A/42/PV.92 General Assembly

I should like to remind the Assembly that we have concluded the debate on th is item. The Assembly will now turn its attention to draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and A/42/L.39. I shall call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote be fore the voting on them. May I remind members that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by representatives from their seats. Mr. TARUI (Japan) ~ My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and A/42/L.39 because we firmly support the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and hope that it will be duly implemented. My delegation commends the efforts of the authors of these draft resolutions in trying to avoid the insertion of various unnecessary and controversial elements as well as name-calling, which have often appeared in resolutions relating to decolonization. At the same time, however, I must regretfully express my delegation's reservations en certain provisions contained in those documents. My delegation cannot support some parts of the report of the Special Committee which operative paragraph 5 of A/42/L.38 and operative paragraph 1 of A/42/L.39 approve, and thus wishes to indicate its reservation. For reasons we have made clear on a number of occas ions, incl uding meetings at this session of the General Assembly, my delegation has reservations on other paragraphs in A/42/L.38, in particular paragraphs 4, 6 and 10. Moreover, it is my delega tion' sunders tanding that opera tive paragraph 7 of the same dra ft resolu ti.on is not intended as a condemnation of all foreign economic activities, but rather of a particular type of them which in fact impedes the process of self-determination in the N:m-Self-Governing Territories. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote. The Assembly will nCf,ol begin the voting process and take decis ions on the recommendations contained in draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and A/42/L.39. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme bUdget implications of the draft resolutions has been issued as document A/42/845. The Assembly will vote first on draft resolution A/42/L.38. A recorded vote In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angol.a, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil,. Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, CamerOOn Cape Verde, Central African , Republ.ic, Chad, Chile, China, Colomb ia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, COte d'Ivoire, Cuba, 'Ojprus, czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Sal.vador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Denocra tic Republic, Greece, Grenada, Gu inea, Gu inea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, J·ndia, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, 1.30 People's DemocratiC RepUblic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, MaUI;'itania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongol.ia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Qnan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru., Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint wcia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republ.ic, Thailand, 'Ibgo, Trinidad and 'Ibbago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Social.ist Republics, United Arab EInirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezu ela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslav ia, Za ire, Zamb ia, Zimbabwe Against: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Sta tes of Mer i ca Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, wxenbourg, Netherlands Draft resolution A/42/L. 38 was adopted by 131 votes to 2, with 7 abstentions (resolu tion 42/71). * The PRES !DENT (in terpreta tion from Russian): The Assembly will now vote on draft resolution A/42/L.39. A recorded vote has been requested. * Subsequen tly the follow ing delega tions adv ised th e Secr etar ia t that they had intended to vote in favour: Belize, DelTDcratic Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, G..Iate,mala, Mozambique, Panama, Poland, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, SUdan, Suriname and the United Republic of Tanzan ia. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burffi:l, Burundi, Byelorussian Sov iet SOcia 1 ist Re pub lic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Ver de, Cen tral Afr ican Republic, Chad, Ch ile, Ch ina, Colomb ia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ei::uador, B:Jypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Del1'Ocratic Republic, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Gu inea-Bissau, Q.lyana, Hondur as, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, rao People's IRmocratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab ,Jamahiriya, Madagasci'lr., Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, MauritanL), Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Qnan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint ill cia , Samoa, Sao 'Ibme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, 'lOgo, 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 Againsb United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Sta tes of America ?\bstaining: Belgium, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, wxembourg, Netherlands Draft resolution A/42/L.39 was adopted by 135 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions (resolution 42/72). *

I shall n<M call on representatives wishing to explain their votes. *Subsequently the foll<Ming delegations aclvised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour: Belize, Derrncratic Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Q.latemala, Mozambique, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Gr enadines, SUdan and Sur iname. favour of the draft resolution on the implementation of the Declaration on the Gran ting of Independence to Colon ial coun tr ies and Peoples in document A/42/L.38 in view of Turkey's vigorous Support for the efforts of the international community in the struggle against colonialism. HONever, we have reservations on paragraph 10 of the text, which we believe is not drafted in a sufficiently balanced manner. Mrs. BER'IRAND (Austr ia) ~ My delegation wants to confine itself to explaining its vote on draft resolution A/42/L.38. Austria considers that the process of decolon iz ation indeed cons ti tu tes one of the ou ts tanding ach ievemen ts of the United Nations. Austria has therefore consistently supported the efforts of the united Nations in this regard. It is because of its sincere corranitment to the process of decolonization and to the right of peoples to self-determination that Austria has supported this draft. HONever, that should not be interpreted as approval of all the provisions contained in this text. Austria has reservations with regard to some of them. In particular I would refer to paragraph 4 and emphasize that Austria understands this paragraph to refer exclusively to struggle by peaceful means, as Austria, in accordance with the united Nations Charter, is firmly convinced that the necessary change should be brought about peaceful means aloo e. Mr. MAJOOR (Netherlands)~ The importance of the Declaration on the Gr an ting of Independence to Colon ial Coun tr ies and Peoples adopted by the Gen eral Assembly 27 years ago in resolution 1514 (XV) is best shown by the fact that it started a process that over the years resulted in a membership of the United Nations of 159 States compared to the 94 Member States in 1960. My delegation would like to reaffirm its support for all efforts, compatible with the Charter of the United Nations, to eliminate colonialism completely and to enable the peoples of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories to achieve self-determination in accordance with the Declaration. The major case in point is Namibia. The debate on Namibia in the security Council at the end of CCtober 1987, which resulted in the adoption of the important resolution 601 (1987), and the debate on agenda item 36 at the beginning of November 1987, have proved that the commitment of the international community to the realization of Namibia's independence has not weakened. On the contrary, once again the international oommunity, inclUding the Netherlands, has made it utterly clear that the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa must be brought to an early end by the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) without any pre-condition or pretext. The Namibian people must be allowed to exercise· their right to self-determination and, as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence pu ts it: "by virtue of that right •.. freely determine their pJlitical status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". (resolution 1514 (XVI), pa r a. 2) Although my delegation attaches great importance to the principles laid down in the D:oclara tion on the Gr an ting of Independence to Colon ial Collo tr ies and Peoples, I regret that the Netherlands could not support the two draft resolutIons before us, entitled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", in document A/42/L. 38, and "Dissemination of information on decolonization", contained in document A/42/L.39. We continue to have reservations on the, often by implication, unbalanced formulations, particularly in operative paragraphs 2, 4,7 and 10 of draft resolution A/42/L.38 and in the fourth prearrbular paragraph in which reference is made to resolution S-14/1 on the question of Namibia, on which my delegation abstained in the vote for reasons explained on that occasion. My delegation welcomes, however, the fact that this year the name calling in the twelfth preambular paragraph and in operative paragraph 13 has been deleted. My delegation also has reservations concerning draft resolution A/42/L.39 and the report on the bas is of which that draft resolu tion was formula ted and which is contained in document A/42/23, Part lI. Some of the recorrunendations in the report seek to divert the Special committee from its proper task and to use the resources of this Organization for a campaign of selective criticism against one particular group of countries. MC BLANC (France) (interpretation from French)~ My delegation did not participate in the vote on the two draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and L.39. We regret that we had to take this attitude, which is unusual for us. This new position by the delegation of France is the consequence of the inclusion last year, in resolution 41/41 A, of New Caledonia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. That inclusion - which, as everyone knows, we opposed - would have the united Nations consider France as the administering Power over that Territory, which we also oppose. In those two draft resolutions reference is made several times to admin is ter ing Power s. Since we do not bel ieve that we fall under that cate,gory, the French delegation was not able to associate itself in any way with the adoption of those dr aft resolutions. Mr. BIRCH (United Kingdom): As in the case of similar draft resolutions in previous years, my delegation voted against draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and L. 39. The draft resolution just adopted in A/42/L.38 on implementation of the Declaration on decolon iz ation is vir tually identical to similar resol utions adopted by th is Assembly in pr evious years. It employs the same tired dogma and re inforces the same outdated misconceptions. It fails to reflect the great progress that has been made in the decolonization field over the last 40 or more years. Its drafters have shown no willingness to move with the times and have refused to recognize that colonialism is no longer the phenomenon it was. The colonial era is close to an end. No one can dispute that fact. As far as the few remain ing Bd tish dependencies are concerned, the colon ial era is already at an end. It is disappointing that this resolution says nothing of relevance to the people of those Territories. For the people of the remaining British dependencies, the call for the el imina tion of the last vestiges of colon ial ism is mean ingless. The asser tion that the activities of foreign businesses are preventing them from choosing their CMn future is contradicted by their daily experience. The fallacious credo that self~etermination can only mean independence simply does not apply; until nCM all of them have chosen to maintain their links with the United Kingdom. They can Il'Odify their choice if they wish. Whatever that choice, we intend to respect their wishes. It is a matter of great regret to my delegation that this resolution has once again failed to recognize the self~vident fact, acknowledged even by the Chairman of the Special Committee in his statement yesterday, that each of the British dependent Territories is in a unique situation. Instead of relying on the jargon of the past, as if there were some single blueprint for decolonization, we should be considering in a flexible and pragmatic way how best the united Nations may contribute to the welfare of the peoples of the few remaining dependent Territories. Turn ing now to draft resolu tion A/42/L. 39, on dissemina tion of informa tion on decolon iz ation, it follows from what I have already said that we cannot accept the call in that resolution for an intensification of information work in the decolonization field. As the colonial era draws to its end, efforts to 'spread information about de:colonization should also diminish. At a time of limited financial resources, the united Nations has far more pressing priorities. Those resolu tions are poli tical dinosaurs, clumsy animals from a past age. Mr. S'IROMIDIM (Sweden) ~ I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The Nor dic coun tr ies' ab iding commi tmen t to the process of decolonization is well known. That process has very nearly run its course. This is one of the historic achievements of the united Nations. The Nordic countries voted in favour of draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and L.39. Regrettably, however, we could not do so wi thout certain reservations. Draft resolution A/42/L. 38 contains formulations to which we cannot give our consent. For example, opera tive paragraph 4 contains formula tions which are contrary to the pr inciple upheld by the N::lrdic countr ies that, in conformity with its Charter, the United Nations should always encourage only peaceful solutions. Furtherrrcre, we find operative paragraph 10 too categorically formulated. As regards draft resolution A/42/L.39, our vote on operative paragraph 1, regarding the chapter of the r eper t of the Special Commi ttee on decolonization relating to the dissemination of information, should not be interpreted as an approval of all specific parts of that chapter. The PRES IDEN'r (in terpreta tion from Russian) : In connection with agenda item 18, the Assenbly has before it a letter dated 9 November 1987 addressed to me by the Permanen t Represen ta tive of Sweden, wh ich has been dis tr ihuted as document A/42/733. In this letter the Permanent Representative of Sweden inEorms me that his' Calm try has decided to withdraw from membership of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation oE the Declaration on the Granting of Indepehdence to Colonial Coun tr ies and Peoples as Erom 31 December 1987. It is proposed that !'brway be nominated to fill the vacancy caused by the withdrawal of Sweden. May I take it that the General A.ssenbly confirms that nomination? It was so decided. ~.2iIJ; 1.1 {fD:m, tin~od};: I" MiD 1s· (c'rcRi~ ti n o;~) ~_ iIC'~-I-SBIP-·g) V~i 1W~- ~'~.R 1.-mtR IES ~M~,Jf:rr-m m,il)B.={ k~ ICLE OP; ~Y~, m£:nr-m ~~~][)~E ~ p..EFJ'~~T OFT'EB OJi~~rrrRE ne OF n A3[~EI\;I11 ~ ~],:P :E1C~.R Ie.tt; Em,B]N ye ~'iD OT.d~ ~·~rH(g;~ ~r~:ICH ~g E~ Pm DiG TcBiE. lr~"<>~i~~IID~ O'iF :y'EH: D~~':l-<.~ID~ O~i 'if'SE ~-1~m'G OF nt'lDB'~,~ffi ID mIDN'L~L 1..."ii[Ji pm~,JOls D!;! ~mTh lo...~ T!!&:c::r'IDRIES UNDiER m~IAL OF 'TEE D~.AYD,-tJi O~ yEB GIL~~'_n;r;G OF nIDKml"ffJ-EN'(B ~ CDIDNIAL ~i:~IES M~: ?IDPf,,,FS BY 'r~ .SPHCI...~LIX£D;- J!.~~l'Cns J\~-IDi r'nB Di:T-m.N.~ro;;N;'l4L ~T§;~.:r"?£:J;Y; ~,~s~~ ii'rr'Er Y'itE miIT"ID l!~~'Y'ID~E;- :P...HBJR:r OiP T"tE E'm·~IC AND SOCJ:AL O~'mlS BY ~'EN:3m SD'r~ OP' S'i'!n)'f ~J:m 1R1ilr)ii]NG FACILITIES IDR :rn~IT1t.J,,'TS OP ~~'-SB'-.IF-ro·~~'R;G T'~i{I~;R:rES-: REIDRy OF T~ ro~YH m~~E {A.!4~l12~ op- Y;SB: D~R~.JE'J~~ OR yES GR.k'\t"Tlli'G OF n~D'EllK~EN{E ID mIDNThL :::D~m.ll'S ~~ FBJ; PLIES ~ FJERJR'r 01? TIE roUFlT'B: (n~M.!'1l.""i"RR (Al4 2/730 a'lo Corr. 2) REIDRT OP MC CARNEVALI VILLEGAS (Venezuela), Rapporteur of the Fburth Committee (interpretatiQn from Spanish): I have the honour to introduce to the General Assembly for its consideration six reports of the Fburth Committee with regard to agenda items' 18,108,109,110 and 12, 111 and 112 respectively. The first report, Contained in document A/42/730, refers to those Territories not covered by other agenda items and which the Committee has considered under item 18.- - The report includes 12 draft resolutions, two draft consensuses and a draft decis'ibn relating respectively to: Western Sahara, New Caledonia, Anguilla, funtserrat, British Virgin Islands, 'l\lrks and Caioos Islands, 'Ibkelau, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guam, American Samoa, the llii ted Sta tes Virg in Islands, Gib r a 1 tar, Pi tca i r n an d St. He 1 en a. With the adoption of these proposals the General Assembly, inter alia, would reaffii:m the full application of the ceclaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to those Territories and the inherent right of the peoples of those Territories freely to decide their own future political status. The General Assembly would ("equest the administering Powers to adopt all [XJssible measures to facilitate the process of decolonization. Similarly, the Assembly would call upon the administering Powers, with the assistance of the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system, to accelerate the economic and social developnent of those Territories. The Assembly would observe wi th apprecia tion the con tinued co-opera tion of some administering Powers in this respect and would once again emphasize the importance of the dispatch of visiting missions to those small Tenitories in order to enable the United Nations to obtain a full assessment of the prevailing coo di ti ons • Wi,th respect to the Western Sahara, the General Assembly, inter alia, would reaffirm that this "is a question of decolonization which remains to be completed on l::I1e basis of the exercise by the people of WeE;tern Sahara of their inalienable right to self,.,(ieter·mination and independenq:!" (A/42/730, p. 12) and would appeal to the Kingdom. of Morocco and the popular Front for the. Libera tion of Sagu ia El-Hamra and of Rio de Oro to demonstrate the necessary political wil)' to apply resolution AHG/Res.l04 (XIX) o.f the Organization of African Unity and General Assembly resolutions 40/50 and 41/16, as well as the present General Assembly draft resolution. The Assembly would take note "of the joint decision of the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to send a technical mission to Western sahara". (A/42/730, p. 12) Wi th respect to New Caledonia the Assembly would reaffirm the inalienable r igh t of the people of New Caledon ia to sel f-de termination and independence and would call upon France to transmit the information required under Article 73 e of the Charter. The Assembly would declare that progress towards a long-term political solution in New Caledonia would require a free and legitimate act of self-determination consistent with the principles and practices of the United Na tions, and it would call upon Fr ance to con tinue dialogue wi th all sector s of the po pu la tion • The second report, contained in document A/42/726, refers to agenda item 108, concerning information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmit.ted under Art.icle 73e of the Charter of the United Nations. The Fourth Committee, int.er alia, recommends that the General Assembly reaffirm that in the absence of a decis ion of the Gener al Assembly itself to the effect that a Non-Self-Govern ing Territnry has attained a full measure of self-government in terms of Chapter XI of the Charter;. ,of the United Nations, the administering Power concerned should a:>ntinue to transmit information with respect to that Territory in conformity· with that Article. The Assembly would call upon the Secretary-General to ensure that adequate information would be drawn from all available sources in connection with :., . the pJ;eparation by the secretariat of working papers relating to the Territories OJncer ned for the Special Commi ttee on decolon ization. The third report, contained in document A/42/639, refers to agenda item 109, on the activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implemen ta tion of the Declara tion and effor ts to el imina te apar theid and rac ial discrimination in southern Africa. Among other provisions, the General Assembly, in condemning the stepped up activi ties of those foreign economic financial and other interests which continue to exploit the natural and human resources of Namibia and other colonial Territories, would once again call upon all Governments to take the necessary steps to put an end to such activities and to prevent new investments that run counter to the interests of those Territories. The General Assemb ly would also call upon the admin is ter ing Power s to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of the peoples of those colonial Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over their fu ture development. In a separate decision on the activities and military facilities in colonial Territories that could be impeding the implementat.ion of the Declarat.ion, the Four th Commi ttee recommends that the Gener al Assemb ly call upon the cor responding colon ial Powers to put an end to such activi ties in conformi ty wi th the relevant The fourth report, contained in document A/42/727, refers to agenda items 110 and 12, that is ,the implementation of the Declaration by the specialized agencies and international institutions associated with the united Nations. The General Assembly would, inter alia, call upon those organizations to continue as a matter of urgency to lend all possible moral and material assistance to colonial peoples struggling to free themselves from the colonial yoke. The General Assembly would also rei tera te its conviction that the special ized agencies and other insti tu flans and bodies of the United Nations system should abstain from taking any step that might imply recogni tion of or support for the legi timacy of the occupa tion of Namibia by South Africa. The fifth report, oontained in document A/42/728, refers to the United Nations Educational and Training Programme for Southern Africa, under item Ill. In expr essing appr ecia tion to all who have supported the prograrrrne wi th oon tr ibutions, fellowships, or pos i tions in the ir educa tional ins ti tu tions, the Assembly would call upon all States, institutions, organizations and individuals to offer broad financial support to the programme in order to ens ure its con tinui ty and expansion. The last report, under agenda item 112, oontained in document A/42/729, refers to the of fer ing by Me rober Sta tes of fac ilit ies for study and tra in ing for the inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The General Assembly, in thanking all Member States who had made available fellowships for the inhahitants of those Territories, would invite all States to continue making generous contributions for that same purpose. On behalf of the Fourth Committee I commend these reports to the judicious attention of the General Assembly. Before concluding I wish to thank the Chairman of the Fburth Committee, Ambassador Constantine Moushoutas of cyprus, for the support and advice he has given me with regard to my responsibilities as Rapporteur. I also express my thanks to the members of the Committee for the co-operation and assistance they prov ided dur ing the course of the meetings. Finally, I wish to associa te myself with the many words of admiration, respect and gratitude addressed to the staff of the Secretariat, whose assistance has been invaluable to the successful achievement of our aims. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure, I shall consider that the General Asserrbly decides not to discuss those reports of the Fburth Committee. It was so decided. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the various reconunendations of the Fourth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. I remind members that in paragraph 7 of its decision 34/401 the General Assembly decided that, when the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delega tion should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee. I also remind members that, in accordance wi th decis ion 34/401, explana tions vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their We shall first consider the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda item 108, entitled "Information from N:>n-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the united Nations". That report is contained in docu men t A/42/72 6. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Ar gen tina, Aus tr al ia, AUS tr ia, Bahamas, Bahra in, 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 Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comeros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovak ia, Derrocra tic Kampu chea, Derrocra tic Yemen, Denmark, Dj ibouti, Dominican Republic, ECuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democr atic Republic, Germany, Feder al Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, I srael, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, wxembourg, Madagascar, Halawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, N:lrway, Onan, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Gu inea, Paraguay, Peru, Ph ilippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint lJJcia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, sr.i Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Aga inst: None Abstaining: France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and l'brthern Ireland, Uni ted Sta tes of America The draft resolution was adopted by 154 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (resolution 42/73). consideration of agenda item 108. We turn nCM to the report of the Fburth Conunittee on agenda item 109, entitled "Activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impeding the implementation of 'the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countr iea and People in Namibia and in all other Terri toties under colon ial domination and effor ts to el iminate colon ialism, apar theid and racial discrimination in southern Africa". That report is contained in document A/42/639. The Assembly will first take a decision on the draft resolution recoltlllended by the Fourth Commi ttee in paragraph 8 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Oarussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Sov iet SOcialis t Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cen tral Afr iean Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoras, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Qiprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denocratic Yemen, Djibouti, DOminican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German DeTOClcra tic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Gua temala, Gu inea, Guinea-Bissau, G.tyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Onan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qa tar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Ki tts and Nev is, Sa in t illcia, Sa in t Vincen t and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sur iname, Swaz iland, Syr ian Ar ab Republic, Thailand, 'lbgo, Trinidad and 'Ibbago, 'I\misia, 'furkey, 1J;)anda, Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Un ion of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uni ted Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslav ia, Za ire, zarrtl ia, Zimbabwe Against: Belgium, France, Germany, Federal ~public of, Israel, Italy, wxentlourg, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Brita in and Northern I reland, United States .of Amer iea Abstaining: Austria, Canada, C6te d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden The draft resolution was adopted by 133 votes to 10, with 12 abstentions (resolution 42/74). *

The Assembly will now vote CX'I the draft decision recommended by the Fourth Commi ttee in paragraph 9 of its repJr t. A recorded vote has been reques ted. 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, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cjprus, Czechoslovak: ia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Dj ibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El salvador, Equatorial G.1inea, Eth iopia, Fi ji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democr atic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissall, G.1yana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, lebanon, U!sotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, !bmania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Illela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao '!bme and Principe, Saudi Arab ia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somal ia, Sr i Lanka, Sudan, Sur iname, Swaziland, Syr ian Arab Be public , Tha lland , 'Ibgo, Tr ini dad and Tobago, Tun is ia , Tur key, Uganda , Ukrainian SOviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vlet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe *Subsequen tly the delega tion of Panama advised the Secretar ia t that it had intended to vote in favour; the delegation of Malawi had intended to abstain. Aqainst: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, Japan, UJxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of Amedca Abs ta in ing: Aus tr al ia, Aus tr ia, Cote d' Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, New zealand, Norway, spain, Sweden The draft decision was aoopted by 131 votes to 12, with 13 abstentions.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 109. We turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee on agenda items 110 and 12, entitled, respectively, "Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Col 00 ial Countr ies and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the united Nations" and "Report of the libonomic and SOcial Council". The Fburth Committee's report is contained in document A/42/727. The Assembly will take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A separate vote has been requested on the word n Israel 11 in the eighth preambular paragraph of the draft resolu tion. If there is no objection, I shall put that word to the vote first. There appears to be no objection. I therefore put to the vote the retention of the word "Israel" in the eighth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution in paragraph 7 of the report of the Fourth Committee in document A/42/727. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ben in, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Sov iet Socialist Republic, Chin~, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Egypt, Eth iopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indones ia, Iran'. (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DelOOcra tic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozanbique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, poland,' Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Syr ian Arab Republic, Tunisia, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of soviet Socialist . Republics, United Arab Dnirates, united Republic of Tanzania, Van uatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslav ia, Zamb ia, Zimbabwe Against: An tigua and Barbuda , Aus tral ia , Aus tr ia , Bahamas , Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liberia, wxembourg, Malawi, Mal ta, Ne thet' lands, New zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, Spain, Sweden, ~go, Uhited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, zaire Absta in ing: Argentina, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Cjprus, Gabon, Guinea, Lesotho, M:!xi co, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and ~bago, TUrkey, Venezuela The word "Israel" in the eighth preant>ular paragraph of the draft resolution was retained by 72 votes to 52, with 27 abstentions. draft resolution as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia" Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bu1gar ia, Burk ina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Bye10russ ian SOI/iet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, COmoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, ~prus, CzechoslOl/akia, Democratic Kampuchea, DelTDcra tic Yemen, Dj ibou ti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German DellOcratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, GJinea-Bissau, GJyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indones ia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's 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, Papua 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, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SWaziland, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, 'lbgo, Trinidad and 'Ibbago, '1\1Oisia, tJ;Janda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of SOI/iet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslav ia, zant>ia, Zinbabwe In favour: Israel, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, uni ted Sta tes of America Against~ Absta in ing~ Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, wxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, portugal, Spain, SWeden, Turkey, zaire The draft resolution, as a whole, was ado ted by 130 votes to 3, with 23 abstentions (resolu tion 42 75). consideration 0 f agenda item llO and of chapter s I, VI (sect. D) and VIII of the report of the Economic and Social Council. we turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee (A/42/728) on agenda item 111, entitled "United Nations &iucational and Training Progranune for Southern Africa ". The Assembly will n~ take a decision on the reconunendation of the Fourth Conunittee in paragraph 7 of its report. The Fburth Committee adopted the draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 42/76).

That concludes our consideration of agenda item lll. We turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee (A/42/729) on agenda item 112, entitled "Offers by Memer States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories". The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. The Fourth Committee aoopted that draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 42/77).

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 112. we turn now to the report of the Fourth Committee (A/42/730 and Corr.2) on agenda item 18. This ooncerns chapters of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with Iegard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countr ies and Peoples relating to specific Territories not covered by other agenda i terns. I call on representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting. Mr. ZAHIR (Maldives): I wish to explain very briefly the position of my delegation on the draft resolution on New Caledonia in document A/42/730. My delega tion will be voting in favour of the draft resolu tion. Our support is based on respect for the pr inciple of self-determination for all the peoples of the world. We believe that the people of New Caledonia must be given the opportunity to express their views. The position of Maldives on the issue is based on the broader policy of supporting the right of self-determination without any prejudice to the verdict of such an exercise. Mr. BIANC (France) (interpretation from French): France did not speak yesterday in the debate on this item relating to the implementation of the Declaration contained in resolution 1514 (XV). This was because my delegation wanted to avoid useless repetition or polemical discussions. It had said what it had to say in the Fourth Committee. Some speakers - I must say that they were the exceptions - took advantage of yesterday's discussion, which concerned decolonization in general, to go yet again into the question of New Caledonia. Their arguments are not new and my delegation has already amply responded to them. Therefore, I shall only recall briefly here the reasons why the delegation of France considers the draft resolution on this Territory on which we shall shortly be taking a decision to be unacceptable. The first flaw in the draft resolution, which emanates from the countries of the SOuth Pacific Fbrum, is that it reflects a totally distorted view of the facts regarding New Caledon ia. Sena tor Dick. Ukeiwe, a Frenchman of Melanes ian orig in and the highest elected authority in New Caledonia, came to New York in o::tober to explain to representatives in the Fburth Committee what the real situation was in New Caledonia. I should like to recall briefly some basic facts. New Caledonia is an island in the South Pacific in which, as in other islands of the region, a multi~thnic society has developed. The f,eoples of Melanesian origin 1 ive wi th others from Europe, the paci fic and Asia, and the age -old presence of these f,eople of diverse origins is an uncontestable fact. Melanesians are the most important component part of the population, of which they make up 43 per cent. French citizens, like the others, they naturally have all the political, economic and social rights offered by the French society. In par ticular, they have had the right to vote for several decades, and they participate fully in the political life of the Territory, in which they play a dominant role. So the elected of Melanesian origin are the majority in all ins ti tu tions in the Terri tory, whe ther it is the elected Assembly or the Execu tive Council, in the regions or the communes. The entire population of New Caledonia has participated for a long time now in French political life. The people participate in national elections, whether of the President of the Republic or of the French Parliament, where two out of three of those elected from New Caledoo ia are at the present time Melanesians. (Mr. Blanc, France) These facts describe the situation in New Caledonia better than any argument. They prove, if proof were required, that in New Caledonia there are no oppressed indigenous peoples subjected to racism or domination, as the Forum countries would have us bel ieve. As champions a pr ior i of independence, these countries support the independence parties, which they would depict as victims of colonial repression. On that score too, one must look at the facts. The independe'nce movement is perfectly legal and totally integra ted in the poli tical li fe of New Caledonia. It has its own newspapers and radio. Its leaders organize meetings and demonstrations, they field candidates in the elections, and most of them are indeed elected representatives in New Caledonia. They enjoy freedom of movement within the Terri tory and can leave or re turn to the Terri tory as they wish. These elementary facts are naturally ignored by the sponsors of the draft resolu tion. What they do not say is that so far the independence parties, which are far from commanding the total support of the Melanesian people, have never gained a majority of votes in the Territory. They are still clearly a minority in New Caledon ia. This is the core of the problem. In this oonnection, I wish to express a simple idea~ unlike the Forum countries, France has no presumption with regard to New Caledon ia. For France colon ial times are over, and they have been over for a long time. If one day the POpula tion of New Caledon ia de ci des thatit is in favour of independence, it will immedia tely obta in independence. Such is not the case today. Tha t is why the draft r esolu tion be fore us is to tally unacce ptable. The existence in New Caledonia of a trend towards independence prompted France to organize a referendum, submitting to the truly concerned electors of the Territory the only question that deserved to be put~ Do you want to be inde,endent or do you want to remain within the French Republic? This referendum, which was held on 13 September last, took place in circumstances that were beyond reproach, in keeping wi th the most demanding rules of delOOcracy and the pr inciples of the United Nations. The results were clear. A clear majority of New Caledonians indica ted the wish to build its fu ture wi thin the framework of the French Republic. France and the united Nations can only draw the appropriate conclusions. But the draft resolution before us does not reflect this basic aspect. Submitted by the Forum countries to the COllllllittee on Deoolonization, it was considered by that body at its August session, that is, before - and I stress, before - the referendum held on 13 Septentler. Since then no substantive changes have been made to it J therefore, it ignores the clear, delOOcratic choice freely expressed by the electorate of New Caledonia. That is why my delegation will, as it did in Committee, vote against the draft resolution. We call on all States that are dedicated to the democratic ideal to wi thhold support from this draft. Mrs. de la MAZA (Dominican Republic) (interpretation from Spanish): When draft resolution I was put to the vote in the Fourth Committee, my delegation inadverten tly informed the secretar iat that we had intended to vote in favour. We shall now abstain when it is put to the vote in the General Assembly. Mr. PEIitALOSA (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): The question of Wes tern Sahara con tinues to ra ise serious concerns in the in terna tional communi ty. The draft resolution before the General Assembly contains the follCMing elements, among others: it reaffirms that the question of western Sahara is a question of decolooization which remains to be completed on the basis of the exercise by the people of Wes tern Sahara of their inalienable right to self -determina tion and independence • It takes note with appreciation of the report of the secretary-General on the question of Western Sahara, and welcomes the efforts of the secretary-General and of the current Cha irman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to proJrote a just and definitive solution of the question of Western Sahara. It takes note of the joint decision of the Secretary-General and the Chairman of the OliJ to send a technical mission to western Sahara in order to colleot the relevant technical in forma tion to ass ist them in discharging the manda te en trusted to them under the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, s tepa that have gained the concurrence of the par ties involved in the conflict. It appeals to the parties ex>ncerned to display the political will necessary to implement the relevant resolu tions of the General Assembly and of the OAU. It reaffirms the determination of the United Nations to co-operate fully with the OAU wi th a view to implemen ting the relevant decisions of that organ iza tion. Colombia's conunitment to the cause of decolonization and its unqualified support for the principle of the right of peoples to self-determina tion took effect from the very outset of its life as a Republic. Colonbia is firmly convinced that in the application of that principle lies the solution to the problem of Western sahar a. Accordingly, and because we bel ieve that the dr aft resolution ex>n tains a number of positive elements, my delegation reaffirms its favourable vote. However, we would have preferred the text to be such as to allow for ex>nsensus adoption. My delegation also wishes to reiterate its support for the initiatives and efforts of the Secretary-General and the Chairman of the Organization of African unity in seeking a peacefUl, just ann lasting solution to the conflict. The results of the technioal mission, which is about to conclude its study mission to the conflict area, will bring considerable benefits for the negotiated solution we seek. My country hopes that all efforts being made will lead to a just, lasting solution acceptable to all parties. Mr. FLEMMING (Saint wcia) ~ The question of Western Sahara has been debated in the United Nations for almost 25 years now and, until recently, there was no foreseeable prospect for an equitable long-lasting and peaceful settlement. Last year the secretary-General, using powers inherent in his function, took a decision to explore the possibilities for a solution based on the organization of a re fer endum on s elf -de termina ti on. In our assessment, the Secretary-General seems to be making good progress in his endeavour. That progress is apparent not only in the fact that all parties ooncerned seemed genuinely interested in the peace process, as described in his report 00 Western Sahara (A/42/601), but also in the fact that the parties ooncerned have all agreed to receive the United Nations technical mission to the Territory, which will gather information and investigate what would be needed to carry out a free and valid referendum. My delegation therefore gives its full support to the ini tia tive and the step-by-step approach followed by the secr etary-Gen er al. Saint Ulcia is of the view that the 8ecretary-General's actions promise a credible framework for a peaceful solu tion to this most difflcul t problem. That view is sustained by the reports on the activities of the United Nations technical mission presently travelling in North Africa. The thrust of those early reports is that the Un i ted Nations technical misss ion is proceeding according to plan. The mission has just ended the first stage of its programme of visits, which took it through the Territory of Western Sahara. oocording to a United Nations spokesman, the mission considers that its work. with the civil and military authorities of "brocco is proceeding according to plan. At this decisive moment in the evolution of the mission of good offices of the secretary-General, and in view of those early repor ts of co-opera tion accorded to the technical team, it is extremely important for my delegation to avoid any move which seeks to prolOOte another course of action. Saint wcia awaits with anticipation the results of the visit of the united Nations technical mission to the region and, in particular, the proposals and recommendations based on the findings of the technical team that the secretary-General will put before the concerned parties. The objective of our Organiza tion is to help find a just and durable solution to this problem and to br ing about harmony and secur i ty to all ooun tr ies of the region. These are the main considerations behind the decision of my delegation to abstain on the vote on draft resolution I in paragraph 22 of document A/42/730 on the question of Western Sahara. We have, in essence, in deference to the secr etary-General 's technical mission, held our tradi tional position on this matter in abeyance until a fter the technical miss ion has reported back to the secretary-General and, in turn, he has reported back to the General Assembly. Mr. WOOLQ)TT (Australia): Australia has a long-standing commitment to and involvement in matters of decolonization. '!Wo Trusteeship Territories of the united Nations - Papua New Guinea and Nauru - which were administered by Australia, have both achieved independence with the full involvement of this Organization. A third Territory, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, voted to integrate with Australia when, in a plebiscite observed by the Special Committee of 24 and endorsed by the Assembly, it exercised its right to self~etermination in 1984. Australia's experience of United Nations involvement in the process of decolooization has been both productive and positive. As the administering Power, we welcomed the assistance of the Special Committee of 24 and the visiting missions it sent to the three Territories for which Australia was once responsible. Other administering Powers - New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the united states - have all utilized the considerable experience of the Special Committee of 24. It remains for France to do so in respect of New Caledonia. Australia's oommitment to and support of united Nations decolonization processes extends beyond our own immediate experience, to which I have just referred. Australia has been a oonsistent I'>upporter of united Nations efforts to encourage decolonization in southern Africa, in particular in Namibia. While Australia's suppor t of decolonization and for United Nations involvement in that process is universal, the Australian Government has a vital interest in decoloo ization matter s in the South Pacific region, where Austr alia is located. Last year the Assembly recognized the colonial status of New Caledooia. So we are saddened that France has not seen fi t, dur ing 1987, to co-operate with the uni ted Na tions in the decolon iza tion of th is Sou th Paci fie Terri tory. The Per manen t Re pr esen ta tive of France said only a few momen ts ago that the dra ft resolu tion on New Caledon ia before us "emana tes from the coun tr ies of the SOuth Pacific Forum" (supra, p. 34-35). In fact, as I am sure that representative knows, the draft resolution is the product of the Special Committee of 24. The draft resolution on New Caledonia reaffirms France's obliga tion to oo-opera te wi th the Uni ted Na tions in the process of the decolon iza tion of New Caleoon ia. Instead of co-operating with the tl'lited Nations France has pursued its policies on New Caledonia unilaterally and in isolation. I listened attentively to the Permanent Representative of France speaking about the referendum held in New Caledonia on 13 September. We have heard that rationalization about the referendum before and I shall not repeat the arguments against it now. We have considered it carefully and Australia and all the other countr ies of the south Pacific Forum cootinue to beliel7e that the referendum was fundamentally flawed. It was boycotted by the great majority of the indigenous population of New Caledonia, who continue to consider themselves alienated from the economic, social and political develo{:'QIent of the 'territory. Moreover, the referendum took place in thE presence of 8,000 metropolitan police and troops, without united Nations observers and with the administering POlio1er campaigning forcefully in favour of its own preferred outcome. That referendum will not resolve the problems of New Caledonia. It has not met the aspirations of the indigenous people. They continue to espouse their wisl to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination and we urge France to take steps to meet that aspira tion and involve the indigenous people of the territory in the mainstream of its political, social and economic life. We firml believe that the uni ted Nations can and should play a role in that process. Members of the United Nations also have a role to play. South Pacific Forum COl.ll1 tr ies have sought the support of memers for a JOOdera te and pr incipled call J )1 peaceful and evolutionary progress to genuine self-determination in New Caledon ie • The Forum position is consistent with the principles of the united Nations Chart ( and with General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (xV). The countries of the South Pacific ask no more than that New Caledonia be able to exercise the sa le right as many others in this Organization have been able to exercise under the United Nations. Colooialism is indivisible. The right to self-determination, already exercised by so many peoples in Africa r Asia, the Caribbean and elsewhere in the Pacific, should not be denied to the PeOple of New Caledonia. My colleague the Per manen t Represen ta tive of Papua New Guinea appealed in his s ta tement yes ter day to France as the Admin is ter ing Power to be 11fa ir and reasonable" (A/42/PV.9l, p. 59-60) in respect of New Caledonia. This is indeed a fa ir and reasonable appeal and it reminded me of a poem quoted recen tly by Vaskim I, the Katholikos of All Armenians r when he visited the united Nations during this session. He referred in a speech to the French POet Lamartine and quoted him, in translation, as writing "let the glory of the more powerful be the freedom of the weaker". There is a message for the administer ing Power in those 1ines by one of its own national poets. It: goes without saying that it is the sovereign right of each country to determine how it will cast its vote, but the Australian delegation calls on all Member States to give their support to this moderate and principled draft r esolu tion on New Caledon 13. Mr. 'lOBAR ZALDUMBIDE (E:::uador) (in terpreta tion from Spanish): Ebuador has carefUlly considered draft resolution I in document A/42/730, on the question of Western Sahara, which is being introduced to the General Assembly today. In that draft resolution the General AsseniJly recalls resolution 41/16, on the question of Western Sahara, adopted last year by the forty-first session of the General Assembly. Ecuador voted in favour of that resolution, because it agreed with the provisions referring to principles which it considers inalienable r such as those of the decolonization of all subjugated territories and the unalterable right of all peoples to self-determination. In the draft resolu tion under consideration today Ecuador has noted the encouraging new developnent, mentioned in paragraph 6, of the steps that have been taken by the secretary-General, in co~peration with the Chairman of the Organization of Afr ican Un ity, who have agreed to send a technical mission to the conflict zone in order to gather relevant information which might contribute to a peaceful, just and definitive solution in that region. In the judgement of my delegation, the JI'I.Ich-desired referendum, referred to in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the draft resolution, with suitable guarantees of its authenticity, is, in the final analysis, the appropriate means of ensuring the broad-based, free self-determination of the Sahraoui people. Accordingly, Ecuador believes that the presence and actions of the study mission that the Secretary-Gener al has dispatched and whose wor k is nCM under way are important, constructive new elements that may smooth the way to a peaceful solution of the confl ict. My delega tion bel ieves that it is necessary to await the results of that mission and that we must give it all possible support, not PJtting forward any ideas or forecasts un til that er ucial process has been oompleted. There fore, and for the reasons I have explained, Ecuador will abstain in the voting on this occasion, once again reaffirming its un",avering decision to support the right of self-determination of all peoples and territories where that right is viola ted. With regard to draft resolution II, on the question of New Caledonia, the delegation of Ecuador reiterates its Government's position in support of the right to self-determination of all peoples which have not yet achieved independence. We affirm our conviction that the right of self-determination must be freely exercised in accordance "'i th the pr inetples and standards established in the United Na tions Charter, and especially ",ith resolutions 1514 (XV) which contains the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countr ies and Peoples, and 1541 (XV). The delega tion of Ecuador has· carefully examined the report of the Committee On decolonization with t'egard to the case of New Caledonia submitted in fulfilment Of resolu tion 41/41 A. We regret that the Government of France has not complied \>Iith paragraph 5 of that resolution, which requested it to extend its co-operation to the Special Committee in the implementation of that resolution. Similar ly, the de1ega tion of Ebuador has paid special attention to the repot t Of the Government of France on the holding of the referendum on 13 september 1987. ltE have also devoted particular attention to the arguments put forward by the countries of the South Paci·fic Forum challenging the validity of that referendum because it departed from the standards established by the United Nations. Since the Government of Ecuador does not cons i der developmen ts r ela ting to th e case of New Caledon ia to be finally established, we bel ieve that this is not the right time to aoopt a draft resolu tion such as is now proposed, so my delega tion will abstain in the voting. However, we wish to place on record our desire for the administer ing Power and the Uni ted Na tions to work in co""pera tion to assure the future of New Caledonia on the basis of the self-determination of that Territory. (Mr. 'lbbar zaldumb iOO, ECuador) The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ The Assembly will now pass on to the adoption of decisions on the various recommenda tions of the Four th' Commi ttee. First, we turn to the 12 draft resolutions recolTUDended by the Fourth Committee in paragraph 22 of its report (A/42/730). Draft resolution I is entitled "Question of Western sahara". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour~ Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argen tina, Austr a1 ia, Aus tr ia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bel ize, Ben in, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Bye10russian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, German DellOcratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Q.dnea-Bissau, G..1yana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India,. Ir'an (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Rwanda, Sa in t Ki tts and Nev is, Sao 'lbme an d Pdnci pe , Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Union of Soviet SOcialist Republics, united Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia, zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining~ Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Burma, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Djibouti, D:>minican Republic, ECuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Guatemala, Q.1inea, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Iilxenbourg, Ma1ays ia, Maldives, fEpal, Ne th er lands, Niger, Pakistan, Paraguay, portugal, saint tucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America, zaire Draft resolution I was adopted by 93 votes In none, with 50 abstentions (resolution 42/78).

Draft resolution II is entitled "Question ofNEaw Caledonia ll • A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, .Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, lbtswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Colonbia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, Fi ji, German DelfOcratic Republic, Ghana, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) , Kenya, Lesotho, Liber ia ,Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, New zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Union of SOviet SOcialist Republics, united Republic of Tanzania, Vanua tu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, 'YUgoslavia, zamb ia, zimbabwe Against: Belgium, Central African Republic, Chad, COte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, DOminican Republic, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal :Republic of, Grenada, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, wxembourg, Mauri tania, Ne therlands, Niger, Portugal, Saint Wc1a, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain, 'Ibgo, zaire Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Bolivia, Burl<ina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Congo, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, El salvador, Finland, Gambia, Greece; Q.1atemala, G.linea, Haiti, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Nepal, N:>rway, Qnan, Panama, Paraguay, Qatar, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, SUdan, Suriname, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Fmirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America, Uruguay, Yemen Draft resolution II was adopted by 69 votes to 29, with 47 abstentions (resolution 42/79).* *Subsequently the delegation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic advised he Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. en ti tled "Question of Anguilla". The Fourth Committee adop.ted that draft,· ." resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution IU was adopted (resolution 42/80) •. The :mESIDENT (interpretation from Russian):. Toe Fourth Comrnitt.ee adopted draft resolution IV en ti tled "Question of Mon tserrat", without objection ~ :- ...• May I take it that the General Assent>ly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 42/81). The lRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): Draft resolution V, entitled "Question of the British Virgin Islands", was adopted by the Fburth Committee without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 42/82). The lRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): Draft resolution VI, entitled "Question of the 'l\Jrks and Caices Islands", was adopted by the fuurth Committee without objection. May I take it that the General Assenbly also \liFishes to adopt it? Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 42/83).

Draft resolution VII, entitled "Question of Tokelau", was adopted by the Fourth Connnittee without objection. M:ly I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 42/84).

Draft resolution VIII, entitled "Question of the Cayman Islands", was adopted by the Fburth Committee without oojection. M:ly I take it that the General Assembly wishes to aoopt it? Draft resolution VIII was adopted (resolution 42/85). The HUS IDENT(in terpreta tion froin lhiss ian): Draft· resolu tion IX, E Ltitled "Question of Bermuda", was adopted by the Fourth Committee without c ,jection. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution IX was adopted (resolution 42/86). The ERESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): Draft reSolution X, e ,titled "Question of Cllam",was adopted by the Fourth Committee without o jection. May I take i tthat· the General Assembly wishes to acbpt it? Draft resolution X was adopted (resolution 42/87).

Draft resolutiori XI, e~ titled "Question of American SalllOa", was adopted by the Fourth Committee without d jection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to aoopt it? . Draft resolution XI was adopted (resolution 42/88).

Draft resolution XII, el titled "Question of the United states Virgin Islands", was adopted by -the Fourth Cc mnittee without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to ac :>pt it? Draft resolution XII was adopted (resolution 42/89) • The ffiESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I now invite representatives to turn to the draft consensus recommended by the ~urth Committee in paragraph 23 of ~ts report (A/42/730). Draft consensus I deals with the question of Gibraltar. The Fourth Committee adopted draft consensus I without objection. ~y I consider that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft consensus I was aoopted. The PRES IDENT (in terpreta tion from Russian): Draft consensus II deals with the question of pitcairn. The Fburth Committee adopted draft consensus I1 without objection. May I consider that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft consensus II was aCbpted.

We turn next to the draft decision on the question of St. Helena recommended by the Fburth Commi ttee in paragraph 24 of its report (A/42/730). A recorded vote has been requested. In favour: Afghan istan, Alger ia, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Ben in, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cfprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Q.1atemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hai ti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qa tar, Roman ia , Rwanda , Sa int wcia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, SOmalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tbgo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, viet Nam, Yemen, YUgoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united Sta tes of 1Imer ica Abstaining; Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Zaire The draft decision was adopted by 119 votes to 2, with 30 abstentions. * The ffiESIDENT (interpretation from Russian): I shall now call on those epresentatives wishing to explain their votes or positions. Mr. CHCMDHURY (Bangladesh); Bangladesh has been closely following I evelopments with regard to the question of Western Sahara. My country is prepared o do all it can to advance the case for a just, durable and peaceful settlement of he dispute. As we are all aware, the technical survey mission of the United *Subsequen tly the delegation of the Lao People's Democrati c Republic adv ised he Se cre tar ia t thatit had in tended to vo te in favour. NaHons is currently engaged in the task of formula ting proposals wi th regard to the organization of a referendum. We welcome this effort and support it. As we await its outcome, the delegation of Bangladesh felt that our decision to abstain on draft resolution I was in consonance with our position on the issue. Mr. KARlM (SUdan): We abstained on draft resolution II concerning New Caledonia because we believe that the latest referendum carried out there by France did not solve the problem of New Caledonia. The referendum was boycotted by 40 per cent of the people and was not carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. No observers from the international community were present. Also, there are rumours circulating in the region about the authenticity of the referendum. We should like to see all the various ethnic groups of New Caledonia living in peace and total harmony. France, the fairest country to preach liberty and equali ty, a coun try tha t has very close and fra ternal r ela tions wi th my coun try, should cer ta inly take note of the wisCbm conta ined in par agr aph s of the resolution. My delegation opted to join the large group of delegations which abstained because of the confidence we had that the great French nation, which had given freedom and independence to many peoples around the globe, would not fail the aspir ations of New Caledon ia for sovereign ty, peace, s ecur i ty and independence. (spoke in Arabic) On the question of Western Sahara, the Sudan has followed very closely all· the recent developments in the region of the Arab Maghreb and all its States. We are pleased with those significant new and positive developnents in view of the fraternal bonds that unite us historically and CUlturally with the States of that region. The political variables that have emerged over the past few weeks are the following: the serious co~peration of all parties directly concerned in the ;ahara conflict with the secretary-General. That co-operation has resulted in the lispatch of the recent joint United Nations/OAU technical mission to the region of restern Sahara, which has been there since 18 November 1987. The conviction was eld by the in ternational oonununity, including the parties ooncerned in the :onflict, that it was necessary to guarantee conditions to enable the inhabitants ·f Western Sahara to exercise the self-determination to which they aspire, in :onformity with international norms and under the aegis of the united Nations. aven the above-men tioned changes and in order to ensure suitable condi tions for :he efforts being made on the regional and international levels so that, as a esult, the people of Western sahara can exercise self-determination and in view of :he information we have received concerning the satisfactory work of the mission to 1estern sahara, we have decided to abstain from voting at this stage so that the lecessary and favourable atmosphere can be created for the success of the serious ~fforts being made in order that a just and equitable solution may be found which 'ould guarantee the people of Western Sahara their right to self-determination and 'ol1ereignty. We are pleased to note from the statements of the head of the :echnical miss ion that the mission's efforts have been successful and that it has ,een able to gather easily all the information it needed. We therefore remain opeful that the efforts made to date will soon lead to a peaceful solution of the uestion of Western sahara within the framework of the united Nations. Mr. DOlMA (Congo) (in terpreta tien from French): My delega tion abstained n the vote on draft resolution IT contained in document A/42/730. Our abstention hould not be interpreted as a change in the position of principle it has '.aintained on the question of decolonization. Mr. McJ:X:MELL (New zealand): My delegation voted for the draft resolution on New Caledonia. We have spoken several times on the subject in the Committee and in plenary meeting. We make no apology for thisl we feel strongly about the subject. But perhaps the most eloquent aspect of the debates in the Fourth Committee and in this General Assembly has been the silences on the other side. The British consti tutionalist Sir WaIter Bagehot once spoke of an acquaintance who was "s ilent in seven languages". That is what we have experienced here in the debates on New Caledonia~ we have heard silence in the six languages of the General Assembly. It is very significant that no delegation - I repeat, no delegation - has spoken up in full debate in support of the p:)licies of the administering Power. In the general debate at the beginning of the session, in the Fourth Committee and in the general debate on decolonization: resounding silence. That is very significant. There were some last minute explanations of vote in the Fourth Committee, most of them after the vote, and we have heard some now. Bu t s Hence on behalf of the admin is ter ing Power in full deba te h as be come the rro th er tongue of th cse who supported it by their negative votes. We understand this. It is difficult to explain the inexplicable, and we sympathize with the delegations involved and the pressures they have been put under. We voted for this resolution because its adoption represents a Ilictory for the positive role of the United Nations in proltOting decolonization and a victory for the principle of seIf-determinations, for it ensures that the Territory remains on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; it ensures that the international spotlight will remain on New Caledonia and that the international community will thus be able to keep its eye on developments there; it enSures that the secretaria.t will oontinue to gather information about developnents in New Caledonia and J circulate the resultant papers to the meJri:>ershipl it ensures that the Committee of 24 and the Fburth Committee will have the opportunity to discuss developnents in the Terri tory once aga in and assess their si gni ficance in terms of self~etermination; it will, finally, ensure that through the opportunity to petition this international platform all shades of opinion in New Caledonia - and not least the independentist parties - will be able to make their views kn~n internationally. It will ensure that international pressure will continue to be brought to bear on the administering PCMer to fulfil its obligations under the Charter and to br ing the people of New Caledonia to the point where they can make a free, unfettered and internationally monitored decision on their future. The ffiESIDENT (interpretation from Russian)~ One representative has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that, in accordance wi th General Asserrbly decis ion 34/401, s ta temen ts in exercise of the right of reply are Umi ted to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second and should be made by de 1ega tions from their sea ts. Mr. TADESSE (Ethiopia): The representative of the united Kingdom, in his explanation of vote after the voting on draft resolutions A/42/L.38 and L.39 this morning, made reference to the statement I made yesterday, in my capacity as Chairman of the Special Conunittee of 24, before this Asserrbly. I wish to indicate that in that statement I made no reference which might have led to the British view that those two resolutions are "political dinosaurs, clumsy animals from a past age". (supra, p. 14-15) In the v iews of the Special Commi ttee, the two resolutions appr opr ia tely re flect the concern of the Organ iza tion for Non-Sel f-Govern ing Terd t.ories and peoples under colonial occupation. 'Ib put the record straight, allow me briefly to quote the part of my statement of yesterday which was misread or, I should say, misrepr esen ted: "While admittedly th~ resolution of such problems requires special attention, meeting particular circumstances, these considerations cannot, however, be allowed to interfere with or limit the rights and privileges of the peoples concerned, especially wi thregard to their right to make their own decisions in respect of their future. In the discharge of their obligations under the Charter, the administering Powers concerned must recognize these rights and provide the peoples of those territories with an opportunity to make their decisions freely and wi thout inducement, in accordance wi th internationally accepted norms and principles." (A/42/PV.90, pp. 13, 14-15) The propriety of the resolutions cannot be questioned, nor can what I said yesterday be misconstrued so as to justify the position of the British delegation. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Russian) ~ We have concluded our consideration of agenda item 18 and all the reports of the Fourth Committee. PROffiAMME OF WORK

Before adjourning the meeting, in order to help delegations to plan their work, I should like to indicate how I intend to disp:::lse of the remain ing items on our agenda next week. On Monday, 7 December, the Assembly will consider the repor ts of the First / Third and Sixth Committees. Beginning 'I\.lesday mor ning, 8 December, the Assembly will rons ider the remaining reports of the Special Political Committee; draft resolution A/42/L.ll/Rev.l on item 21, "Critical economic situation in Africa~ united Nations Programme of Action for African economic recovery and development 1986-l990"~ the ceports of the second Committee; the draft resolutions on item 39, "The situation in the Mi ddl e Fas t"; and s ub-i tem 17 (f), "Appo in tmen t of the Un ited Na tions ::ommissioner for Namibia". The Assembly will dispose of the other remaining items and suspend the forty-second session at a date to be announced, pending the conclusion of the work )f the Fi fth Commi ttee. The meeting rose at 12.30 p.m.