and national lib$rationmo'u!'lltents of southern Arrica. This draft resolution is a true reflection of the situation in Namibia. It addresses the problems: hampering United Nations efforts to end South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia and contains recommendations on concrete action to end this colonial situation. It is our hope in the Council for Namibia that the Assembly will give its unanimous support to this draft resolution. Mr. INSANALLY (Guyana): I have the honour today to introduce to the ASl1lembly draft resolution S, entitled "Implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)" and contained in document A/42/24 (Part Ill). However, before doing so, Sir, I wish to offer you my best wishes for the continued BuCC••• of your presidency. In the interval between last year1s Assembly and now the question of Namibia's independence has been addressed almost continuously by various organs of the United Nations. The Security Council, for example, has convened on at least two occasions to consider the issue of sanctions against South Africa, a proposal for a cease-fire in Namibia and the early emplacement of the United Nations Transition Ass1&>tance Group (UNTAG). As the legal Administering Authority, the Council for Namibia ha. also met frequently, not only to safeguard the wel£are of the Namibiah people but a180 to advance the struggle for their independence. Indeed, many other E;ubl1lidiall:y boClie$, such as the Fourth Committeet the Committee on decolonization, and the Special Conunittee against Apartheid have conducted extensive deliberations of 'Territory and 1.t5 inbabitants. 'l"here can be no dou.bt about the il'tlport.ance and u:rgencYWhich the United Nations attacheS to the resolution 435 (1978). The issue is now b.€!fore the Assembly for and acti.on~ la.rge measure, draft I:esolu.tion B repre.sent5 a distillation of tn(1l main ili.i.$cussions which have been held so far and, more important, a consolidation of tht'il! dec.isiot\s emerging therefrom. It also reflects recent developl1lents which have had an impact, both negative and positive, on the United t-iations plan for terminating South Africa' s~llegal occupation of Namibia. As members will recall, that plan, which is endorsed in landmark resolution 135 (1978), was adopted in 1978 by the Security Council after its approval of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of a proposal for a definitive settlement of the Namibian question. The plan was accepted at the time by both the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and South Africa. In the resolution itself the Security Council called upon South Africa to co-operate with the Secretary-General in its implementation. Such was, in fact, the promise of resolution 435 (1978) that the entire international community was led to believe that its implementation would be both prompt and fulL This optimism quickly evaporated, however, when it became clear that South Africa was not pre~ared, despite its many asseverations of goad faith, to honour the undertaking it had given. Using one pretext after another, the Pretoria regime successfully played a game of "artful dodging" and thumbed its nose at the world body in mockery of its credulity. In the face of such defiance, this Assembly is obliged once again to condem.l'1 South lHr lea for its lack of co-operation and its continuing subjugation of ~ilamibia. A review of the geveral reports before this body demonstrates the insist on the impler~ntation of resolution 435 (1978) as the only internationally acceptable means cf bringing Namibia to independence. Resolution 601 (1987), which gained the overwhelming support of the Security Council just a few days ago, calls for an end to Pretoria's machinations and for practical steps to be taken to ensure Nalllibia.' 5 freedom. It constitutes, in the eyes of many - and certainly in the eyes of rny delegation - a clear breakthrough from the impasse to which peaceful negotiation had come. This Assembly must therefore now provide the added impetus n~®ded to sustain the campaign against South Africa and to guarantee victory to the Namibian pt!ilople. full 'Wel~ the impl~mentatlon the UnittedNations plan and th€!witMrawal of Cuban to the question of Namibia's independence. Such o@viousness can no longer be tolerated and must be deplored in the strongest possible terms. It is for that reason that draft resolution B llutlpnaaillles the faot that the only two parties to the conflict in Namibia are, on the one hand, the N11lmiblan people represented by the South West Afr lea People I s Organization and, on the other, the racIst regime of South Africa, which is currently in illegal OcoupGlition of the Territory. The linkage issue is thus recognized for what it is: a red herring to divert attention from Namibia's incontestible right to immediate independence. The text consequently condemns Pretoria for obstructing the implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions and for the transparent manoeuvres it continues to employ in contravention of those resolutions to perpetuate its control of Namibia. Draft resolution B also reaffirms the direct responsibility of the United Nations over Namibia pending the achievement of independence, and reiterates the thesis that that independence can only be properly attained if the plan outlined in Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) is scrupulously observed and executed. Finally it requests the Security Council to set an early aate, not later than 31 December 1987, foe the commencement of the impl~mentation of its resolution 435 (1978). That proposed date cannot be con~idered unre~li~tic since, as has already been noted, all necessary conditions for the re.olution'. implementation have already been satisfied. 'fhe Secretary-General ig; therefore requested to I::mdertake consultations with the Secur i ty Council, in particular with its perre;anent members, gO as to secure a firm commitment to the speedy and unconditional implementation of that most illlpOl:tant resolution. As draft resolution B clearly recognizes, the responsibility of the United Nations towards N.<L""llibia, for the promotion of its self-determination, freedom and independence, is unique. We cannot afford, therefore, to have the authority of the Organization called into question by those who are outlaws of international sociEli·t;:y. It is imperative therefore that we not fail to discharge the special obligl'rtion which has been entrusted to us, for if we do we put at risk the reputatiOn of our Organization and deceive the many who have placed their faith in it. We should consequently do all in our power to avoid such an eventuality. In introducing draft resolution B to the General Assembly, I strongly urge that it be given the widest possible support. To that end, I invite this body to demonstrate its continued collective support for the struggling people of Namibia lmdlH the leadership of SWAPO, their sole authentic representative, by a unanimous vote of "yes" for this draft resolution. Resounding approval of its provisions will not fail to be heard in Pretoria and will, I believe, hasten the day when Namibia can freely join us in this Assembly of independent and sovereign nations. Mr. DASGUPTA (India): I have the honour to introduce draft resolution C, contained in part III of the annual report of the United Nations Council for Namibia (A/42/24). 'I'he draft resolution, entitled "Progranune of work of the united Nations Council for Namibia", sets out the specific means by which the Council proposes. to fulfil its mandate to promote Namibia's early accession to independence and protlil.ot thlll r:l.ghts and interests of the Namibian people. The draft resolution al!i!o appeals for action by States, intergovernmental bodies and non-governmental organizatioolli to enhance and complement the Council's own activities in support of the Namibian cau~e. resolution prov and policy the programme of section. rtr~affirlUs the p",-Ul'Yc.l.pcaA goal of self-determination and It direct responsibility the Council for Namibia as the legal until independence. It also recalls the major pronouncements adopted by the Council over the past year, namely the Luanda Declaration and ProgramllH1 or Action of May 1987 and the ministerial communique of 2 October 1987, and it rEl'af:Hr:ms the need for continued consultation with the South West Afrlea People's Organization (SWAPO) in all matters of interest to the Namibian people. The programme of work itself calls for many different kinds of action on the part of the Council and the international community. First and perhaps foremost, the Council is requested to continue mobiliZing international pressure for the speedy withdrawal of the illegal South African administration from Namibia, for example through consultations with Governments, the organiZing of international and regional activities such as seminars and symposiums, and the ongoing campaign to raise pUblic awareness of the Namibian situation. The Council is also asked to denounce and seek universal rejection of all schemes through which South Africa attempts to perpetuate its illegal occupation of the Territory, with particulac reference to the puppet political entities installed in Windhoek by the Pretoria r&gime and the completely unacceptable notion of linking the independence of N~ibia to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. The Council1s role in representing Namibia in international bodies and oonferences, including the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, i. also underscored in the draft resolution. The Council is instructed to enaur@ that the rights and interests of Namibia are adequately represented in all relevant internatiaMl forums, while the various intergoverl1Ef!ental and non-governmental organizati()'Os are requested to invite and facilitate the full participation of Namibia, as represented by the Council, in their activities and proceedings. The Cc>uncll is also requested to accede to international conventions as it deems appropriate, in consultation with SWAPO. Et resolutionrequ.ests t.:lHi Council to promte and secure b~e N.~~,·ew~..~ tion of th e min is ia1 conJl'l.lu,niql.>€ of 2 October, the Luand<!l Declaration of Action, and also the Call for Action adopted at the Seminar by the Council in Buenos Aires last April. These documents, taken n1>ZCl<1>riA';;;'Y, constitute a very specific and COI'llprehensive plan of action not only for tn~ Council itself but for ot-Iter orga.ns of the United Nations, Governments, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, support groups and others, Tbe Council is thus encouraged to act as a catalyst for action in support of ~la<f!iibia across the whole range of international institutions. A number of specific tasks which the Council has fulfilled for l1'l<!l.ny years are once again entrusted to its care. Among these are research and reporting on political, military and social develoj:XOents affecting Namibia., the formulation of means to co un ter the collabora tion of Governmen ts and transnational corpora tions lYith the illegal occupation regime; and the instit.ution of measures to secure full implement.ation of Decree No. 1 for the Prot.ection of the Natural Resources of Namibia. The common objective of these provisions is to expose and bring an end to all forms of collaboration with South Africa in its illegal occupation of Namibia, its repression of the Namibian people and its plunder of their natural resources. Finally, the draft resolution requests the Secretary-General to provide the Council and the Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia with adequat.e personnel and other resources for the full and effective discharge of their respective tasks and functions. In the light of the very serious situation affecting Namibia, the United Nations Council for Namibia considers that draft resolution C provides a soUd framework for the effective fulfilment of it.s mandate in the coming year. On that basis, I recommend the draft resolution for unanimous approval by the General Assembly. Hr:. KULOV (Bulgaria): It is my pleasure and privilege to introo<lGe to the General Assembly foe its positive consideration draft resolution D entitled "Dissemination of information and mobilization of international public opinion in support of the immediate independence of Namibia". The draft resolution first and forerost reiterates the importance of intensifying publicity on all aspects of the Namibian question as an instrument for furrneri.ng the direct responsibility assumed by the United Nations for Namibia. It al150 stresses the urgent need to disseminate information on Namibia and to mobilize international public opinion on a continuous basis in support of the inalienable right of the people of Namib ia to self -de termina tion, freedom and independence. It lllTllphasizes these important objectives against the background of the total blackout on neW!1!l on Namibia imposed by the illegal Sou th African regime and the campaign of fillander and disinformation which that regime continues to carry on against the Onit@d Na Hons and the 1 ibera tion struggle of the Namib ian people. In pursuance of the objective of intensifying the international campaign in favour of Namibia's cause, the draft resolution requests the Council, among other things, to focus its activities on greater mobilization in Western Europe and North Amelric,:q to intensify the international campaign for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charteq to organize an international campaign to boycott products from Namibia and South Africa; and to expose and denounce all collaboration with the racist South African regime. 'rhe dr aft resolution also env isages a broad and var ied informa tion progr amrne including, inter alia, the preparation and wide dissemination of publications on all aspects of the Namibian question, as well as radio and television programmes der:Jigned to draw the attention of world public opinion to the current situation in of the racist regime of Soutl-t Africa. Furthermore, in view of 't'le continued collaboration of certain States with the raciel>l:r,egime of South Afr ica I and the need to focus on gteat.€lr mbil ization in Western Bll!l:'Op€ and North America, the Assembly requests the Council t;o organill:& workshops for non-governmental organizations at whic~ tile p.articipants will consider their contribution to the implelllel'\tation of the decisions of the United Nations relating to the dissemination of information on, aod the mobilization of support for, Namibia. Mobilization of international public opinion through the dissemination of information on Namibia represents an important aspect of the efforts of the United Nations to bring about the independence of Namibia. In spite of the upsurge of interest in tile situation in southern Africa as a whole, the public at large does not receive adequate information on Namibia. There is, many believe, a conspiracy of silence on Namibia on the part of the media in certain countries. In those few instances when the Western media report on Namibia, the information is, for the most part, biased and distorted. The draft resolution requests the Council to organize media encounters on developments relating to Namibia, particularly prior to the major activi ties organ ized by the Council dur ing 1988 in order to coun teract such pr ob lems. It is imperative that the -position of the United Nations with regard to Namibia be given the requisite publicity, in order to educate and inform pUblic opinion at large. In those countries where governmental policy is not in lin@ with the international consensus on the question of Namibia, the need for such information has never been so pressing. Dissemination of information On Namibia would be a IfleanS of bringing pressure to bear on Pretoria and its allies to comply with United Nations resolutions and decisl.ons demanding the unconditional implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without furtber delay. 'Jihe draft resolution also highlights the extremely positive and important that non-governmental organizations play in the dissemination of information and mobilization of support for the cause of Namibia. Accordingly, the draft resolution requests the Council for Namibia to continue to co-operate closely with non-governmental organizations in its efiorts to mobilize international public opinion in support of the liberation struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). By the same resolution, the General Assembly decided to allocate resources to be used by the United Nations Council for Namibia for its programme of co-operation with non-governmental organizations, including support for conferences and workshops arranged by those organizations and for such other activities as will promote the eau•• of the liberation struggle of the Namibian people, subject to decisions to be taken by the Council in consultation with SWii.PO. Furthermore, the draft resolution appeals to non-governmental organizations, ~rlter alia, to increase the awareness of their national communities and legislative bodies concerning South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, the liberation struggle being waged by the Namibian ~eople under the leadership of SWAPO their sole, authentic representative, the gross violation of basic human rights by the South African r'gime in Namibia, and the plunder of the Territory's resources by fQr~lgn eCOnOmlG int@[@§[5j and to mobiliz@ in th@ir countri@§ brOad politiCal lupport for the national liberation of Namibia by holdl.ng hearings, seminars and public pr•••ntations on various aspects of the Namibian question, as well as by producing and distributing pamphlets, films and other information materiaL In conclusion, I should like to express :my sincere hope tJHit the Assel1ltllywill unanim::Hls support to draft resolution D, on"Diss~lnation of information hation of international pUblic opinion in. support of the immediate of Namibia", l>ir. CARNBVALI VILLEGAS (Venezuela) (interpreta tion from Spanish): I have the honour to in trod>Jce draft resolu tion E 00 the question of Namibia, en ti tIed "United Nations Fund for Namibia". The Fund was established 16 year s ago because the Unt ted Ma tions, hav ing terminated SOuth Africa's Mandate to administer the Territory and assumed direct refilponsibility for Namibia until its independence, undertook the solemn obligation to help the people of the Tere i tory in its struggle for independence, and in tha t context was to provide it with, arong other things, material assistance. In the early years the scope of assistance activities charged to the Fund was limited, but with the intensification of the liberation struggle the need for Since the end of the 19708 the Fund has consisted of the following three Aocoun ta. The firet is the General Account, which provides the means to finance education, social and medical assistance to the Namibians. The main activity charged to this Account is a programme of individual fellowships, which provides education assistance to Namibians. At present 214 students are studying under the pr ogr amme in 16 coun tr iea . Secondly, there is the Nationhood Programme Account. The Programme was conceived to help prepare Namibians for the task of governing their country after independence, through a broad programme of assistance or iented towards dwelopment. Under the mandate given by the Assembly to the Council for Namibia, the Programme, which includes both training and research projects, is being carried Ollt in oontwlt.ation with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). At prO!!lent: liH?vtilral hundred Namibians benefit from training opportunities under the Programme, !!Ind El number of rl.1lports and investigations providing information and outlining policy opt.ions in various socio-economic spheres have been carried out. Vene~llela) I there is the anltoo Nat.lons Institute for N'!mibia oocount, the of the Institute for Namibia, located in Lusaka, ~ambia. The establ ished 11 years ago, carries OH t research and provides t.rain il'\<;I for T"'''''''';,"", middle-level government officials and teachers" secretaries and magistrates i.ndependent Namibia. About 600 students are involved in the InsUt,ute. Since the Fund's creation in 1971 more than IHjl million has bE'len channelled tb.rough it, mainly to provide education and t.raining to a large number of Namibians who" as a result of the Bantu education system, have been denied aCCeSs to educational means in Namibia. A great deal has been done so far, and, as a direct r eaul t of Our effor ts, the nUmber of Namib ians with a sound educa tional base has increased significantly. However, the need for assistance is fa.r from having been met, and we must intensify our assistance to Namibians so that at the time of independence they are ready to govern their country efficiently for the benefit of the whole population. In order to maintain the present momentum and improve Council for Namibia assistance programmes considerable financial reSources will be required in the coming years. Although in recent years voluntary contributions to the three Accounts have shown an upward trend, the resources available today are not sufficient to meet increasing needs. In this connection, I cher ish the hope that the traditional donors to the Fund will be able to increase their contributions next year. I also appeal to those countries that are not now donors to consider pledging contributions at the forthcoming pledging conference, to be held next March. In that connection, I would point out that the current Olsslstanct'! programmef$ cover sever al impor tant projects r equir ing large financial inpu ts each year in order to keep up their actNi ties. I have in rrdnd in par ticular the on-the-job attachment programme, established in 1984 to provide Namibians who have finished their schooling with an opportunity to gain practical experience by working in a number of count-ries, particularly in Africa. The program'l\e bas been considerably increased in the past bw years, and it is to be hoped that by t.~e beginning of 1988 more than 100 young l~amibians will join it. Mother important project is the United Nations Vocational Tl:"aining Centre, located in Angola, which provides training in technical skills to about 200 Na:lttwians each year. Those two projects requir e sever al hundred thousand dollar s a year, which is why I repeat my appeal to all donor s to consider suppor ting them wi th con tr ibu tions to the Fund, either of a general nature or for specific projects. With that t!Jhort introduction, I commend draft resolution E for unanimous adoption. The PRESIDE:~T (interpretation from Russian) ~ I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes before the voting on any or all of the five draft resolutions in document A/42/24 (Part Ill) and (Part III)/Corr.l. I remind the Assembly that, in accordance wi th Gen er al Assembly deci5ion 34/401, such statements are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by I:Glpresentatives from their seats. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their votes after all the votes have been conducted. now before the General Acasembly on behalf of th~ 12 r,:tAlmber States of A nurlmber of familiar but con trover sial elements relT'.ain in the inct'EH\lS i.l'lgly 1 draft resolutions before us. We are concerned, first. at the unbalanced approach taken by the Council for Namibia in initiating certain activiti.t!!s and, !!lie'Condlly. at the introduction of a number of paragra.phs which are of doubtful relevance to the cen tral aim of seour ing Namibia's independence.. The introduction of such elements makes unanimous apprO'lal of the draft resolutions by the General Assembly impossible. Indeed. it risks accentuating divisions among the membership of the Uni ted Nations when there is, more than ever, a need to mObU ize th(ll full support of the international community in pursuit of the common goal of internationally recognized independence for Namibia. The Twelve cannot endorse calls for Member States to render increased military assistance to the Sou th West Afr ica People's Organiza tion (SWAPO) as a means of bringing Namibia to independence. Similarly, we cannot agree to lend our support to armed struggle as a means to this end, in spite of the impatience and frustration felt by the Namibian people owing to South Africa's continuing occupation of their country. In the view of the Twelve the general and primary duty of the United Nations is to promote peaceful solutions in conformity with the Charter, thus avoiding any encouragement of the USe of force. The Twelve consider that under the provisions of the settlement plan the constitution of an independent Namibia must be worked out by a constituent assembly appointed as a result of elections in which all political groups are able to participate. None of those groups should therefore be designated in advance as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The "!"Aelvewish to reaffirm their commitment to the principle of universality of membership of the united Nations. We cannot accept that it should be called into Q\uution or that the autonomy of the international financial institutions should be compromised. The total isolation of South Africa would in our view hioo@r effortB to secure the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. 'fhe Twelve reject any arbitrary and selective singling out of individual countries or group. of countries. Our respect for the division of competence among the main bodies of the Organization remains unchanged. The Security Council alone is authorized to take decisions binding upon Member States. I must also register our concern at the financial implications of some of the draft resolutions now hefore the Assemhly. A more thorough scrutiny of the programme of work of the Council for Namibia would have enabled the financial implications to be reduced without endangering attainment of the goals we all Seek. As with any new expenditure in the current financial situation, the position will need to be carefully monitored in the light of developments. As I have already sta,ted, We remain firmly and unequivocally committed to the ind<llpendence of Namibia. The illegal occupation of Namibia by South Afr iea must be ThiS. onl.y .aoceptable basis for ap.eaceful ·and lasting solution t·o an is the implementatl.on without pre-conditions or pretext of resolutions 38S(l976) and 435 (1978). The s'eUlen1lent plan endorsed the second of these resoluti.ons - which has been accept.ed both by tlH~ GO\lernll~Eg,nt Africa and by the SouthWest Af.rica People'SI Organization - embodies the universally accepted framework for a peaceful transition to independence ioa ~nner which is guaranteed to be free and fal r. We wish to see the plan hmplemented without delay and in its entirety 50 that the Narnl.bian people may mOV'lii forward to the internationally recognized independence which is their due. Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretation from French): The United Nations plan under Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978) is the sole acc~pt;.abl~ basis for the settlement of the Namibian question. France, which played an important role in the elaboration of that plan, remains firmly in favour of its speedy and unconditional implementation with a view to the Territory's becoming independent. As noted by the Secretary-General in his latest reports, all the outstanding questions concerning implementation of the plan have now been resolved. Its implementation, however, remains blocked by South Africa's insistence on linkage between the independence of Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. My delegation reiterates that it reJects this South African demand, Which links the future of Namibia to considerations unrelated to the question and subordinates the independence of the Territory to the settlement of issues extraneous to resolution 435 (1978). Last week France voted in favour of Security Council resolution 601 (1~a7l, authorizing the Secretary-General to take new initiatives with a view to arran.ging a cease-fire between South Africa and the South West Africa People's Organization in order to undertake the necessary measures for the emplacement of the united Natiol'W Tranlliition Assistance Group. The French del.egation supports that initiative and reiterates its full support for tbe Secretary-General'g actions. France is especially concerned at the situation in southern Africa, and in particular 1n Namibia. with respect to that Terri tory, 'France remains ready to contribute to the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan and wishes to w.aintain Cl position which will enable it, when the time comes, to co-operate in the completicm of the process leading to the independence of Namibia. That is why my delegat.ion will l1'.alntain its customary position of abstention on principle on the five draft resolutions before the General Assembly. Mhs BYRNE (United States of America): This extended debate on Namibia in the plenary Aasemb1y comes only one week after the Security Council's dldiberation on the topic. The number of speakers in each case demonstrates the importance of the hsue to us all. The United states is totally committed to the goal of Namibian independence through the implementat.ion of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). The problem of Namibia stems from the clear and simple fact that the Republic of South Africa is Illegally occupying the Territory of Namibia. South Africa has no right to be in Namibia, no right to control the internal and external policies of that country, and no right to use it as a staging area from which to violate the borders of ndghbour log States. One caUSe for a degree of guarded optimism, however, is that after a hiatus of almost two years Angola has resumed discussions concerning Cl regional political ~lettlement, the EU\Sential condition of effective implementation of Security Council r ••olution 435 (1978). Sit\ict't Apr H. Assistant Secret·ary for African Affairs Crocker has tuet "'ith belped to clarify the steps to be taken in order to reach an agreement llioceptable to all sides in the Namibian conflict. Contacts between ourselves a.nd Angolans are continuing. The United States remains fully coolmitted to reaching a settlement that will protect the secur.ity interests of Angola and the otJ)li)f partie,s involved, as well as bring independence to the long-subjugated people of Hafllibia. Unfortunately, those developments are not reflected in the five draft resolutions on Namibia currently before the Assembly - especially not in the most political and hortatory of these, draft resolutions A and B. At the same time my Government recognizes that these latest resolutions represent some improvement over those of the past few years. They contain no explicitly cri tical references to the United States. The United States has traditionally abstained on the annual Namibia draft resolution in the General Assembly because of our active involvement, together with other contact group members, in efforts directed towards a negotiated settlement. We shall abstain again this year, even though these draft resolutions continue to contain language with which we disagree ana against which we have voted in other contexts. For example, we object to the repeated references to the South West Africa People1s Organization (SWAPO) as the "sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people". This characterization of SWAPO is disputed by many Namibians. Only the Namibian people themselves, in the free and democratic electionl1ll called for in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), can definitively choose their representatives. In addition, draft resolution A expresses support for an armed struggle led by SWAPO and COllrlmeOOS SWAPO for its intensification of such a struggle. The United states cannot: associate i teelf with such calls to violence. We object to the use of United Nations resolutions as a means to 1eqitimize armed conflict. We oppose any policy that carries the risk of turning southern Africa, already surfeited with grief and misery, into an even more volatile zone of warfare. Further, the1'le draft resolutions reject and condemn the relationship between the imp1e'l'tIentat ion of resolut ion 435 (1978) and the need for a reg iona1 settlement th<!lt would permit the withdrawal of foreign forces from both Namibia and Angola. to the 'goal of Namibian independence. But, as Ambassador Okun !liOt:ed in the Security Council last we~kt no amount of wishful thinking can resolution 435 (1978) without Cl settlem~nt that addresses the secur concerns of both Angola and South Afr ica. That is a fact. The South Africans havEI Illade it clear that they will not relinquish their hold over Namibia until the qU1estion of the Cuban troop presence in Angola is resolved. Tha.t is a fact.. And th~ A.ngolans will not consider their borders secure until the South Afr ican presence in Namibia is a thing of the past.. That is also a fact. l'h. irony of this situation is that all parties to the conflict have now put forward proposals based on the irrefutable premise that a meaningful and lasting agreement on the independence of Namibia can be achieved only if the security concerns of both principal outside parties - Angola and South Africa - are satisfactor ily met. These draft resolutions also reject and condemn the phrase "constructive engagement", which they mischaracterize as a policy that has encouraged South Africa to maintain its opposition to the decisions of the international community regarding Namibia. These paragraphs of the draft resolutions assert relationshi?6 between the United States and South Africa which do not exist. They only serve to obscure the real issues. Finally, these draft resolutions urge the security Council to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. The United States position on this point is well known. The United States has underscored our opposition to apartheid over the years by a series of bilateral measures as well as our support of numerous United Nations resolutions condemning South Africa's racial polici€:l!il. However, we oppose sweeping world-wide sanctions that would be unworkable and counterproductive. Their impact would be contrary to the interests of both South AfrIca's oppressed majority and the regional economies of States in southern Africa. Every United Nations Mel!!lber state should be free to taxe the steps that it believes are most appropriate and effectiv·e on both the apartheid and Namibia questions. Draft resolut ion B goes even further. It asks the Secur ity Council to set a 31 December 1987 deadline for the commencement of implementation of resolution 435 (1978), after which the Council would be called upon to apply the relevant provisions of the Charter, including comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII. This draft resolution goes on to declare that if the Security Council's efforts are still unsuccessful by 29 September of next year the General A8sembly will then consider necessary action of its own. It is not within the purview of this Assemhly to set short and unrealistic deadlines for the work of the Security CounciL Such pronouncements only serve further to complicate the solution. On a separate but related issue, based on the statements made in the Fifth CommittEH~ by the Secretariat, it is the clear understanding of the united States delegation that the draft resolutions currently before us involve no change in the praotice of the Council regarding language services that would entail costs beyond those listed in the programme budget implication statement submitted to the Fifth Committee, all of which can be accommodated within the proposed programme budget for 1988-89. This understanding has been a key element of my delegation's ability to support a consensus on these issues. In closing, I wish to emphasize that a Namibia settlement is coming within reach. tJnfort.llnately, these latest draft resolutions do not help to br ing our oommon goal closer to fruition. of the Federal Republic of Germ:any on the question of Namibia is well Tben,: O<"lJ8 been no change in our attitude. As we have r€lpeatitldly stated, lfIQ5t :recently on 30 October 1987 dudng the Secur ity Council meeting on Namibia, Gounjcil resolution 435 (1978) is "'the indispensable basis for a settlement of the question of Namibia. Resolution 435 (1978) is and remains the only foundation ror Namibhls achievement of its internationally recogni:l!oo independence. In accordancl!l with resolution 435 (1978), the constitution of an independent Namibia is to be adopted by a constituent assembly elected in free and fair elections, und€lc Uni ted Nations supervision, and by such an assembly only." (S/PV. 2758 t :e. 12) As has been pointed out on corresponding occasions in recent years, thQ Federal Republic of Germany, as Cl member of the Contact Group, could be involved in negotiations on the implementation of the settlement plan adopted by the Security Council in 1978. In order not to prejudge the outcome of these negotiations in any way, the Federal Republic of Germany has to refrain from associating itself in either a positive or a negative manner with the drafts before the General Assembly. For this reason the Federal Repuhlic of Germany will ahstain on all draft resolutions before us concerning the auestion of Namibia. Such abstention is motivated by purely procedural reasons. Abstaining for reasons of principle and procedure, my delegation WOUld, as in preVious years, not comment on the substantive contents of the resolutions before us. My delegation will restrict its comments to a special aspect of principle. We regret very much that this year also some countries, including my own, hav~ been singled out in the draft resolutions. Thus, for instance, in operative paragraph 40 of draft resolution A, the Federal Republic of Germany is called upon "to discontinue all programmes of development aid and assistance to illegally occupied Namibia". On thh my deleqa.tion ""ould like to comment as follows. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany does not, as repeatedly stated, recognize the so-called interim government and considers it null and void. There is no co-operation between the Federal Government and illegally occupied Namibia, nor will there be such co-operation before full independence. But should this mean that the needs of the Namibian population should be totally ignored if calls for help and assistance, especially on humanitarian grounds, are expressed? As a member of the Contact Group and also for historic reasons, my country feels e§pecially committed to the Namibian people. That is why my country has been willing to mitigate, on humanitarian grounds, the suffering of the Namibian people and to prepare the Namibian population for independence. My delegation attaches great importance to the fact that assistance programmes to this effect are benefi ting the non-white popUlation in Namihia. Let me repeat: nothing could more deflect the truth than the insinuation that my country's programmes of assistance to the Namihian people are aimed at supporting the interim government in Windhoek, installed by South Africa and recognized by nobody, in order to perpetuate the present situation there. A restricted number of development projects undertaken by private organizations have been supported by my Government for the direct benefit of the Namibian people. The partnerl!3 on both ~ides in such projects are non-governmental agencies. The Namibilim partners, preferably the churches, have to fulfil the condition of po1itioal neutrality. delegation objects as a matter of principle to na:llle-calling in General resolutions. Apart Erai'll that" and for the reasons just set forth, we find it inappropriate and unfair that on account of private-sector development ilssistance given to the Namibian people mainly for hmaanitarian reason.s, the Fede:ral Republic of Germany has been singled out and called by name in one paragraph of draft resolution A before us. Furthermore, Mr. President, also in operative paragraph 16 of draft resolution A, my country - in this case together with other countries - has been mentioned by name. We think that the authors of the draft resolution could have formulated the request expressed in this paragraph wit:hout doing so. We regret that the Council for Namibia has initiated legal proceedings against a Member State of the United Nations - all the more in view of the fact that this particular country was not offered an opportunity beforehand to state its case in the Council for Namibia. In addition, I would remark, in conclusion, that I do not consider it opportune to mention one single human-rights organization, as is done in draft resolution A. Private human-rights organizations deserve praise for their engagement in individual cases. Human-rights organizations, however" do not in all cases have access to complete and reliable information. That is why errors can occur when they assess factual situations. But errors of this kind cannot justify summary censure, least of all in a United Nations resolution. Mr. McDONAGH (Ireland): Ireland shares the reservations held in common by the twelve member States of the European Community, as expressed by tf1e representative of Denmark. I should like now to explain my delegation's voting positions on the draft resolutions before us. Ireland's position on tbe question of Namibia has been clearly stated on many previous occasions in the General Asse.mbly. My Govenh"ilent is firmly committed to the independence of l~amibia. We wish to see South Afr ica' s illegal occupat ion of Namibia brought to an end without further delay. We unreservedly condemn South Africa for prolonging this occupation, in defiance of the expressed wishes of the international cOlll.munity and of resolutions of the Security Col:lncil. We believe that the people of tiamibia must be given the freedom to exercise their fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination, in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We condemn without hesitation any attempts to delay, through pte-conditions or otherwise, the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. It is clear from variOUS actions taken by the South African Government that South Africa ia bent on frustrating the goal of Namibian independence. The establishment of an unrepresentative internal administration in Namibia, which has been condemned by the Security Council, is clearly designed to impede and further delay the implementation of the settlement plan. It is totally unacceptable to the international community. Under international law, as defined by the United Nations Security Council and by the International Court of Justice, South Africa has a clear obligation to end its illegal occupation of Namibia. Ireland has always accepted that if South Africa remained intransigent the process of negotiation might have to be supplemented by specific measures by the international community designed to compel South Africa to honour this clear obligation. We believe that these measureS I!lhould include a Set of mandatory sanctions against South Africa, properly imposed by thEil Security Council, and that, in order to seCure the effectiveness of these ~anctions through their widest possible acceptance and implementation, they should is ourgenepl.l approa'9h to the question of N~ibia ano. it was a9ain~t t~~t: iI),aok.ground that we eXalutned the five draft. rElsolutions before us. We decided in favour of twoofthe.m and to abstain on three. t turn .first to draft resolution At on the situation in Nalllibia. As in yeairS, my delegation can support many of the provisions contailledin draft. Unfortuna.tely, however, we arE! also faced w1th a number of formulations which, as in the past, ·we are unable to accept . Accordingly, we art'} obliged to abstain in the voting on this text. Operative paragraphs 4, 6, 14, 15 and 48 of the draft resolution give explicit support to armed struggle. We have made clear in the past our unrlllserved opposition to any endorsement of violence by the AssemblYI even it we can understand the anger and sense of frustration which drive Namibians to take up arms to secure independence. I should saYI too, that we do not believe that the selective singling out of certain groups of countries for condemnation and criticism in this and other draft resolutions can promote our common objective in the Assembly. My delegation regrets also that it must abstain on draft resolution B, on the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (197ti). As I indicated earlier, Ireland strongly supports the United Nations settlement plan endorsed in that reSOlution, and we firmly believe that its implementation should not be delayed. We continue, however, to doubt the wisdom or efficacy of calls for the imposition of comprehensive sanctions against South Africa at this juncture. We believe that the right policy for the international community is one of steady and graduated pressure for change through carefully chosen, selective mandatory sanctions to b. properly imposed by the Security Council and fully implemented by all. Ireland will vote in favour of draft resolution Cif on the programme of work of the United Nations Council for liamibia. We support in general the efforts of the Council to end South Africa's illeqaloccupation of Namibia. Hol/{ever, we have some reservations about tIle powers of the Council for Namibia in regard to certain issuee and we see difficulties about certain recommendations of the Council. Ireland will abstain on draft res·olution 0, on the dissemination of information and mobilization of international public opinion in support of the immediate independence of Namibia. We would have wished to be able to vote in favour of this draft resolution. It is important for the United Nations Council for Namibia. to consider ways and means of mobilizing public opinion in support of the !Zltruggle of the Namibian people for self-determination and independence. My delegation could therefore support many of the provisions of the draft. Regrettably, however, it also contains some formulations which we cannot accept. One example is operative paragraph 12 (c), which appeals to non-governmental organizations, and so forth, to expose and campaign against the political and economic collaboration of certain Western Governments with the South African rQgime, as well as diplomatic visits to and from South Africa. We fail to see that such a campaign could be anything but harmful to the pursuit of our common objectives. As regards the references to the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) in this and other draft resolutions, I wish to reaffirm Ireland's apprElciation of the leading role which SWAPO plays in seeking independence for Namibia. When free and fair elections are held under United Nations auspices and §luplilrvision -a proposal which SWAPO has accepted and which Ireland strongly ~upport!3 - thE! people of Namibia will then have the opportunity to choose their reprl!'lSlentatives freely and through a democratic process. FinallY;tI w:lshto mention draft rasolution E, on the Unitoo Nations Fund for My delegation will vote in favour of this draft resolution$ as i.t has that. tbe United Nations Fund for Naminh. performs a valuable function in pr{}vid1ni ~ssi'Stance to Nami.bians who have suffered a.s a result of the illegal occupation t~1r la.nd by South Africa. Mr. PONDER (Belgium) {interpretation from French): One week after the Security Council adopted resolution 601 (1981) the General Assembly has once again held a long debate on the question of Namibia. Faced with the intransigence of South Africa, the international co.'U1unity has reiterated its irrevocable and increasingly active commitment to the independence of that Territory. Belgiwl1, a merrber of the United Nations Council for Namibia, also deplores the unjustified prolongation of South Africa's occupation of Namibia more than 20 years after that Ten itory was placed under the direct responsibility of our Organiz.ation. In joining in the consensus by which all members of the Council for Namibia adopted its annual report my country wished to confirm its position in the light of this situation and to reaffirm its support for a people which has for so long been deprived of its inalienable right to sel~determinationand independence. However, as the Permanent Representative of Denmark has just done on behalf of th~ European Community, my delegation must recall certain standing principles of itl international policy which mean that it cannot but have reservations with regard to the draft resolutions before us. On draft resolutions A, Band D, which deal respectively with the situation in Namibia, implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and dissemination of information, my delegation will abstain. The reasons for this threefold abstention are identical to those that we have given in the past. Most of the language that caused us difficulty previously has been maintained in these draft resolutions. On draft resolution A, for example, my country still has some reservations in oonnection with the status imputed to the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the support given to armed struggle, the selective reference to countries, the breaking off of all relations with South Africa, and the appeal for irnpo!l!ittion of the sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter. to recall the PQedtion it took on the Lmmda legation WOlJl,d and the f lo.a.l of toe 2 October ministerialmeetincg of the Nations Council for Namibia. Finall,y, my delegation oould not have voted in favour of paragraph 75 of this draft resolution had it been put to a separate On draft resolution El, my delegation tegretsthat the W(,istern members of the Sec1.u::ity Council have been criticized. Once again we would like to insist on scrupulous respect for the specific mandate of that body. Pa.r:agraphs 13, 14 I 15, 17 and IB of that draft resolution are not in line with that criterion. With regard to draft resolution D, on the dissemination of information, henli too my delegation cannot go along with a number of concepts that have been improperly included in the mobilization campaign and which have lessened its eff icaey. On the other hand, my delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution C, on the programme of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia, while recalling the conunents made when consider'ing the financial implicat.ions. My delegation will also vote in favour of draft resolution E, on the United Nations Fund for Namibia. My country shares the feelings of frustration felt by the Namibian people and the front-line States at the South African Government's delaying tactics and their consequence: the continued illegal occupation of Namibia. Belgium firmly believes that the question of Namibia should be resolved as quickly as possible on the basis of Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978). We are convinced that the settlement of this decolonization question will lead to positive developments for the entire region. For this reason we consider that the new mission that has been entrusted to the Secretary-General by the Security Council is of crucial i.Jlv'~rtance in the efforts to ensure the rapid implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. Mr. NTAKHw:P.NA {Bot.swanaJ; Botswana will vote in favour of all the draft resolutions contained in document 11./42/24 (Part Ill) and Corr. I, but we ....ish to state our incapacity to implement those paragraphs which call for the imposition of economic sanctions against the Pretoria regime. Mrs. de PERALTA (Guatemala) (interpretation from Spanish): Guatemala has followed very closely the debates that have taken place year after year on the question of Namibia. On this occasion, ....hen we Guatemalans have a democratic Government, we feel very sad that other peoples do not enjoy the same kind of government. We very much regret that South Africa does not comply with Security Council resolutions 385 (1976) and 435 (1978), General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of IndElpendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI), of October 1966, whereby it was agreed to terminate South Africa1s Mandate over Namibia. My country cannot disregard the fact that this year is the twentieth anniversary of the establishment by the General Assembly of the United Nations Council for Namibia as the legal Administering Authority for that Territory. Therefore, we express our concern that South Africa should have disregarded for all this time the decisions of the Security Council. We affirm our solidarity with the people of Namibia because we feel that today more than ever it is important that the tilnHrliJi international community give its support to those regions. which, iike Namibia, ~uffer under the yOke of colonialism and are denied their fundamental '1'hat is why Gucat~ala joins all those countries that htiverepudiat(jlte;tthe prevailing in Namibia. 'giupport the efforts of the Secretary-General of the Uni tea Nations to Sl:Jeed u,p' process that will lead to the independence of Na.i1llibia and shall vote in of all the draft resolutions submitted to the Assembly I with the sole proviso that my country objects to recourse to armed action since we believe that conflicts should be settled rationally and peacefully. We hope that South Africa will soon comply with the decisions and nsolution$ of the United Nations and grant independence to the people of Namibia so that they aay enjoy all their rights. My Government once again reaffirms its support for and solidari.ty with the suffering people of Namibia and urges the entire international community to help them to achieve independence. Mt. PRIR1 (Mal.awi):: I should like to state that our delegation is in full support of all the draft resolutions before the Assembly. We firmly believe that the time is long overdue for this problerti to have been set behind us so that Namibia should no longer be a subject for talk, but should be a full participant in talking about meaningful issues before this Assembly. In doing so, ho-we'Ver, we should like to restate our position in regard to two aspects. In the first instance, we have not been convinced that certain measures are always the only and the right answers to solving problems. Nevertheless, it hal'5 never been our view that only positions held by us are absolute. Therefore, whilst .e do not believe that we shoula stand in the way of others who would wish to have sanctions as the means of solving this or any other problem, we ourselves, because we are unable realistically to participate in such measures, must be honest and Bay to this Assembly that we find ourselves having to reserve our position on BanctionB. We have reservations on various paragraphs of draft resolution A, for exarnpll!\!, on opera.tive paragraph 79, we have the same reservations on operative paragraphs 15 and 16 of draft resolution B. We understand why it is necessary for the Assembly to call upon members in these instances, and we fully appreciate it, but our delegation finds itself unable to go along with it, because we would realiflltically be unable to comply with that request. Secondly, it has always been our view that, in fairness and in order to be effective in what we do, we must respect one another and seek to carry one another along with our decisions. Therefore, we do not find it helpful to name-call or to aingIe out individual States for condemnation and other isolated actions, when in truth we all know that the issue affects more than those who are singled out. In thil r ••pect, I only want to give as an example paragraph 76 of draft r••olution A. There are many other examples throughout these draft resolutions. liiy delegation wishes to, reaffirlii that we shall be vot.ing for tnose resolutions, but wee shall reserVe our posltion. as usual. on thOse IH:lfH:!'OtS 1ll'oore we find ourselves unable to comply. The PRESIDEN'l' (interpretation from Russian): Ne have heard the last flpl:l"a.,ker in explanation of vote before the vote. Before proceeding to the vote on the draft resolutions contained in document W42/24 (Part Ill) and Con.l, I wish to draw the attention of the ASSembly to the provisions of special rule F in annex III to the rules of procedure, which will be applied, as in the past, in the voting on all proposals under agEmda item 36, entitled nQuestion of Namibia", at the current session. Consequently, a two-thirds majority of the representatives present and voting shall be required for adoption of the proposals before the Assembly. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolutions A to E recommended by the United Nations Council for Namibia in chapter I, paragraph 2 of document A/42/24 (Part Ill) and Corr.l. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft resolutions has been issued under the symbol A/42/716. The General Assembly will now begin the voting process. 1 shall now put to the vote draft resolution A, entitled "Situation in Namibia resulting from the illegal occupation of the Territory by South Africa". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Baham,as, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize" B'entn, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil t Brunei Darussalam t Bulgan.a, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi t Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China t Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, De1nocratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fij i, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guaterr.ala, 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 Jamahir iya" Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, '>,!atar, Romania, 1{wanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principet 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 Soviet Socialist R~publicSt United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, ~ambia, Zimbabwe Again13t: None Ab~tainin9: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution A was adopted by 131 votes to none, with 24 abstentions (resolution 42/14 A) . 'rhe PRESIDEN'r (interpretation from Russian): I shall now put to the vote draft resolution Bt entitled "Implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978)". A record.d vote has been requested. In f<i'!VOlU: :Af~9nanistanil' Albania, Algeria. Anqola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina" Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Beli~e, Bel1in, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswan.t:!., Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bu.lgaria, iBurkina Paso, Burma f Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central Afric,an RepUblic, Cnad, Chile, China, Colombia. eom.oros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, DentlOCratic 'lE/men, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador. Equator la1 Guinea, Ethiopia, Fij i, Gabon, Galllb.la, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran {Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Janll~ica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Ar<lb Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Ma1.:'1wi, Malaysia, Haldives, l-lalta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, l-1orocco, l'1.ozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegl!ll, 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 soviet Social:lSt Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxemboury, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution B was adopted by 130 votes to none ,with 24 abstentions (resolution 42/14 B).

I shall now put to the vote jraft resolution C, entitled "Programme of work of the United Nations Council for '1amibia" • A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan}' Albania, Alger ia, Angola I Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas l Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbado8, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivial Botswana, Brazil, Brunei [)arussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, ByelorussLm Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cameros, Con90, Costa Rica, COte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djioouti l Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea l Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Greece l Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraqi Ireland, Israeli Italy, Jamaica, Japa.n, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's D·emocratic RepUblic, Lebanon, Lesotno, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lux,embourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta., Mauritania, Maur itius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, l~orwaYI Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tom,e and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lank.a, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining: Canada, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution C was adopted by 149 votes to none, with 6 abstentions (resolution 42/14 C). D, entitled mobilization of ;!E'literna.t: lonal pUblic opinion lnsupport of the !ate Namibia" • A r~orded vote has been requested. lI\. recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria. Angola, .Antigua and Barbuda. Argentina., Austral la. Bahamas, Bahrain. Bangladesh, Barbados. Belizer Ben!n, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Bra.il, Brunei Darussalam,.Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorusl':>ian Soviet ,Socialist Republic,. Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia., Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cypnls, Cll!I!!Ohoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Dj ibout i, Dominican Republi.c, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Gr~nada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti; Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islellmic Repllblic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya., Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda t Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe , Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, 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 t Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, zimbabwe None Against: Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, portugal, Spain, Sweden, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution D was adopted by 133 votes to none, with 22 abt&ltentionc resolution 42/14 D). resolution E, entitled "United Nations Fund for Namibia". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Alger ia, An.gola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, 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, Comoroa, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d' Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ojibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, 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, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining~ Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution E was adopted by 149 votes to none, with 5 abstentions resolution 42/14 El.* *Sub6equently the delegation of Kenya advised the Secretariat that it had Hr. BIRCH (Uni ted Kincgdom),: My delegation shares the view of all those 'tiI'M have spoken in this debat,e that Namibia should be brought to internationally recognized independence at the earliest possible time. As one of the authors of the united Nations settlement plan, we remain co~itted to the full implement.ation of SE!Curlty Council resolution 435 (1978). In order to sustain our impartial position in relation to the settlement plan, the united Kingdom has traditionally declined to take a position on the substance of the draft resolutions on Namibia presented to the General Assembly. Accordingly, we abstained in the votes on all five draft resolutions before the Assembly today." Although we have serious misgivings about many paragraphs of the draft resolutions, we are pleased that their language is less arbitrary and extreme than in recent years. Selective and unjustified name-calling can only bring discredit to the United Nations and diminish its international standing. We regret that a fuw instances of name-calling have remained. We remain concerned at the continuing extravagance of some of the activities of the Council for Namibia. Although the estimates based on the 1988 draft programme are somewhat lower than those in the 1988 portion of the proposed programme budget, the provision for the Council's regular activities has increased. Furthermore, it is proposed that nearly $170,000 be set aside to meet the costs of legal action being taken by the Council in the Netherlands. We greatly doubt the utility or wisdom of that expenditure on an action which we * Mr. Moumin (Comoros), Vice-President, took the Chair. consider inappropriate and misguided. In our view, the Council would benefit from 11 thorough review of its staffing and activities. we lCXJK forward to seeing ne.xt. year the results of the current review cOIdlissioned by the Secretary-General. Finally, I should like to say that some of the new elements in resolution 42/14 B se~l!l to us unrealistic. The British Government's views on the effectiveness - or otherwise - of mandatory sanctions are well known and I need not repeat the'Tn here. We have also made it clear that we do not accept the concept of linkage. But it is a fact of life that the settlement plan can only be implemented wi th the acauiescence of the South Afr ican Government. To set a date for the comrnencement of implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without the concurrence of the South African authorities would risk diminishing the standing of the Security Council. That !'laid, I cannot emphasize too strongly the Br itish Government IS commitment to Becur it.y Council resolution 435 (1978) and to its early implementation. We understand and we share the frustration of the internat 10nal community at the unjustified delay in bringing Namibia to independence. We have left the south African Government in no doubt about our views on this point, or about the importance we attach to their co-operation in the implementation of the settlement plan. We support all efforts, particularly those of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative, which are genuinely designed to secure the independence of Namibia. We will ourselves continue to work to achieve this. Mr. AKYOL (Turkey) (interpretation from French): In conformity with the firm Iilupport we have pledged to efforts in favour of the independence ot N1'IlUll.D.l:d, my delegation vot€ld in favour of all the draft resolutions recommended to the General Assembly by the United Nations Council for Namibia. 'lJeagree with their main thrust, lifiY delegation regrets that of controversial elaments the draft resolutions were unable to I!n:i.~s approvaL. B'ut we are convl.noed that" like the recent Security 601 (1987), the resolutions just adopted will contribute to solving My delegation l;Iould wish, in general, to make reservations with respect to SOl!l,e discr 1min.atory references in both toe resolutions and the annual report of the United Nations Council for Namibia. In principle Turkey is opposed to the designation, specifically or otherwise, of third-party States or groups of States, on the basis of geographical, political or other criteria, for the purpose of criticiZing them, condemning them or holding them exclusively responsible for policies followed by South Africa. In this context, my deleg,ation has serious reservations with respect to the inclusion of paragraph 40 of the first resolution because on 9 September 1987 the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany assured the Council that there was no collaboration between his Government and the so-called provisional gOVElrnrnent of Windhoek. My delegation has taken careful note of the assurances the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany has just recalled for us. Mr .JACOBOVITS DESZEGED (Netherlands): My delegation fully associates itself with the statement on the resolutions given by the Danish representative in the name of the 12 member States ot the European Community. My delegation, however, would like to make a few additional remarks with regard to some paragraphs in the resolutions referring directly or indirectly to my country. On 14 July 1987 the United Nations Council for Namibia decided to initiate legal proceedings against two Netherlands companies, as well as against the State of the Netherlands, in order to halt operations deemed to be in violation of the Councills Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia. Suah a .tap i. unprecedented. That the Council choee to sununon a Member State of the United Nations in a court of law is of course a decision for the Council itself. It is unclear to my Governm(mt why the Council for Namibia singled out the Netherlands for legal action. \\I;as not offered a pro;peropportunity its case in a formal session of the Council prior to the latter's decis!'On the Council's task to protect the natur,al resources of Nalv,ibia, pending its indepeindence, one would have expected the Council to concentrate on real and caSes of pillage and deplet.ion of Namibia's wealth. 'l~he aotivities of the ~the:rlands oompanies, summoned in court by the Council, by no means fall within this category. 'fherefore, there is no justification to institute legal proceli£ldings against the State of the Netherlands. In this context, 1 wish to draw attention to our letter dated 23 July 1987 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and circulated as document A/42/4l4 among Member States of the General Assembly, clarifying the position of my Government on the allegations of the Council as presented in its writ of summons. A matter that does deserve the attention of the Council is, in our opinion, the deteriorating fish stock in the Namibian offshore waters. Documented reports prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Development Programme have focused on massive depletion by some States. Why has the Council for Namibia until now failed to take any decisive ~tion to put an end to this form of exploitation? In addition to the above-mentioned considerations, we strongly believe that the position of my Government is based upon convincing legal arguments. These a~uments will be presented in court. We w1sh to stress that our votes on draft resolutions in the Assembly, be it in the past or the present, may in no way be construed as supportive of the Council's claim in the case pending before th@ Cour t ill the Netherlands. In the light of the developments to which I have ref(llrred, my delegation has abstained this year on the draft resolution on the programme of work Netherlands) of the United ~~ations Council for Na.'1:libia. while maintaining our abstention on draft resolution A. My delegation shares the bitterness ana frustration felt by African States, and other fAeTrlber s of the international cowtlllunity f at the long lasting impasse over t'iamibia' g futur·e. My delegation wishes to reiterate its full support for all endeavours - inclUding those of the United Nations Council for Namibia - to bring Security Council resolution 435 (1978) to a speeay implementation, without any pte-conditions or pretextlEl. We ther·efore welcome reSOlution 601 (19!::l7), which was almost unanimously adopted by the Security Council one week ago. We firmly hope that the Secretary-Gerh':H:al will be successful in his endeavours to arrange a cease-fire between South Africa and the South west Africa People1s Organization, and we reaffirm Our readiness to participate in the United Nations Transition Assistance Group. Mr. ZEPOS (Greece): Following the explanations of vote that were given by the representative of Denmark on behalf of the member States of the European Community, I should like to make some additional comments. My delegation was not able to support all the resolutions just adopted, due to the inclusion of certain elements which we believe do not effectively promote the question of Namibia. Our abstention on some of them, therefore, should in not in any way be construed as reflecting any reservation on their substance. The position of Greece vis-a-vis the abhorrent system of apartheid and the illegal occupltion of Namibia is well known. The qu.~tion of Namibia has been artificially presented as a complex one. In reality it i. simple. All the elements for its SOlution already exist and are contained in numerous General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. Had these ~~;;,1O';flLu,t:i'Oi!ls,particula::rlythose of the Secur ity Oo.uncil. bean implemented, there be no problem of Namibia. However t we see in the case of Namibia, r international problems, binding resolutions being ignored snd bypassed. obligations to comply with th'E! provisions of Seem i ty Council resolutions l\I[re not fulfilled. We have, therefore t a flagrant Case of flouting the authority of the United Nations through the non-implell1entation of its binding resolutions. Nuibia has become a major challenge facing the United Nations. What the people of Namibia, under the leadership of the South West Afrioa People's Organization (SWAPO) is claiming is simply its right to self-determination and independence from the colonial rule of south Afric8 t which continues the illegal occupation with an army of almost 100tOOO men. The independence of Namibia is long overdue. It is the duty of the international community to exert preSlEluttJl on South Africa so that it terminates its colonial presence. As the Foreign Minister of Greece recently stated before the Assembly, the Greek Government strongly condemns the continuation of the illegal occupation by South Africa of Namibia and categorically rejects any linkage of the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) with extraneouS issues, as well as all dilatory tactics used for this purpose. We also consider unilateral actions t such as the establishment of the so-called interim government of Namibia t to be null and void. Namibia should, with no further delay, attain its independence with its territorial integrity and unity intact. Mr. LEmarn (Austria): Austria is on record as having consistently supported the right of the ~Jamibian people to self-determination, which we regard ae a matter of the highest priority. Consequently, my country remains firmly committed to tbe immediate independence of Namibia. Security Council resolution 435 (1978}re1l!1ains to this day the only internationally accepted and satisfactory basis for a just settlement of the question of Namibia. We believe that every effort should be made to follow strictly the path delineated by that resolution. Austria rejects the intransigent attitude of the Government of South Africa, which has so far prevented implementation of the United Nations plan. Austria welcomes the recent adoption of Security Council resolution 601 (1987), and urges all the parties concerned to co-operate fully with the Secre,tary-General to bring about its comprehensive and early implementation. AU6triastrongly supports the main thrust of the texts submitted to the General Assembly under this item. However, we regret that we were unable to vote for all the draft resolutions, since they contain some provisions that Austria cannot support. In particular, Austria believes that endorsement of armed struggle and calls for military assistance are in contradiction the guiding principles of the Charter as well as our conviction that conflicts should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means. Furthermore, we must generally reserve our position with regard to formulations which would prejudge the deliberations and decisions of the Security Council. Nor can Austria associate itself with the singling out of certain countries. P'inally, reftiu::ences to the role of the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) ~hould not be read as prejudging the right of the Namibian people to choose it. reprl.entative8 in a free Namibia through elections under United Nations Por the reasons, 1 hClive stCliteO, AustriCli abstained in the voting on draft resolutions At Band D. We voted for draft resolut.ions C and E, thereby our commitment to the peaceful transition of Namibia to independence on the Msis; of Security Council resolution 435 (1918). Mr. FERM (Sweden): On behalf of the five Nordic countries - Derunark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden - I have the honour to give this explanation of vote with regard to the draft resolutions on the question of Nam.ibia. In our opinion the continued illegal occupation of NliHnibia by South Africa constitutes a threat to internati.onal peace and security. We regard as null and \loid the establishment of the so-called transitional government in Namibia. We categorically reject any unilateral action by South Africa outside the framework Secur i ty Council resolution 435 (1978), the Uni ted Nations settlement plan being the only internationally acceptable basis for the achievement of independence for Namibia. The Nordic countries, further, reject the linking of Namibialg independence to irrelevant and extraneous issues. The international cOl1UTlunity must increase the pressure on South Africa to speed up the implementation of the United Nations settlement plan. The Security Council should consider effective measures to this end, including comprehensive mandatory sanctions. The Nordic countries agree with the main thrust of the resolutions just adopted. Regrettably, however, we were not able to vote in favour of all of them. The reason is that this year's resolutions again contain a number of elements that cause us difficulties of principle. I shall outline these well-known difficulti.~ in general terms. First, we cannot accept formulations that imply endorsement by the Unitt¥!d Nations of the use of armed struggle or call for material or military a••i.tance for such a struggle. Ooe of the basic principles of this Organization, enshrined in the Charter, is to prom,ote peaceful solutions of conflicts. SecondlYI -we deplore the selective and inappropriate singling out of individual countries or groups of countries as being responsible for the policies pursued by Soutn Africa. Thirdly, ,,;e must generally reserve our position with regard to formulations which fail to take into account that only the Security Council can adopt decisions binding upon Melllber States. E'ourthly,we share the view that all parties enJoying support in Namibia ahould be allowed to take part in the political process leading to the independence of ~~amibia and to the establishment of a Government through free and fair elections. Thl':! South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), in our opinion, is to be regarded liS such Cl party, and it is fundamental that SWAPO be made part of any solutiOn to the Namibia question. We have, however, reservations concerning formulations which could prejudice the outc~ne of the political process I have mentioned. We also want to underline that in the current financial situation all United Nations activities, including those of the Council for Namibia, must be carefully mcrutinized to seCure effective and appropriate utilization of resources. In conclusion, I wish to stress our sincere hope that the future recommendations of the Council for Namibia will be changed accord1ngly, tnereby making it possible to express our long-standing support for the Namibian people in our vote5 on the resolutions as we11.* *The President returned to the Chair. the unswerving support of Chile for t.he caUSe of Namibia t s self-determination and i_~a\ipejndei'll'ce# as well as the 'Very positive fact t.hat there has b€!'en a.SeJ:lous to tone down the various texts. However, my delegation must once again express its regret, as it has in othet United Nations bodies, that texts continue to contain sonle expressions provisions that we do not consider to be proper and that only lead to the in such draft resolutions, of a language and tone that is uselessly pole~.io. Thll'il, of course, does not help the cause, with whOSe principles and objective~w. all identify. First, the Chilean delegation does not agree with the support given to the armed struggle in various parts of the resolutions just adopted. Essentially, the United Nations is an Organization devoted to the noble task of peace-keeping. ~erefore, we cannot in such documents support war-like action. Secondly, the specialized agencies and bodies of the United Nations system must preserve their universality and autonomy in order to be able to fulfil their obligations, partiCUlarly to member States, without interference. Therefore, the Assembly should not interfere in any way in the decisions and activities of such agencies and bodies as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank which should bear in mind only the objectives for which they were established by the member States themselves. In my delegation's view, the same should also be said of some or9~n~ of our Organization, such as the Security Council, when objections are rai~ed to deci~ion~ made by its members through their votes. While one may question opinions advanct1ld by countries: in the debates, one cannot questioo their political decisions manifested in their votes. The last, but not least important, factor that we wish to highlight is our formal objection - expressed in the past - to speci fi c refer ences to cer ta in countries in I§uch resolutions. Such singling out of countries only causes antagonistic reactions, which are counter-productive. They hamper the attainment of our objective and do not benefit Namibia's cause, at a time when it needs all our @upport and co-operation. fitt:.!:!.ightfotwl3Ird matter of decolonization ana self-determination. 'l'he are being denied their right to self-determination by the Government South Africa, which occupies their country illegally in direct defiance of the rul.ings of the world Court and of the resolutions of the Secul" ity Council and of the General Assembly. South Africa. has sought to prolong it.s occupation Of by putting obstacles in the way of the n~otiated settlement that the Seccretary-General, the Contact Group, the Commissioner for Nannbia and the front-line States have made strenuous efforts to achieve. It continues to exploit Namibia's natural resourceS and in order to cement its colonial hold on the country has installed its own puppet regime in Windhoek in defiance of the United Nations and of the wishes of the Namibian people. New Zealand deplores South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia. We deplore its o~stinacy in the face of international calls for a peaceful settlement that will enable the people of Namibia to choose their own government and to decide their own future in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 435 (1978). The international community1s confidence in the important role of the United Nations in facilitating the settlement of the Namibia question was confirmed last week with the adoption of Security Council resolution 601 (1987). We wish the Secretary-General well in his difficult task of negotiating a cease-fire, thus paving the way for a just and lasting solution. We in the General Assembly also have a role to play. Given our views on the main issues, New Zealand would have wiShed to support all the re801utionB before the Assembly today. In so far as they reaffirm the rights of the Namibian people and the need for South Africa to respect toe clearly expressed wiShes of the international community, they have unequivocal support. Three of the draft resolutions do, however, contain elements unacceptable to New Zealand. At previous sessions we have made known our position on such matters as the endorsement of armed struggle in General Assembly resolutions. Similarly we have made clear that we regard it as unproductive to single out individual countries or groups for criticism. Our abstentions on the three resolutions relating to the situation in Namibia, the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the dissemination of information should be seen in that light. Notwithstanding reservations about the practicality of some aspects of the resolution on the programme of work of the United Nations Council for Namibia, we have supported it, together with the resolution on the United Nations Fund for Namibia. Mr. POTTS (Australia): Australia1s continuing and valued membership of the Council for Namibia gives my delegation a particular corronitment to Namibials right to self-determination and independence. Our national position was clearly explained in our statement in the debate this morning. That statement emphasized our continuing commitment to Security Council resolution 435 (197ti) as the only universa.lly accepted plan for Namibia I s independence . Given this universal support for the United Nations plan, it is disappointing that the resolutions which the General Assembly considers year after year on this item cannot command general support. My delegation voted in favour of resolutions C, D and E. Resolution C reflects continuing efforts by the Council for Namibia to exhibit financial restraint without substantially affecting the delivery of its programme. Generally speaking the Councills expenditure has continued to decline in real terms. We would place on record, however, that there are a number of items in its programme which continue to trouble us, such as the unduly high expenditure on conference Iilervices. as resolUtiOns A and B are concerned, my delegation is able fUlly to support They con'tain language winch we regard as unduly - even polemical.. - and directed against certain States even if they are dir'ectly named~ Nonetheless, my delegation nlUst welcome the Council'Si include in the resolutions direct references to particular States by namet believes this to bean encou.raging trend. There is, of course f a notable El:xception to this, to be found in operative paragraph 40 of resolution A. My dt#iJiiergation must express its reservations on that particular paragraph. take the opportunity also to express once again my delegation's misgivings General Assembly's endorsement of the legitimacy of armed struggle and of status of the South West Africa People's Organization as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The reasons for our reticence On those two pOints are well known. In adopting Security Councll resolution 601 (19B7) a week ago todaYt the Council exhibited a near unanimity on the question of Namibia. My delegation hopes that the General Assembly will next year display that same unity of purpose and thus hasten the attainment of Namibia's independence. Mr. BORG OLIVIER (Malta): Malta voted in favour of all the resolutions on the question of Namibia just adopted by the General Assembly because we are firmly committed to the immediate independence of Namibia in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). While we strongly support the main thrust of the resolutions adopted, our J?Ositive vote should not be taken as an unqualified endorsement of all the provisions in the texts. We understand and share the deep feelings of disappointment and frustration of the Namibian people at the endless delays and procrastinations which up to now have prevented implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. The Government of Malta continues to maintain that the best way to achievement United Nations objectives in Namibia is through honest negotiations and constructive dialogue. Accordingly, we c,annot support formulations such as those in resolution A, contemplating recourse to armed struggle, which are inconsistent with the fundamental principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations promoting the settlement of conflicts by peaceful means. Finally, my delegation regrets that a number of countries have been selectively been singled out for criticism in the resolutions.

As will be well known in this forum, the Canadian abstention on the Namibian resolutions is purely the result of Contact Group procedure. We have chosen once more to follow the Group's practice of not entering into the substance of Namibian debates in the Assembly. However, our abstention should not be taken to imply in any way how we might have voted if we were not a member of the Contact Group. Indeed, our position on a number of matters raised in the resolutions voted on today is also well known. While we have reservations in some areas, there is much in the resolutions with Which Canada can agree. As we noted just last week in the Security Council, we are completely supportive of the speediest possible resolution of the Namibian question, that is the immediate independence of Namibia under the provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). of Namibia over the past year or so, especially in the light of the financial constraint. facing this Organization, we were pleased to note that requests for budg~tary allocations for the future work progranune of the Council for Namibia t.o be more modest than in the recent p,ast. We hope that this trend to more e,ff1ecti've use of limited resources will continue. also support the suggestion made by Nor'lo'ay during this debate to the efft?lot !:J>at the Council should consider a different approach to the drafting of resolutions and aim at simpler texts more succinctly demonstrating broad support fo'r the Namibian cause and committing nations to increasing their efforts to bring aboat. the ear 11' independence of Namibia. South African intransigence on the question of Namibia, the creation of a so-called interim government and the setting of conditions for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) are in open defiance of the principles upon Which this ~ganization was founded. South Africa, Namibia and apartheid are rightly given prominence within this Organization. We were pleas,ed that near unanimity ....as achieved with respect to Namibia last week, when the Security Council adopted its resolution 601 (1987). We must of course recall that these topics have already been on the United Nations agenda in one way or another for several decades. The glacial movement in granting the peoples of southern Africa and Na.mibia their rights, therefore, is increasingly unacceptable. We must all work in solidarity towards a speedy solution of the question of Namibia. Canada has joined with others in taking action to underline our determination for positive and peaceful change in southern Africa and we shall continue to do so. There must be no pause in this pressure. South Africa without apartheid, and a free and independent Namibia, are goals we all share. Mr. MOEKETSI (Lesotho): My delegation voted in favour of the five draft resolutions just adopted by the Assembly because Lesotho is committed to the cause of the independence of Namibia. However, we Should like to restate Lesotho's concern regarding the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory economic sanctions for reasons we have stated on previous occasions in this Assembly.

I call on the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the representative of Zambia. Mr.ZUZE (Zambia), President of the United Nations Council for Namibia: On behalf of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the legal Administering Authority for Namibia until independence, I wish to take this opportunity to thank all delegations that supported the draft resolutions on Namibia. Their positive votes have emphasized the high priority the United Nations continues to attach to the qUBmtion of Namibia and to the urgent task of bringing Namibia to independence. The adoption of the resolutions gives the United Nations Council for Namibia freBh impetus for proceeding with its varied activities in support of the Namibian cause with determination. The Council will continue to devote its utmost energy and commitment to the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Assembly, until becom;es independent in accordance with the United Nations plan endorsed R_"'~""ity Council resolution 435 (1978). the Assembly is well aware, in view of the budgetary problems confronting th'E' ited Nations, and particUlarly in response to the Secretary-General's apPeal relating to the need to reduce expenditures, the Council has since 19H6 continued to take prudent and practical steps in that direction, without in any way impairing the effective realization of the mandate. In this connection, the Council wishes to note with appreciation the statement of the Secretary-General and the reports of tne Fifth Committee, the Committee on Conferences and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions on the programme of work of the Council for 1988 and its budgetary implications. The reports of the Fitth Committee and the statement of the Secretary-General conclude that no additional appropriations over and above those already requested under the relevant sections of the 1988-l~H~ proposed programme budget would be required to accommodate the 1988 progranune of activities of the Council. Once again I should like to thank all delegations for the support they have given to the resolutions on the question of Namibia. It remains the fervent hope of the Council that the international community will continue to press vigorously for the immediate and unconditional independence of Namibia. 'rheir active and concerted efforts to implement the relevant provisions of the resolutions on Namibia adopted by the General Assembly today will help advance that objective. The PRESIDEN'r (interpretation from Russian): In accordance with General ~semb1y resolution 31/152, of 20 December 1976, I call on the Observer for the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). Mr. GURlRAB (South West Africa People's Organization (SWA.PO)): Even though only last week many delegations addressed the Security Council on the very same issue, the question of Namibia, we are happy to have noted that no less than 94 representatives took the floor in the debate that has Just been concluded. Our friends and the apologists of apartheid alike stressed the urgent need for the immediate and unconditional independence of Namibia. Our friends, of course, ....ere genuine. Others only paid lip-service. All of them, however, .... ithout exception reiterated their support for United Nations Security Council resolution 435 (1978) as the only internationally accepted basis for a peaceful solution to the Namibia problem. SWAPO was enthusiastically commended for its determined leadership in the struggle of the Namibian people for freedom, self-determination and independence and for ita readiness to sign and observe a cease-fire and also for its expressed willingness to co-operate with the Secretary-General and his Special Representative to secure early independence for Namibia, whose successive generations have Buffered and still continue to suffer the horrors of colonialism, illegality, racism and exploitation. At the same time, the racist Boers in Pretoria and their allies, who jointly continue to refuse to accept the implementation of the United Nations plan and instead put forward linkage as a red herring, were roundly condemned and held directly responsible for the endless violence and politics of postponement that our people have to endure in Namibia. We have been heartened by the repeated expressions of solidarity and renewed pledges of increased and sustained assistance to carry on the struggle, which is destined to be victorious. Of particular importance to us was the fact that so much significance was attached in the debate, by way of welcoming endorsement, to Security Council reaolution 601 (1987) adopted last week, which seeks to trigger implementation of rCllsolution 435 (1978) so that free and fair elections under the supervision and position in. this regard is well known. We are ready to sign and observe a j;J'OC'O::V'i1i.;Jj.,,.L pn their racist ally to accept a cease-fire and the ,e.rnplacement of the united Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) without any further del~y OX: pre'i\l;sr:!cation. Let them first condemn Pretoria's huge military presence in our ooontry land its violence against our people. Our attitude alld the attitudes of our supporters here have demonstrated magna.nimity and flexibility. It is this progressive posture that led to the adoption of Security Council resolution 601 (1987) last week and to the reformulation of language in the draft resolutions which were acted upon this evening here. But, regrettably, what I heard from certain Western delegations that saw fit to explain their votes gave cause for outrage. Their positions have pretty much remained unchanged, in spite of what they themselves have acknowledged to be an accommodating attitude on the part of the sponsors of the draft resolutions, as reflected in those texts. What is it they are really looking for? Capitulation~ Surrender: A case in point is this inordinate fixation on the part of the united States delegation on Angola. The debate last week in the Security Council and the debate just concluded here were not on Angola but on Namibia. Similarly, the draft resolutions just acted upon dealt with the situation in and relating to Namibia, not Angola. The linkage red-herring and other distortions, however often they may be repeated here and in other forums, cannot change the reality of their authors' obstruction and obfuscation in regard to Namibia's independence process. Angola ig a sovereign state which is defending Hself against racist, imper ialist and reactionary aggression; Namibia is a colony crying out for liberation. One is forced to wonder "'hether som.eof these delegations really take the care to read the draft resolutions, or just pull out old statements from drawers and read them out, year after year. On the very day after Pretoria gets out of Namibia - lock, stock and barrel - and its allies end their destructive policies, there will be no need to talk about the costly activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia and its COmllilisl1lioner, about the armed struggle or SWAPO's status as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people, or about the introduction of new elements into the draft resolutions - which of necessity must address new elements in and relating to Namibia. The sooner the racists and these recalcitrant States desist from their obstruction and from repeating these falsehoods, the sooner we shall desist from telling the truth about them. We sincerely thank the delegations that introduced the draft resolutions and all those delegations that voted in favour of the draft resolutions. Their continued support and affirmative votes give encouragement to our people in its struggle and serve as a source of greater confidence among our people to continue the struggle. This indeed gives an operational meaning to the word "solidarity". Some delegations have always managed to find one or another reason for not voting in favour of these draft resolutions. Even if they are modified -

I apologize for interrupting the Observer of SWAPO, but I must draw his attention to the fact that hie time has run out. I would request him to conclude his statement. re601Qtions are modified to a point of nothil19ness, they will manage to s~tbing wrong with the texture of the paper on which the draft resolutions are w![ i t'ten • .Finally, I thank you, Mr. president, for a job well done, and I thank A~assador Reed and his staff for the most helpful service they have rendered to So long as our country remains occupied, it is our right and our duty to continue to struggle.

A number of representatives wish to speak in exercise of their right of reply. May! remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second, and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mc. HOSSEINI (Islamic RepUblic of Iran): My delegation regrets the fact that this morning the Iraqi representative introduced extraneous issues and baseless allegations aga inst my country that could only serve to divert the ~ssembly's attention from the crimes of the Zionist and apartheid regimes as well as the collaboration between those two regimes. I have no intention of following his mistaken path. Instead, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to state that the Islamic Republic of Iran has always s~pported the just struggle of the Namibian people, under the leadership of the South West Afr ica Peoples Organization (SWAPO). We strongly condemn all the Collaboration between certain countries and the racist Pretoria regime, ann espec lally the close, organic ties and all iances between the rac ist zionist r.@g 1mQ occupying Palestine and the racist apartheid regime. The only way to bring peace and security to the Middle East and to South Africa is to annihilate those two Mr. DE FIGUEIREDO (Angola): I have asked to be allowed to speak in order to make sure that delegations are informed of the situation as it prevails in our part of southern A.frica. The presence of internationalist Cuban forces in A.ngola is a sovereign decision between two independent and sovereign States: Angola and Cuba. (Mr. Rossetn!, Islamic Republic of Iran) .3.gree!']'H"ot., as exemplified in Security Council resolution ~35 (1978). 'I'hE.' only w",issing factor is the will of the racist 13il??ftheid r~gim@ of SOut.h Africa and of the United States to allow the implementation of that ma.rldatory resolution. Mr. AL-IUJBAIE (Iraq) (interpretation. from Arabic) 1 What the de1egatioli of Iraq was trying to say in its statement this morning was thi1\t one's views on the question of Namibia are reflected in the unequivocal condenU1ation of the tl'ilcist regime of Pre tor ia. That is the substa'1ce of the er is is and the problem, as we see it, because the racism demonstrated by the Pretoria regime, which is imposing a policy of aggression and expansionism, that takes the form of an unrelenting war against the people of Namibia and the neighbour ing countr ies, is common t.o all the racis t regimes that collabora te among themselves. That is why we feel that the most difficult problems facing the international community are those of the usurpation of the right of the Palestinian people by the racist Zionists, who have rejected all the solutions put forward by the international community over a number of years; the occupation of Namibia by the apar theid regime of Pretar ia, which stubbornly rejects all the solutions proposed by the international community·; and the persistence of Iranian aggression against my country by the racist regime in Tehran, which, in its turn, has for many years rejected all the solutions put forward by the international community. Those three regimes have in common the fact that they consider ter ror il\ilTl t..o bILl a legitimate means of achieving their ambitions and designs and refLls(~ to implement General Assembly and Security Council resolutions which call for an end to the illegal occupation of Namibia, the usurpation of Palestinian lands and the Iranian war against Iraq. It is per tin en t to men tion th is tr uth because we are speak mg of the problem of Namibia. No doubt many delegations, in particular the African delegations, would like the Security Council to adopt a mandatory decision, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter, that would compel South Africa to put an end to its occupa Hon of Namibia, that is, a resolution of the kind adopted on the war bebleen Iraq and Iran. The support provided by the Tehran regime could not be more clear~ its refusal to abide by Security Council resolution 598 (1987) and its attempts to sabotage that resolution and make it inoperative cannot but enable the South African racist regime to act similarly, if the Council does not adopt a restraining resolution on the lines of resolution 598 (1987). Needless to say, the service rendered to the Pretoria regime by the Tehran regime se ts a dangerous precedent which undermines the foundation of the Organization, its Charter and its humane principles. It does not take much intelligence to discern the thread that joins together the tripartite alliance: the Zionist entity in Tel Aviv supplies arms to the Tehran regime - the Irangate scandal has provided details of this - and the other part of the alliance is the racist regime of Pretoria, which has the support of the zionist regime in Tel Aviv. Mc. FLAX (Israel): A few moments ago the representative of that bastion of freedom, liberty and democracy, Iran, called for the annihilation of my State. 'rhat he would do 80 in. this Hall speaks volumes about the nature of his regime; that he has not received the censure of this Hall for using such language speaks volumes about this Assembly. ~r'lDS:$EDH (Islamic Republic ·of Iran) \ I wish tospea.k in exercise of i!-':"''::l1~~.'''' of reply with regard to statements m&Qe by two representatives,ooe Iraq and the other representinq the Zionist base of terro.r. the Iraqi repres~mtative unfortunately, again tried to divert the of the Assembly from the main issue. the question of Nal\'libia. He,. like his rcegime t has lost all sense of logic. He is a lawyer t and we could have stopped on ",.any po in ts. It is well knO\iin to all of us that it was th El Iraqi r@'gime that launched a total war ofagg:ressionii9.ga inst my coun try on 22 September 1980. That is a fact, but now the representative of Iraq is saying that they did not invade us and the other countries. That isa lie. I do not want to elabor ate fur ther on that, but r would lik El to deal woi rh one of the horrible crimes that the Iraqi regime has committed against human beings, and that is the use of chemical weap::>ns.

I ap::>logize to the representative of Iran, but the representative of Iraq has asked to speak on a po int of order, and I call on him. Mr. AlrRUBAIE (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): I think that we are consider log the question of Namibia. I have mentioned the resemblance between the racist regime.s. It is not necessary for the representative of Iran to mention no>i the war betwe,en Iran and Iraq started. That is outside the area of the discussion. The PRESIDE:l'iT (interpret.at.ion from Russian): I invite the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to continue. Hr. BOSSEINI (Islamic Republic of Iran): I said that the gentleman, like his d:gime, is a liar. He says that the issue is Namibia, but it was the Iraqi delegation i tseH that this morning spoke about the Iran-Ir aq war. We did not ask for that; they are doing that; they are playing this trick. I should like to continue the story of the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi criminal regime. Let me describe what happened to the city of Sardasht, which has a population of 12,000. About five months ago the Iraqis attacked the city using chemical weapons and that attack caused the death of - The.PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I apologize to the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the representative of Iraq has asked to speak on a point of order. Mr. AL-RUBAIE (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. President, I should like to ask you to request the representative of the Tehran regime to talk about Namibia. We are not here to talk about how the war between Iran and Iraq began or how it has evolved. This is taking us far from the question of Namibia.

I invite the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to continue and I request him to take into account that the hour is late. r~ime just as it>startoo 'The Iraqis attacked city. At first ,\!:iJ1lj~ii"Jl;({!:t'i"~~,rt conventional ~s. ThepeQple came' into the streets in or'derto help and to se'e the effect of the bombs. When thousands 01: people ran aiit'oraft suddenly appeared overhead and bombed the city with They did so very thoroughly, mmslng 6,000 casualties" inj or dead. After that bombing with chemical weapons, tihe Iraqis again attacked city with conventional bombs. That was Cl or1mebommitted by that shameless di~gime.

r call on the representative of Comoros, who has aSked to speak on a point of order. Mr. MOUMIN (Comoros): I think that we are all responsible peOple here, ~t I feel that the debate is deteriorating. I do not feel that this is the of debate that should be held in this body. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. President, to bring some order to what is degenerating into Cl disorderly debate.

I give the representative of Iraq two minutes to finish his statement. Mr. AL-RUBAIE (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. President, I have asked to speak to support what the representative of Comoros has just said. The people of Namibia would undoubtedly be angry if they could hear the representative of the regime of Iran leading the Assembly into a disorderly debate.

I give the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran ~ree minutes to finish his statement. Mr .. HOSSEINI {Islamic Republic of .Iran.}: I am n.ot going to respond to the representative of Iraq because I have finished my reply to him. I should like now to exercise my right of reply to what the representative of the Zionist base of terror stated a few minutes aqo against my delegation. It ia tbe conviction of my delegation and of all Muslim people that the presence and existence of the zionist base of terror is totally illegal. So we should like the annihilation of this cancerous regime in the region, in order to solve all the problems of the Middle East.

I call on the representative of Israel, who wishes to speak in exercise of the right of reply. Hr. FI,.AX (Israel): I just want to say that the exchange of compliments between the representatives of Iraq and of Iran has been most edifying for all the representatives sitting here. The PRESlDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran who has asked to speak on a point of order. Mr. HOSSEINI (Islamic Republic of Iran): Mr. President, this was going to be my second exercise of the right of reply, to reply to the zionist repre68otative. I have the right to reply to his statement. This is going to be very brief, of course.

I must say, Sir, that you have already spoken in exercise of the right of reply. I can only authorize you to speak if you are raising a point of order. I call on you on that basis. Mr. HOSSEINI (Islamic Republic of Iran): I spoke in response to the l'Jtatement made by the representative of the zionist base. Then he replied to me. Republic of Iran)

I ilHlst tell the of the Islamic Republic of Iran that he has already spoken in exercise of the right of reply twice. Under bhe rul'es of procedure, he is not entitled to anything more. I call on the representative of Malawi, who has asked to speak On a point of Mr. MANGWAZU (Malawi): I think the .representative of Comoros is right. It 1.6 rather difficult for us to comprehend the attitude of the representatives who have spoken, and spoken again, on matters totally irrelevant to the question of Namibia. We regard the Namibian question as an important matter as far as Africa is concerned and, I think, the rest of the world also. We cannot tolerate the subject of Namibia, which is a very important one, being reduced to such confusion and irrelevance. Mr. President, we request you to use your authority to stop this.

At the conclusion of OUI: consideration of the question of Nal7'iibia I should like to note that the dehate has impressively highlighted the General ]l,ssembly! s resolve to see Namibia emerge as a free country and to remove the last bastions of colonialism on Earth. The statertlents trlade hav~ reaffirmed the international community's determination finally to implement the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council, with a view to establishing a free, independent and non-aligned Namibia. Namibia must and will take its rightful and equal place in the community of nations. The debate has clearly shown that the struggle waged by the Namibian people under the leadership of its leg i timate liberation movement, the South West Air ica People's Organization (SWli.1?O), is a part of the toilsome but ultimately successful struggle of peoples for independence and self-determination, for peace and dElvelopment. That is a process which, I believe, has left a deep mark on our century. Of late, one event has been recalled repeatedly in that connection as having exerted a lasting influence on the course of history. That event is the October revolution in Russia, whose seventieth anniversary will be celebrated on 7 November. I believe it was in the spirit of that event that the USSR initiated the adoption by the United Nations of one of its most important declarations, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The principle laid down in the first operative paragraph of resolution 1514 (XV) reads as follows: "The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation". (resolution 1514 (XV), para. 1) continuin·g illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa flagrantly .;p:iQii~tra,dict.s that Declaration. At the same ti'lime it iSaser ious I!tnd growin<J threat i1!IInd security in the region i1!IInd the world as Cl whole. "!'he com:se and !~sults of t.he debate which has now come t::o a close should be considered as a ~ndate for unified, speedy and consistent action. ~ime is pressing: Namibiamust bI: free. General Assembly has thus concluded its considenltlon of agenda i tern 36. AGENDA ITEM B (continued) ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND ORGANIZATION OF WORK la) FIRST REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE (A/42/250) (b) AMENDMENT (A/42/L.18)

The General Assembly will now turn its attention to paragraph 36 of the first report of the General Committee (A/42/250). In that connection, the Assembly also has before it an amendment submitted by the delegation of Cameroon, which has been issued as document A/42/L.IB. Delegations will recall that at its 12th plenary meeting, on 25 September, the General Assembly decided that consultations should be continued with regard to the recommendation of the General Committee concerning the title and inclusion in the agenda of item 140 of the draft agenda contained in paragraph 36 of the first report of the General Committee. Intensive consultations have been held, in particular with the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Chairman of the OAG ad hoc committee. I wish to thank all parties concerned, includ ing the Pe rmai1(imt Representative of Madagascar in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of African States for the month of October, the Permanent Representatives of GClbon and C2.1100rOOn and other representati....es. for their co-operation. I am most grateful for the understanding and support shown during our talks. Consultations were, of course. held in the first place \I1ith the parties involved. However, I am not in a position today to submit to the General A.ssembly for discussion and decision a proposal other than the recommendation of the General Committee contained in paragraph 36 of document A/42/250. As representatives will recall, the process leading to the recommendation mad/: by the General Committee are outlined in paragraph 34 of the report of the General Committee. In accordance .....ith rule 23 of the General Assembly's rules of procedure, "Debate on the inclusion of an item in the agenda, when that item has been recommended for inclusion by the General Committee, shall be limited to three speakers in favour of, and three against, the inclusion. The President may limit the time to be allowed to speakers under this rule". However, as the Assembly also has before it document A/42/L.18, containing an amendment to the recommendation of the General Committee, under rule 90 of the rules of procedure the amendment shall be voted upon first. r call on the representative of Cameroon, who wishes to introduce that amendment. Mr. ENGO (Cameroon): My delegation feels compelled to explain to the General Assembly the nature of the amendment before it today. It may be recalled that you, Sir, reauested that my delegation join in consultations and report to you There were two major problems facing the General Assembly in accepting the recommendations of the General Committee. The first was the wording of the agenda item propomed by Chad, which had elements that proved distasteful to certain which felt that the situation as "occupationll and "aggression" • and the wordfng .fou-nO than anything prejtldicial. think we must also say that another issue before the Assembly waS the of the timing of the discussion of the item. One of oor great fathers Afrd,ca cautioned that)we should not in fact do anything here that .....as likely to pre:judice initiatives that were being taken up in.~fricat he was the well-known l.~ader Mc. Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia • For that reason, after consultations we came to the con·clusion that after includi:n';J the item, an action 'to which no one objected - no one said we should not do this'" it might be useful to delay any consideration of the item until such time /lS it became obvious that it was expedientfbr us to do so, bearing in mind the initiat ives in Africa. prejudged by the \.lise of proceed-ed to consult a statement o,ffact So two issues face the Assettt.bly and the international community, as represented here. T'he first is the wording that the item should take. It is our submission that what is before the Assembly in document A/42/L.18 satisfies that recruirement. The second issue is completely divorced from the first~ it is the timing for taking up this issue. It is our opinion that in the circumstances we may wish to take a separate decision to postpone the discussion of this matter to some future date, bearing in mind the initiatives that are being taken in Africa. In this case, the President would be in a position to consult with the membership of the General Assembly to decide when the subject could be taken up. Therefore, our proposal contained in document A/42/L.18 must be read in the light of those two considerations: that we inscribe the item as it now stands amended and that we take a decision that this matter will in fact not be taken up iTlllTlediately and that future consideration will depend on the outcome of the initiatives that are currently taking place in Africa. I sincerely hope that this will sort out the problem and avoid any of the complications Mc Kuanda outlined, and that it will be possible for us to adopt this formula without a vote. The PRESIDENT I now call on the representative of Zambia. MC ZUZE (Zambia): I have asked to speak in order to make a specific proposal. There is no dispute Whatsoever as to the right of a Member State to inscribe any item and to debate any matter it desires. I think the question we now face in the Organization of ~frican Unity (DAD) is whether or not doing so is in the interest of the major goals: first, the unity of the orgewization itself; and, secondly, tne current efforts of the OAO's Ad Hoc Committee Which ace aimed at a regional settlement, as provided foc in the Charter. should ask th€mg~l'Jeg than unity which W~ to plural organi~ation.. w~ are prepared to give of our sovere19nty ti/Uiill9 to die a little for our organization. These questions must have weighe!d on the mind of the current Chairman of the OA.U and when on its behalf he made the ~peal to the African Group he cautioned restraint on this matter. Let me remind my brothers from Africa that in any war when the guns heve gone silent it is time to talk and one invariably ends up at the negotiating table. The name of the game is dialogue, to reduce mistrust and foster confidence. It seems to us that a possibility for dialogue between the parties to the conflict now exists which could lead to a regional settlement - an African settlement - to the conflict that has destroyed so much for so many. Any erratic behaviour at this ~age could disturb the waters, and I am sure that the guns which are now silent would suddenly come to life again. In view of what I have just said, I wish to propose that for the time being the Assembly take no action on the inscription of item 14U and also on the proposal to amend the title of the item, in accordance with rule 74 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Let me reiterate the point: this proposal should not be interpreted as taking away the right of any Member state to inscribe any item on the agenda of the United Nations. This is a right we all respect and cherish.

The representative of Zamhia has moved, within the terms of rule 74 of the rules of procedure, that no action be taken on the recommendation for inclusion of the item as well a~ the amendment circulated in document A/42/L.18. Rule 74 reads as follows: IIDuring the discussion of any matter. a representative may.move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two repre,sentatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. 11 I should like to accede to the reauirements of rule 74. I call on the representative of the Cameroon on a point of order. Mr. Et~O (Cameroon): I apologize for having to speak again. but my delegation would like to know exactly what it is We are to vote for or against. or abstain. My brother from Zambia suggests suspending the item for the time being. That coul,d be five years; it could be ten years; it could be three monthsj it could be two days. If the intention is that this should be suspended indefinitely, then ! would agree. in the light of the proposal we have made, that adjournment of the debate should be limited to the substance rather than the inscription of the item. But I should like him to make it clear whether he is talking about inscription, because I heard him say that he was not opposed to this and that every country had aright to inscr ihe an item. But I think we would both agree if we are asking for adjournment of the discussion on the item. I should like clarification on this point beca.UAe it is material.

I understood the representative of Zambia to mean that he proposes under rule 74 of the rules of proo~dure that no decision be taken on the recommendation to include the item, as representative of Zambia. ~he PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): ! call on the r~~)~~~Scli:rrt:,ati ve of Ca:meroon on a point of order. Mr. ENGO (Cameroon): My question m.ay have been misunderstood, Sir. I aJri a Cameroonian African, and English is not my native tongue. If I could speak Bulu or Douala here I should probably be more explicit. l>iy brother talked about adjoUl::ning "for the time being". What is the time-frame? There is great difference bet....een taking no action and taking no action for the time being, which could mean any length of time. l-1ay we have some clarification as to the time-frame for the suspension? That WOUld influence decisions - at lea.st, the decision of my delegation. We should be qu ite happy if the adjournment were merely because we are all fatigued; ....e have gone through a gruesome day. At the same time, we ....ant to kno.... for exactly how long we are ~Hll?posed to be adjourning the debate. I urge you, Sir, to alIa.... my brother to answer. The PRESIDEN'r (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representative of Zambia. Mr .. ZUZE (Zambia): As I understand my brother from Cameroon, I should state precisely what constitutes "for the time being". 'l'he representative of Cameroon stated that there were events taking place currently in Africa. There is the Ad Hoc Committee, which has to sit in one of our capitals, and at the end of this month most, if not all, of our Heads of States will assemble in Addis Ababa, Where, in addition to the item on the agenda for their discussion, which I understand is a date problem, they will consult. So it is that kind of time-frame I am looking at. It will be determined, first, by events in the Ad Hoc Conunittee, which is already in place and working on its programme and on mater ial collect.ed, and, secondly, by further consultations by our Heads of State. 1 cannot be any more helpful than that, other than to refer again to the provisions of rule 74. tance - not only tn-e Si-}(~cific issue or t~1;e 1ii'Jil,~€i"L ing principles involved in the considerath)11 You will already have noted, Mr. President, evidence h;cipient confusion. I r isa simply humbly to suggest and formally to l'lltove that tIll!? fllifeeting be adJourned until next week, unOef rule 76 of thtl procedure. That rule reads as follo"'5: HDuring the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the suspension Of the adjournment of the meeting. Such motions shall not be debated but shall be irmnediately put to the vote. The Pre,ndent may limit tne time to be allowed to the speaker moving the suspension or adjournment of the meeting." The basis of my motion is that it is late on Friday eveniny; we are tired and we have to think deeply about the principles involved and come refreshed to make a substantive and careful analysis ot the issues berore us. Is there any objection to The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): the application of rule 76?

I call tne representative of Jamaica on a point of order. Mr. BARNETT (Jamaica): It was precisely to avoia a debate and discussion while we are tired that I invoked and quoted rule 76, which admits of no debat. t~t is, the motion is immedIately put to the Assembly for its ap~roval or otkerwise. T-he PP-.:ESIDEN1'!i (interpretati.on rrOrfd Russian):: T11e repres,entative of Jamaica is correct. That be 50/ I put. to the vote the l12otion for the adjournment of the l$deetin under .rule 76 of the rules of proced.ure .. Tbe motion for the adjournment. ',laB adopted by 7<3 votes to 24, with 18 abstentions. Tne meetiny rose at 7.45 p.m.