A/42/PV.72 General Assembly

I wish to propose that the list of speakers in the debate on agenda item 32, "Law of the sea", be closed at 11 a.rn. tomorrow, 18 November. It was so decided.

I therefore ask representatives who wish to take part in the debate to put their names on the list of speakers as soon as possible.

The General Assembly now has before it the report of the Fourth Committee (A/42/731). May I take it that the Assembly takes note of this report? It was so decided. Mr. GUTIERREZ (Costa Rica) (interpretation from Spanish): In his address to the Assembly at the forty-first session, the President of Costa Rica, Mr. Oscar Arias Sanchez, said the following: "I wish to reiterate here our desire for an urgent dialogue between Argentina and Great Britain to resolve the question of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands." (A/41/PV.9, p.16) In that concise form a Latin American leader who had part of his education educated in England expressed the position that the Government of Costa Rica has maintained for many years on this subject and that has always led us to support draft resolutions similar to the one now under discussion. Consequently, on behalf of my Government, I reiterate that position and appeal once again for dialogue and that the door be kept open for consideration of this matter by peaceful, rational and civilized means, which are the means that must be given preference by two democratic nations belonging to different branches of the same culture. It is the duty of all Latin Americans to support Argentina in its legitimate aspirations with regard to a part of its territory. It is a duty that stems from the common past of peoples that resulted from the expansion of Europeans into this continent. The errors committed by Spanish Americans led us to freedom divided, but those divisions, although they have been consolidated in the course of our independent existence, have never destroyed the bonds of unity that remain strong today and lead us to recognize one another as brothers. In no area are we more unified than in the struggle against the last vestiges of our colonial past - hence our solidarity with Argentina in its struggle to recover the Malvinas Islands, which we see as a necessary step to bring an end to colonialism in the American continent. This entire effort should be aimed at negotiation as the civilized means of achieving harmony among nations - recognizing, as must be recognized, that the settlement of the situation must take into account the historical circumstances and territorial continuity, which mean that the Malvinas Islands must be considered part of Argentina, and recognizing, as must be recognized, the situation of the inhabitants of the archipelago, tor whom the necessary safeguards must be provided so that they can continue to enjoy the rights which they enjoy today. The difficulties involved in the dispute might suggest that the positions of the parties are too far apart for the possibility of success in negotiations to be envisaged. Great Britain insists that it will not negotiate on sovereignty over the islands. Argentina believes that sovereignty must be the central element of the agreements to be negotiated. However, as in every conflict, it is impossible to believe that if the parties were prepared to talk about all aspects of the dispute and devote the necessary time to negotiations it would not be possible to reach agreement. This is a year which seems to have brought substantial advances in the process of negotiation in various parts of the world. The negotiations between the two super-Powers to eliminate part of their nuclear arsenals are about to be concluded, although it is difficult to imagine differences greater than those that exist between them, or a more delicate subject for negotiation. Similarly, the holding of a Middle East peace conference is becoming ever more likely~ it is almost certain that, if not this year, next year parties that had until now been irreconcilable enemies will be brought together round a negotiating table to agree on a satisfactory end to that prolonged and bloody conflict. Finally, on a smaller scale, we recall what is happening in Central America, where the agreement of 7 August between the Presidents has opened the door to the settlement of a painful and difficult conflict to which for so many years a peaceful solution seemed absolutely impossible. Those are good examples of important developments this year. They have in common the fact that they are notable examples of negotiation as an effective means of finding stable and definitive solutions to international problems. They should be highlighted here, since the Organization exists to serve as an instrument to promote peace, make agreements possible hetween nations and rule out the idea that the only way to decide differences between nations is to resort to force, the ultimate expression of irrationality in human relations. Therefore, the General Assembly should consider the auestion of the Mal~inas Islands with the same conviction as in previous years, expressing its faith in negotiations, its hope that the English and the Argentines will sit around a negotiating table and end their present differences, which are a minor accident in the course of relations which in the past have been solid, strong and beneficial to both countries. We wish to make clear our support for Argentina's position, since we see in its attempt to reCOver the Malvinas Islands a step forward in the eradication of cOlonialism. But at the same time we reiterate our faith in negotiations and our hope that through them it will prove possible to end a conflict that should not have started and every day has even less reason to exist. Mr. DRAMAS OLIVA (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): The General Assembly once again has before it the auestion of the Malvinas Islands. On this occasion, when we see on the horizon substantial progress in negotiations on intermediate-range missiles, resulting in a lessening of tensions, we hope that there will be an honourable solution to this sensitive problem, too, so that reason and logic may prevail. The cause is invincible, because it is sustained by the living currents of history. Argentina has consistently shown that it seeks a negotiated solution to this dispute with the United Kingdom regarding sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. A settlement at the negotiating table would he an important contribution to peace and stability in the southern part of the American continent. AS we said recently in the Security Council, it is time colonial bonds became no more than a subject of historical research, so that we may all devote ourselves to the struggle for the material and spiritual development of the human heing. Whatever the latitude of same right to life as men born in the great metropolises, regardless of religion, race, sex or language, which is why our organization adopted in 1960 resolution 1514 (XV) to help end that chapter in the pre-history of mankind. To appeal to the united Kingdom to resolve the auestion and restore sovereignty over the islands to the Argentine RepUblic without delay is to invoke Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Charter, which says: "All members shall settle their international disputes by peacefUl means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." The relevant resolutions of the Assembly indicate that the only way to end the colonial situation of the Malvinas Islands is to settle the Argentine-British dispute over sovereignty over the islands. ~rgentina has extended an olive branch to the United Kingdom. And, on behalf of the peoples of the America of Bolivar and Mart!, we ask that Power to accept the challenge of history and, with a vision of the future, contribute to restoring what is rightly claimed. Peace, detente, the peaceful settlement of disputes and an end to the thunder of cannons and to sUffering is a deep desire of the peoples that we cannot ignore. Mr. RAM (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): The General Assembly has been considering the question of the Malvinas Islands since 1965. On 15 November of that year - that is, exactly 22 years ago - 15 Latin American countries, inclUding Panama, presented a draft resolution which one month later the ASsembly adopted as resolution 2u65 (XX), the first General Assembly resolution on this auestion. As a sponsor of that draft resolution, we were inspired by the anti-colonialist calling of our people and our abiding respect for such principles as the peacefUl settlement of international disputes. Today, 22 years later, we reaffirm with even more vigour our adherence to those principles, which are unalterahle norms of Panama's foreign policy. In keeping with those principles, forged in Panama's long struggle for the restoration, affirmation and exercise of full sovereignty over all its territory, we reaffirm Panama's firm and decided support for the Argentine nation and its legitimate right to recover the Malvinas Islands and reintegrate them within its territorial heritage. (Mr. Kam, Panama) Beyond the fact that resolution 2065 (XX) was adopted some time ago - on 16 December 1965 - we wish to point out the singular importance we assign to. three aspects of that historic resolution. First, that resolution clearly establishes that negotiations between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom are the best way to achieve a peaceful solution to the dispute between the two countries concerning sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. That position has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the General Assembly. The seven resolutions and the four consensus decisions it adopted on the SUbject are evidence of that, in particular the five resolutions approved over the past five years, thus confirming its unalterable constancy with regard to the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The international community's record in favour of a negotiated solution of the question of the Malvinas Islands must not be ignored or minimized by the United Kingdom. The second aspect of resolution 2065 (XX) we wish to highlight is the fact that in that resolution the General Assembly deliberately avoided acknowledging, for that Territory, the right of the population of the Malvinas Islands to self-determination and limited itself to asking that the interests of that population be taken into account. Quite appropriately that position has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Assembly. This aspect should be emphasized every time the colonial Power insists on giving precedence to the alleged right to self-determination of the population over the legitimate rights of the Argentine nation to restore its territorial integrity. Thirdly, in 1965, 15 Latin American countries sponsored a draft resolution; that clearly indicated what is today an unquestioned reality: as a result of growing regional solidarity the cause of the Malvinas Islands is no longer the cause of Argentina alone and has become the common cause of Latin America as a The' international community is fully aware that the dispute between Argent ina and the United Kingdom over the sovereignty of the Malvinas derives from the illegal occupation of these islands by the united Kingdom through the use of force in 1833 against the territorial integrity of the Argentine nation. Argentina's sovereignty over these Islands is based on clear historical precedents and solid legal arguments put forward and documented in the United Nations during the past 22 years, and I therefore need not dwell on this. Nevertheless my delegation cannot fail to point out that the continuation of that colonial British occupation of one part of American soil for more than 150 years provoked a conflict, indeed war, in 1982 in the southern Atlantic, as a result of British obstinacy in maintaining at all costs an outdated colonial situation in violation of the United Nations Charter and General Assembly resolutions and in open disregard of the feelings of all Latin Americans who, as I have just recalled, had made Argentina's cause their own. That shows how fragile and precarious the perpetuation of certain cases of injustice can be when the powerfUl of this world attribute to themselves certa in rights, clinging to their superior roles and trying to perpetuate ineauity rather than rectifying matters in good faith. But we have always maintained that it is never too late to correct an error. The General Assembly has provided Argentina and the United Kingdom with an appropriate framework for resolving their dispute. The Secretary-General has stated that he is ready to assist the two Governments so that the various resolutions of the General Assembly can be implemented. However, the united Kingdom seems bent on avoiding its commitment to the united Nations Charter, which inclUdes the obligation of Member States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, so as not to undermine international peace and security, as well as (Mr. Ram, Panama) In this context we urge the united Kingdom, to respect, without delay, subterfuge or pre-conditions, the relevant united Nations resolutions and the .call of the international community and in good faith enter into serious negotiations with the Government of Argentina. We congratulate the Argentine Government on its constructive attitude. It has recalled its unshakeable commitment to the search for a peaceful, negotiated solution to the prohlems that remain with the united Kingdom. A negotiated agreement with Chile over the Beagle Channel, its unflagging efforts in the Contadora Group, and the Support Group aimed at peace in Central America, and its outstanding work in the Cartagena consensus on a solution to the external debt crisis - all clearly confirm the ardent commitment of the Government of President Raul Alfonsin to peace, development and co-operation, which extends to the search for a negotiated settlement of the auestion of the Malvinas Islands. As in past years the representative of the united Kingdom has insisted on putting forward in the General Assembly the alleged right to self-determination of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands in the territory and wondered whether that right had to apply to all peoples or only to some. There should be no confusion or any erroneous views on this point. My country voted in favour of resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and does not have any reservations whatever concerning the right of peoples to self-determination mentioned in that resolution. We emphatically declare that all peoples have the right to self-determination; but that right cannot be understooo in any form as a right to decide on the future of terr i tories that were usurped, terr i tories that belong to others and territories occupied by force, which is the case with the territory of the Malvinas Islands. Since the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly my delegation has clearly stated its position in this regard. At that session it stated that: "The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries' and Peoples itself recognizes the existence ofvar ious forms and manifestations of colonialism, all of which must be eradicated speedily and unconditionally. Therefore, each colonial case should be considered in the light of its own specific form and manifestation in the process of its decolonization, and recourse can be had either to the met"hod of self-determination, if the conditions and circumstances make it appropriate for that population to exercise that right, or to the method of restitution of the territory to the country having sovereignty over it. "In the case of the Malvinas, we are faced with the second situation since it is a case of a territory illegally occupied, amputated from the territorial entity of a sovereign State, Argentina, and inhabited by people settled there by the occupying Power. It can hardly be said, therefore, that this population should determine the future of a usurped territory which is not its own. "By insisting on recognition of the right to self-determination of the population of the Malvinas, the United Kingdom is trying to conceal its clear purpose, which is to perpetuate its colonial occupation of the territory, using the population there as the instrument for the attainment of that end by giving them the right of veto with respect to the restitution of the territory." (A/37/PV.55, p. 12) The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the practices of decolonization that have evolved in recent years affirm that subjugated, dominated and exploited peoples have the right to self-determination. It is difficult to see how that right might be invoked in the case of the subjects of a colonial Power that uses them as instruments to justify the colonial presence, as in the case of the Malvinas Islands. The philosophy of decolonization implies that the right to self-determination is applicable to a colonized people whose identity and interests are clearly separate and distinguishable from those of the population of the colonizing Power. The essence of colonialism is conflict of interest between the colonized and the colonizers, and in the case of the Malvinas there is no such conflict of interest. On the contrary, there is identity of interest between the colonizing Power and the inhabitants because they have clearly indicated their wish to remain British. Yesterday the representative of the United Kingdom insisted that we cannot disregard the wishes of the population of the Malvinas Islands. But I wonder what we are to say of the population of Diego Garcia: what of their wishes, when the United Kingdom has allowed a naval air base to be installed there by the united states? The United Kingdom has rejected any idea of having that island freed of occupation. Why have hundreds of persons been deported, persons eager to return to their homeland? Why have their wishes not been taken into account? Panama, which is familiar with colonial occupation, having known it on its own soil, has made the struggle against all forms and manifestations of colonialism a cardinal principle of its foreign policy, and it considers it patriotic daily to oppose foreign interests that block our sovereignty, independence and self-determination. The experience we have gained in our struggle against colonialism has made us aware and caused us to stand in solidarity with those other colonial peoples that are victims of injustice. And the solidarity that Panama receives enables it to do more for other peoples. We affirm here that there is hut one struggle against colonialism, whether in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America or in Europe. That struggle is indivisible. So long as colonial injustice continues to exist, we shall fight for freedom and peace. That is our commitment - that and our unshakable solidarity with the Argentine nation and its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands. Finally, my country wishes its name to be added to the list of sponsors of draft resolution A/42/L.17. Mr. PAOLILLO (uruguay) (interpretation from Spanish): Uruguay's support for Argentina's claim of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands has been a consistent part of my country's policy in the United Nations. An analysis of uruguay's statements since 1965, when this item was included in the agendas of the General Assembly and the Committee of 24, clearly shows that this support has been continual and has not changed in hue or in intensity. That continuity has been prompted not only by the solidarity deriving from the friendship between our peoples, but also by unbiased conviction based on solid juridical arguments, unauestionable historical facts and powerful geographical considerations. Uruguay's position has also been consistent in systematically stressing the need for a negotiated solution between the parties arrived at through one of the many available international mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. In the General Assembly and the Committee of 24, on the question of the Malvinas Islands, without prejudice to Argentina's position on the substance of the issue, in their positions and statements Uruguayan representatives have sought to influence the deliberations and consultations and have counselled moderation between opposing views and rapprochement between two countries with which Uruguay has maintained and continues to maintain excellent bilateral relations. Today it is not our intention to discuss uruguay's historic support for Argentina's sovereignty claim, which it maintains, but our constant desire to contribute, in so far as ~ are able, to creating favourable conditions for dialogue and negotiations between the two parties. After the armed conflict of April to June 1982 and the establishment of the Constitutional Government in Argentina in December 1983, there emerged an expectation that once the hostilities had ceased and natural avenues of communication had been opened up between the two Governments, restoration of diplomatic relations and resumption of negotiations would be imminent, or at least possible medium-term objectives. However, time continues to pass and still we have not gone beyond expressions of intention. A series of events, in particular the failure at the outset of the Bern talks of June 1984 and the British statement on south-west Atlantic fisheries in October 1986, have led to the virtual freezing of diplomatic initiatives. As a result of those events there have been only sporadic unofficial contacts, generally at the level of legislators at annual Conferences of the Inter-parliamentary Union. Accordingly, there has not yet been any dialogue between the two Governments. The international community has persistently called for such dialogue, which is the only instrument, over and above various modalities or diplomatic procedures, that can lead to a negotiated solution of the dispute and restoration of the mutual trust and friendship that have traditionally linked the peoples of Argentina and the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, the expectations inspired by the initiatives of 1984 are increasingly giving way to feelings of frustration. It is understandable that the entire international community, especially the countries of the region, should be concerned at the persistence of that area of tens ion wi th its potential of dangers and threats to peace and security. This concern has been expressed by the General Assembly in the resolutions it has adopted since the confronta tion in 1982. It has also been reflected in various resolutions of the Organization of lImer iean States, such as that adopted last Friday, 13 November, which contained an expression of concern over the lack of progress in implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations. If we compare the patterns of voting on resolutions on the Malvinas Islands since the Assembly decided, in 1982, that the item would be considered directly in the plenary meeting, we note that the majori ties in favour have been growing steadily. The affirmative vote has increased year by year, whereas the negative vote and the abstentions have substantially declined. .That upward tendency in the ", ." . voting is a clear indication that the resolutions have been not only steadily gaining political support, but increasingly embodying a language of consensuS focus ing on action that no Member State can reasonably challenge l that is, the beginn ing of a process of negotia tion between the parties, ass isted by the good offices of the Secretary-General. Even the scope of that process has been framed in sufficiently broad terms so that no issue pending between the two countries should be excluded a priori. Thus, an effort is being made to provide a sphere of negotiation that does not allow for restrictive interpretations, given the very wide range of items that it may include, from initial agreement on bilateral measures for the re-establishment of rutual trust to the actual discussion on the future of the Malvinas Islands. The resolutions that the General Assembly has adopted by cm ever more overwhelming majority have sought simply to ensure that Argentina and the United Kingdom resolve their differences by negotiation. That is the basic, essential and unquestionable request that the United Nations should address to two States which are involved in a dispute that has lasted more than 150 years. It concerns a natural obligation that falls to each member of the international community conceived as an organized system of coexistence of nations, an obligation which, in the case of the Malvinas Islands, takes on a different dimension since it involves one of the five permament members of the Security Council, which consequently has special responsibilities in connection with the prevention and elimination of hotbeds of international tension. Recently, the General Assembly considered and adopted a new resolution on the South Atlantic, which was declared a zone of peace and co-operation in 1986. The South Atlantic is a vast area of growing value in political, military and economic terms, because of both the importance of its channels of communication and the volume of its fish, mineral and energy resources. Since the clash of 1982 in the Malvinas, a factor of instability has been introduced and consolidated in a critical area of the South Atlantic. That continues to affect not only those involved in the confrontation, but the entire region. It is a factor of instability added to the factors that already exist in southern Afr ica as a result of the apartheid regime and its illegal occupation of Namibia. The zone of peace of the South Atlantic will not be complete so long as factors of instability or potential conflict persist. Fortunately, Argentina and the United Kingdom supported last year and are supporting this year General Assembly decisions on this item. That support implies, among other things, a shared commitment to carry out at the multilateral level in that area a policy consistent with the two principal aims of the declaration: the promotion of regional co-operation and the preservation of international peace and security. The participation of the two countries in a declaration supported by the international community and aimed at creating a zone of peace that includes the Malvinas Islands could be considered a first, significant step in the direction of rebuilding mutual trust and initiating the dialogue for which the international community has persistently called. The need for early initiation of negotiations leading to a definitive solution of the problem is urgent also because this is a conflict whose prolongation benefits no one, not even those who persist in doubting the historical inevitability of the result of the negotiating process. This is a case, indeed, in which time is not on anyone's side. On the contrary, prolongation of the situation merely keeps alive the feelings of exasperation on both sides, separating two countries which, as in the past, have a g~eat deal to gain from their mutual relations. Uruguay will vote in favour of the draft resolution before the Assembly because, contrary to what was stated yesterday by the representative of the united Kingdom, we do not see in support for this draft resolution fulfilment of a ritual act devoid of content. We continue to hope that ultimately good sense, wisdom and the goodwill of the parties will prevail and that both will devote themselves to the search for a definitive solution to this problem. It is that faith that gives content and substance to the draft resolution, of which we are a sponsor, and we hope that, like similar draft resolutions in past years, it will have the massive support of this Assembly. Mr. MOYA PALENCIA (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): For the past six years the General Assembly has insisted on the need for the Governments of the question of the Malvinas Islands. In one resolution after another the General Assembly has requested the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of good offices in order to assist the two Governments in resolving their dispute by peaceful means. In spite of the repeated appeals of the General Assembly and the efforts of the Secretary-General, no prog.ress has been noted during the past 12 months because one of the parties is unwilling to enter into dialogue and negotiations in order to find a speedy, peaceful and definitive solution to the pending problems, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas, in accordance with the Charter. This appears very clearly from the debate that we are concluding today and from the report of the Secretary-General, in which, unfortunately, he once again indicates the following: "While both parties have in the past year shown conunendable restraint and a clear willingness to reduce areas of tension, I regret that it has not yet proved possible to engage both Governments in the kind of dialogue consistent with General Assembly resolution 41/40 that I have urged in the past. I wish to reiterate my continued willingness to assist both Governments towards that end." (&'42/732, para. 6) In his statement yesterday the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Argentina, Mr. Dante Caputo, again provided evidence of the flexible and conciliatory attitude adopted from the very outset by the Government of President Raul Alfonsin in its search for a definitive solution to its differences with the United Kingdom concerning the territory of the Malvinas, South Georgia and SOuth Sandwich Islands. The international community has welcomed that attitude, which could provide an appropr iate framework for genuine understanding between the parties. My country is a sponsor of draft resolution A/42/L.l7. The support of the in ternational communi ty for the Republic of Argentina in regar d to its pos i tion in th is case is in keeping with the need to comply str ictly with the purposes and principles of the united Nations Charter in finding peaceful solutions to dispu tes. This supper t by the overwhelming majority of States Members of our Organization also forms part of its persevering efforts to put an end to any remnan ts of colon ial domination. However, the situation in the south-west Atlantic should not be seen in the context of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) but rather in the historical evolution of the region. In fact, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the archipelago was occupied by force in 1833 by the united Kingdom, a few years after Argentina had become independent with a national territory that included that archipelago. This is an additional example of the un for tuna te consequences of rivalry between European Powers, which frequently resolved their differences on the In Africa and Asia similar situations have backs of their American colonies. Nevertheless, \~e must all bear in mind that in IB33 Argentina was OCcur red. I, already an independen t republic, which the Bri tish Government i tsel f had recognized formally and without any reservation since IB25. Argentine sovereignty over the , archipelago has never been in doubt, and 150 years of illegal occupation cannot be invoked to cast doubt up::>n that,; otherwise we would be sanction ing the ao::ruis iUon of territory by force, thereby undermining one of the fundamental principles of the Charter. Nor is it possible to claim that there is a presumed right to self-determination by the Bd tish occupiers, because tha t right has been exercised by the Argentine nation over the whole of its ter ri tory, including the Malvinas Islands, since the moment when it proclaimed and obtained its independence. Practically all the Latin Amer ican nations became independent at the beginning of the nine teen th century • Our s is a history 0 f anti -colon ial ism, but contempor ary life has given us repeated examples of the deep-rooted tradition of finding solutions to our dispu tes in a peaceful fashion. The Agreement signed in Esquipulas, Qlatemala, on 7 August is part of that tradition, as well as the persevering efforts of the Contadora Group and the Support Group in order to find a peaceful, negotiated solution to the Central Amer ican oonflict. That is why we also firmly support the just cause of the Argentine Republic wi th regard to the Malvinas Islands. On the eve of the twenty-first century the United Nations can be proud of having written a brilliant page in the field of decolonization, but that task. will not be concluded if we do not find solutions to situations such as that in the south-west Atlan tic. Mr. TAVERAS GUZMAN (Dominican Republic) (interpretation from Spanish) ~ The General Assembly is meeting O"Ice again to consider the item on the question of the Malvinas Islands. We have read the report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 41/40 of 25 November 1986 and we see with regret that condi tions have not changed sufficiently for us to feel optimistic. This lack of progress towards the normalization of the situation in the south Atlantic constitutes a constant source of concern to the international community, and most especially for the entire Latin American region. It is clear that the persistence of this situation constitutes a state of tension that could affect the maintenance of international peace and security. Similarly, it is an unquestionable reality that so long as the Malvinas Islands si tua tion has not been justly and peacefully resolved it will remain a sore point in Latin America's juridical concept. In view of those considerations, and aware of the in terest of the international community in finding a prompt and just solution to this dispute, a group of countries has submitted for the consideration of this Asserrbly a draft resolution which calls upon the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between the two countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It may be observed that the sponsors of this draft resolution have expressly avoided reference to substantive questions at issue, in order to invite the parties to come to the negotiating table and engage in a frank and broad-ranging dialogue on their respective points of view. lIccordingly, the draft resolution before the Assembly is an eminently procedural one and one which, in our judgement, is balanced and indeed objective. We have always argued that there exists no international dispute or conflict that cannot be resolved through the means of peaceful settlement afforded by international law and the United Nations Charter. -- rFIII Accordingly the Dominican Republic, which unswervingly supports Argentina's just and legitimate claim to the Malvinas Islands, wishes to join the sponsors of the draft resolution before us. In the conviction that we must emerge from the stagnation that has set in on this problem, my country, which maintains relations with both countries, appeals to the parties to resume their negotiations so as to find an honourable, lasting solution to this dispute. Mr. BELANOGOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): The discussions at the present session of the General Assembly on the various auestions of our times demonstrate quite clearly that the building of international security calls for a high sense of responsibility, an unprejudiced attitude to the views of others and a readiness to seek constructive solutions to urgent problems. It is precisely this kind of approach that is called for in the case of the political settlement of the question of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. There is no douht that the unsettled, unregulated conflict that is being maintained in the South Atlantic continues to be a source of international tension and a matter of concern to the international community. The long-lasting consideration of this question in the united Nations has brought into focus the basic elements of the positions of the majority of Members of the Organization on this question. In its decisions the General Assembly has repeatedly confirmed that it is necessary to put an end to the colonial status of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. The international community has freauently urged the Governments of Argentina and of the united Kingdom to seek a peaceful settlement of the problem pending between the two countries, including all aspects on the future of the islands. In resolution 41/40, adopted at the last session, the Assembly again came out uneauivocally in favour of seeking a settlement through negotiations on the basis of the united Nations Charter. In spite of the numerous decisions of the General hssembly concerning the peaceful settlment of the Angle-Argentine dispute in regard to the islands, the United Kingdom continues stubbornly to conduct a policy, based on maintaining the islands under its administration. In spite of Argentina's repeated manifestation of readiness to begin negotiations to resolve bilaterally the whole range of questions concerning the Falkland (Malvinas} Islands, no positive response has come from London so far. Moreover, the policy of new unilateral actions adopted last year has merely led to further complication of the situation. As a result the Secretary-General, in his most recent report on this auestion, was obliged to note that ~it has not yet proved possible to engage both Governments in the kind of dialogue consistent with General Assembly resolution 41/40 para. 6) Concern is also caused by the mi1itarization of the islands, which is continuing. The islands have been converted into a major naval and air base. The maintenance there of a large garrison and the allocation of large sums for the building of military facilities reveal the united Kingdom's desire to strengthen its position in that strategic region. The Latin hmerican countries are auite justified 1n considering the situation that has been produced to be a threat to their security and to the stability of an extensive region located at the crossroads of three continents. Such a situation is an obvious ohstacle to the realization of the concept of the establishment in the South Atlantic of a zone of peace and co-operation, which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the states Members of the united Nations. In this connection it is difficult to reconcile the general political approach of the United Kingdom to the problem of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands with its vote in favour of the resolution on the auestion of such a zone. It (A/42/732, The Soviet delegation has frequently confirmed in this Hall its position with regard to the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. The Soviet Union unswerv1ngly supports United Nations decisions on this problem and fully understands the position of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries with regard to the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, in particular its statement concerning support for the right of Argentina to establish its sovereignty over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands through negotiations. As was pointed out in the communique at the end of the official visit of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eduard Shevarnadze, to Argentina in October 1987, the Soviet Union and Argentina "confirmed their position of principle concerning the need to reach a definitive and just settlemnt of the Malvinas problem through negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly". It is clear that in order to settle the question of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands the psychology and concepts associated with the colonial era must be discarded. The unravelling of this knot of international tension demands realism, foresightedness and a readiness to compromise. It is as a manifestation of such a flexible and constructive approach that we view the appeal reiterated yesterday by the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dante Caputo, that this problem be resolved at the negotiating table. We believe that in order to end the conflict in the South Atlantic negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom should begin as soon as possible so as to resolve the dispute between the two countries. As we see it, draft resolution A/42/L.17 is in line with this requirement and the Soviet delegation intends to support it. (Mr. Belanogov, USSR) representatives who wish to explain their votes before the voting. I remind them that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. WIJEWARDANE (Sri Lanka): Draft resolution A/42/L.17 is identical with the resolution that we adopted last year. We see that it is a draft resolution inviting the two parties to start negotiations to resolve peacefully the differences between them, and it goes on to say: "including all aspects of the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvina~, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". My delegation assumes, therefore, that the proposals are intended to take cognizance of the question of sovereignty over the Falklands as well. We have gathered from the report of the Secretary-General (A/42/732) that, despite the discussions he has had with the respective Foreign Ministers and permanent representatives to the United Nations, he has not been able to get the parties to agree to engage in a dialogue consistent with General Assembly resolution 41/40. It seems that the difficulty in getting the parties together centres on the question of sovereignty. Looking at the question, my delegation believes that the wishes of the islanders should take precedence over other considerations. In the case of the Falklands there appears no visible movement towards independence. We see, however, a claim by another party to exercise its sovereignty over the islands. We note that the claim had existed for some time and that it came to a head in 1982, when there was open conflict on the issue. The draft resolution that we now have before us invites the two parties to negotiate on their differences in all their aspects. We hold that dialogue is certainly more desirable than confrontation. My delegation, accustomed as we are to dialogue, would like to raise the question whether the views of the inhabitants of the Falklands should not also be considered in coming to a complete understanding regarding the future of the islands. My delegation would prefer that the Falkland islanders be given an opportunity to express their views on this matter before any decisions are taken towards the implementation of this draft resolution. We have heard the evidence of a few Falkland islanders who have appeared before the Fourth Committee, but we do not know whether they held a popular mandate to do so. We are not aware that by any device, such as a referendum, the islanders have expressed their wishes regarding their future political status. In the absence of a clear indication by the people of the Falkland Islands as to the kind of status they wish to have for themselves, my delegation finds it difficult to accept the proposal that the two parties should enter into a dialogue with the objective of peacefully resolving all aspects of the future of the Falkland Islands. My delegation, therefore, will not vote in favour of the draft resolution. I wish to make it clear that our negative vote on the draft resolution will not deter us in our policy of building bridges of understanding and friendship. Mr. ANDRADE DIAZ DUHAN (Guatemala) (interpretation from Spanish): The international community has repeatedly stated its position with regard to the question of the Malvinas Islands, in various forums and on various occasions and expressed its support for efforts to find a peaceful and negotiated solution to this type of dispute, in pursuance of the purposes and principles set out in the Charter. General Assembly resolution 41/40, on the Malvinas Islands, urged the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve (Mr. Wijewardane, Sri Lanka) peacefully and definitively the problems pending between the two countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Despite that appeal for dialogue and harmony, one of the parties has refused to begin talks aimed at resolving the dispute. Consequently it has been impossible to get out of the impasse, and this endangers international peace and security and, in particular, has a negative effect on the situation in the area of the south-west Atlantic, preventing the stability necessary to provide the basic conditions for the orderly and peaceful development of the region. Guatemala wishes to express in this United Nations forum its total and unqualified solidarity with the Argentine Republic on the issue of the Malvinas Islands. As has been recognized by the International Court of Justice and the General Assembly itself, we must reaffirm the pre-eminence of the principle of territorial integrity over that of self-determination in those cases where colonial occupation has affected the sovereign territory of independent countries. It should be pointed out that Guatemala, too, has been affected by the same European Power in connection with its territory in similar circumstances, for which reason it, too, claims and affirms its legitimate rights in this regard. There cannot be the slightest doubt that it is on historical and legal grounds that Argentina claims sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. Hence, it is imperative that these territories be restored to it through negotiations leading to a peaceful and definitive solution by the means provided for in the Charter. We therefore support the endeavours of the Secretary-General, to whom the General Assembly has entrusted a mission of good offices, to create favourable conditions and a climate of confidence so that a just The Government of Guatemala agrees with the Argentine approach and proposal formulated in the statement of Mr. Dante Caputo, Minister for External Relations and Worship of Argentina, in the General Assembly yesterday. Guatemala appeals to the other party to initiate as soon as possible in compliance with the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, negotiations on this matter. The present international climate is conducive to the peaceful negotiated settlement of conflicts of various kinds. In Central America our Governments are moving forward, with the invaluable and decisive support of the Contadora and Support Groups, in a peace-making process that will make it possible not only to dispel tension in the area, but, through dialogue and political negotiations, to overcome the crisis that we are experiencing. These processes, of course, require true political will on the part of States, so as to promote relations of friendship among nations and ensure the maintenance of international peace and security. Guatemala wishes to join the sponsors of the draft resolution and we invite Member States to reiterate their support for the Secretary-General's mission of good offices and his appeal to the parties to initiate constructive negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve this problem peacefully, justly and finally. For all these reasons, Guatemala will vote in favour of the draft resolution. Mr. HAMADNEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): We had hoped that this year would witness a peaceful settlement to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). My country has close ties of friendship with both parties to the dispute. Therefore, it is concerned that a peaceful settlement of this question has not yet been reached. We hope a peaceful settlement will soon be reached, especially that there are reports on the initiation of a dialogue and fresh contacts between the two parties to the dispute. We find more grounds for optimism in the combination of Argentina's patience and wisdom and Britain's long-standing experience in devising compromise settlements. While we have ties of traditional friendship with Britain, we share with Argentina the principles and the purposes of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. We appreciate Argentina's distinguished role in that Movement and its support and understanding of the various issues of the third world, especially the question of Palestine and the Middle East dispute. Our vote on draft resolution A/42/L.l7 will be as it was last year. Mr. RAJAIE-KHORASSANI (Islamic Republic of Iran): I thank you very much for calling on me and allowing me to explain my vote regarding draft resolution A/42/L.l7. In operative paragraph 1 of this draft resolution, the Assembly requests both parties: " ••• to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". We believe that the British subjects who emigrated to the Malvinas, which is a piece of Argentina's territory, should not have betrayed the hospitality of the Government and people of Argentina and behave as an instrument of disrespect for 1 Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library the territorial integrity of their host country. My delegation is not oblivious of the principle of self-determination, which is usually invoked by the United Kingdom. However, my delegation believes that, in the context of the Malvinas issue, it is not the only pertinent principle. The principle of sovereignty, which has already been violated by the settlers, is of prime importance. The resolution of all those claims and counter-claims can be best achieved through constructive and sincere negotiations. The role of the Secretary-General in assisting the parties to reach agreement, is also elaborated in the draft resolution. In the assessment of my delegation, draft resolution A/42/L.I? has provided for all the necessary, positive means and methods, and indeed peaceful ways of solving the differences between the United Kingdom and Argentina. My delegation, therefore, will vote in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.17. Sir Crispin TICKELL (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland): Mr. President, it will come as no surprise to you, or to the General Assembly, that my delegation will vote against draft resolution A/42/L.17 in the same way and for the same reasons that it has voted against similar draft resolutions in the past. According to its sponsors, the draft resolution is purely procedural and in no way prejudices the positions of either the Argentine or the British Governments. Certainly the draft resolution has a certain seductive simplicity. Many delegations with whom I have discussed it said that it looks harmless enough. But, as I said yesterday, the significance lies not in what the draft resolution says, but in what it does not say. By calling for negotiations on "all aspects on the future of the ••• Islands", it opens an agenda, which includes what the Argentine Minister for ~oreign Relations and Worship said yesterday was the essence of the problem: the dispute over sovereignty. -He also made it clear beyond peradventure that the only outcome of such negotiations which he could envisage would be the transfer of sovereignty over the islands from Britain to Argentina. In other words, the draft resolution does in fact preJudice the position of one of the parties in that it supports the Argentine contention that sovereignty must be discussed and rejects the British contention that sovereignty is not negotiable. The Argentine Foreign Minister said that the framework he had propose( for negotiations would be extremely broad and extremely flexible. It could be as broad as the sea and as flexible as elastic, but the hard centre of the problem remains the same: the Argentine claim for sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Furthermore, the draft resolution makes no mention of the wishes of the Islanders, which are not in doubt, and their right to self-determination. Yet, in virtually every other resolution, adopted by this Organization on dependent territories, the right of the inhabitants to determine their own future is prominently reaffirmed. It is missing from this draft resolution. Why? Perhaps the key point made by the representative of Cuba has been forgotten: in short, that the inhabitants of the remotest parts of the earth have as many rights as those born in the big cities and the big countries. In fact, the rights of self-determination apply to all peoples no matter how few in number, and among the~ are the people of the Falkland Islands. They have chosen a status which they passionately wish to retain. To annex the Falkland Islands to Argentina, as the Argentine Government seeks to do, would constitute a violation of a fundamental right of the inhabitants enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right! and the imposition of a new colonial status against their will. In my. statement yesterday, I think I dealt with the curious argument that the inhabitants were there by intrusion rather than right. I repeat that the Falklands have been British for longer than Argentina has been Argentine. There were no indigenous inhabitants of the islands. Rather, settlers came there, as they came to Argentina, and if one country was colonized, so was the other. The only difference was that there were indigenous habitants in Argentina. I heard with surprise the assertions of the Soviet Permanent Representative about the major naval and air base with a substantial garrison, which we are alleged to have established in the islands. First, I repeat what I said yesterday: our forces are there for defensive purposes. We had 43 soldiers there when the invasion took place in 1982~ now, we are equipped to resist any new aggression, but we pose no threat to anyone. Secondly, r would very gently remind the Soviet Permament Representative of an old English proverb, which has some relevance after our recent debate on Afghanistan, and that is, that those in glass houses should not throw stones. Because the draft resolution obscures the two issues, sovereignty and self-determination, on which the positions of the British and Argentine Governments are opposed, it provides no basis for progress in resolving the differences between us. My Government has repeatedly said what it believes that process should be. The contentious question of sovereignty should be set aside, and the two parties should concentrate on the many practical, bilateral issues in which each has a common interest. So far, we have not had a response to the initiatives we have taken, but there is a glimmer of hope. Exchanges are in progress on a matter of importance to us both - fisheries conservation and the avoidance of incidents in the south-west Atlantic. Let us see how we might build on them. Yesterday the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to his hopes for reconciliation between his country ana mine. We also have such hopes. Others do too. But this draft resolution is not the way to achieve them. To the well-wishers of both Argentina and Britain, I say quite simply: Do not take sioes in this dispute. Leave it to the parties to sort out their differences in sensible and realistic fashion and withhold your support from this draft resolution. Mr. CAPUTO (Argentina): I wish to explain my Government's position with, regard to draft resolution A/42/L.17. My Government will vote in favour of that draft resolution because it sets forth the very essence of what, in our judgement, should be the approach of the international community 1n dealing with problems, tensions and conflicts. The essence of that approach is negotiation. Naturally, according to one's interpretation of it, there are things that the draft resolution fails to mention. However, there are many more things that the draft resolution does say, and it is those elements on which the Assembly is voting upon this afternoon. Put simply, according to draft resolution A/42/L.l~ in order to resolve the dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina, the international community, expressing itself through this Assembl~ requests the initiation of negotiations. What other means are there, indeed, for resolving problems between Member States of the Organization other than negotiations? The representative of the United Kingdoln suggests that it be left to the two countries concerned to work out a solution to the problem. Then what is the use of having the Organization, what is the purpose of the Charter and what is the point of voting, if not to express the will of the international community on those issues that pose a threat to the peace and security of this planet? Is it interference in the internal affairs of Member States to express a concern for the peaceful settlement of a dispute? Is it intervention to act in accordance with Article 1 of the United Nations Charter and attempt to bring about by peaceful means the adjustment or settlement of the dispute? We cannot say that, because if that were true, we would be questioning the very foundation upon which this Organization is built. There is no question that there is a dispute. It is not an arbitrary or unilateral question raised by Argentina alone. The Government of the United Kingdom has on many occasion~acknowledged the existence of the dispute. In 1977, for example, a joint communique issued by both delegations here pointed to the existence of a dispute. Consequently, it is not something that has been invented by the Argentine Government, but something that began with the occupation of the islands in 1833. To return to the principal argument, what the draft resolution does say is that in order to resolve the dispute, there should be negotiations between both Governments on all of the existing problems. It clearly does not prejudge the positions of either. The draft resolution does not refer to the question of self-determination or to the question of sovereignty. I would recall that, in 1985, the British delegation sought to introduce amendments to the draft resolution, pointing out that express reference should be made to the principle of self-determination. At that tim~the Assembly decided against such amendment. Ultimately, however, the Argentine delegation will vote in favour of what we believe to be the essential element in solutions to international problems. The dispute is not a figment of my Government's imagination, but, rather, a fact recognized by the international community. In view of the existence of that dispute, we believe there is only one civilized approach, namely, negotiation. Therefore, we do not understand how one can oppose negotiation when one i~ at the same time/a permanent member of the body principally entrusted with safeguarding peace and security on this planet, namely, the Security Council. speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. I have been asked to announce that the delegations of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, Venezuela and Zimbabwe have added their names to the list of sponsors of draft resolution A/42/L.l7. Before proceeding to the vote, I should like to inform the Assembly that the Secretary-General has reviewed draft resolution A/42/L.17 and has indicated that, at this time, he does not foresee any additional costs or programmatic changes as a result of its implementation, provision for which has been made under section 3 of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 1988-1989. Should a change in circumstances lead to additional expenditures, the Secretary-General would, with the concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, seek the necessary funding under the terms of the resolution on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for the biennium 1988-1989 to be adopted by the General Assembly at its current session. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.17. We begin the voting process. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, ~gypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, pnilippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United RepUblic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, zimbabwe Against: Belize, Gambia, Oman, Sri Lanka, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burma, Cameroon, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates Draft resolution A/42/L.17 was adopted by 114 votes to 5, with 36 abstentions (resolution 42/19). representatives who wish to explain their votes. Mr. van WULFFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands): The Netherlands voted in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.17, because its wording does not in any way prejudge the outcome of negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina and because it confirms the General Assembly's primary purpose of facilitating an early resumption of negotiations between those two countries on all issues dividing them. Concerning the question of sovereignty, my Government firmly believes that any future arrangement should give effect to the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of the islands. Decolonization, such as in the case of the Falklands, must be based on resolution 1514 (XV). Under the Charter of the United Nations the right of self-determination is a fundamental one. The Netherlands wishes to support the efforts of the Secretary-General to engage both Governments in a dialogue to resolve the differences that stand between them. Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretation from E'rench): France voted in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.17, with regard to the Malovines - as we call them in 'rench. By that vote, my country intended to associate itself with the efforts that have been made by the international community since the conflict of June 1982 to bring about a just and lasting settlement of the dispute between two nations that are friends of France. My delegation is convinced that only negotiations without pre-conditions and encompassing all aspects of the problem would be likely to lead to a solution in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of our Organization, which prescribes in particular the peaceful settlement of disputes, international co-operation and recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination. By its vote the French delegation wishes to support the modalities proposed by the sponsors of the resolution for the settlement of the dispute by the parties concerned. It should not be interpreted as indicating my country's position on the. substance of the matter. Mr. NTAKHWANA (Botswana): Our affirmative vote for the draft resolution just adopted is a vote for negotiations. We remain convinced that a lasting solution of the Falklands/Malvinas question lies in a constructive dialogue between Argentina and the United Kingdom. It does not lie in the absence of such a dialogue or in an endless game of brinkmanship between the two parties. The resolution is, to us, a good basis for a negotiated sOlution. It calls for negotiations without pre-conditions. This is a sensible way to start. Therefore we encourage the parties to proceed to the conference table without delay. Mr. TROLLE (Sweden): The unresolved dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) continues to be of great concern to the Swedish Government. We share the regret expressed by the Secretary-General in his recent report (A/42/732) that it has not yet proved possible to engage both Governments in talks of the kind envisaged in resolution 41/40. We support his efforts to promote a dialogue between the parties that will progressively lead to a just and lasting settlement of the question of the Falkland Islands, which lies at the core of their continuing estrangement. We continue sincerely to hope that the two Governments will be prepared soon to take further steps towards considering the full range of issues necessarily involved in this dialogue. In our view, the resolution is a constructive attempt to promote a resumption of the dialogue between the two parties concerned without any pre-conditions and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. We believe progress can be made through a dialogue, coupled with confidence-building measures, towards solving all the differences between the two parties. We join in the international call on them to resume such a dialogue. There are, in my Government's view, two main principles which have to be applied to the resolution of this issue. The first is the right to self-determination. The right of all peoples in colonial territories freely to determine their own future is a fundamental principle of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. ~he second principle is that conflicts must be resolved through peaceful means. My delegation reads the references made to the Charter of the United Nations both in the preambular and in the operative part of the draft resolution in this light. For these reasons my delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution. It goes without saying, however, that we should have preferred to vote on a text that we could all have supported.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 37.

I call on the representative of the African National Congress of South Africa, in accordance with the decision taken by the General Assembly at its 3rd plenary meeting, on 18 September 1987. Mr. MAKATINI (African National Congress of South Africa (ANC»): First, I must join those who have preceded me in extending sincere condolences to the Government and people of Niger following the untimely death of President Seyni Kountche. On behalf of the African National Congress and in the name of our National Executive Committee, headed by comrade President Oliver Tambo, who deeply regrets his inability to be with us here today, I wish to congratulate Mr. Peter Florin on his unanimous election as President of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. The ANC is for ever appreciative of the place the German Democratic Republic continues to occupy and the crucial role it plays in the international fight for the eradication of apartheid. I also wish to express our appreciation to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, Secretary-General of the United Nations, for his tireless efforts in the cause of humanity and particularly his commitment to the independence of Namibia and the establishment of a non-racial democracy in South Africa. The indefatigable Joseph Garba, Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, has given a truly analytical and objective report on the situation in South Africa, thereby effectively preparing the ground for what we hope will prove to have been a lively debate leading to action-oriented decisions. The Special Committee against Apartheid must be highly commended for tne invaluable contribution that it continues to make in the international campaign for the total isolation of racist South Africa and the eradication of apartheid. We must also say a word of welcome to Mr. Satiros Massouris, Assistant Secretary-General and Head of the Centre against Apartheid, whom we assure of our full co-operation in the action-packed days ahead. Like our counterparts in other parts of Africa and the world, who have known colonial or semi-colonial, alien or racial domination, we, the oppressed people of South Africa, have never ceased to yearn for, dream of and strive for freedom. Though the intensity of our struggle has tended to ebb and flow, there have occurred crucial junctures at which years have been the equivalent of decades in terms of the ground covered by the resistance movement. The period under review has been a momentous one in South Africa, ever since September 1984, when the white minority regime moved its troops into the black townships in an attempt to crush the popular resistance to apartheid. It has been a period marked by the relentless mass resistance that reached its peak in the week of the birth of the United Democratic Front (UDF), formed in 1983 to oppose the bogus constitutional dispensation - that vain attempt to co-opt the so-called Coloureds and Asians for use as second-class allies in the perpetuation of white supremacy. (Mr. Makatini, ANC) It will be recalled that when the UDF was launched it called for the participation in the resistance of the working people. The UDF expressed faith "in the leadership of the working class in the democratic struggle for freedom". It also resolved to strengthen the unity between genuine trade unions and freedom-loving people in the struggle for human rights. The inauguration of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) at the end of December 1985 was therefore a major development in the current phase of our struggle. It meant that the most militant sector of our people had accepted the UOF's challenge. As is known to all, in spite of increased repression, harassment and intimidation, COSATU has launched and endorsed several strikes, including the recent ones of 20,000 postal workers and 360,000 mine workers. We share the view expressed today by many friends and foes that the South African situation will never be the same again after this tremendous show of working-class power, which has the potential of immensely increasing the capacity of the resistance movement. The undaunted spirit and determination of the oppressed people of South Africa has manifested itself repeatedly and in various forms, including the refusal of black youth to be muzzled by the draconian laws and repression of the second state of emergency declared in June 1986. In this connection, it should be noted that the banning of the Congress of South African Students (COSAS) - the powerful student voice since the 1976 Soweto uprising - has backfired, because in its place our valiant youth, on 1 March 1987, at the height of the second state of emergency, launched the South African Youth Congress (SAYCO). This is clear testimony that the state of emergency has failed to suppress our struggle. The welding togetner of the black youth, who constitute the cutting edge of the resistance movement and the future of our country, has been another milestone whose potential in the strengthening of the democratic movement's capacity cannot be overestimated. The adoption of the Freedom Charter by that powerful organization, whose membership is over half a million, was another watershed. The same may soon be true of another giant federation, that of women, recently formed as an underground organization at the height of the state of emergency. It is also important to note that the African National Congress has developed a capacity to integrate such local struggles as the rent boycott into the framework of the broader national liberation struggle. It is against this background that the armed action of our military wing - Umkhonto We Sizwe - recently reported on Magnus Malan' s own admission in Parliament to have increased by 300 per cent - must be seen. The most important development during the period under review is certainly the political successes scored by the mass democratic movement in general and by the ANC in its campaign to isolate the Pretoria regime at home and abroad. Delegations of white institutions and groups that have defied the Pretoria regime and undertaken trips to hold consultations with the ANC in Harare and Lusaka have increased significantly this year. They now include the 61 mainly Afrikaner intellectuals, artists, writers and other opinion makers, whose meeting with an ANC delegation in Dakar has been welcomed in various capitals and by many inter-State organizations as an important development. The ANC intends to continue on this path for the purpose of reaching out to and encouraging large numbers of white compatriots to distance themselves from P. W. Botha's laager mentality, embrace the Dakar spirit and participate in one way or another in the struggle for majority rule in a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it - black and white. These consultations have been held with a variety of groups and have yielded varying but encouraging results. We must reiterate our position that these are not intended as negotiations or beginnings of talks: they are but part of the ANC campaign of mobilization intended to isolate the Pretoria regime at home and strengthen the position of the democratic movement committed to a non-racial democracy in a united South Africa. The Dakar group's acceptance of certain important positions, including the principle of one person, one vote and the historical reasons for armed struggle, is indeed an important milestone. The world-wide consensus on the application of sanctions as the only peaceful means of compelling racist South Africa to end apartheid was further strengthened and broadened last year by the conclusions of the Eminent Persons Group and the World Conference held in Paris in June 1986. Effect has been given to it by the Nordic countries through the total trade embargo by Denmark, Sweden and Finland against racist South Africa. It has compelled the European Common Market member States to embark on some kind of first step in the same direction, despite the continued intransigence of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. In October last year it was given a strong shot in the arm by the adoption in the United States of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, 1986 - an important victory over the policy of constructive engagement. We must never tire of thanking the anti-apartheid movement throughout the world, including the Amer ican people and their anti-apartheid elected officials. Their relentless efforts have made them active allies of the struggling people in South Africa and Namibia. The latest opinion polls showing that two thirds of South African blacks support the idea of sanctions, and the positions recently taken by the UDF, COSATU, SAYCO and the South African Council of Churches in support of sanctions, make nonsense of the often repeated argument by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan that comprehensive sanctions would hurt the blacks. It was the blacks through their organization, the ANC, who first called for sanctions, as early as 1959, fully mindful that they would result in the loss of some jobs for both black and white workers, but would also effectively weaken the Pretoria regime, thereby complementing our struggle. "Every trade agreement, every new investment and every bank loan is a brick in the wall for our survival", said John Balthazar Vorster in 1972. All we are saying to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Ronald Reagan is that their countries should actively pull out those bricks and weaken the wall of apartheid, which must be brought down and replaced by a non-racial democracy. We must again reiterate our position that continued refusal by those Governments to make common cause with the rest of the international community is clearly a prescription for violence, as it deprives the embattled and oppressed people of South Africa of their only remaining option for peaceful change in South Africa. It is interesting that President Ronald Reagan, in his report to Congress - pursuant to section 501 of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, 1986, correctly observed that the state of emergency in South Africa had not been repealed, but instead the earlier decree had been tightened~ press restrictions had been tightened and an increasing number of journalists, including Americans, had been expelled~ Nelson Mandela and other key political prisoners had not been released, but instead the number of political prisoners, including a large number of minors, detained by the Government had increased. He also observed that no clear and credible plan had been devised for negotiating a future political system involving all the people equally in South Africa, and that many legitimate representatives of the majority were still banned~ in hiding or in detention. He also said that the Government of South Africa had not ended its military .and paramilitary activities aimed at neighbouring states. Bearing in mind the correct observations made by the President of the United States of America regarding the current situation in South Africa, we condemn the abuse of the veto by the United States and the United Kingdom and the position taken by the Federal Republic of Germany during the month of February. In our view that action was hostile to the interests of the oppressed people of South Africa and contrary to the letter and spirit of the United States Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, 1986. That Act called for the imposition of additional sanctions in the absence of significant progress leading to the end of apartheid and the establishment of a non-racial democracy in South Africa. Therefore, in our opinion, the Administration of the United states of America stands in violation of a Congressional Act empowering and mandating appropriate action to the full extent of the law. That Act also called upon the Secretary of State to convene an international conference on multilateral sanctions against South Africa, and to nave the United States representative at the United Nations take an initiative leading to the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions. The African National Congress is not alone in holding the view that the situation in South Africa has further deteriorated this year. This viewpoint is shared by many inter-State organizations including the United Nations, as well as by the Commonwealth leaders, who stated at their recent meeting that: "the er isis engendered in the reg ion by apartheid has ser iously deteriorated ••• Repressive measures resulting in more suffering and 106s of life have been intensified within South Africa, and the toll taken by acts of war and destruction directed against South Africa's neighbours in an attempt to sustain and defend apartheid has continued to rise." (A/42j677, annex 11, We have in addition recently witnessed the latest confirmation of the white supremacy doctrine: the whites-only election, the imposition of states of emergency, the increased detention of our compatriots and, in particular, the hideous and wanton detention and torture of hundreds of our children; and the press censorship intended to hide the regime's evil from the South African community in general. The combined impact of the internal and external pressures on the Pretoria regime reached an unprecedented level early this year. In characterizing this period we can safely speak of a psychological threshold having been crossed in South Africa. On the sioe of the oppressed, our people cast aside fear of death and, like their brethren in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Namibia, put their lives on the line for freedom. On the side of the oppressor, he admitted to himself that he had lost the strategic initiative, which has passed into the hands of the people, and that he can no longer rule by himself and in the old way. we are talking of the irreversible process now seen by friend and foe as leading to the inevitable demise of the apartheid system. (Mr. Makatini, ANC) In a desperate attempt to stem the tide of mass resistance at home, as well a international pressure and sanctions, the Pretoria regime has embarked on a two-pronged approach. One was articulated a few years ago by Magnus Malan, the regime's Defence Minister, who admitted that, despite its military might, the regime could not win in the mainly psychological warfare waged by the ANC. On that occasion he stressed the need for the regime's campaign being 80 per cent political and designed to win the hearts and minds of the people, and only 20 per cent military. It is in pursuance of this campaign that P.W. Botha has publicly declared his regime's policy of co-opting "moderate blacks" with whom he intends to share power. The other approach of the campaign derives from the regime's loyalty to all the tenets of apartheid, including the doctrine that whites are inherently superior to blacks, that apartheid enjoys divine inspiration and that, as the representative of White, Christian and Western civilization, racist South Africa is the bulwark against the spread of communist influence in Africa. The origins of this strategy can be traced to P.W. Botha's policy statement during the May whites-only elections, when he declared the need to crush the ANC and the extra-parliamentary organizations before co-opting "moderate blacks" with whom to share power. This campaign has taken the form of abduction of ANC cadres, such as Ibrahim Ismai1 Ibrahim and Prisci11a Nyanda from the Kingdom of Swazi1ann. It has taken the form of assassination of 13 ANC cadres and leaders, including Cassius Make, the late National Executive Committee member. It has also taken the form, revealed at the recent trial in London, of the plan to kidnap 15 ANC leaders, including Comrade President Oliver Tambo. At the same time, the regime continues to spend millions of dollars in the propaganda campaign to discredit the ANC, while romoting the ever-growing number of bogus groups being groomed for co-option. (Mr. Makatini, ANC) That is indeed further proof that the Botha regime has neither the desire nor the intention to engage in any peaceful negotiations. On the contrary, everything it does is directed at the destruction of the national liberation movement, the suppression of the democratic movement and the entrenchment and perpetuation of the apartheid system of white domination. It is conducting a determined campaign to eliminate the ANC and the democratic movement. We call on the united Nations and the entire international community to meet this challenge by lending appropriate political support to the ANC, which enjoys unparalleled authority in the country today. Attempts to co-opt Bantustan and other puppets towards a neo-apartheid solution must be defeated. The conflict in our country is between the forces of national liberation and democracy on the one hand, and those of racism and reaction on the other. Any negotiations would have to be conducted by those two forces, as represented by their various organizational formations. It is in this context that we call on the international community to join the ANC in rejecting, without aualification, the proposed National Statutory Council, which the Botha regime seeks to establish through legislation to be enacted by the apartheid parliament and on the basis of the constitution, which the General Assembly and the Security Council have declared null and void. The National Statutory Council seeks to entrench and legitimize the very structures of apartheid that our struggle seeks to abolish. The position of the ANC on negotiations is clearly stated in the 9 October statement of the National Executive Committee, which states, inter alia, that: "Once more we would like to reaffirm that the ANC and the masses of OUI people as a whole are ready and willing to enter into genuine negotiations provided they are aimed at the transformation of our country into a united and non-rac ial democracy. 11 However, in viewing the Pretoria regime's record exemplified by non-compliance with the Nkomati Accord, the Lusaka Agreement and Security Council resolution 435 (1978), our statement further declares: "Our region is fully conversant with the treacherous and deceitful nature of the apartheid regime. Taking this experience into account, we insist that before any negotiations take place the apartheid regime would have to demonstrate its seriousness by implementing various measures to create a climate conducive to such negotiations. These would include the unconditional release of all political prisoner, detainees, all captured freedom fighters and prisoners of war, as well as the cessation of all political trials. The state of emergency would have to be lifted, the army and the police withdrawn from the townships and confined to their harracks. Similarly, all repressive legislation and all laws empowering the regime to limit freedom of assembly, speech, the press and so on, would have to be repealed. Among these would be the Riotous Assemblies, the Native Administration, the General Laws Amendment, the Unlawful Organizations, the Internal security and similar Acts and regulations. "We take this opportunity once more to reaEfi rm that the Afr ican National Congress is opposed to any secret negotiations. We firmly helieve that the people themselves must participate in shaping their destiny and would therefore have to be inl10lved in any process of negotiations." In this context, the release of Govan Mbeki must be welcomed as an important development and victory not only for the South African patriots but also for the justice-loving peoples of the world in general, whose relentless campaign for the unconditional release of all the South African political ~risoners can no longer he (Mr. Makatini, ANC) ignored by the already isolated Pretoria regime. However, in order to have it serve as a catalyst for meaningful change, it must be followed immediately by the eoually unconditional release of Nelson Mandela, WaIter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada and all other political prisoners and detainees, including children. As we meet here today, racist South Africa's full-scale invasion of the People's Republic of Angola continues with savage intensity. pretoria's arrogance and desperate move to secure the Reagan Administration's active participation in this anti-African act, has been underscored by P.W. Botha's reported visit to southern Angola. There can be no bigger challenge to the United Nations and the international community in general; they must take immediate and appropriate action against the pretoria regime. The repeated massacres committed by the RENAMO armed bandits in Mozambiaue, who have killed hundreds of civilians in coLd blood, call for eaually urgent action. I take this opportunity to confirm that the African National Congress, in co-operation with the Party and Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, will beholding an international conference in Arusha from 1 to 4 December 1987. The theme of the conference is "The Peoples of the world against apartheid and for the establishment of a non-racial democracy in South Africa", and we hope that it will, among other things, address the issue of sanctions. (Mr. Makatini, ANC) Our organization thanks the Special Committee against Apartheid and all who have helped to fund this project, and it appeals to those who have not yet contributed to do so. At this juncture and in keeping with the numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and the overwhelming support of the international community, we call upon the Assembly once again to urge the Security Council to convene immediately in order to adopt comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 477 (V) of 1 November 1950, I now call on the Observer of the League of Arab States. Mr. MANSOURI (League of Arab States) (interpretation from Arabic): I should like at the outset to extend to you my sincere congratulations and best wishes, in the name of the League of Arab states. Your election to this important post, is the best evidence of the trust you personally enjoy and ample proof of the high esteem in which the people and Government of your country are held for their role in securing peace and upholding the principles and goals of the United Nations Charter. The League of Arab states and the Arab countries value the cordial, friendly relations with your country and cherish its firm stand on the just cause of Arab peoples, particularly its support for the cause of the people of Palestine. History has never witnessed the like of the degrading, inhuman practices pursued by the racist regime in South Africa whose policies are based on the institutionalization of racial discrimination. In pursuance of its apartheid policies, the racist minority regime, imposes its hegemony through systematic oppression and victimization of the black majority in South Africa. For a long time now the police, army and paramilitary forces of the apartheid Afr ica and their oppressive machinery ar,e trying to do through emergency legislation which continues in force, is to defeat the forces of national resistance in a desperate attempt to dampen and put out the flame of a valiant movement which grows more determined and steadfast in the face of this increasing repression. Instead of knuckling under, the people of South Africa, stand united behind its leadership and face up to the apartheid regime despite arbitrary arrests and detention. The people of South Africa continue to struggle against the brutal repression of the Pretoria regime. The report before the Assembly states that that brutal regime pursues arbitrary policies against the populace regardless of sex or age. Thus, women, disabled persons and even children under the age of 18 - have fallen victim to its criminality and arbitrary persecution. In detention now there are between 300 and 500 children below the legal age. In South Africa there are secret detention camps for children where the inmates are subjected to brainwashing through indoctrination programmes which are supposed to facilitate this integration in their communities, if we are to believe the claims of the officials of the apartheid regime. Obviously, that is neither believable nor acceptable. Not content with its racist policies, which are a crime against humanity and an affront to the dignity of man, the apartheid regime resorts to military attacks against neighbouring countries. The Government of racist South Africa pursues a systematically hostile policy against the territorial integrity of the independent neighbouring countries. On the other hand, the Government of South Africa still occupies the Territory of Namibia illegally, persecutes its people and hinders the independence of that territory by linking it to the contrived issue of the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. The claims by the Government of South Africa that it is improving ethnic relations through the so-called constitutional reform and the repealing of the Pass laws, are nothing but bogus reforms which, in reality, is a manoeuvre aimed at appeasing an outraged international community. In the first instance the aim is,to perpetuate the policy of apartheid. We in the League of Arab States support the overwhelming majority of the citizens in South Africa who reject all such manoeuvres and bogus cosmetic changes. We urge the international community to eliminate completely the regime of apartheid and establish a unified, free, democratic society on the basis ofa free general election. The League of Arab States requests, in line with numerous resolutions adopted by the Council of the League, that the Pretoria regime release Nelson Mandela, all the other political prisoners and those under house arrest; that it lift the state of emergency and repeal its racist laws. The League of Arab States believes it necessary that workers in South Africa be granted all their trade union riqhts, that an end be put to the bantustan system and that a political dialogue be commenced with the legitimate leaders of the majority population in order to put an immediate end to apartheid and establish a representative, democratic government. We in the League of Arab States, and indeed all over the Arab world, believe it is extremely difficult to try to reform of the apartheid policy. It must be overhauled from the roots. For more than four decades now the United Nations has been seized of the ?roblem of the policy of apartheid pursued by the Government of South Africa. ~hroughout that period, the international community has made tremendous efforts to )ut an end to the abhorrent regime of racial discrimination and its attendant degradation and persecution of the majority of a whole indigenous people in the land of their forefathers. During the last 40 years, the Government of South Africa, in defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations and the international will, has come up with thousands of pretexts, relying on the tolerance and collusion of a limited number of countries, in order to prolong its racist policy. However, the horrendous circle of terror pursued by the Pretoria Government shows that it is desperately attempting to preserve its very foundations, which are crumbling as a result of its policies of racial discrimination. (Mr. Mansouri, League of Arab states) How else can anyone explain the upsurge of arbitrary arrests, detentions, systematic genocide, the suppression of freeaom of the press and freedom of association? All this is happening at a time when the chief demand of the indigenous population is that their fundamental rights as set out in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be recognized. It is worth noting that the main reason behind the intransigent posture of the South African Government in pursuing these aggressive policies, defying the international will and the norms of legality and refusing to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and respond to the just demands of the international community, is the continued and increasing collaboration between Pretoria and a number of countries and transnational corporations which seek by every means to achieve their objectives of increased benefits from the exploitation of the human and material wealth of South Africa and Namibia. The outcome of th~s military, economic and trade relationship is more poverty for the black majority and more plundering of the natural resources of the territory. It encourages the leaders of South Africa to stick to their policies of racial discrimination and aggression. This is the only context within which the world should view and assess the privileged close relationship between the apartheid regime in South Africa and the zionist entity regime in occupied Palestine. In this connection, we must refer to the declaration by the Zionist occupying power on the so-called embargo against South Africa. This is but a ploy to circumvent the measures included in the 1986 legislation by the United States ~ngress, entitled "United States anti-Apartheid Act" of October 1986, which is limed at reconsidering assistance given to countries that violate the arms embargo 19ainst South Africa. The report before the General Assembly (A/42/22/Add.l) !xplains Israel's real intentions vis-a-vis its dealings with South Africa. The report also underlines the belief that Israel is South Africa's major source of arms and that South Africa's arms purchases from Israel exceed R 1,000 million annually. In addition, there is the covert technical and intelligence collaboration and co-operation in the area of military research between the arms industr ies of South Afr ica and Israel. The report also recognizes fully the increas ing gravity of nuclear collaboration between Israel and South Afr iea, particularly in so far as this introduces an element of nuclear blackmai~ i.nto the African situation through the close collaboration in the nuclear field between Israel and South Africa. Obviously, this is a grave threat to the African countries, particularly the front-line States in southern Africa. The Arab countries, which believe that the cause of freedom and the ri.ght to self-determination and independence form an integral whole that has its basis in international law and norms of legality have always stood by their brethren in Africa in this particularly critical stage of their liberation struggle. Therefore, the Arab countries see themselves as party to a battle against aparthei( and the struggle for its elimination and for the freedom and independence of the people of Namibia. The League of Arab States, in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the Council as well as at Arab summit conferences, have always affirmed thei.r total boycott in every field of the racist regime in South Africa. We also affi.rm our resolve to continue our endeavours to expose the policies and practices of the apartheid regime. The Arab countries call on all international bodies to isolate the Pretoria regime, and impose mandatory sanctions and a boycott against it in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. The Arab countries and the League of Arab States call on the international community to shoulder its full responsibilities towards the people of South Africa extend its support to the Pan Afr icanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and the African (Mr. Mansour i, League of Arab states) National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and bring greater pressure to bear on the racist regime to respect and comply with the wishes of the international community, acknowledge the aspirations and wishes of the national majority to exercise their national constitutional and political rights in a just deroocratic society. In this context, the Council of the League of Arab States has affirmed that the support given by some Western countries to the South African regime by means of their continued relationships with that regime in every field is one of the factors which cause the racist regime to continue its intransigence and arrogance. The Arab countries affirm that the collaboration between the racist regime in South Africa and the racist regime of Tel Aviv is a major axis of cOlonialist racist conspiracy against the Arab and African countries. The League of ~ab States believes in the necessity of concerted regional and international efforts in facing up to this situation which gravely threatens international peace and security.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I 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. Mr. FLAX (Israel): I wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply regarding statements we heard this morning by the representatives of the United ~rab Emirates and Syria during the debate on apartheid. I never cease to be amazed, even after spending so many hours in this Hall, by :he wilfUl ignorance and barefaced hypocrisy displayed by some representatives lare. I hold in my hand document A/42/45 .dated 5 November 1987, which was released this morning. It is entitled "Report of the Intergovernmental Group to Monitor the Supply and Shipping of Petroleum products to South Africa". Permit me to quote from the introductory section: "Oil and petroleum products are vital for South Africa's transport sector and for the military and police forces .•• ". (A/42/45, para.B, p. 5 In annex Ill, on cases of violations, pages 49 through 58 of that report, a great number of paragraphs deal with the United Arab Emirates. These paragraphs are 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41 and, lastly, 44. Other oil-producing countries are being investigated, but first place undoubtedly belongs to the United Arab Emirates. Permit me now to make a few observations regarding the remarks of the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, a regime noted for its tolerance and scrupulous regard for human dignity. We were heartened by the lesson the Syrian representative offered on the subject of nazism. I commend him for his expertise, but he is far too modest. I believe that all here should be aware whence such expertise is obtained. There lives in Damascus, at 7 Rue Hadad Street, a man - if you can call him that - named Alois Brunner, SS serial number 342767. He was Adolph Eichmann's deputy and, as such, was in charge of deporting Jews from Austria, Greece, Yugoslavia and France. In fact, he ran the notorious concentration camp at Drancy. In the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunals he was singled out for his specialty - murdering children and humiliating the elderly before death. In all, he was responsible for some 136,500 murders. In 1954 he was sentenced to death in absentia by France. Lest anyone think that Mr. Srunner has just recently been discovered, let the record show that on 10 October 1984 a warrant was issued for his arrest in Germany. On 18 December 1984 a formal request for his extradition was presented to the Syrian Government. At first the Syrians claimed to have no knowledge of his whereabollts. But after Brunner was repeatedly interviewed in the media - the last time this past October - the Syrian Government changed its tune. They now claim that Brunner has committed no crime which can be prosecuted in Syria and therefore he cannot be extradited. If the mark of a civilized society is the extent to which it protects its children and respects its elders, what can be said about a regime which harbours a murderer of children and a tormentor of the elderly? The cynicism of the syrian representative smacks of a vulgarity which we had all hoped had perished 42 years ago. It is reprehensible. In the final analysis, it is incomprehensible. Mr. HASSAN (United Arab Emirates) (interpretation from Arabic): The representative of Israel, in exercise of the right of reply, tried to defend his country's relations with South Africa by accusing others and not mentioning Israel's links with the racist South African regime. I should like to remind the representative of Israel that the Knesset this year adopted a resolution dealing with contracts with South Africa that should not (Mt. Flax, Israel) be signed. Significantly, the Knesset approves of the co-operation between the two regimes; it adopted that resolution because of the pressure exerted by certain American institutes so that funds paid to Israel should not be cut off. What is more important in relations between Israel and South Africa is the strategic, military and nuclear co-operation between them, which is never mentioned in Israel. I do not wish to dwell on thisl suffice it to say that the relations existing between Israel and South Africa are referred to in United Nations documents and in General Assembly resolutions. ~he United Arab Emirates are proud of their position of principle against racism, be it that practised by South Africa or Israel. We do not know whether the representative of Israel is trying to deceive himself or others. Mr. ARNOUSS (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): A few moments ago the representative of Israel, who represents a racist regime, tried to divert the General Assembly's attention from the agenda item, "Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa". He tried insolently to deny the existence of relations between his country and the Pretoria regime. I referred this morning to certain paragraphs of the report of the special Committee against Apartheid dealing with Israel's collaboration with that regime. Consequently, at this late hour I shall not again quote that report. I shall limit myself to reading out a paragraph from a statement made by a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa. It appeared on 31 January 1987 in The Citizen of Johannesburg and is an indication of Israel's regard for our African brothers: (§Poke in English) "First, we should think of the Jewish community, when 20,000 Jews are more important than black African nations. sanctions do not solve any problems." (continued in Arabic) Such, then, are the relations existing between the two regimes, and such are their practices. The meeting rose at 7.45 p.m. (Mr. Arnouss, Syrian Arab Republic)