A/42/PV.77 General Assembly

We have heard the last speaker in the deba te on th is item of the agenda. I call on the representative of Nigeria, who wishes to introduce draft resolu Hen A/ 42/L. 26 and Corr.l, enti tled .. In terna tional solidarity wi th the liberation struggle in South Africa", and draft resolution A/42/L.30 and Corr.l, entitled "Programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid". Mr. GARBA (Niger ia): On behalf of the sponsors, which include my own delega tion, I have the honour to in troduce the dra ft r esolu tion A/42/L. 26 and Corr.l, entitled "International solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa", and draft resolution A/42/L.30 and Corr.l entitled "Programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid". I would like first, however, to bring to the Assembly's attention the efforts that the sponsors of draft resolutions A/42/L.26 to L.30 have made this year to introduce five draft resolutions each of which focuses on one particular subject in ~emotional, succinct and sober language, and with added brevity. The Assembly will appreciate that the length of the draft resolutions has been substantially curtailed, and that the preamular paragraphs have been Hmi ted to the minimum, to the extent that overlapping is virtually eliminated. Even in the substance we have tried to avoid condemna tions and have responded to some comments made in the past by a number of countries. Let me say that the sponsors have made a genuine effort to facilitate broad acceptance of these draft resolutions. Having listened to the statements in the debate on this agenda item, I shall be surpr ised if most western countries do not support all of these draft resolutions. We sincerely hope that we shall see in the voting a tangible, positive response to the efforts we have made th is year. I now wish to introduce, first, draft resolution A/42/L.26 and Corr.l, on international solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa. This is a similar draft resolution to draft resolutions which the General Assembly has tradi tionally adopted in the past in a more lengthy form under the title "Situa tion in South Afr ica ". The thrust of the draft resolution emanates from the report of the Special Committee, particularly the parts dealing with the review of developments in SOuth Africa and the conclusions and recommendations of the report. In its preambular paragraphs we express our concern at the escala ting repression of and the State-sponsored terror against the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, demonstrated by the extension of the state of emergency, the detentions, torture and killing, particularly of children, the obnoxious use of vigilante groups, which are used as death squads, and the press censorship. The draft resolution also reflects in its preamble the outrage expressed by all speakers from this rostrum during this debate at the regime's acts of aggression and destabil ization against neighbour ing independent African States, and the con tinu ing illegal occupa tion of Namib ia. In operative paragraph 1 the General Assembly reaffirms its full support for the people of South Africa under the leadership of their national liberation movements, in their struggle to eradicate apartheid and build a free, democratic, unfragmented and non-racial South Africa. All who have spoken from this rostrum have expressed their determination to see the eradication of apartheid and a free, just and non-racial South Africa. Operative paragraph 2 reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of the people of South Afr ica and their right to choose the necessary means, including armed resistance, to eradicate apartheid. I would like to draw the Assembly's attent"ion to the word "resistance", which for the first time appears in our draft resolutions, and again underline the efforts that the sponsors have been making to achieve a wide consensus and at the same time reflect even roc>re clearly the fact that it is the racist regime that initiates violence. The system of apartheid itself consti tutes aggression. The people of South Afr ica have the right to self-defence against the violence perpetrated by the criminal system of apartheid in the same way as countr ies are allCNed by the United Nations Charter to defend themselves with arms. I bel ieve that some Wester n countr ies that have had di fficul ties with the notion of "armed struggle" in the past cannot object to the term "armed resistance" when they themselves have been proud of the res is tance they displayed during the Second World War and at other times in their history when they were under oppression and tyranny. The United Nations cannot take from the people of South Africa and their liberation movements their right to self-defence in their legitimate fight against the criminal system of apartheid. This is particularly true in the present circumstances, when the racist regime has been escala ting repression and violence against the opponents of apartheid while the United Nations has remained paralysed and unable to apply the only peaceful means ava ilable to curb the racist Sou th Afr iea, namely, comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. Opera tive paragraph 3 deals wi th the condemna tion by the General Assembly of the policy and practice of apartheid and, in particular, the execution of patr iots and captured freedom fighters in South Africa. This paragraph demands that the racist regime, first, stay the execution of those now on death row, and, secondly, abide by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocol 1 of 1977. In this paragraph cognizance is taken of the international community's belief that, if anybody ought to be ja iled, it is not those who have acted to ensure the granting of the inalienable rights of all South African people, but their persecutors, who are the true criminals pursuing the policy and practice of apartheid, which has been declared a crime against humanity by the General Assembly. The General Assembly demands again, in operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution, that the racist regime end repression against the oppressed people; lift the state of emergency; release unconditionally all South African political prisoners; lift the ban on the two national liberation movements of South Africa; and other specific measures as enumerated in this paragraph. It considers, in following operative paragraph 5, that the implementation of these demands would create the appropriate climate for free consultations among all the people of South Africa. Again, all speakers from this rostrum have talked about the need for negotiations on a just and lasting solution to the conflict in that country and the establishment of a free, delTOcratic, non-racial South Africa. As part of a ooncrete derronstration of the international solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa, the General Assembly, in operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft resolution, appeals to all States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, the mass media, and city and other local authorities, as well as individuals, to increase urgently political, economic, educational, legal, humanitarian and all other forms of necessary assistance to the people of South Africa and their liberation movements. It also appeals to them to step up material, financial and other forms of support to the front-line and other member Sta tes of the Souther n Afr ican Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC). (Mr. Garba, Nigeria) :By the same token, in operative paragraph 8 all countries are urged to contribute generously to the ktion for Resisting Invasion, Colonialism and Apartheid (AFRICA) Fund establ ished wi th the aim of increasing support to the liberation movemen ts fi gh ting the apar theid regime and to the fron t-line Sta tes • These paragraphs, I have no doubt, are in tune wi th the views of all delegations which participated in the debate and I believe that they express the consensus in this Hall. In concluding, I wish to express my belief that, since the thrust of this draft resolution reflects the will of the international community as has been expressed in this Hall, Member States will give it their full support. I turn now to draft resolution A/42/L. 30 and Corr.l, entitled "Programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid". In the draft resolution the General Assembly commends the Special Committee against Apartheid for its work in the discharge of its responsibilities, in particular promoting international action against apartheid. It endorses the recommendations pertaining to the programTQe of work and activities to promote the international campaign against apartheid. Such activities are illustrated in paragraph 150 of the report of the Special Committee. The modest financial request in operative paragraph 3 is a minimum amount that will allow the Special Committee to undertake its 1988 programmes. The Special Commi ttee has in the past two year s been very fr ugal and effected str ingent ecooomies in its activities. In requesting an amount of $390,000, which is exactly the sum that was voted last year, the Special Committee is once again motivated by the need for austerity imposed by the financial difficulties of our Organization. At the same time, let me clearly state, however, that this modest amount for 1988 should in no way be construed as indicating a tendency towards diminishing our activities. On the contrary, we plan to execute our programmes with effectiveness, selecting our priority activities with a view to maximizing pressure and mobilizing those in a posi tion to influence decision-mak ing. In this draft resolution the General Assembly also requests Governments and organiza tions to provide financial and other forms of ass istance for the special projects of the Special Corami ttee and to make generous contr ibutions to the Trust Fund for Publicity aga ins t Apar theid. Finally, it appeals to all Governments, intergovernmental organizations, information media, non-governmental organizations and individuals to co-operate wi th the Centre aga inst Apartheid and the Depar tment of Public Information of the united Nations secretariat in disseminating information on the deteriorating situation in South Afr ica in order to mitigate the effects of the restraints on the press in South Africa and effectively to counteract racist south African propaganda. In this connection, contributions to the Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid would help the Centre against Apartheid to carry out a new, revitalized programme, which, given the press censorship in South Africa, has acquired a special importance. On behalf of the sponsors, I wish to express the hope that both the draft resolutions, A/42/L.26 and Corr.l and A/42/L.3D and Corr.l, which I have just introduced will receive the unanimous support of the Member States represented at this session of the General Assembly. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ I call on the representa tive of Kuwait, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/42/L.27 and Corr.l, entitled "Application of co-ordinated and strictly monitored measures aga inst Sou th Afr i ca It. Mr. ABULHMAN (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic) ~ I have the privilege of introducing draft resolution A/42//t.27 and Corr.l, entitled "Application of co~rdinated and strictly monitored measures against South Africa", on behalf of the sponsors 1 isted in document L. 27/Corr .1. The report of the Special Committee against Apartheid clearly emphasizes the need to impose co-ordinated comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter. While the sponsors of this draft resolution fully share and subscribe to the conclusion of the Special Committee, they feel that the international oommunity, pending a decision of the security Council, is morally bound to take measures designed to bring an end to the abhorrent system of apartheid. Such measures, whether taken individually or collectively by Cbvernments and provided that they are strictly implemented and monitored, could serve as an effective challenge to the racist regime. This draft resolution should therefore be viewed in this context and not as a substitute for mandatory sanctions imposed by the security Council in fulfilment of its responsibility. In the preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution the Assentlly takes note of the report of the Special Committee and of the fact that measures taken by Sta tes individually and collectively vary in coverage and degree of enforcement, which allows the racist regime to exploit existing gaps. It commends actions by States, associations and other organizations for measures that they have taken fully to isolate the apartheid regime. In operative paragraph 1 the General Assembly urges all States, pending the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions, to adopt legislative and/or comparable measures to impose effective sanctions against South Africa. These (Mr. Abulh as an , Kuwait) measures, which are listed in suhparagraphs (a) to (e), have already been accepted in the past by the Gener al Assembly. Most of them ar e alOOng the set of collective· measures that have been taken by a large number of countries, including the Nordic countries. The p.lrpose of subparagraph (a) is to ensure the greatest possible co-ordina tion of measures adopted by States wi th a view to clos ing the loop-holes regarding their implementation. In operative paragraph 2 States are called upon not only to monitor the implementation of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 but also to impose penalties on individuals and enterprises within their jurisdiction that violate these measures. This is a very important element if these measures are to be effective. In operative paragraph 3, States are encouraged to ratify the International Convention against Apartheid in Spor ts. It should be noted that the word "enoour ages" is used her e as an incentive to those countr ies which fully supper t the spor ts boycott aga inst Sou th Africa, bu t have some cons titu tional dif ficul ties in meeting the provisions of the Convention. In operative paragraph 4, the Secretary-General is requested to submit a report on the measures taken by States individually and collectively and the implementation thereof. In conclusion, on behalf of the sponsors of the draft resolution, I should like to urge the members of the General Assembly to support it unanimously as an expression of solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa and a token of ilie determination of the international community to eliminate apartheid. The PRFSIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I call on the representa tive of Nepal, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/ 42/t. 28 and Corr.l, entitled "Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa". Mr. RANA (Nepal): I have the honour, on behalf of the sponsors, to introduce draft resolution A/42/t.28 and Corr.l, entitled "Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of SOuth Africa". The draft resolution is based on the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee against Apartheid, as set forth in its annual report, contained in document A/42/22, and takes into account different points highlighted during the course of the current session. It may be recalled that the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apar theid, in open ing the debate on agenda item 33, on the "policies of Apartheid of the Government of SOuth Africa", underlined the endeavour to improve the format of the Special Commit tee I s reports. The draft resolution also reflects this endeavour. In the face of the situation in and around South Africa, the international community has concluded that the imposi tion of sanctions aga inst South Africa remains the only peaceful alternative for exerting pressure on the racist regime to (Mr. Rana, Nepal) dismantle apartheid. There is a broad consensus that the many measures adopted by States individually or collectively, while commendable, are far from adequate. Existing loopholes in relevant national le9islation, violations of the United Nations embargoes, the continued collaboration of certain States with the racist regime and a lack of willingness to implement, monitor or enforce restrictive measures give the regime the opportunity to defy once again the international community's resolve to eliminate apartheid. Taking those developments into account, the majority of States and world opinion in general are fully convinced that it lies within the responsibility of the Security Council to act urgently and decide with one voice on the imposition of compr ehens ive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the united Nations. Since apartheid constitutes a crime against humanity and a threat to international peace and security, those sanctions are the most appropr iate and effective peaceful means for the Security Council to adopt in discharging its responsibilities. As many delegations have pointed out during the debate, apartheid cannot be reformed J it has to be eliminated. The eradication of apartheid by peaceful means, is what this draft resolution calls for and recommends. It does not seek to put blame on anyone for the delay or diversion, nor does it single out Member States to that effect. It has to be seen as an urgent appeal to all peace-loving, responsible and car ing people and Governments to contr ibute effectively to the liberation of South Afr ica from the evils of apartheid and thereby to pave the way for the establishment of a free, unfragmented, delTOcratic and non-racial society in that tormented country. The preambular paragraphs refer to basic documents for concerted international action against apartheid and to the concern of the international community at the draft resolution, the Assentlly would reaffirm that apartheid is a crime against humanity and a threat to international peace and secur ity has to be eliminated without further delay. In operative paragraphs 2 and 3, the ASsembly would endorse the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations and requests the Council to take immediate action to that effect. In operative paragraph 4, the Assembly would urge the strengthening of the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in order to stop its continued violations. In conclusion, I should like, on behalf of the sponsors, to express the hope that all Member States will once again reaffirm their deep commitment to the cause of peace, freedom and justice by voting in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.28 and Corr.l, which is designed to bring to an early end the racist policies and practices of the Pretoria regime.

I call on the representative of the Sudan, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, entitled "Relations between Israel and SOuth Africa". Mr. !DRIES (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation has the honour to introduce one of the draft resolutions recommended by the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid, namely, that contained in document A/42/L.29 and Corr .1, entitled "Relations between Israel and South Afr ica ". This draft resolution was prepared with great care by the Special Committee against Apartheid and was also discussed at a meeting of the African Group. The following States have sponsored this draft resolution: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sao Tbme and Principe, Sudan, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The draft resolution is consistent with and based upon the information contained - (Mr. Idr ies, Sudan)

I call on the , ' representative of Israel on a point of order. Mr • .DFFE (Israel): I wish to state here that in draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.1 the name of the state of the Central African Republic is not included. So I should like the representative of the Sudan to take that into consideration and to correct the list of sponsors.

I note the remarks of the representative of Israel. Would the representative of the Sudan please proceed with his statement. Mr. IDRmS (Sudan) (interpr eta tion from Arabic): This dr aft resolution is fully consistent with, and based upon, the information contained in the special report of the Special Committee against Apartheid (A/42/22/Add.l). That report re fers to the follow ing facts. First, Israel oontinues to have wide-ranging ties, covert and overt, with South Africa in the military, nuclear, security, intelligence and economic fields. Secondly, the measures adopted by Israel, for the first time, are but an attempt to circumvent the United States Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which stipulates that the United States Government will review the aid it gives to countries that violate the mandatory arms embargo against south Africa. Thirdly, Israel, which ignored and continues to ignore General Assembly and security Council relevant resolu tions, had in the past affirmed that it had no ties with South Africa, although its recent measures are proof of its having misled world public opin ion. Fbur thly, the Special Commi ttee aga inst Apartheid did not obser ve an elemen t of seriousness in the resolutions and measures adopted by the Government of the Israeli enti ty in the past year. The report points out the following: (a) paragraph 4 makes it clear that "Israel's reply, dated 8 OCtober 1986, was not considered satisfactory by th' Special Commi ttee", (b) in paragraph 5 the Special Commi.ttee considered that "the Israeli decision to reduce its ties with South Africa has not been a serious political decision", (c) in paragraph 8 the Special Committee decided that "The decisions would still allow Israel covertly to continue military sales t I Sou th Africa on basically the same terms as before" (A/42/22/Add.l, pp. 5 and 6) (d) paragraph 10 refers to the fact that these measures 00 not refer to military and nuclear collabora tion be tween the two coun tr ies, leave numerous loopholes and are qualified by intentional exceptions which render these measures devoid of content and commitment; and (el the representative of the Pan Africanist COngress of Azania (PAC) made it clear that one of the gravest forms of co-operation between Israel and South Afric, was the intensified co-operation between the Israeli fobssad and the racist intelligence agencies operating against the struggle of the southern Africans aime< at atta in ing their r igh t to self-de termination. The draft resolution before us has been prepared in the light of all these considerations of the Special Committee against ~artheid. It contains three preambular paragraphs and four operative paragraphs. The preantlular paragraphs reaffirm previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on this subject, namely relations between Israel and South Africa, the latest of which is resolutior 41/35 C, refer to the special rep:>rt of the Special Committee against Apartheid on recent developments concerning relations between Israel and South Africa and, finally, note the measures recently announced by the Q:)vernment of Israel COIlcern iog its rela tions wi th sou th Africa. The operative paragraphs read as follows; "1. Calls upon Israel to desist from and terminate forthwith all forms of military, nuclear, intelligence, economic and other collaboration, particularly its long-term contracts for military supplies to South Africa; .. 2. Further calls upon Israel to abide scrupulously by the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council; .. 3. Requests the Special Committee against Apartheid to continue to monitor developments in the relations of Israel with SOuth Africa, including the implementation of the measures recently annol1Ilced by Israel; "4. Fur ther requests the Special Committee to keep the matter under constant review and to report thereon to the General Assembly and the security Council as appropr iate.'1 In light of the fact that this draft resolution has taken into account all the developments pertaining to previous resolutions on the subject, and since it is sponsored and has been introduced by the Afr fcan Group, my delega tion and the sponsors hope that it will enjoy the necessary support of all other groups.

I call on the representative of Norway to introduce draft resolution A/42/L.3l, entitled "oil embargo against South Africa", and draft resolution A/42/t.32, entitled "Concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid ". Mr. VRAALSEN (Norway); Having earlier this week introduced the report of the In tergovernmental Group to Moni tor the Supply and Shipping of Oil and petroleum Products to South Africa, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce the draft resolution on "Oil ent>argo against South Africa", which is contained in document A/42/L.31. The draft resolution which is now before the Assembly is sponsored by all the members of the Intergovernmental Group, that is, Algeria, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Indonesia, Kuwait, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, the Ukrainian SSR, the united Republic of Tanzania and Norway. In addition, the following States have expressed their support for the draft resolution by joining the Group as sponsors: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, the Byelorussian SSR, Congo, Democra tic Yemen, Hungary, the Islamic Republic of Ir an, Malays ia, Oman, Pak istan, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and 'Ibbago, Qatar, the mSR, Zambia and Zimbabwe. I am confiden t that the er oss-section of oil-producing Sta tes, shipping States and other Sta tes directly affected by the issue a t hand which compr ise the group of sp:msors will be duly reflected in broad, if not unanimous, support for the proposed text. At its forty-first session the General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Group by the adoption of resolution 41/35 F, on 10 December 1986. In that resolution the se cur i ty Council was urged to take action "to impose a manda tory embargo on the supply and shipping 0 foil and pe troleum products to South Afr ica ". Fur therrror e, the resolution laid down a set of measures to broaden the scope of the embargo, pending a decision by the Security Council. These latter elements have been retained in this year's text. As for the Intergovernmental Group and its future activities, I should like to draw the Assembly's attention to operative paragraphs 4 and 6. Operative par agr aph 4 "Requests the Intergovernmental Group to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-third session a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including a proposal for the strengthening of the mechanism to lOOnitor the supply and shipnent of oil and petroleum products to South Afr ica ". Opera tive paragraph 6 "Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Intergovernmental Group with all necessary assistance for the implementation of the present resolution". As indicated in my introduction of the report last Monday, there is an essential need for the Group to strengthen its data base to ensure that accurate and complete information is provided to the Group on South Afr ica's import of oil and petroleum products. Similarly, the analysing capacity of the Group should be enhanced. As the Group has not yet completed its mandate and will continue its activi ties in the year ahead, a IOOdest a110ca tion of resources to the Group is deemed necessary. This is reflected in operative paragraph 6. Simultaneously, a long-term perspective has to be developed whereby the Group also considers the establishment of more sophisticated procedures to monitor the supply of oil and petroleum products to South Africa. That long-term perspective is dealt with in operative paragraph 4, and it is my hope that a comprehensive proposal to this effect may be worked out by the Group and presen ted to the Assembly at its forty-third session. I submit that draft resolution A/42/L.31, now before the Assembly, is of particular significance in the struggle against apartheid. My assertion is based on the following argument. The policy of trying to abolish apartheid through a dialogue with the south African Government has been tried repeatedly, without success. Increased international pressure applied through effective sanctions is thus the only avenue left in order to eradicate apartheid by peaceful means. In this regard, an effective oil embargo has a particular potential for influencing the South African society, inasmuch as oil is virtually the sole strategic commodity in which South Africa is not self-sufficient. A ban on the supply and on the shipping of oil and petroleum products cannot fail to convey the message that apartheid must be abolished. It is now incumbent upon Pretoria to make the choice either to abolish apartheid through peaceful means or to face an escalating and increasingly destructive civil war. I call upon all Sta tes to join us in oonveying that message by suppor ting the draft resolution on an oil embargo against South Africa. I ~urn now to draft resolution A/42/L.32, entitled "Concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid". That draft resolution addresses a crucial issue in the struggle for the elimination of apartheid, namely, the obligation of the international community to co-ordinate and strengthen its pressure against South Africa. Only through concerted international action will the anti-apartheid forces be strong enough to deliver a clear message to the South African Government to abolish apartheid immediately. It has therefore been gra tifying to note the ever increasing support by Member States for resolu tions on this issue. The present text is sponsored by a wide group of African and Western countries, reflecting, as previously, the broad support enjoyed by this initiative. The draft resolution is sponsored by the following States; Angola, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Madagascar, New Zealand, Niger ia, Norway, Sweden, the united Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. In addi tion, the following sta tes have joined us as sponsors; Antigua and Barbuda, Congo, Democratic Yemen, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal and Trinidad and Tobago. It is my hope that this year there may be a potential for even IlPre positive votes, taking into account the comprehensive measures adopted by several Governments since the adoption of last year's resolution, as outlined in the report of the Secretary-General. This year's draft resolution is to a large extent an updated ver sion of resolution 41/35 H. Thus, the main thrust is still on the need for effective action against the South African Government ana what kina of action to take. The role of the security Council in this context is emphasized, and the Council is urged~ "to consider without delay the adoption of effective mandatory sanctions against South Africa". Penaing mandatory sanctions by the Secur ity Council, all Sta tea are exhorted~ "to consider ••• measures to increase the pressure on the apartheid regime of South Afr iea " Sanctions are in tended to tell Sou th Africa where the world stands on a question of good and evil. Without sanctions, or with only a limited degree of pressure, the signals will remain mixed, which is precisely why sanctions must be I<ept and further strengthened. Sanctions have already proved to be of significance in hastening the end of racism. Therefore, let me ta~e this opportunity to urge all states to support the legi timate aspir ations of the South Afr ican people by casting a positive vote on the draft resolutions now before the Assembly.

I shall nOo\' call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the vote on any or all of the eight draft resolutions. I should like to remind the Assembly that, under rule 88 of the rules of procedure, the President shall not permit the proposer of a proposal or of an amendment to explain his vote on his ()Irln proposal or amendment. May I recall that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by representatives from their seats. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their vote after all the votes have been taken. (spoke in English) I call first on the representative of Denmark, who will speak on behalf of the Sta tes Member s of the European Communi ty • Mr. BmRRING (Denmark): The 'IWelve Member States of the European Community have made clear during this debate their utter revulsion at apartheid. We have repeatedly and unequivocally condemned it many times, both here at the uni ted Na tions and in many other forums. There should be no doubt about our objective, which is, quite simply, the eradication of this pernicious system, and (Mr. Si er ring, Denmar k) our determination to contribute to the abolition of apartheid. The united Nations has a pr imary role to play in th is endeavour. An effort has clearly been made this year to streamline the draft resolutions and to remove contentious language. We welcome this. HONever, some of the draft resolutions continue to contain elements which cause us problems of principle. The Twelve believe that the division of competence between the General Assemly and the security Council laid down in the Charter must be respected. only the Security Council is empowered to adopt decisions binding on Member States. We reaffirm once again our commitment to the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations. We cannot support calls for the total isolation of South Africa, since this would not in our view further the goal we all share - the abolition of apartheid. Channels of communication with South Afr ica must remain open in order to enable the outside world to maintain and increase its pressure on the South Afr ican Government for the establishment of a free and dellPcra tic society wi thou t racial oppress ion. As we said in our statement in the debate, the Twelve are gravely concerned about the continuation of violence and repression in South Africa. We remain oonvinced, however, that a process of peaceful change is still possible and that the Uni ted Na tions has the obligation to proTlPte change by peace ful means in accordance with the Charter. Although we share the frustration felt by the majority of the people of South Africa at their predicament, we cannot agree that resolutions aoopted by the General Assembly should endorse the use of force. The Twelve reject all forms of apartheid in sports and con tinue firmly to discourage all sporting contacts that have any implication of racial discrimination. Sports activi ties are, however, organized in our respective countr ies on pr ivate inl tia tive. Sports organ iza tions wi thin our coun tr ies are aware of the opposition of their Governments to sports competitions that violate the Olympic ideal of non-discrimination. The 'iWelve once aga in reject all arbitr ary, selective and unjusti fied singling-out, whether by name or implicitly, of MeniJer States or groups of countr iea. We regret, that for the reasons I have just stated, we shall not be able to vote in favour of all the draft resolutions before us today. I should like, however, to repeat our conuni tment to act both collectively and individually to impress on the Sou th A.frican Government the inescapable need for fundamen tal reform. The South Afr iean Gover nmen t must be brought to see that the only way forward 1 ies in the aboli tion of apartheid and the introduction of the basic changes demanded by the international community. Sir Crispin TIQ(ELL (united Ringdom): First, I must stress that my delegation agrees with every word said by the Permanent Representative of Denmark, speak ing for the European Commun i ty. But I want to add a brie f na tional explanation of vote. I emphasize that my delegation shares the abhorrence of apartheid expressed by all who have spoken in the debate. There should be no doubt of the strength of our opposition to apartheid or of the efforts successive British Governments have made to persuade the South African Government to abandon that cruel, morally unacceptable and degrading system. As the Br itish Prime Minister said at her press conference after the Commonwea1 th Beads of GoITernment mee ting in Vancouver on 17 Qc tobet, 11Apar theid is tota lly r epugnan t and mus t go. 11 Once again, we urge the South African Government to look to the future and. accept that fundamental change is inevitable. As the Permanent Representative of Denmark has just said, our aim is to secure a South African society wi th freedom and justice for all. We nevertheless differ with the sponsors of the draft resolutions before us over how that aim can best be achieved. In our view, peace and security in South Afr iea can be achieved only through genuine dialogue and fundamental change. We do not believe that the most effective way in which the international communi ty can help the people of South Africa to dismantle apartheid is to impose punitive ecooomic and other measures in an attempt to isolate the country. Nor can we aqree that resolutions aoopted by the General Assembly should endorse the use of force or :ontain arbitrary and unjustified attacks on other Merrber States of the united ~ dons. Fbr these and other reasons we shall vote aga inst sever al of the dr aft :esolu tions. We shaH, however, abstain on the draft resolution dealinq with the proqramme f work. of the Special Commi ttee aqainst Apartheid, even though we do not agree ith many of the elements in the Committee's report. We shall do so because the raft resolution is couched in llk)derate terms and out of a recoqnition of the goal, bich we all share, of seeur ing the el imination of apartheid. Mr. SKINNER KLEE (Q.1atemala) (interpretation from Spanish): My delega tion joins in the un iversal condenma tion of the poli tical system of apartheid. My country is aware of the need to respect and ensure respect for basic, inalienable human rights. It is in this context that we vigorously condemn the apartheid regime and demand its immediate abolition. Consistent with that position, Guatemala identifies itself fully with the statement that that political system and, even more, the systematic, institutionalized application of it constitute a true crime against humanity. G.1atemala also argues that de velopmen t is impossible for a people subjected to a constant state of oppression. My country urges the Government of South Africa to follow the example of Central Americans and put an end to the state of emergency, declare a broad amnesty and free all poli tical pr isoners. We also believe that there should be a genuine dialogue that can produce results and positive, far-reaching changes, on the understanding that the only logical conclusion of frank and sincere dialogue will be the abolition of that system. Similarly, we propose that the pr inciple of free, derrocra tic elections be respected, On the basis of one man, one vote, without distinction as to race, colour, sex, language, religion or creed. My delegation supports internationally agreed measureS for the elimination of apartheid in the full knowledge that all the arguments advanced by certain countr ies, to the effect that the imposition of sanctions would affect the black majority popula tion are totally lack ing in validity. We support these draft resolutions in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 1 of which it is stated that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. In the case before us that principle is being systematically violated by Sou th Africa. In urg ing all States to consider appropr iate measures to exert pressure upon the apartheid of South Africa and in calling for the imposition of sanctions against that racist regime, my country is doing no more than fulfil its minimal' obligations to the international community and, especially, the majority population of South Africa. We are convinced that the best way to bring about the eradication of apartheid is to achieve the isolation of the regime that upholds it and the imposition of effective sanctions that will lead to the abolition of a policy that is undermining peace and denying all the rights of the people of South Africa. We affirm our solidarity with the people of South Africa in their just struggle for liberation and our support for the efforts to establish a democratic society, free of all coercion, in which the fundamental rights of all people will be respected. For that reason Guatemala will vote in favour of the draft r esolu tions. Mr. DELFOSSE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): The Permanent Representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community, has just made a statement on the draft resolutions relating to the policy of apartheid of the South African Government. I need hardly say that his comments correspond entirely with the views of the Belgian delegation. The draft resolutions before us have been altered in a positive fashion ::onpared with those of previous years. We approve fully of the adoption of more )recise and factual language and the elimination of certain individual criticims. ~e hope that this process will be taken to its logical conclusion next year and :hat all references of that kind will be removed. In particular we call for the luppression of the draft resolution on relations between Israel and South Africa, Ls discriminatory and unacceptable to the Belgian delegation. My delegation would have liked to be able to reflect by its votes the lssessment of the draft resolutions that we have just expressed. However, since several of them recall and confirm previous resolu Hons, we are compelled to take into account the positions that we adopted on those. We should like to add three specific comments to the statement just made on behalf of the European Community. Contrary to what seems to be suggested in operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution A/42/L.26 and Corr.l, Belgium does not believe that the situation provoked by the apartheid policy of the South Afr ican Government is a situation of decoloniza tion. The Belgian Government cannot join in direct or indirect appeals for the implementa tion of comprehens ive manda tory sanctions. Such measures are exclusively wi th in the competence of the Secur i ty Council. This means that we shall abstain in the voting on the draft resolutions A/ 42/L. 27 and Corr.1 and L.30 and Corr.l and vote against draft resolution A/42/L.28 and Corr.l. The Belgian delegation, for reasons given last year in connection with a similar draft resolution, will be unable to support draft resolution A/42/L.31, relating to the oil embargo, despite the embargo on the supply of crude oil to South Africa that we are applying together with our European partners. Finally, my delegation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.32 and L.36, dealing respectively with concerted international action and the special Trust Fund. In participa ting in the voting in the Assembly my delega tion has uppermost in mind the grave situation in South Africa and we wish to foster solutions that are consistent with our fundamental political principles. That is why we have called tirelessly for peaceful movement towards the elimination of the universally condemned system of apartheid. It has always been clear to my country that that tr ansi tion should be rapid and should lead to the total elimination of aI'ar theid. We do not believe it is too late to achieve that objective. HCMever, we note with regr.et and concern that during the past 12 months the South African Government, apart from certain gestures, which we appreciate, has in no way adopted that course. Miss BYRNE (united States of America): I should like to begin by reiterating two essential truths that sometimes get lost or ignored in the heat of discuss ions about Sou th Africa. First, the united State absolutely rejects apartheid and is fully cormnitted to prorroting a peaceful transition to non-racial denocracy and justice for all in South Africa. It is united States policy to continue using carefully targeted political, diplomatic and economic pressures to achieve those objectives. Our stance was well defined in the speech that Secretary State Shultz made here in New York at the end of September. That speech was circulated as a United Nations document and I conunend it to the attention of all here. secondly, we all must face the fact that it is not realistically in the power of the united Nations, or the united States of Merica, or any other country or even combination of countries, to impose a solution to South Africa's problems. A solution can oome only from the South Afr icans themselves. Interna tional efforts to ravage the Sou th African economy are not a solu tion to aeartheid. In the short run such efforts only harden official resistance to change. In the longer run they deprive all South Africans of the necessary meanS to increase wealth and build democratic institutions. Unfortunately, the draft resolutions now before the Assenbly appear to point us in that direction. At the same time, my (bvernment is pleased to note that, with the qualified exception of opera tive paragraph 3 of draft resolu tion A/ 42/L. 28 and Corr.l, explici t cri tical references to the united States have finally disappeared from these draft resolutions. We noted that same absence of name-calling in the Namibia resolutions of two weeks ago. We recognized and appreciate this constructive change. Never theless, the Uni ted Sta tea must still disagree wi th some of the language and exhortations contained in these latest draft resolutions on South Africa and apar theid. One of our most serious objections concerns the language in operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/42/L.26 and Corr.l. As we have said repeatedly here and elsewhere, we object to the use of United Nations resolutions as a means to legi timize armed conflict. All sides must understand that violence only increases the likelihood of a catastrophic outcome in the region, and in South Africa in particular. Equally misguided, in our view, is the call in several draft resolutions for a "total isolation" of South Africa, with corollaries of comprehensive mandatory sanctions and a corrplete withdrawal of multinational corporations. As in the past year, there is also a draft resolution urging a mandatory oil embargo against SOuth Air ica. The Uni ted States must oppose all dr aft resolutions contain ing such prescripts. We do so because we firmly believe that sweeping, world-wide sanctions simply will not work. The United States position is consistent and principled. The corollary is that we are rigorously enforcing our own bilateral sanctions against South Africa, including those mandated by the United States Congress in the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. Simply put, we believe that the most effective application of pressure is for every United Nations Member to pursue the policies that it believes are the most appropriate in opposing apartheid. The Organization should not attempt to force all Members to toe a single line based on an unworkable formula of comprehensive mandatory sanctions. A larger question is involved here. Those who call for the "total isolation" c04Jltry together with its Government and the hated system of apartheid. Apartheid is not the sum total of South Afr ica. South Afr ica is also millions and millions of people struggling to support their families and to nurture fragile elements of democratic develoy;:ment in a hostile environment. Reckless, sledgehammer tactics on the part of the in ternational community would harm th is s truggl ing and di~aqvant;aged major ity. That is why it is so frustrating to hear so many speakers in this forum argue, against the evidence, that the United States and other western countries support apartheid and that only massive external pr essur e and isolation of South Afr ica Will bring the ramparts of apartheid crashing down. The truth is that this line of reasoning debases the struggles currently being waged by the oppressed majority inside South Africa. In South Africa right now, black people are building strategies and institutions that have already led to significant change and will lead to truly fundamental changes in the years ahead. Black leadership, black economic strength, and black organizational skill, lided by power ful economic forces, are growing da ily. Despite the repression of :.he state of emergency, blacks oontinue to express their grievances and flex their )olitical and economic musclp.. A strong and growing SOuth Afr ican economy is a power ful force for change, and t is no coincidence that the business communi ty has played a pasi tive role in roding apartheid in south Afr ica. I am proud to say that the Amer ican business Ir esence, though small, has played an important part in the process. One of the current draft resolutions, A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, points a finger at single country for actions committed by many, including some who sit on the pedal Committee aga inst Apartheid. We cannot support it. Another dr aft esolution, A/42/L.30 and Corr.l, on the "Programme of work of the Special ::»mmittee against Apartheid", allocates a large sum of money - in a time of fiscal austeri ty for the United Nations - for projects that in some cases interfere in' the internal affairs of the united States. We cannot support it either, despite its reference to the need to combat South African censorship. Finally, the un i ted Sta tes will supper t - and join in the consensus - on the united Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. We contribute to this Fund because its goals are worthy and commendable. We regret that the under lying philosophy of this draft resolution - which goes beyond rhetoric and seeks to provide direct, practical assistance to the victims of apartheid - is not adequately reflected in the other draft resolutions. Mr. DL1>MINI (Swaziland); By reason of its delicate geographical position in sou thern Africa, Swaz iland, while rejecting the apar theid system, reserves its position in regard to comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa. In light of this, Swaziland will abstain in the voting on draft resolutions A/42/L.27 and Corr.l, A/42/L.28 and Corr.l and A/42/L.31. Mr. ANDERSEN (Iceland): I ha....e the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries - Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. The Nordic coun tr ies have cons is ten tly condemned the apar theid policy of the Sou th African Government as a violation of fundamental human rights and fundamental freedoms as laid down in the United Nations Charter and the universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the view of the Nordic countries, apartheid also constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. Consequently, the security Council should as Soon as possible adopt effective sanctions against South Africa as a means to achieve a peaceful abolition of apartheid. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions are the most effective instrument to this end. In accordance with the existing joint Nordic programme of action against South Africa, the Nordic countries will further strengthen their efforts to contribute towards the abolition of the apartheid system by peaceful means. They will intensify their work to achieve decisions as soon as possible on effectiv~ sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. Pending such sanctions the Nordic countries have aCbpted a wide range of unilateral measures against apartheid, including a trade embargo. The Nordic countr ies consequently strongly agree with the main thrust of the draft resolu tions before us. We appreciate the improvements in these draft resolutions, but r egret that further changes have not been made so as to make it possible for the Nordic countries to give their full support. As they now stand, some of them continue to raise difficulties with regard to important questions of ,principle to the Nordic countries. I shall describe them briefly: First, the N:>rdic countries consider universality as a basic principle with respect to the uni ted Na tions and we cannot, therefore, accept formula tions that might put th is principle in ooubt. Secondly, peaceful solutions to confl icts is a fundamental pr inciple enshrined in the very Charter of the Uni ted Nations. Therefore, we cannot accept that the united Nations endorse the use of armed struggle, as indicated inter alia in opera tive paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/49/L. 30 and Corr.1. Thirdly, the Nordic countr ies deplore the continued practice of selectively singling out individual countries. This practice - most evident in the draft resolution on relations between Israel and South Africa - makes it all the more difficult to achieve international concerted action in the struggle against apar theid. * *Mr. r-k:!umin, Vice-President (Comoros), took the Chair. Fourthly, certain formulations would encroach upon constitutional freedoms and rights of Nordic ci tizens and pr ivate organizations. This applies in particular to .. ' [, . certain parts of the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports. In view , \" I of the strict and active policy of the N:>rdic countries against sport contacts with , . South Africa, the Nordic countries regret that they cannot fully endorse the draft Conv en tion. Fi fthly, because of the str ict adherence of the ~rdic coun tr ies to the provisions of the Charter, we must reserve our position with regaFd to formulation~ which fail to take into account the fact that only the security Council can adopt decisions binding on Member Sta tes. The situation in South Afr iea has drastically deter iorated dur ing the past year. The responsibility for this situation rests with the South African G:>vernment and its policy of apartheid. But the world community has moral as well as legal obliga tions according to the Char ter of the united Na tions and should therefore put further pressure on South Africa. The international community should urgently increase its economic and humanitarian assistance to the Southern African DeveloFment Co~rdination Conference (SlIDCC) and to individual countr ies and persons which are victims of South Africa's aggressive policy. We must all voice our stronges t condemnation of apar theid and also str ive to agree on concer ted in terna tional action, on effective concrete steps to rapidly achieve the aboli tion of apar theid. Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretation from French)~ The French delegation would first like to recall its unreserved condemnation and outright repudiation of the p:>licy of apartheid. That entirely unacceptable system can be maintained only by force and must be abolished as soon as possible. In order to succeed in dismantling apartheid, the French Government has been pursuing a policy of pressure on the South African Government. With this in mind, France has taken several initia tives on the national level and mul tila terally. In particular I would remind the General Assembly that it was on the basis of a French proposal that, in JUly 1985, Security Council resolution 569 (1985) was adopted. The objective of such a policy of pressure is to prevail upon the South "'frican Government to break the deadlock and embark on au then tic dialogue wi th all the political forces in the country. My delegation has had all these points in nind in consider ing the draft resolutions be fore the General Assembly. The French delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.32, on :oncerted international action for the elimination of apartheid. While supporting :his draft resolution, the aim of which is to promote international consensus on ,xerting pressure on South Africa, my delegation wishes to express reservations larticularly with regard to operative paragraph 5 and in this respect to recall hat the Charter confers on the Security Council alone powers in the matter of inding measures. Furthermore, the voluntary measures recommended in operative aragraph 7 do not necessarily overlap national action France may choose to take in rder to step up its pressure on South Africa. My delega tion would have 1 iked to be able to vote in favour of dra ft esolution A/42/L.27, on the application of co-ordinated and strictly monitored I aasures against South Africa. It is similar in spirit to draft resolution 142/L.32, but it operates from a different standpoint. My delegation has a very irm posi tion on the question of binding sanctions aga inst Sou th Africa. Furthermore, my delegation will abstain on draft resolution A/42/L.26 entitled .' :nternational solidarity with the liberation struggle in South AfricaN. Although it is a considerable imprOV'ement on texts presented in previous years, this draft resolution recognizes the legitimacy of "armed resistance" and uses expressions which suggest that the si tua tion in Sou th Africa is purely and simply colon ial in nature. The French delegation cannot subscr ibe to such elements. We could have voted in favour of the text had they not been included. France supports the public education and information mission of the Special Committee against Apartheid. My delega tion will, however, abstain on draft resolution A/42/L.30, on the programme of wor k of the Special Commi ttee, because certain countries have been cri ticized by name in the Committee's report to the Gen er al As semb ly• The French Government favour s oil measures, as is demonstrated by the measures it itself has applied, which have been adopted by the 12 countries of the European Community. However, we have reservations of an insti tutional nature wi th regard to operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/42/L.3l, on an oil enbargo against South Africa, and we cannot but recall our refusal to accept the creation of monitoring machinery exceeding the powers conferred by the Charter on the General Assembly. For the same reasons as those given last year with regard to resolution 41/35 F, my delegation will vote against draft resolution A/42/L.31. Generally speaking, France would have liked to have been able unreservedly to support all of the draft resolutions submitted to the General Assenbly on the ques tion of apartheid. However, despi te the efforts that have been made at this s ess ion to be mor e real is tic, the excess ive language tha t has been ma inta ined means that it will not be possible for all the draft resolutions to be adopted by all the menners of the ASl"embly. Never theless, it would appear that such un an imi ty is more than ever des ie able. The aboli tion of apar theid as socn as pass ible is indeed the goal we all pursue. The more united the international community shows itself to be, the ;ooner this goal will be achieved. A unanimous stand by the General Assembly in this regard would have syrrbolic value. Over and above universal oondemnation of its p:>licy of apartheid, the South ~frican Government could not help receiving a clear signal that it is now time to :ake the crucial step and finally embark on true dialogue that will lead to a Ion-racial, dellOcratic South Africa. Mr. JOFFE (Israel): In resolution 40/64 A, related to comprehensive lanctions against South Africa, a new operative paragraph was added. Paragraph 20 'eads~ "Fur ther requests the Special Commi ttee to keep the matter of collabora tion oetween Sou th Africa and Israel and between Sou th Africa and any other State under constant review •.• ". In his opening statement on Monday, 16 November, the Chairman of the Special ommittee said that the Special Committee this year had: "refrained from ••• mentioning the names of some Member States which are supporters of and collaborators with the apartheid regime." (A/42/PV.69, p. 3) evertheless, my country, Israel, is continuously being singled out, so again this ear, as in previous ones, Israel will oppose draft resolution A/42/L.29, related o alleged unfounded rela Hons be tween my country and Sou th Africa. As we have aid, it is biased, unjustified and totally unwarranted. We call on objective ember States not to lend their support to draft resolution A/42/L.29. As for draft resolution A/42/L.28, the view of my Government is that the sola tion of Sou th Africa and the imposi tion of compr ehens ive sanctions aga inst 1at country could increase existing tensions there and hurt its economy in a way I lich could inflict suf fer ing and hardshi ps on the people of Sou th Africa, particularly its black population, and that of neighbouring States. We believe that it is important that communication with South Afr ica rema in open in order to increase pressure on the South African Government and chances for peaceful change through genuine dialogue for the ultimate establishment of a free and democratic society wi thout any racial oppr ession or discr imina tion. Therefore my country will not be able to support draft resolution A/42/L.28. As to draft resolution A/42/t.32 on "Concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid", my country considers it very important. But, as we have just explained our position regarding sanctions, we haye some difficulty concerning operative paragraph 5. Nevertheless, my country will support that draft resolution. Count YORK yon WARTEWURG (Federal Republic of Germany): The representatiYe of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the 12 member states of the European Community, has already commented 00 the draft resolutions to be put to the vote by recalling essential political principles shared by those countries, including my own. The TWelve have made clear their utter revulsion at apartheid and their determination to contr ibute to its abolition. My delegation would like to add the following. My Government shares the opinion and conviction of this Assembly that racism violates the dignity of man and is a flagrant offence of human rights, the pronntion and respect of which is one of the main purposes and principles of the United Nations. There should be no doubt left that with regard to respect for human rights no deals or compromises are possible. Racism cannot be tolerated and apartheid cannot be reformed. It must be terminated. Apartheid must be eradicated from the mind of the white minority and from all the statute books in south Africa. The Federal Government is convinced that a process of peaceful change should lead to a social and poli tica1 order in south Africa in which all SOuth Africans enjoy equal human, political and civic rights. The dialogue be tween the black ma jor i ty and the wili te minority has to bp. established immediately. For this dialogue to begin, it is essential that Nelson Mande1a and the other poll tica1 prisoners be released and that the ban on the African National Congress of South Africa and other organizations of the black majority be lifted. My Government has welcomed in this context the recent release of Govan Mbeki, reiterating at the same time the demand for the release of alk other political prisoners. My Q:)vernment uses political and diplomatic pressure against the G:>vernment )f South Africa and will continue to do so. It is the goal of this policy to conv:il le the leaders of white South Africa of the necessity of fundamental change. Furthermore, together with our European partners, we have decided on certain, restrictive economic measures against South Africa to set an unambiguous po1itic~ signal. With its programme of positive measures my Government expresses solidari y with and support for the victims of apartheid. The evil effects of apartheid are not limited to South Africa and South Africans. The apartheid policy destabilizes the region as a whole. My G:>vernmen condemns South Africa's policy of destabilization and supports the countries whic suffer from this policy. The recent visit of Foreign Minister Genscher to Angola and of Chancellor Kohl to Mozambique are clear signals in this connection. The Federal Republic of Germany is in favour of the essence of most of the eight draft resolutions submitted to the Asserlt>ly. It is clear that in substance we would prefer to vote with the major ity. Most unfortunately, the wording of th~ draft resolutions submitted is not in agreement with my Government's well-known position regarding economic sanctions, the use of force in political disputes, "name-calling" and the use of the term "State terror". There may be differences regarding methods and formulations, yet in essence '" all share the same goal and the same conviction that apartheid must end as soon as possible and be replaced by a just and democratic system acceptable to all South Africans. My Government will continue to work for this goal to the best of its ability. We are prepared to join forces with all those who work in the same direction • Mr. TAGA (Japan): Japan firmly and steadfastly opposes racial discrimination in all its guises and, in particular, extends maximum co-operation to United Nations efforts for the elimination of apartheid. It is in this spirit that we will support three draft resolutions, namely, A/42/L.30 and Corr.l, L.32 >and L.36. Indeed, we joined in sponsoring draft resolution L.36 on the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa, whose efforts we value highly. As for draft resolution L.32 on "Concerted international action for theel imination of apartheid", my delegation will support it as a positive effort to achieve unity in the international community, although we have some difficulty with some of the wording. At the same time, my delegation believes that comprehensive mandatory sanctions must be considered with the utmost care, and despite the difficulties we have with the wording of certain paragraphs in A/42/L.28 and Corr.l, my delegation will not oppose this draft resolution. We take this position as an expression of my country's indignation at the Cbvernment of South Africa for refusing to heed the voice of the international community and to show our concern over the deteriorating situation in and around South Africa. As for the remaining draft resolutions, although my delegation fully supports those elements contained in them that are common to those in draft resolution A/42/t.32, they also contain certain formulations to which we cannot subscribe, such as those commending armed struggle and those s ing1 ing out for accusation a country or a group of countries. Hence my delegation's vote on them will be cast accordingly. Mr. NTAKHWANA (Botswana); Botswana will cast an affirmative vote on draft resolutions A/42/L.27 and Corr.1 and L.32. But we wish to state our incapacity to implement those paragraphs which call for the imposition of economic sanctions against south Africa. resolutions on apartheid in documents A/42/L.26 to L.32, and A/42/L.36. Apartheid is such a pr imary issue and needs such immediate action and consensus by the international community that other issues which are raised in these draft resolutions fade in their urgency to eradicate apartheid. The Belize delegation would like, however, to mak.e a fe", points on draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, "Relations between Israel and south Africa."* *The President returned to the Chair. We should 1 ike to point out that Israel is not the only na tion that has relations with South Africa. We believe that it is an unfair practice to single out Israel in this case. In operative paragraph 1, the Assembly calls upon Israel to desist from and terminate forthwith all forms of military, nuclear, intelligence, economic and other collaboration, par ticularly its long -term oontracts for military supplies to South Africa. We support that call, but the Belize delegation believes that all nations that have relations with South Africa should be included in this paragraph. To single out Israel in this way is an unfair practice. While it is unfair to Israel, the injustice being done to the blacks in South Africa is a greater injustice or unfairness, and so we support this draft resolution. The Belize delegation notes that, in operative paragraph 4, the Special Committee is further requested to keep the matter under constant review and to rep:>rt to the General Assembly and the Security Council, as appropriate. That being the si tua tion, the Belize delegation appeals to the sponsors of this dra ft resolution to include the names of all States with relations with SOuth Africa. That would put an end to the unfair practice of singling out a nation in this context. If, in the future, the sponsors are not prepared to list all States having relations with South Africa, the draft resolution should not be submitted to the General Assembly at its forty-third session. Either solution offers an alternative to this unfair practice of singling out a nation and would make it more acceptable to those of us who, on principle, oppose this unfair practice. In the light of the foregoing, the Government of Belize continues to keep this matter under consideration. Our support for this draft resolution should be interpreted not as a vote against Israel, but as a vote against the support for apartheid. paragraphs in sections which call for sanctions against South Africa. Furthermc e, Malawi, as before, is against name-calling, because it alienates those who otherwise would have supported the draft resolutions concerned. Mr. MOEKETSI (I.esotho): My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.26 and Corr.l, L.30 and Corr.l and L.36, because of Lesotho's strong support for and solidar i ty with the total er adica tion of apartheid. Lesotho's abhorrence of apartheid is well known by the international community, nd it has made a consistent appeal that peaceful efforts should be sought quickly t el imina te it be fore it is too late. My delega tion will absta in on draft resolutions A/42/L.28 and Cor r.l, L. 31 nd L.32, because of Lesotho's unique geographic posi tion in sou thern Africa. We shall also absta in on draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Cor r.l and Md.l, because we do not support the singling out of any country, when we believe other in this Assembly still maintain similar relations with SOuth Africa. Mr. ENoo (Cameroon): The attitudes and the emtions of the Cameroonia nation with regard to the problems in southern Afr ica are well known. We con tin e to ask the international community to seek new venues to bring home to Pretoria he ser iousness of the situation. This process involves the encouragement of those ho seek to demonstrate their indignation by withdrawal or dissociation from the cli ue in Pretor ia - not their rebuke - especially when we understand, as many delegati ns have pointed out, that some parties, some Governments represented here, have bee selectively chosen, while no special draft resolution addresses the follies of n ny other countries that continue to make it a matter of their national policies to support the regime in Pretoria directly or indirectly. We all know of the long list of countries that openly or secretly encourage Pretor ia through tr ade and exchanges which induce an illusion of continuing support. Here we would eXClude those nations that are bullied by the facts of history and proximity into trading with South Africa, because it is the design of the colonial system that brought that predicament on them. But we consider that it borders on immorality to be silent about the countries that have contacts with Pretoria, some of which make brilliant statements against apartheid, but directly or indirectly sustain the system each day. We should have preferred to find in draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l and Add.l a document constituting a clear appeal not only to I sr ael, but to all other countr ies to hasten the execution of the new policies they have declared with regard to South Africa. Israel, as is shown in the report, made a commitment during a visit to my nation's capitaL We look forward to wi tnesS ing the results of the efforts made pursuant to that commi tment. Let us address the devil. That devil is the Pretoria regime. We cannot encourage by direct or indirect condemnation those whose declared policies coincide with our aspirations. Let us not debauch our struggle by concentrating on so-called friends of South Africa, who have little or nothing to do with the changing of the minds of the desperate bigots in Pretoria and who are blinded and consumed by racism or fear or both. In the circumstances, it is our intention to support all the other draft resolutions that have been submitted with regard to South Africa, but we shall not be in a {Xlsition to support draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l and Md.I. The PRES IDENT (in terpreta tion from Russ ian): There are no other representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote before the vote. I have been asked to announce that Viet Nam has become a sponsor of draft resolutions A/42/L.31 and L.32, and that l>bzambique has become a sponsor of draft resolution A/42/L.36. The Assembly will now proceed to take decisions on the various draft resolutions before it. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget imp1 ications of these dr aft resolutions has been issued as document A/42/785. The General Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.26 and Corr.l, entitled "International solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Beni. , Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Grprus, Czechoslovak ia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Dj iboutj Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao people I i Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paplla New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint wcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao 'lbme and Pr incipe, Saudi Arabia, Sen egal Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, !bgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepUblic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uni ted A.r ab Emirates, uni ted Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe A.gainst: portugal, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uni ted Sta tes of Amer ica Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, COte d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden Draft resolution A/42/L.26 and Corr.l was adopted by 129 votes to 3, with 22 abstentions (resolution 42/23 A). * r *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.27 and Corr.l, entitled "Application of co~rdinated and str ictly mon itored measures against South Afr ica ". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour; Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, ojibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissall, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, Sa int IAlcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tbme and principe, Saudi Arabia" Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tbgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Germany, Federal Republic of, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, IJ.txembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden Draft resolution A/42/L.27 and Core.l was adopted by 128 votes to 3, with 24 abstentions (resolution 42/23 B).

We turn now to draft resolutioo A/42/t.28 and Corr.l, entitled "Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of South I\frica". A separate, recorded vote has been requested on the words "the Governments of the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and" in the third, fourth and fifth lines of operative paragraph 3. If there is no objection, we shall proceed accordingly and the Assembly will vote on the retention of those words. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghan istan, Albania, Alger ia, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People IS DelOOcratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamah iriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Q.linea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint wcia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe ~ainst: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, El Salvador I Fij i, Finland, France, Germany, Feder al Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zaire Abstaining: Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Cote dlIvoire, ~prus, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Q.linea, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritius, l-brocco, Niger, Qa tar, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, sri Lanka, Swaz iland, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay It was decided by 78 votes to 38, with 27 abstentions to retain the words "the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and". The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ I now put to the vote draf resolution A/42/L.28 and Corr.l as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favouo Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial GUinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, GUyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamil Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, MOzambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Iilcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tbme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sur iname, Syr ian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo , Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, 1J.Jxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Grea Britain and Northern Ireland, United states of Amedca Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden Draft resolution A/42/L.28 and Corr.l, as a whole, was adopted by 126 votes t, 11, with 17 abstentions (resolution 42/23 Cl.

Next we turn to draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, entitled "Relations between Israel and South Afr iea ". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour; Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, DeJOOcratic Kampuchea, DeJOOcratic Yemen, Dj ibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eth iopia, Gambia, German Democr atic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DelOOcratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Qnan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, philippines, Poland, Qa tar, Roman ia, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Pr incipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, 'lbgo, Trinidad and 'lbbago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Social ist Republics, Uni ted Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, zimbabwe Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, COte d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, Fr ance, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Iuxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New zealand, Nor way, Por tuga1, Spa in, Sweden, Un i ted Kingdom of Grea t Brita in and Northern Ireland, United States of America, zaire Against: Abstaining: Bahamas, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malta, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint wcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, SololOOo Islands, Swaziland, Uruguay Draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l was adopted by 103 votes to 29, with 23 abstentions (reso1util)n 42/23 D). resolution A/42/L.30 and Corr.l, entitled "programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid". A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Syelorussian soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Repuhlic, Chad, Chile, China, Colomhia, Comorc , Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democra ic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indi , Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Repuhlic Lehanon, Lesotho, Liheria, Lihyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Pa~ a New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senega , Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian A ab Repuhlic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turke~ Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, nnion of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arah Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: united states of America Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, united Kingdom of Gr at Britain and Northern Ireland Draft resolution A/42/L.30 and Corr.l was adopted by 145 votes to 1, with] abstentions (resolution 42/23 E). a decision on draft resolution A/42/L.3l, entitled "Oil embargo against south Africa". A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austr.alia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Repuhlic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics, united Arah Emirates, United RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Against: Belgium, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Greece, Israel, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Portugal, Swaziland Il.bstaining: Draft resolution A/42/t.31 was adopted by 138 votes to 4, with 12 abstentions (resolution 42/23 F) •

We now turn to draft resolution A/42/L. 32, entitled "Concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid". A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahr.ain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Repuhlic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, F.thiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambioue, Nepal, Netherlands, New zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Ara Republic, ~hailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repuhlic, Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics, United Arab Emirates, United RepUblic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America Abstaining: Cote d'Ivoire, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Lesotho, Malawi Draft resolution A/42/L.32 was adopted by 149 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions (resolution 42/23 G).

Lastly, we turn to draft resolution A/42/L.36, entitled "united Nations Trust Fund for South Afr ica". Since there is no reauest for a vote, may I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/42/L.36? Draft resolution A/42/L.36 was adopted (resolution 42/23 H).

I shall now call on those delegations wishing to explain their votes on positions. representative of Denmark in his statement earlier today on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community. The Ir ish Government's condemnation of the policy of apartheid was most recently expressed in the statement which we delivered in the debate yesterday. In keeping with the views set out in that statement, Ireland supported four of the draft resolutions before us today, two of which we were pleased to sponsor. As a general comment, we are happy to see that some of the contentious language which characterized last year's resolutions was deleted from those submitted this year. However, this year's texts did contain a number of formulations and ideas which are not consistent with my Government's approach to apartheid. Accordingly, we found it necessary to abstain on three of the texts and to vote against a fourth. I turn first to the draft resolutions which Ireland supported. Ireland voted in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.3U and Corr.1 on the pr~ramme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid. We strongly support the work of the Special Committee in drawing attention to the appalling situation which exists in South Africa and in promoting international action against apartheid. Of course, our attitude to the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee must be understood in accordance with the general policy of my Government on apartheid, outlined in this and previous statements of our position. * *Mr. Canete (Paraguay) Vice-President, took the Chair. embargo against South Africa. My (bvernment has been on record for a number of years now as favouring the imposition by the security Council of a mandatory oil embargo against South Africa. Ireland sponsored draft resolution L.32, on concerted international action against apartheid, which, inter alia, urges the security Council to consider ~e adoption of effective manda tory sanctions aga inst South Afr ica. We also spans,oreel draft resolution L.36 on the united Nations Trust Fund for South Africa. Ireland abstained on draft resolution L.26, which called for international solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa. My delegation would have liked to be able to vote in favour of that draft resolution, which contains many provisions that we support. However, we cannot accept the reference to armed resistance in the draft resolution. l-ri delegation has made it clear in the p3.st that we do not wish to see the Assembly endorse violence. Even if we understand the sense of growing hopelessness and bitter frustration from which violence may spring, my Government would not wish to condone it. Ireland abstained on draft resolution L. 27, on the application of co~rdinate and strictly mani tored measures against Sou th Africa. While we have no difficulty with the broad thrust of that draft resolution, the encouragement given to States to ratify the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports is problematic for us. The International Convention, unfortunately, contains a number of provisions that are incompatible with Ireland's Constitution. Ireland decided to abstain in the vote on draft resolution L.28, this year's reso1u tion deal ing wi th comprehens ive and manda tory sanctions against the racist regime of South Afr ica. We note with satisfaction that the draft resolution con tains fewer objectionable elements than the corresponding text adopted last yeal • c~H6w~'I1er, the approach it takes in the matter of sanctions is not cons istent wi th the policy of the Irish Government. As we made clear in our statement in the debate yesterday, Ireland supports the application by the security Council of mandatory sanctions aga inst SOuth Afr ica. We continue to have doubts, however, about the wisdom of calls for comprehens ive sanctions at the present juncture. We believe that the right policy for the international CXImmunity is one of steady and gradUated pressure for change through carefully chosen, selective, graduated sanctions, such sanctions to be mandatory - that is, properly imposed by the security Council and fully implemented by all. As in the case of similar resolutions in previous years, Ireland voted against draft resolution L.29, on relations between Israel and South Africa, in view of its selective sing1 ing-out of one Member State for condemnation. Mr. RJlMALB:> ORTIGAO (Portugal): The Permanent Representative of Denmark has already expressed the conunon views of the 12 Member States of the '&1ropean Community on the draft resolutions regarding the policies of apartheid of the Government of SOuth Afr ica. However, my delegation would like to make some further br'ief remarks on the natter. The Por tuguese delegation has repeatedly emphasized here, as in other forums, that it firmly condemns the system of apartheid. Once again it reaffirms its strong objection and opposition to this aberrant society based upon institutionalized racism and racial inequality, which is designed to naintain the pr ivileges of a minor ity. Only the elimination of the repressive system of apartheid will make possible the clinate of confidence which southern Africa needs to establish the genuine political stability so essential to the normal development of all the countries of the region. The South African authorities must undertake once and for all a sincere ef£:( ·t to establish a dialogue with all the different conununities in their country, thul creating the necessary conditions for all its inhabitants to have equal access t( political rights, freedom, work and social justice. My delegation regrets not having been able to support all the draft resolutions on this item, even if we recognize that this year they have been Jn7r~ carefully drafted. Although we concur with the thrust of many of their essential proposals, we still have reservations of principle on certain aspects. For example, we do not agree that General Assent>ly resolutions should endor! violence, whatever its form, as the only choice in redressing situations of injustice. On the con trary I they should, rather, encourage dialogue and the preservation of the principle of peaceful settlement of conflicts. Furthermore, re believe that the total isolation of South Africa will only hamper the ini tiativel of all those who are fighting inside the country for fundamental reforms to the present system. Similarly, the delegation of portugal cannot support verbal violence and certain discriminatory references in the resolutions we have just adopted, since they do not contribute to the formation of a consensus, which coul be the basis for effective international pressure to restore to the majority of 1 le South African population their legitimate rights. As we did in the case of a similar resolution last year, my delegation vote( in favour of the draft resolution on concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid. However, we stress that we have reservations on certa l formulations in the operative part. Mr. HAJNOCZI (Austria): Austria is on record as having consistently condemned and opposed the policies of apartheid as a particularly serious vio1at )n of human rights, depriVing the majority of South Africa's population of their oil il system of institutionalized racial discrimination remains one of the most important challenges confronting the United Nations. For these reasons, we find ourselves in agreement with the general thrust of the texts submitted under this item. We appreciate the improvement in the texts just apProved, for it is our firm conviction that the international community must stand united in the struggle against the evil of apartheid. We therefore regret that a few provisions which Austria cannot support prevented uS from voting in favour of some of the draft resolutions. In particular, Austria has always held the view that the United Nations should concentrate all its efforts on bringing about political and social change by peaceful means, and therefore cannot support the concept of armed struggle, since we firmly believe in the resolution of conflicts by exclusively peaceful means. Let me also reiterate that Austria, as a matter of principle, is against singling out Member States in General Assembly resolutions, and believes that this practice does not pronnte the cause of the oppressed people of South Africa. Finally, Austria believes that the General Assembly should respect the prerogatives of the Security Council with regard to comprehensive mandatory sanctions. In the light of these considerations Austria sponsored draft resolutions A/42/L.32 and L.36. Fur thermore, the Austr ian delega tion voted in favour of draft resolutions L.30 and Corr.l and L.31. Although my Government welcomes most parts of the new draft resolution L.27 and Corr.l and has taken many of the measures called for in it, we had to abstain on it owing to our position on certain formulations. We have, inter alia, reservations concerning the encouragement of early ratification of the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports, a COOvention that Austria will not accede to for legal reasons. Moreover, Austria abstained on draft resolutions L.26 and Corr.l and L.28 and Corr.l and cast a negative vote on L. 29 and Corr.l for the reasons I have stated. Our positive attitude to the main thrust of the resolutions just adopted reflects our support for a free, democratic and non-racial society in a united South Africa, based on the free exercise of universal suffrage. Mr. ARMSTRONG (New Zealand): The debate that has taken place over the last week has reaffirmed my delegation's view that firmer action needs to be take by the international community in order to bring about the eradication of apartheid. The measures that need to be taken should - if, indeed, it is not already too late - be des igned to ensure that negotia tion between the parties in South Africa is the chosen path. My delegation agrees with a good deal in the draft resolutions, two of which we were pleased to sponsor. Wh ile the changes tha t have been made to others do n t address all our concerns, we are pleased to note that they contain many improvements on those presented to the Assembly in previous years. (Mr. Armstrong, New Zealand) While welcoming and recognizing that, I wish to put on record my delegation's continued reservations about some remaining aspects of the texts. As we have noted in previous sessions, we do not go along with the endorsement of the use of force in a manner inconsistent with the united Nations Charter, or the implication that there is no alternative to such a course. We also hold that measures applied by the international community against South Afr iea must be carefUlly selected and targeted. The numerous practical measures that New Zealand has already taken reflect that approach, for example the firm steps taken to give effect to measures recommended by the Commonweal th Heads of Government and by the Security CounciL In the interests of maintaining to the degree possible a united international front, we regret the singling out of individual countries in such texts. Although the New Zealand G:>vernment has actively taken steps to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa, it continues to have reservations about some aspects of the Convention referred to in paragraph 3 of resolution A/42/L.27, much of the text of which we can otherwise support. It was because of those factors, and by no means because of any lessening of our commitment to the struggle of the people of South Africa, that we abstained in the voting on the three texts of draft resolutions A/42/L.26, L.27 and L.28 and vo~d against draft resolution A/42/L.29. We supported draft resolution A/42/L.30. We did so on the understanding that operative paragraph 2 of the draft endorses only the recommendations of the Special Committee contained in subparagraph (m) of paragraph 150 of the Committee's report. South Africa must be brought to recognize the error of its ways through the implementation of effective measures by a united international community. New Zealand, for one, is prepared to play its part. That is demonstrated by our sponsorship of the text on concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid and that on the oil embargo against South Africa, as well as our SUppOI for the resolutions on the United Nations Trust Fund for South A.frica and the useful programme of work of the Special Committee against A.partheid. Mr. BORG OLIVIER (Malta): At the outset I should like to state that m~ delegation appreciates very much the efforts that have been made with a view to improving formulations which in the past have caused difficulties for de1egationl and also to making the draft resolutions under this item more concise. We commer those efforts and encourage that trend. We believe it will increase even more support for the objectives we are all seeKing. Malta voted in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.27, L.30, L.3l and L.32; Id we are also very proud to be listed among the sponsors of draft resolution A/42/L.36, which was adopted without a vote. I should like now to explain my Government's position on draft resolutions A/42/L.26, L.28 and L.29. Malta abstained in the vote on the resolution entitled "International solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa" (A/42/L. 26). In this regard I wish to state that the Government of Malta is unequivocally against the abhorrent policies of apartheid of the Government of Sou th Africa and is determir ~d to support effective measures, inclUding moral pressure, to bring about the elimination of those policies, which are universally condemned. We also give OUI full support to the front-line States. We understand that people may have no choice but to become freedom fighters when they do not have the democratic means ~o achieve their legitimate aims. In my Government's view, however, this resolutior may imply more than that and, in line wi th the policy indicated by our prime Minister in his address to the General A.ssemb1y last month, when he stated (Mr. Borg 01 ivier, Malta) ::;i6ur aim is to contribute to a peaceful solution of international disputes, renouncing violence and war as an instrument of policy", (A/42/PV.32, p. 72) it was with great reluctance that we had to abstain on resolution A/42/L.26, even though we agree with and support most of the provisions oontained in it. My delegation abstained in the vote on the draft resolution entitled "com~feliensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa" (A/~2/t.28). The reason for our abstention is the singling out of individual States by name in the draft resolution. We do not support that practice and had it not been resorted to we would have voted in favour of the resolution. Finally the delegation of Malta abstained in the vote on the draft resolution entitled "Relations between Israel and South Africa" (A/42/L.29). I wish to stress again Malta's unequivocal opposition to the policies of apartheid of the Q)vernment of SOuth Africa and our determination to support action aimed at the elimination of those policies. In view, however, of the selective singling out of one State in connection with its relations with South Africa, we were left with no option but to abstain in the vote on that draft resolution. Mr. SVOBODA (Canada): There should be no doubt about our strong opposition to the repugnant apartheid policies of the SOuth African Government. Hcmever, I do not wish to repeat the views of my Government, which were set OU t in this Assembly yesterday. On behalf of the Canadian delegation I shall explain Canada's vote on the various resolutions under this agenda item. First, by way of a general comment, I commend the drafters of this year's resolutions for the shorter form and more rooderate tone of the texts placed before us. This is an improvement over last year and one which I hope marks the beginning of a con tinu ing trend. On draft resolution A/42/L.26, dealing with the situation in South Africa ~n~ assistance to the liberation movements, Canada can support much that is in the resolution. We have consistently voiced our condemnation of the current state of emergency and have joined with other Member States in taking concrete action to press the South African Government to dismantle apartheid, release poUtical pr isoners such as Nelson Mandela and lift the ban on political parties. Canada na.s been in the forefront of nations calling on the Government of South Africa to enter into a dialogue with the authentic black leaders. In conformity with the United Nations Charter we have consistently called for and encouraged peaceful change and. reconciliation in South Africa. Tb that end we have in particular condemned the circle of violence that has existed in southern Africa in recent years. However, it is also for those very reasons that we were unable to support a draft resolution which includes language which appears to favour armed resistance. In the same vein, Canada also abstained in the voting on draft resolution A/42!L.30, concerning the programme of the Special Committee against Apartheid, which we have supported in the past, because of the recommendations contained in paragraph 150 of the Committee's report, referred to in paragraph 2 of the resolution, which includes specific support for armed struggle. On draft resolution A/42/L.27 Canada abstained. Our position on effective measures is well known. Canada has indeed imposed sanctions against South Africa, but does not agree with all the measures called for in that draft resolution. With respect to draft resolution A/42/L.28, we have great difficulty with the name-calling in paragraph 3 of that resolution. We have consistently voted against the inclusion of what we see to be gratuitous citations of individual countries in theconteKt of resolutions such as these. Our negative vote on this draft resolution stems from our positions of principle on name-calling and on mandatory sanctions. With respect to draft resolution A/42/L.29, my delegation voted against this text which, while purporting to take note of the measures taken by the Gover nmen t of Israel concerning South Africa, nevertheless retains its essential bias. Canada abstained, as it did last year, on the draft resolution on the imposition of an oil embargo against South Africa (A/42/L. 31). Canada has already imposed an effective voluntary embargo on the sale of petroleum and petroleum products to South Af r ica. Canada voted in favour of draft resolution A/42/L.32, on concerted action for the elimination of apartheid. I have already referred to Canada's strong opposition to apartheidJ and it should also be noted for the record that Canada has implemented all the measures in paragraph 7. However, Canada does not consider that the time is right for mandatory sanctions, which would in any case be a question for further and careful review by the Security CounciL Our reservations in this respect apply to this resolution as well as to draft resolution A/42/L.30 and, as already noted, A/42/L.28. We were pleased to sponsor and join in the COnsensus on draft resolution A/42/L. 36. We must all play our part to encourage and promote peaceful change in South Africa. The statements we have heard in this debate and the resolutions adopted tOday, taken together, are a clear message to the Government of South Afr ica that it must take concrete action. Canada, for its part, intends to work, in concert with others, to maintain unrelenting pressure on Pretoria to dismantle apartheid. reaffirms the condemnation expressed in the Assembly by the head of its delegation, who called unambiguously on the entire international community to increase its pressure by means of mandatory sanctions against South Africa so that apartheid, that crime against humanity, may be abolished. The draft resolutions which the General Assembly has just adopted are aimed at the achievement of the objective we. all seek, the abolition of apartheid. Nevertheless, Zaire, on the basis of the consistent principle of its foreign. policy, refuses to single out the relations between one State, Israel, and South Africa. Many countries which maintain with South Africa diplomatic, economic and trade relations and co-operation of all kinds are mentioned in many reports, but, with the exception of Israel in draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, they have not been named. Therefore, zaire, consistant with its policy, felt compelled to vote against that draft resolution because, as I have said, it deliberately singles out relations between Israel and South Africa and fails to mention all the other countries which mainta in the same kind of relations. With regard to operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution A/42/L.28 and Corr.l, since it was put to the 110te and my delegation considers that the naming of states therein is not complete, it abstained. As regards the substance of draft resolution A/42/L. 28 and Corr.l, my delegation, which is in favour of mandatory sanctions against South Africa, voted in favour of the sanctions. We trust that in the next draft resolutions that are submitted to us the selective naming of certain States will be al1oided. Ms. DASENT (Saint Kitts and Nevis) ~ The Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nel1is, in his statement to the General Assembly just over a month ago, clearly expressed the unwavering position of the Cbvernment of Saint Kitts and Nevis on the system of apartheid. Our position is firm and clearcut. We abhor the racist (Ms. Dasent, Saint Kitts and Nevis) system of apartheid and share the view that comprehensive mandatory sanctions will play a vital role in the eventual total eradication of this crime against humanj,'ty in South Africa. In keeping with our stance against apartheid, my delegation supported all but one of the draft resolutions voted on today. My delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolu tion A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, since we have our reservations on the usefulness of name~alling in draft resolutions. Besides, we take into consideration the recent efforts made by the Government of Israel to review its relations with South Africa. Mr. VERGARA (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): Panama adheres to its policy against the apartheid system of the Government of South Africa. This was clearly indicated in our statement in the plenary Assembly. Nevertheless, we should like to explain our abstention in the vote on draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.!. Basically, we agree with the text, but, since Panama abstained in the voting on 10 November 1986 on draft resolution A/41/L.45 - that is, resolution 41/35 C - on which the present draft resolution is based, we felt compelled to abstain this year too. Mr. ANGOO (Papua New Guinea): My delegation has voted in favour of all the draft resolutions aimed at eradicating the evils of apartheid. We wish to explain our affirmative vote on draft resolution A/42/L.29 and Corr.l, regarding relations between Israel and South Africa. We would not ordinar ily support any draft resolution which singles out any Member State in connection with the problem of apartheid. Our affirmative vote today on that draft resolution demonstrates our frustration at the lack of progress thus far emanating from the Organization and is not a vote against Israel. My delegation hopes that other states will also be named in future draft resolutions for their continued co-operation with the racist south African regimp.. All avenues must be explored to br ing about the aboU tion of the evils of apartheid. If the international community feels that there is a need to expose those which collaborate with South Africa, maybe it is now time to do so. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish) ~ I call now on 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 delega tions from their sea ts. Mr. MUNTASSER (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (interpretation from Arabic): As is his wont, the representative of the racist zionist regime has tried again to distract the attention of the General Assembly and its Committees from items under consideration. Once again, yesterday, he tried to divert attention from the important item being discussed by the General Assembly, namely, the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. 'Ib do this, he resorted to fabrications and lies which have no foundation in fact. The guilty criminal always tries to hide his guilt by accusing others. The Zionist entity, the natural ally of the racist SOuth African regime and the enemy of peoples, tries to justify its alliance with its twin racist regime. Both regimes have risen on the ruins of other peoples. The racis t Zionist regime, with its racist Zionist ideology, knows very well that its illegitimate representa tive here has been telling us lies. Everyone knows of the suffer ing endured by the AI abs under occupation. Everyone knows that even the black American Jews were expelled from Palestine simply because they were black. The organic alliance between the Arab nation and Africa cannot be affected by anything that the zionist representative has said. Half the inhabitants of Africa are Arab. They have a common past, they have a common present, and they have a common enemy~ the racist entity in south Africa and the racist entity in occupied Palestine. We in Afr ica have been able to put pa id to another racist regime - that in Rhodesia, which has become Zinbabwe. We look forward to the day when Palestine regains its name and Azania regains its name. The most telling answer to the representative of the Zionist regime is the condeJ1Ulation he has received from the delegations of 103 countries. Count \ORK von WARTENBURG (Federal RepUblic of Germany); Yesterday, in his contribution to the debate on this item, the Ambassador of Ghana alluded to my Government with an attack and with reproaches that we can only deeply regret. The impression has been created that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany violates the mandatory arms embargo measures against SOuth Africa adopted by the Security Council. Those allegations and insinuations are untrue and we categor ically refute them. The subject-matter of this debate is the inhuman system of apartheid in SOuth Africa, which denies the black population of that country their human and ci\711 rights. That situation is no less intolerable to us than to all other members of the international community of States. We support all peaceful efforts contributing to the elimination of apartheid and racism in south Africa. We do 'not supply weapons or mili tary equipment to Sou th Africa. We strictly adhere to the mandatory embargo adopted by the Security Council. The Luxembourg decisions of 10 september 1985, taken by the Foreign Ministers of the European Community, banning the expoct of sensitive equipment destined for the police and armed forces of the Republic of South Africa, were implemented by the Federal Go\1ernment a considerable time ago. Unjustified accusations and false representations can only de tract from the firmly es tabl i shed sol idarity of the Uni ted N3. tions in condemn ing apartheid and racism in South Africa. It is not by unjustified accusations and false representations, but by solidarity and actions of solidarity that we will further our goal of putting an end to apartheid in South Africa. I should like to clarify the following. The supply of blueprints for submarine components by private enterprises to South Africa was undertaken without the ~nowledge and consent of the Federal Government. Permits for these transactions had neither been applied for nor been issued. After those unauthor ized suppl ies to South Afr iea came to the knowledge of the competent authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany, these authorities instituted an investigation procedure. Moreover, the Bundestag, our parliament, set up a special committee for a parliamentary inquiry. That committee has been reconstituted following our recent national elections, and it is actively carrying on its inves tiga tive work. My assertion that cur ren t inves tiga tions have been delayed with a view to the anti-apartheid debate of the General Assembly in New York are devoid of foundation~ We informed the Chairman of the Arms Embargo Committee to the effect that we shall advise that body of the results of the investigation into the blueprint supplies once those investigations have been completed, and we intend to do so. Republic of Germany) The charge that the Federal Governmen t is endeavour ing to suppress er i ticism by threatening to suspend its developnent aid is not only untrue, but contradicts the close and trustful co""peration with our African partner countries. The , Federal Government is sending, especially through the support it lends to the front-line States - that is, through the Southern 'African Development Co-ordination Conference (SlIDCC) - clear signals in the region endangered by South Afr iean a t tempts at destab 11iza tion. Helicopters for commercial use fall neither within the arms embargo of the security Council nor wi thin the Ulxernbourg decision. The del ivery of such helicopters therefore is not subject to control by the Federal Government. In conclusion, permit me to state once again, as in the past, that the Federal Government will also in the future strictly observe the mandatory arms embargo against South 'Africa and strictly apply the decisions of the Foreign Ministers of the EJropean Community of september 1985. Mr. ARIDtES (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): Yesterday, one of the speakers digressed from the item under discussion and rambled on to Chad, and the Libyan-Chadian dispute, which has nothing to do with this discussion. In the same vein, the speaker singled out a number of countries, including my own, in his now familiar ploy of distracting the Assembly by a number of distortions. The reason for this is that, in his statement on what is taking place in South Africa and the excesses and transgressions we all know of, the speaker found himself at a loss. He could not rebut the contents of the special report on the relationship between his country and South 'Africa. He did admi t, from the word go, that h is country is in league with that regime when he said that his country will now refrain from entering into any new contracts in the military fielo\ that is to say, the existing military contracts between the two States will stand, but there wil~ be no new contracts. However, he did not' elabora te on the type and range of those contracts. U He also spoke of the lowering of the ongoing cultural, scientific and spor~s contacts between the two countries. In addition to all this, the special report, to which he referred in his statement, makes it clear, in paragraph 5, that Israelis decisim to reduce its links wi th South Africa was not a serious poliHeal decision, but just a ploy to ward off the pressure of the united States Congress. The Israeli representative, in his sta tement, urged opposi tion to the draft resolution on the relations between his country and South Africa, which was adopted only a while ago by the General Assembly. If we look at the resolution, we will " not find in it anything that anyone could object to but a call upon Israel to discontinue its dealings with racist South Africa and implement the United Nation~ resolutions on apartheid. Still, he voted against the draft resolution. He also voted against the other dl:iaft resolutions put forward by the Special Committee, in the case of one draft resolution by voting no, and in the case of the other three by abstaining. This confirms the collaboration 0 f his reime wi th the offspring of nazism in SOuth Africa, the racist Pretoria regime, which has been condemned by the in terna tional community in its entirety. I am not going to speak about racist practices against the Arab people in the occufpi:ed Arab territories, because the delegations here keep abreast of the different aspects of this question, and they know the extent and nature of Israel's practices. , 'I Co-oper ation between Afr iea and the Arab war Id is strong and cannot be quee tioned or dis tor ted. We face one common enemy in the Middle East and in sou'thern Africa. The will of the people will be victorious: the racist regimes will be eradicated in both areas. Mr. ESSY(Cote d'Ivoire) (interpretation from French): In his statement the representative of Ghana attacked Cote d'Ivoire by name and said that in grahting author ization to land at Abidjan to an aircraft of the French air line UTA, which 'links Paris and Johannesburg, it was participating in the destabilization of the West African subregion. Since at times, with some variations, history constantly repeats itself, Cote d'Ivoire and its President have in the past often been accused of Balkanizing Africa. But everyone who knows the real history of decolonization and the formation of the Organization of African tllity (OAU), which is today the pride of our oontinent - for apart from Afr ica, no continent has succeeded in grouping within itself so large a number of independent States - knows what Cote d'Ivoire has done and the role of its President in the creation of that institution. Its role in the bu ilding of that organ iza tion started at the Conference of Brazzaville and continued in those at pt)nrovia and Lagos, and, finally, at the Mdis Ababa Conference, which finally saw the merger of two groups, the Brazzaville Group and the Casablanca Group, to create the OAIJ. Cote d' Ivoire, it is alleged, is opening the door to the destabilization of West Afr ica. But, on the contrary, before and after independence all the actions of President Houphouet-Boigny have been part of an obstinate and tireless quest for means to stabil ize not only Cote d'tvoire but the entire subregion and all of Africa. As we have said, we do not wish to be an oasis of peace and prosperity 11 a desert of misery. This policy is character ized by a stubborn determination to hold the line on the prices of the raw materials on which the economies of all the African States are based and by active participation in the setting up of many organizations for ecooornic co-opera tion - the Council of Understanding, the Economic Commission for Western Asia, the Ebonomic Community of West African States - intended to strengthen the economic bases of our countries, which are the true factors and which can contribute effectively to the political stability of our respective States. The presence of President Houphouet-Boigny at the ecooomic summit in Lago was proof of our desire to participate and to contribute to all that can proYlPte the economic development of our continent and thus consolidate our political independence and stability. Destabilization is a ooncept which does not exist in our political or econom11 vocabularies. Everywhere we seek political stability. We have had but one leader in office since 19441 and we also have stability as regards raw materials. Concerning more specifically our policy towards South Africa, the bastion of apartheid, it is neither new nor ambiguous. It was in 1971, during a famous press conference, that President Houphouet -Boigny proposed a dialogue between all Africar Sta tes, including South Afr ica, saying that dialogue "is not the weapon of the weaK but, on the contrary, of the strong". This policy of dialogue is the result not of improvisation but of a great deal of thought based on intensive observation of certain historical and sociological phenomena. Since 1971 th is pol icy of dialogue has not changed, and it will not change because Cote d' lvo ire is known for its cons tancy and its unshakable fai th in its choice. Cote d'Ivoire's policy is not blemished by any hyp:lcrisy because it proceeds from noble and sincere feelings in the struggle against apartheid, which Cote d'Ivoire forcefully condemns. How can we, black as we are, not revolt against and be outraged by the inhuman behaviour of the whites towards the blacks? Cote d'Ivoire believes in negotiation and therefore in dialogue to settle all problems, including those p:>sed by the need to eliminate apartheid, which is the objective of all Afr icans - indeed, of all peace-lov ing people. Certainly the results of this dialogue are not spectacular, the dialogue is slO<l, as we know, even very slow, but that does not discourage us at all~ we shall persist. Apartheid will disappear sooner or later, and history, we are certain, will give a proper accounting of the individual efforts of one and all in this multilateral struggle. We do not condemn any single per son~ we simply respect the choice made by others in the struggle against apartheid. I would only hope that there will be equal respect for our IOOst difficult choice in this common struggle against apartheid. We could have chosen the easy way and have been content wi th simply voting in favour of resolutions of condemnation, returning to our capitals with a clear conscience. But we have del ibera tely chosen the most difficult, most dangerous and most honourable way to prove that the accusation levelled against us is untrue. I '«>uld say to my brother of Ghana - I say "brother" because we are of the same ethnic group: my village is only two miles away from the Ghanian border - that if it were simply a matter of preventing the landing at Abidjan of a long-range aircraft which links South Africa with Europe, and which could oontribute to stabilizing our subregion or contribute to the demolition of apartheid, we would have hastened to follow his friendly advice. But given the present state of affa irs, we would have liked even a SOu th African aircraft to be forced to land at Accra, so that SOuth Africans could admire the beautiful capital, Accra, and see how, in freedom and dignity, blacks, lil(e whites, can manage their own countries - as the blacks will tororrow in south Africa. Such an event would perhaps be but a drop of water in the ocean, but, as the French au thor algar Quinet said I "Drop by drop water eventually pierces the hardest rock, even though it is called apartheid". Mr. IDSSEINI (Islamic Republic of Iran) ~ Yesterday the representative of the defeated Iraqi regime again in traduced extraneous issues and baseless allegations against my country, intending to divert the Assembly's attention from crimes committed by the racist Pretor ia regime and the collabora Hon between the Zionist terrorist base and South Africa. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported the just struggle of the people of South Africa against apar theid. We strongly condemn and oppose any collaboration with that abhorrent regime. The Islamic Republic of Iran has set up special rules and regulations concerning the export and sale of oil. It is a standard condition for the sale of oil by Iran to purchasing companies that they undertake not to del iver it to prohibited destinations, including South Afr ica. In order to ensure effective implementation of that contract clause, discharge certificates on sold cargo are obta ined and closely investiga ted. (Mr. Rosseini, Islamic Republic of Iran) Naturally those companies which, in contravention of the sa id prohibition and the text of the contract, deliver Iranian oil to South Africa will be immediately placed on the black list of the National Iranian Oil Company. This br ief explanation clearly demonstrates that the allegation made by the Iraqi representative was totally baseless and misleading. Mr. ABBAS (United Republic of Tanzania) ~ In his statement yesterday the representa tive of Israel quoted from Reuters what is alleged to have been said by our former President, Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere, on the question of re-establishing diplomatic relations between African countries and Israel. That specific reference created the false impression that lttrlalimu was encouraging African countries to re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I should like, in clarification of this matter and for the record, to state the following. First, Mwalimu Nyerere did not address any reporters during his stopover in Nairobi, where the Reuters report originated. Secondly, whatever may have been said by him on this matter has been taken completely out of conteKt. Thirdly, this is affirmed by the fact that Tanzania's own pes ition on the question of re-establishing diplomatic relations with Israel remains unchanged, because of Israel's denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, as well as the continued occupation of Arab lands in contravention of the united Nations Charter, international law and the relevant resolutions of both the Secur i ty Council and the Gener al Assembly. t-1.r. G3ElD (Ghana) ~ I wish to exercise the right of reply to the delega tions of the Federal Republic of Germany and Cote d' Ivoire. A debate in the plenary of the General Assembly is exactly that. It is an informed and sustained exchange of views on whatever issue is before the plenary Assembly. It was specifically in that vein that my delegation made references to the delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany and Cote d'lvoire for eKplanations which we are happy to receive. Any other motive ascribed to us is completely rejected. As far as the statement made by the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany is concerned, let me reiterate that, if he does not find any violation of the Security Council arms embargo in the actions of the two companies that supplied the blueprints for the building of a U-209 submarine to South Africa, we do. We disagree on that point. The issue of the debate may be the practices and policies of apartheid, but it is equally true that those who strengthen the economy and the military might of SOuth Africa do an injustice to the overwhelming majority of black SOuth Africans in that hapless country. I am happy to note that the Federal Republic of Germany supports peaceful methods for the eradication of apartheid, but I hope that he will see my point when I state that the suppl.y of submarines to the military forces of South Africa can hardly be consistent with peaceful methods of eradicating apartheid. It is indeed the Federal Republic of Germany that has broken solidarity with everyone of us by allowing its state-owned enterprise to sell the blueprints to South Africa. The Federal Republic of Germany cannot disown the two companies, when the G:>vernment itself owns 75 per cent of the shares. I am happy to know that the Federal RepUblic of Germany will pursue the matter to its logical conclusion and that the rumour to which I referred is not true. If it proves to be true, I hope that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany will see to it that there is no travesty of justice. Secondly, I welcome the words of my col.league, brother and dear friend, the Permanent Representative of the Cote d'lvoire. Let me start by correcting a (Hr. Gbeho, Ghana) ~ortion of his statement. Never did my delegation imply that the Cote d'Ivoire was ldnging destabilization to West Africa. I will read again the portion of my· scatement that deals with the Cote d'Ivoire. I stated yesterday, and I repeat; "With that decision, COte d'Ivoire is inviting South African destabilization into the West African subregion, and we fraternally request them to rethink this ser ious step." (A/42/PV.76, p. 151) If my colleague does not believe that the actions they have taken can bring desl:ablization, caused by South Africa, they should ask other coutries, like the Unit.ed Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, what members of South African offices in their countr ies have done in defence of apartheid and in destabilization of others. If necessary, I will go into further detail on that. The issue here is not what contribution the President of the Cote d'Ivoire has brought to African unity or African independence. That is a matter of record and is acknowledged, and my delega tion is in concurrence with all the representative has saJ.d on that, but the issue here is that the United Nations, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, has adopted a Dumber of resolutions, and the Organization of African Unity has also adopted a number of resolutions, all of which reconunend against such action as the Cote d'Ivoire has taken. The delegation of the Cote d'Ivoire knows that that country is a member of both the United Nations and the organization of Afr iean unity. Our question is; What kind of solidar ity do we have? Finally, we have a choice; to maintain dialogue with South Africa or not. Even if we choose dialogue, one must distinguish that from active co-operation with the racist regime of South Africa. Let me end by quoting from The GUardian an article on this subject that was published on 11 November of this year. It says: "The West African State of Ivory Coast has broken ranks wi th African countries pushing for tougher sanctions against South Africa, by granting traffic rights to South African Airways. After months of protracted negotiations shrouded in secrecy, and believed to have been conducted at top GoYernment level, SAA has been given permission to pick up and disembark passengers and cargo in Abidjan on flights between London and Johannesburg. "Aircraft of SAA, one of the world's least welcomed airlines, will leave Abidjan at the cur ious flying time of 2.15 a.m. Travel agents have been asked not to publicize the flight, because of its political sensitivity, and Mr. Marcello Miao, the SAA representative in Abidjan, has refused to comment. (Kr. Gbeho, Ghana) (Mr. Gbeho, Ghana) "The airline has refuelled at Abidjan's international airport for years whi3.e continuing to p.Jt in a request for traffic rights. Senior Foreign Min istry officials yesterday expressed surpr ise over the GoI7ernment' s ~bout-face 'We have always said that we do not believe that sanctions can work, but we have tried not to become isolated on the continent', a senior diplomat said." ~ ed I say more. Mr. AL-AMIN (Iraq); Because we are already so late, I shall be very ief. The reports that Iran is selling oil to South Africa were not brought up by aq.' Those are not really allegations, they are facts given in the report of the tergovernmental Group to Monitor the Supply and Shipping of Oil and Pe troleum oducts to South Africa, in c:bcument A/42/45, paragraph 33. The other r epor ts I have \ ,re printed in the newsletter, entitled Oil Embargo against South Africa. I ny copies with me of the latest issue, OCtober 1987, and am ready to give a copy It proves that , I any representative, including the Iranians, if they so wish. 'an has deals with South Africa in selling its oil. The ffiESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): I call on the I !presentative of the Federal Republic of Germany for his second statement in E :ercise of the right of reply. May I remind him that his second statement should limited to five minutes. Count IDRK von WARTENBURG (Federal Republic of Germany) ~ I welcome what colleague from Ghana just said about the character of our debate, because that rmi ts me to bel ieve now that what he has been saying was not mean t as an attack. t me refer to what I said earlier. If blueprints of the kind that he mentioned llle been delivered to South Africa, then indeed that would be a violation of the 'ms embargo. I can only conclude from the fact that investigation procedures on which watch over the compliance wi th the arms embargo share that view. I should not like to comment further on that subject until these investigations have been completed. As I said ,we will then inform the anti-apartheid Committee and our colleague from Ghana. He may perhaps understand that there is a distinction between saying that those things have been delivered wi th the knowledge of the Government and the fact that those companies are partially owned by the State, because in my country those firms are managed and run completely as private companies and the Government itself does not manage them. The allusion to the effect that the Gbvernment knew about that goes further and I wanted to correct that impression and hope that the Ambassador will accept that explanation. The PRES !DENT (interpreta tion from Spanish): I call now on the representative of the Cote d I Ivoire for his second statement in exercise of the right of reply, which is limited to five minutes. Mr. ESSY (Cote d'Ivoire) (interpretation from French): I do not think I shall need the five minutes, because in reality there is no difference between my brother from Ghana and myselfJ it is merely a question of evaluation - we are all struggling towards the same goal, namely, the elimination of apartheid. The Cote d ' Ivoire, as I said, has nothing to hide. It does not have representatives of South African Airlines, it has no economic ties with South Africa and so there is no hidden objective. The ques tion of solidar ity was raised. What kind of solidarity do we want to lend to the struggle in all these resolutions? Quite simply, we want to offer effective solidarity.

I now call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for his second statement in exercise ielegation has responded to the Iraqi representative. My delegation regrets that the representative of the Iraqi defeated regime still insists on his attempt to Hvert the attention of the Assembly from the very important issue of the struggle )f the people in Sou th Africa. The Iraqi representative purely for the purpose of ;elf-interest and selfishness brought baseless allegations and is misusing the laluable and precious time, which has been devoted to the people of Sou th Africa 3nd to the struggle of our brothers in SOuth Africa. The Iraqi representative is nisusing that time, which is a sad fact. My delegation will not elaborate further. Finally, I should like to emphasize that the Islamic Republic of Iran has 11ways been one of the most ardent supporters of the struggle of the people in South Africa and for the annihilation of the apartheid regime. The ffiESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): I call on the rept=esentative of Ghana for his second statement in exercise of the right of reply, which is Hmi ted to five minu tes. Mr. GBEfI) (Ghana) ~ I shall try to exercise my right of reply against two delega tions in five minu tes. First, I thank my colleague from the Federal Republic C)f Germany most sincerely for the candour with which he has replied to our inquiries. Secondly, I wish to tell him, if it is of any comfort to him, that I am not alone in believing that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany ought to have known about the sale of the blueprints to the South Africans. let me quote from the Johannesburg Citizen of 12 March last year, which quoted its representa tive in Bonn as saying ~ "At a newS conference in Bonn, Opposition leader Hans Jochen Vogel said that if the Federal Government cannot prove it was not involved in the alleged sale, the Social Derocrats will demand the establishment of a special investiga ting conuni ttee. 'It appear s unlikely to me that a firm that is 75 per cent owned by the Government would do something wi thout the political leadership at least indicating it was all right', Mr. Vagel told journalists. 'This makes us look once again like the last ally of the apartheid regime in South Afr ica " he said." As I said, no less a per son than a parliamentar ian of the Federal Republic of Germany made that observation over a year ago. More than that, this whole affa ir came in to the open a year ago. All I am ask ing is that my colleagues from the Federal Republic of Germany should do whatever is in their power to hasten and facilitate the investigation, so that we do not have a repetition in the future. secondly, as regards the right 0 f reply of my brother from the Cote d'Ivoire, I wish merely to say that I hope that he also under stands the legi timate cancer n of my Government when his Government decides to provide facilities for a Government that has a record of political assassinations, the bombing of innocent men, women and children and the destabilization of fellow African countries. To ask us not to speak is to deny us justice. I do not quarrel with him over the leadership role his Government decides to play in this matter. But it is cur ious that the overwhelming majority of the international oommunity should decide to show its leadership by denying collaboration and facilities to the South African regime. If he sees it otherwise, that is his Government's prerogative, but it impinges on the safety and the overall objective of our struggle against the most heinous of human crimes of this century - I refer to the system of apartheid.

I call on the '.'.' r presentative of Iraq to speak in exercise of his second right of reply. Mr. AL-AMIN (Iraq): The facts I stated earlier cannot merely be rejected b the Iranian representative. If the Iranian regime, truly supports the struggle o the black people of South Africa, it should cease all its relations and deali.ngs w th South Africa and Israel. They should stop bartering Iranian oil for arms from S uth Africa and Israel and, if they are truly honest in what they say, they should a so stop the aggressive war against Iraq, which supports the struggle of South 11 rica, and turn their energies towards the struggle of the African people.

I call on the r presentative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who has asked to speak on a point order. Mr. IDSSEIN I (Islamic Republic of Iran): I think the last sen tence of e statement just made by the representative of Iraq was irrelevant to the point c der discussion.

The General Assembly has t us completed consideration of agenda item 33. The meeting rose at 2.45 p.m.