A/43/PV.68 General Assembly

Wednesday, Dec. 7, 1988 — Session 43, Meeting 68 — New York — UN Document ↗

36.  OOLICIES OF APARTHEID OF THE OOVERRotENT OF SOUTH AFRICA (a) REPORT OF THE SPECIAL a>MMITTEE AGAINST APARTHEID (A/43/22) (b) REPORT OF THE INTEROOVmUf{ENTAL GROUP TO MONITOR THE SUPPLY AND SHIPPING OF OIL AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 'ID SOUTH AFRICA (A/43/44 and Corr .1) (c) REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY-GFIilERAL (A/43/682, A/43/699, A/43/786) (d) REPORT OF THE SPECIAL POLITICAL CDMMITTEE (A/43/802) (e) DRAFT RPSOWTIOtS (A/43/L.30/Rev.l, A/43/L.3l and Corr .1, A/43/L.32 and Corr.l, A/43/L.33 and Corr.l, A/43/t.34 and Corr.l, A/43/t.35 and Corr.l, A/43/L.36 and Corr .1, A/43/t.37 and Corr .1, A/43/t.30, A/43/t.41 and A/43/L.42) (E) REOOaT OF THE FIFTH OOMMITTEE (A/43/90l and Corr .1) :rhe mESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): The Assembly will now begin its consideration of the 11 draft resolutions submitted under agenda item 36. I shall first call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote before the voting on any or all of the 11 draft resolutions. 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 delegations from their seats. Representatives will also have an opportunity to explain their vote a fter all the votes have been tak en. Mr. KAAINEN (Finland): I have the honour to speak Q'l behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Icelan~, Norway, SWeden and Finland. The Nordic countr ies have consistently condemned the apartheid policy of the South African Government as a violation of human rights and ftmdamental freedoms as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the view of the Nordic countries, apartheid also constitutes a ser ious threat to international peace and seour ity. Consequently, the seour ity Council should, as SOQ'l as possibl6., adopt effective sanctions against South Africa as a means of achieving the peaceful abolition of apartheid. Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions are the most effective instrument to this end. Pending the adoption of such sanctions, the Nordic countr ies have adopted a wide range of unilateral measures against apartheid, inclUding a trade emargo. The position of the Nordic countr ies in this regard was recorded in the revised Nordic Programme of Action against Apartheid adopted in March 1~88. The tbrdic countr ies consequently strongly agree with the main thrust of the draft resolutions before us. However, some of them continue to raise difficulties with regard to questions of principle that are important to the Nordic countries. I shall describe them briefly. First, the Nordic countries consider universality as a basic principle of the Uni ted Hations and we cannot there fore accept formula tions that mi ght pu t tha t pr inciple in doubt. Secondly, the peaceful ,901ution of conflicts is a fundamental principle enshrined in the Charter of the Olited Nations itself. Therefore we cannot accept that the United Nations endorse the use of armed struggle. (!!t.. Kar inen, Finland) Thirdly, th.> Nordic countr ies deplore the continued practice of selectively singling out individual countries or groups of countries. This practice - most evident in the draft resolution on relations between Israel and South Africa - makes it all the nore difficult to achieve international concerted action in the struggle against !2artheid. Fourthly, certain forlllllations woula encroaCh upon constitutional freedoms and rights of Nordic citizens and private organizations. This applies in particular to certain parts of the International Convention for the Prevention of Apartheid in Sports. In view of the strict and active policy of the Nordic countries against sports contacts with South Africa, the Nordic countries regret that they cannot fully endorse the Convention. Fifthly, because of the strict adherence of the Nordic countries to the provisiona of the Charter we must r~serve our positions with regard to formulations which fail to take into account the fact that only the security Council can adopt decisions binding on Member States. The Nordic Countries will this year vote in favour of draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.l at the imposition, co-ordination and strict monitoring of measures against racist South Africa, in spite of the fact that the text creates a number of difficulties for us. It is well-known that the Nordic countries have imposed one of the most comprehensive packages of sanctions against South Africa and Namibia. we do, however, have reservations on some of the selective sanctions listed in the operative paragraph 1, in particular subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f). We also have r.eservations on some of the operative paragrap,s of draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.l, especially operative paragraph 1 (d). We whole-heartedly support the efforts to reorganize and rationalize the Department of Public Information and its acHv!ties aimed at an increasingly efficient and economic performance. Therefore, everything should be done to avoid increasing the personnel of the spec:! fic programmes. The situation in soothern AfI'iea has further deter iorated dur in~ the past year. The r espons ibili ty for th is si tuation res ts with the Sou th African Government and its policy of apartheid. But the wor ld col1lJlUnity has noral as well as legal obliga tions according to the Charter of the Unitea Hations and should therefore put further pressure on South Africa by adopting effective sanctions against the apartheid regime. Moreover, the internatior.a1 community should urgently increase its economic and humanitarian assistance to the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC) and to individual countries and persons that are victims of South Aft' ica's aggressive policy. We IIl1st all not only voice our strongest coodemnation of apartheid but also strive to agree 00 concerted international action and take effective concrete steps rapidly to achieve the aboli tion of apar theid • Hr DIKTAKIS (Greece) \ The 12 states merrbers of the &tropean community made clear ooce again during the debate their utter revulsion of apartheid. They have repeatedly and unequivoca.lly conaemed it and demanded that it be abol ished. There should be no doubt ei ther about our objective, which is qui te simply the complete eradication of this pernici.ous system, or of our determination to contdbute to the abolitioo of apartheid. The united Nations has a primary role to play in this endeavour. Unfortunately, the trend towards I'IOderation shown in the drafting of last year's draft resolutions has not been sustained. We regret that some of the draft resolutions now before us continue to contain elements which cause us well-knowi1 problems of principle. First, the Twelve believe that the divisioo of competence (Mr. Karinen, Finland) between the General Aasemly 12nd th~ Security. Council laid down in the Charter IIIUSt be respected. Only the SeCUl ity Council is empowered to adopt decisions binding on Member States. We wish to reiterate our commitment to the principle of universality of merrbership of the United Nations. We cannot support calls for the total isolation of South Africa. This, in our view, would be of. no benefit to the goal we all share, the total abolition of apartheid. We bel ieve that channels of communication must remain open in order to enable the outside world to mdntain and increase its pressure on the South Afr lean Government for the establish~ntof a free and democratic society without racial discrimination. The 'l\Ielve have stated dur ing the debate their grave concern aboot the continuation of violence and repression in SOUth Africa. However, we remain convinced that the process of peaceful change is still possible and that the United Nations must prollOte change by peacefUl means, as provided in the Charter. Although we share the frustration felt by the major ity of the people of SOuth Africa, owing to the continuation of the unacceptable system of apartheid, !tie cannot agree that the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly should endorse the use of force or armed struggle. we reject all forms of 8pal:theid in sports and continue f11.'mly to discourage all sporting contacts that may have any implication of racial discrimination. ~orts activities are organized in our respective countries at private initiative. Sports organizations within our cOWltries are aware of the position of their Governments on sports competitions that violate the Olympic ideal oS: non-discrimination. The TWelve reiterate their firm opposition to all arbitrary, selective and !.I\justified singling out of Memer States or groups of countries. The 'l'Welve understand and support the wish of the sponsors of draft resolution A/43/L.37 and F s (Mr. Diktakis, Greece) Corr.l to ensure wide dissemination of infor_Hen on the Systell of apartheid and to counteract the restr ictions on freedom of the press imposed by the South Afr tean Government. However, we have seriows difticulUes with certain of its aspects. We find operative paragraph 1 (e) difficult to reconcile with the prerogatives of the Secretary-General as Chief Administrative Officer of the Org&nization, as laid down in Chapter XV of the Charter. It also contains too broad an interpretation of what may prcpmoly constitute the expenses of the Organizatial and has serious implications for the reform process, whose outCOIlle should not be pre-empted here. The '!Welve regret that for these and other reasons we are unable to vote in favour of all the draft resolutions before us today. However, we relMin firm and constant with our commitment to act, both collectively and individually, to impress on the South Afr ican Government the inescapable need for fundamental reform. The South African Government must be brought to see that the only way forward lies in the abolition of apartheid and the introduction of the basic changes demanded by the international community. Hr. KAGMI (Japanh The Japanese delegation has actively participa ted in the debate on agenda item 36, the policies of apartheid of the GoYernrnent of SOuth Afr iea. It has carefully taken note of the views expressed by other representa tives • ~ delegation will be voting on the 11 draft resolutions, bearing in mind the firm unequ ivocal stance of Japan against Llpartheid. The Japanese delegation, however, is obliged to request Cl separate vote on that part of draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l, entitled -Comprehensi'"e and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa-, which reads' and, particularly, Japan, which recently emerged as the most -... important trading partner of South Africa-, in operative para9&:'~ph 3. It is obliged to do so because, as a matter of principle, Japan is opposed to the practice of name-calling in the resolutions of the United Nations. Purthermore, that part of operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution conveys a wrong il1lPression that Japan has increased its trade with South Afr lea and has thus deviated from the concerted efforts of the international community to oppose apartheid. This is contrary to the facts, however, and also gives a distorted picture of my country'8 intentions. Japan '8 trade wi th SOUth Africa certa inly increased in dollar terms dur ing the previous two-year per iod, but if measured in yen, that trade has shown a consistent decline every year since 1984, resulting in a 27-per-cant decrease from 1984 to 1987. This situation is due mainly to the dramatic appreciation of the yen against major currencies • (Mr. Kagami, Japan) The Japanese Government, in fact, has tl!kfm additional steps this year further to Jiscourage Japanese business ties with South Afr iell. The Forej,gn and Trade Ministers have personally appealed for the exercise of maxi1ll1m restraint. As a result, there are clear indications that Japanese trade with South Africa is decreasing in both yen Md dollar terms. I might also mention that the report of the Special Commi ttee against Apartheid points out that the statisties available to the Committee on individual countries' trade with South Africa are quite inadequate. This is an additia,nal reason why my delegation is obliged to vote against the draft resolution which, on in8ufficient ground, refers specifically to certain countries. Sir Criapin TICKELL (Uni ted Kingdom): My delega tien wholehear tedly endorses the statement made a few IIDments ago by the permanent representative of Greece on behalf of the 12 States Mellbers of the European Community. But I should like to add a br ief natioilal explanation of vote. I emphasize, as I have done on many previous occasions, that the British Government shares the international colllJll1nity's total abhorrence of apartheid. As my Pri~ Minister 6 Mrs. Thatcher, said in a recent interview with a South African nEWspaper published in South Afr ica, wl!partheid is oontrary to my whole philosophy, which is that people should be able to 1 ive wh~."r.~1 they 1 ike in the ir own country, exercise the ir full dellDcratic rights and advance according to mer it, not the colour of their skin. w Britain has repeatedly oondelll'led apartheid as cruel, morally unacceptable and degrading. We shall continue to work fO! an end to apartheid, which is a violation of basic human rights and humn dignity. Once again we urge the South AfriClin GovernlllfPJnt to look to the future and accept the necessity and inevitability of fundamen tal change. Thus we share the same goal as the sponsors of the draft resolutions before us todaYJ bu~ we differ with them on hew best to achieve it. Events elsewhere in the world this year have shown that dialogue is the only certain road to peace. In South Africa, too, peace and security can be achieved only through genuine dialogue and fundamental change. fie do not believe that the imposition of punitive and other measures in an attempt to isolate South ~,frica will help to dismantll! apartheid. For that reasQ'l alid others we shall vote against severa... of the dp:aft A:esolutions. We shall, as we did last year, abstain in the t .;e on the draft resolution dealing with the programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid, even though we do not agree with many of the elements in the Committee's report. Our abstention and our participation in the consensus on draft resolution A/43/L.36 and Corr.l, which calls for the oonvening of a special session of the General Assenbly en apartheid next year, should be seen as recognition of our shared goal of secur ing the elimination of apartheid. But we are disappointed that it fails to take account of favourable developments over the last few months which should contr ibute to stability in s()IJthern Afr ica. The special session should be held in New York and should be considered as one of the five special conferences for which provision h!lS already been made in the regular budget. Similar considerations apply to our abstention in the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr .1, on the dissemination of information on apartheid. ()Jr vote on this draft reSOlution should not be seen as diminishing our commitment to the reform process, wh ich is being discussed in the Fi fth Committee, nor should it pre-empt the cutoome of that discussion in any way. Our reservations are strengthened by the decision on the financ>.1 implications which was adopted by the P'ifth Committee on 2 Decenber. In our view the draft resolution also takes too Ixoad a view of what may properly be considered as expenses of the Organization. We also consider that the lll'l~age en the E1uucture and staffing of the Department of Public Inform tiat is impossible to recatcile wi tit the prOV'is ions of Chapter XV of the Char ter • Mr. fORTIER (Canada): There can be no doubt about Canada's strong opposition to South Africa's repugnant apartheid policies. As my delegation stated in the Third Commi ttee earlier at this session, Prime Minister ltlllroney has called apartheid a massive and institutiatalized violatiat of human rights. It should have been reduceo latg before now to a shameful chapter of history. Instead, it relllllins the most press ing moral issue of our time. The whole world rejects apartheid, and the whole wor Id must join in the effort to end it. On behalf of the Canadian deleqatiat, I will explain how Canada will vote on the draft resolutions before us. Some of them are noticeably imprOV'ed, as was also the case last year, and I hope that this welcome trend will cootinue as it enables Canada and others to respond more positively and brings our OV'erall message closer to the strength of unanimity. In draft resolution A/43/L. 30/Rev.l, which deals with the situation in South Africa, there is much that Canada can support. We have consistently pressed the South African Government: to release political prisatera, including Nelsat Mandela, and we welcome the latest response in the freeing of some prominent, long-impr ioated individuals, as well as the comnuting of the death sentences on the Sharpeville Six. We urge South Africa nOlf to 90 furthers to rele5se all political pr isoners,. to lift the ban on political organizations opposed to apartheid and to nlake a start 00 dismantling the fundamental structures of aparthei~.. We have ourselves taken concrete action to help to counter Pretoria's propaganda and press censorship because what South Africa and the world need is more, not less, information on !E!~theid • Apartheid breeds violence and is maintained by violence. Canada beUeYe8 that violence nust end. There RUst be effective pressure from the international collllllunity for peaceful change and reconciliation if Pretoria and its &dversaries are to begin a real dialogue on peaceful aMBition towards a non-racial, del"ocratic future. Violence.. makes the real iz~tion of this hope mOi:'l! distant, not closer. Thus, Canada cannot support language that seeks to justify armod struggle. In the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.31 and Corr.l Canada "'ill abstain.. it is unfortunate that this new text detracts from universal support for the arms embargo by gratuitous and largely unsubstantiated name-ealling, rather than by lookinq for ways to make the embargo IIOre effective. For reasons that are well known, Canada will once again vote against comprehensive and mandatory sanctions as provided for in draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr .1. We believe that sanctions have a real impact and that the SOUth Afr ican Government is beginning to feel their effect. Canada has implemented many important sanctions against South Africa. At their Vancouver summit last year, Cancda and its COIIIJIDnwealth partners undertook to widen, tighten and intensify sanctions. This is a task that my Government takes seriously. The secretary of State for Externti Affairs announced fur~er steps in this direction in Septemer, and the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Minister~, which he chairs, gives high pr iority to this issue. I am happy to say, therefore, that Canada will support draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.1 on co-ordinated measures. The list of measures includes many that Can&da and the Comnonwealth have put in place over the last three years. tIlile the list includes some measures we have not implemented, clearly the overall thrust o~ this draft resolution is effective pressure for peaceful change. -- • ------ Israel, really has no place in this agenda item and Canada will oppose it for well-known reasons. On the 1Partheid Committee's work programme, I have pleasure in saying that Canada will su~port draft resolution A/43/L.35 and Corr.l, as we did the draft resolution on this subject last year, bec~use we support much of what the Commi tte does. In that regard J however, I must emphasize Canada's understanding of operative paragraph 2. What the General Assemly is endorsing, in its own words, are those recommendations ca1tained in paragraph 194 of the report relating to its programme of work, and only those recommendations. Among them, subparagraph N deserves particular attention. Canada cannot support some other subparagrap.s not related to the work programme. In supporting draft resolution A/43/L.36 and Corr.1, Canada urges that the special session on apartheid be of ITDderate length as the best way to attract high-level attendance and public attention while avoiding the unnecessary and UII1pr:oductive cost of a longer session. We hope the proposals then considered will form a message that is un&limus as well as unanbiguous. Canada unfortunately is unable to support the new draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.1, on dissemination of information. Whila parts of it closely parallel what Canada and the Commonwealth are doing to counter South African propaganda and censorship, in our view other par ts undermine the di ffic:ul t and necessary reforms taking place in the United Nations Department of Public Informatiora. CMlada regrets that those elements detract from what could and should have been a consensus teKt • Cl'lce again, Canada is proud to have been a sponsor of draft resolution A/43/L. 38, on the Trust Fund for South Africa. May I note Canada '8 substantial direct support for, in addition to the Fund itself, the International llefenc:e and Aid Pund for SOUthern Afdca, lawyers' groups and the uniQ'l JrlO\7ement, as enviIJ3ged in paragraph 4 of the ckaft resolution. Canada, with Sc.! regret, is unable to supp:>rt '-'raft resolution A/43/L.41, on an oil embargo. OUr Olm voluntary enbargo Q'l supply is effective, and we recognize imprOV'ements in the draft resolution. lbne the less, t mandatory eamargo on both supply and shipping r&ises the problem of extraterritoriality of laws and other issues of lC1\gstanding concern to and PIlrticular sensitivity for Canada. The draft resolutiQ'l Q'l cQ'lcerted action for the elimination of apartheid - this year draft resolution A/43/L.42 - is traditionally supported by Canada and will be again. Canada has implemented all the measures in paragt'a~h 7, and in addition prOl7ides substantial assistance to the front-line States, as urged in paragraph a. We iIlIst all do our part to encourage peaceful change in South Africa. The statements we have heard in the debate and the draft resolutions before us are, taken together, a clear message to the Government of South Africa that it must take more CQ'lcrete action. South Africa itself knows what it has to do. While maintaining effective pressure, we RUst also be ready to recoqnize progress when it oomes, and to assist in OI7ercoming difficulties t1ben thmt would be appropriate. As Prime Minister flIlroney said recently in the General AssellOly~ -There can be no doubt that fundamental change will QOme to Sou th Africa. The only questions are when and how and at what cost in hu_n life. We must make sw:e the answers come soon, and peacefully·. (A/43/PV.ll, p.57) Ms. D1'l'LHMI-QLIPHANT (Botswana), The Botswana delegation will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/43/L.33 and Corr.l and A/43/L.42. Rowever, we wish to der.:lare our incapacity to implement paragraphs in those draft resolutions that call foe sanctions against South Africa, due to obvious reasons. My delegation will not stand in the way of those who can and wish to impoae Hr. M.\TNAI (Israel); Israel is continuously singled out for er iticism on an unwarra.'1ted and unjustified basis, in spite of the statement 0.£ the Chairman of the Special COIIIIIdttee against Apartheid on the steps taken by Israel. against apartheid. Israel will therefore vote against draft resolutions A/43/L.34 and Corr.l and A/43/L.31 and Corr.L We call on objective Hemer States not to lend their support to those draft resolutions. At the same time, Israel cannot support draft resolutim A/43/L.32 because the total isolati~~ of South Africa would wcxsen the plight of the majority of the population and increase tension in the area. Israel & however, will vote in fatrour of draft resolution A/43/L.42, despt te the problems inherent in the operative paragraphs, as Imntioned r.egarding draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l. Hr. Q)()IS (Belgium) (interpretation from French); It goes without saying that Belgium fully concurs wi th the statement just made by the permanent representati,ve of Greece on behalf of the twelve Hemel' States ef the &.Iropean Community. My delragation should like to add a few more specific comments. Last year, Belgium welcomed the improvemants mde in the draft resolutions through the adopticn of mcxe precise and factual language and through the elimination of certain individual criticislll9. We ve~y much regret that that trend VQS not puraued th is year. In that respect, we especially deplore the retention of the draft resolution relating to relations between South Africa and Israel, which by its discriminatory character is unacceptable to my delegation. Belgium feels obliged once again to express reservatione prompted by sone of the texts before us, inasl'll1ch as they run counter to longstanding principles of my country's foreign policy. Belgium regrets that the concept of It call to armed struggle, which had been moderated last year, was reintroduced into draft resolution A/43/L. 30/Rev.l t whim will compel my delegation to abstain on that draft resolution. Similarly, Belgium will abstain on draft resolution A/43/L.3l and Corrol because of selective references Mld the appeal to the security Council. My country stresses that the division of powers provided for under the Charter l!hould be strictly respected. That is why we cannot join in a direct or indirect appeal for mandatory oomprehensive sanctions, which fall within the C!JGClusive purview of the security Council. For that reason, we shall vote against draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.1 and abstain a\ draft resolutions A/43/L.35 and Carr.l and A/43/L.33 and Corr .1. wi th regard to the latter, cQlcerning the imposition, co-ordination and str iet monitor ing of measures against South Afd.ca, our reservations are further strengthened by the inser~ion of a paragraph relating to the severance of all oomnuniC6tions with South Africa. As ~ draft resolution A/43/t.4l, <Xl the oil emargo, my delegation will abstain - recalling, however, that Belgium observes the ellbargo on crude oil. deliveries to South Africa implemented within the framewor:k of the European COllUlUnity. Regarding draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.l, on wic:h we shall abstain, Belgium can only recall the reservations clearly expressed just now by the representative of Greece. Finally, Belgium will vote in favour of draft resolutions A/43/L.36 and Corr.l and A/43/L. 38, relating respectively to the special sessim of the General As8e~lY and the special Trust PUndr Similarly, ~lgium's oommitment within the framework of action by our Organ .r.J~tioo to abol ish apar theid .will prompt it to vote in favour of draft resolution A/43/L.42, relating to ooncerted international action for the (Hr. Cools, B!lgium) eliminatioo of apartheid, despite the reservations we maintain on the ninth Preamular paragraph, whose terms are too categorical. Through its votes, my country will reaffirm its intention to encourage a solution to the serious situation prevailing in South Africa, a solution which should be in 'conformity wi th the principles of our policy. Belgium wishes wholeheartedly to see a peaceful and rapid transition towards the total elimination of apartheid. (Mr. Cools, Belgium) Count mal YCXl WAR'l'ENBtJRG (Federal ReplIblic of Germany): The representative of Gree~, in a statement on behalf of the 12 nemer States of. the Buropean COIMlInity, has already comment.ed on the draft resolutions before us. The GoITernment of the Federal Republic of Germany fully subscribes to that statement and shares in particular the essential political principles set out therein. The 'lVelve have made clear their unequivocal rejection of apartheid. and their deterndnation to contribute to its a total eradication. My delegation w~uld like to add the following observations. My c.bvernment shares the conviction of this Assembly that apartheid const!tutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental human rights laid down in the Charter of United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The posi tion of the Federal Republic of Germany is clean the system of apartheid cannot be reformed but must be eradicated to create a demcratic society in whidl all South African,1iS enjoy equal human, poU tical and civil rights. Ky Government shares the increasing concern of the whole international community OITer the lack of significant progress towards the abolition of apartheid in South Africa. Massive repression has continued unabated, censorship haa been tightened, the state of emergency has again been extended. The prohibition by the South Afr iean Governrrent in February 1988 of 17 South Afr iean organizations and the Cmgress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), which peacefully oppose aparthe!2., from engaging in political activities is a further manifestation of the p:>litical suppression. A dialogue between the black and the white population has to be established imtrediately. M1" GoI1ernment welcomes in this cCXlnection the rreeting between members of the African National Congress (1ltlC) and white South Africans held in Leverkusen, in the Federal Republic of Germany, in October this year. Such meetings in our view can help increase the level of confidence between blacks and whites in South Africa. For this dialogue it is essential that Nelson Mandela and the other political pr isoners be released and that the ban on the ANC and the other organizations of the black majority be lifted. My Government welcomes the recent release by the SOuth Af~ iean Government for humanitar ian reasons of the Pres ident of the Pan Afrtcanist Coogress of Azania (PAC), Mr. Zeph f.bthopeng, and of Mr. Harry Gwala and the announcement that Hr. Mandala will not be sent back to prisoo once he has left the hospital in which he is recOlTering. In this context my Government notes with satisfaction the decision by the South African President to o::nlUfIlte the death sentences inflicted on the Sharpeville Six. My Government uses political and diplomatic pressure against the Government of south Africa and will cootinue to do so. 'lbgether wi th our partners we have adopted certain restrictive economic measures. Through a programme of positive measures my Government expresses its solidarity wi th and support for the victim.'3 of apartheid. We continue to attach great importance to our co-operation with the front-line States. The visit by the President of my country to Zimbabwe in March this year, together with the earlier visits by Chancellor Kohl to fobzanbique and by Foreign Minister Genscher to Angola, is a clear signal in th~s connection. The Federal Republic of Germany is in favour of the essence of most of the 11 draft resolutions submitted to the Assenbly. unfortunately the wording of some of the draft resolutions is not in agreement with my Government's well-knOlfn position regarding ecooomic sMctions, the use of force in pal! tieal disputes and name-calling, so my Government cannot endorse the justification of armed struggle in operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/43/L.30 and Corr .1. We regret the singling-out of individual countries in draft resolutions A/43/L.3l and Corr.l, L.32 and Corr.1 and L.34 and Corr.1. (Count York von Wartenburg, Federal Re~ublic of Germany) This year, rather than vote against, we shall abstain in the voting on the draft resolution entitled ·Oil embargo against South Africa" - that is, draft resolution A/43/L.4l. My Government adheres to the decision taken by the Foreign Ministers of the &.u:opean COmMlnity on la Septenber 1985 to suspend all oil exports to South Africa. tb crude oil shipments to south Africa are being carried out either directly or in transit from ports in the Federal Republic of Germany or by vessels flying its flag. The fact that we abstain this year does rlot reflect a change in my Government's position of principle with regard to comprehensive mandatory sanctions. In spi te of di ffer ences regarding ways and me thods t'le are all un i ted in our goal: the ending of apartheid must end. My GoI1ernment will continue to work for this goal to the beat of its ability. Miss BYRN! (United States of America): The people and Government of the Uni ted States stand second to none in their total rejection of racism and aparthei-d~ It has been and will continue to be the policy of my Government to pronnte a peaceful transi tioo to non-racial demcracy and justice for all in Sou th Africa. We continue to believe that carefully targeted political, diplomatic and economic pressure is the best means to achieve these objectives. The fact remains, moreover, that a solution to South Afr ica 's problems cannot be imposed from outside, by anyone nation or by the entire United Nations. Only South Africans themelves can develop such a solution. Yet, while we oppose apartheid and wish to see it pass from the earth, this year's package of draft reSOlutions, as in previous years, contains langua,ge and prescr iptions \eith which the United States must again disagree. The draft resolutions again call for comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. We oppose the (Count York van Wartenburg, F~chral R!pubUc of Germany) imposition by the United Nations of such sanctions, as menbers know, because we believe sweeping, wor ld-wide sanctions simply will not work. The United states has the oldest and the broadest sanctions against South Africa. We implemented an arms emargo against South Africa lalg before the United NatialS approved one. We caltinue to implement and enforce rigorous economic sanctions under our Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. The sad fact is, however, that the arms embargo has been only partially effective and the eCalomic sanctions have probably done JD:)re hal'm than good. Although the United Nations arms embargo has made South Africa's access to major new weapons systems difficult, South Africa has nevertheless continued to import urns clandestinely, latg after our and others' embargoes went into effect. In addi tiat it has developed its own signHicant arms industry. As far as our economic sanctic,ns are concerned, their net impact has been a decline in positive United States economic and political influence in South Africa, a strengthening of reactionary political forces there and a narrooing of opportunities for eCalomic and political emparlerment by black South Africans - the pp'ople we are all trying most to help. Those countr ies which call for such sanctions make the mistake of confusing the Government and its policies of apartheid wi th the people and economy of the country. By attempting to have a positive influence on the former they will surely have a negative effect on the latter. The United States likewise cannot accept using United Nations resolutions to legitimize arlled conflict, as is proposed in operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution A/43/L.30 and Corr .1. Support for such language is wholly contrary to the o2dical:ed search for peaceful resolution of the world's problems, in southern Africa ana elsewhere, which memers of this body profess to espouse. A call to violence ally increases the chance of greater violence. (Miss Byrne, United States) We note wi th pleasure the cmtinued decline in the nunner of explicit critical references to the United States, but we regret that the practice has not yet wholly dis~ppeared. We shall cmtinue to Oppose it wherever it surfaces • (Miss Byrne, United St~teG) As similar resolutions in past ye,us, draft resolution A/43/L.34 and Corr.l er iticizes a single country for actions which many have oommi tted, including some of those who protest most loudly. We are again unable to support such a disingenuous resolution. :.L41e United States is also concerned about the financial impl ications of several sectiCX1s of these draft resolutions~ especially draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.1 on dissemination of information, and operative paragraph 4 of draft resolution A/43/L.41, on the oil enbargo, which imply increased expenses without regard to contrary earlier decisions by this body and its subsidiary committees. The United States wishes to stress its cCX1tinued belief that proven, positive results on apartheid will be best assured through patient negotiations, as has been \:he case recently in Afghanistcm, Iran and Iraq and, most recently, Namibia, rather than rhetorical flourishes in sterile debates. We will join the consensus CX1 the call for a special session of the General Assenbly on apartheid. we trust that the session will be brief and to the point. Inasrruch as there will be a special session of the General Assenbly to debate the question of apartheid, the United States assumes that: the Assenbly will not hold further discussion CX1 the issue during its forty-fourth regular session. Finally, we shall again support, and join the consensus on, the tbited Nations Trust Fund for South Africa, the worthy goals of which we support with significant financial contributions. Mr. DLAMINI (Swaz iland) \ Swaziland will support the draft resolutions under agenda item 36, entitled "Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa", with the exception of draft resolutions A/43/L.32 and Corr.l and A/43/L.41, on which it: will abstain as it is not in a POSitiCX1 to implement comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. Swaziland's abstention (Miss Byrne, United States) on the two draft resolutions must not be seen as indicating that Sw8ziland is a stmrt»Ung block to the elimination of the policies of apartheid in South Afr iea. It is regrettable, however, that the reputable Special Commi ttee against Ajt8rtheid, 1n paragraph 100 of document A/43/22, has branded Swaziland, together with a few other neighbouring countries in the subre9ion, as helping South Africa to ~vade sanctions. As a peace~loving country committed to the fundamental principles of the Charter of the O1i ted Nations and posi tively involved in the furtherance of the aims and objectives of the Southern Afr iean Development Co-ordin&tion Conference, Swazi1and is greatly disturbed to learn about this naked allegation by the Special Committee against Apartheid. What is particularly disappointing is that the Special Committee has not bothered, inter alia, to contact Swaziland with a view to ascerta:f.ningthe truth or falsity of such a dallll!lging allegation. In that regard, we appeal to the Special Committee to adopt a constructive approach to this issue by first gathering solid evidence before issuing a report of that nature as an official document of the United Nations General Assembly. Mt. BLANC (France) (interpretation from French): The French delegation fully subscdb~ to what has been said an behalf of the 12 member States of the atropean COIIII1L1nity by the rePlesentative of Greece, both dUE: ing the debate and by way of explanation of vote. France has taken several initiatives, not only at the national level but also at a multilateral basis, to translate into action the unreserved condemation of the apartheid system which it has often expressed. Indeed, my country believes that all appropriate meaSUi:es should be taken with a view to the abolition of that unacceptable system. In that spirit my delegation will this year again vote in favour of the draft resolutiat Q'I concerted international action for the elimination of c apartheid (A/4:J!L.42), despite its reservations on the swenth preanbular paragraph and operative paragrapha 5, 6 and 7. My country, which in 1967 voted against ~neral Assembly resolution 42/23 P on the oil emargo against SOUth Africa, will abstain this year in the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.41, which deals with the same question. Although it still has K'eservations on the text, partioularly in respeot of mandatory sanotions and the division of oompetence between the General Assenbly and the Security Counoil, the Frenoh Government is in favour of ml!!asurl!!s focusing on the question of oil and, for its part, has already taken such mea&ures. with regard to the draft resolutions eubmitted to the General Assemly this year for the first time, my delegation supports ckaft resolution A/43/L.36 and Corr.l, on a special session of the General Assenblyon apartheid 2lnd its delStruotive consequenoes in southern Africa, and is pleased that this text oan be adopted by consensU3. However, Prance will abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.31 and Corr.l on military oollaboratiCll'li with South Africa, especially because of the wording of operative paragraph 1. For the reasons given by the presidency of the Council of the European CommWlities, we are unable to support draft resol\!tion A/43/L.37 and Corr.1 on the dissemination of information aga inst the policy of apartheid of the raoist regime of South Africa, and we shall therefore abstain in the vote on that draft resolution. I wish to emphasize that my country would very mm have liked to have been able to suptnrt all the draft resolutions before the General Assembly. We ..egret that we are unable to do so, because of the dr2lfting of some of the passages in the texts. My delegation continues to believe that a unanillDus vote by the General A8senb1y would further strengthen the international community's urgent appeal to the Government of South Afr ioa for the complete and definitive elimination of the system of apartheid • Kr. KACRlFANDE (Malawi> ~ My delegation will vote in support of draft resolution A/43/L.42, <Xl concerted international action for truu elimination of apartheid, as well as five of the 11 othar draft resolutions that have been presented to the t;enera1 Asserrb1y under agenda item 36, on the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Afr iea. We shall do so because Malawi supports the aapirations of the majority black people of South Africa for a multiracial society based on equality of social, economic and political opportunity under a goveJ:'nment representative of all the different communi ties comprising their nation. Malawi has always maintained, as have others, that only with the eradication of !partheid can the vision of a democratic and just South Africa be realized, because we have never accepted - indeed, who could - the argunent of the South African authorities for so-called equal but separate development. It is for that reason that Malawi does not recognize as independent the homelands that have been created in pursuance of the so-called multinational South Africa. Malawi has always sought, as the rest of the international conmunity also has, to make the South African authorities realize that the solution 00 their cobntry's problems cannot be found through the approach they have so far opted fon that of force and silencing opposition. For force only produces counter-force, as events in recent years have shCMn~ restrictions and states of emergency, as we have seen, only build up frustratioo and lead to desperation, which, in turn, give rise to force. The forced renoval and silencing of the people's chosen leaders has denied legi timacy to any other leaders wi th whom the GovernMent has sought to establish alternate p::)litical arrangements and has, in fact, rendered unacceptable, and therefore null and void, any an angements so agreed. Malawi has also insisted that the solution will never be found through irnternationalization of South Africa's domestic problems - for instance, through the campaign of desta"bilization and other means of coercion conducted against other countries in the region. Instead, we have always argued that the solution lies in the total eradication of apartheid, the release of all political detainees and the inidation of a genuine national dialogue involving the chosen representatives of all the various sections of South African society. we thus we1corr.e the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six and the release of Hr. ~tohopeng and Hr. Gwala last week, as well as the rep::)rtedly imminent release of others, including Mr. Sisulu. Unfortunately, such apparently positive moves RUst lose all meaning in the face of the South African Government's decision to send yet more a:epresentatives of the black majority to prison, as it has done in the case of members of the United DeJlK)cratic FIO!1t sentenced last week to long prison terms 00 doubtful charges of treason. We believe that such actions not only deepen mistrust of the South African Government abroad, but also contribute to a worsening of the situation inside South Africa. It is for that reasca that Malawi has supported international efforts towards dee/s not in any way imply Malawi's support for actions such as those called for in paragraphs 5 and 6, and also in a number of sections of paragraph 7 of this draft resolution. Similarly, we shall resen-e our posi tion wi th respect to operative paragraph 2 of draft reRolution A/43/L.30/Rev.l. Malawi has yet to be persuaded of the efficacy of such measures as the use of force, boycotts and isolation, impos ition of sanctions - economic and other - and other such measures as a means of achieving lasting, genuinely peaceful solutioi'ls. Q1r observation of other recent situations woold persuade us to conclude otherwise. It has never been Malawi's policy or desire to campaign against the use of sanctions. However, the Jlt)re we have observed how, by whom and on whom these have been applied, the more we have been saddened by the apparent lack of honesty that seems to be attendant on such matters. Neither de we believe in the usefulness or fairness of selective condemnation, such as is contained in operative paragaraph 3 of draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l, as a way of persuading others to accept points of view. It is for those reasons, among others, that my delegation finds itself compelled to abstain on draft resolutions A/43/L.3l and Corr.l, A/43/L.32 and Corrol, A/43/L.33 and Corr.l, A/43/L.34 and Corr.l and A/43/L.4l. and deep sympathy of the Government and people of Zil\i)abwe as well as of my whole delegation to the African National Congress of South Africa (ARC), the people of South Africa and the family of our late friend, Conrade and oomatant of the ARC, Jdlnny Makatini, who passed away over the weekend. Johnny Makatini died in exile, in a foreign COWltry , tNay from his home and the lOlTe and comfort of his people and family, a martyr to the struggle and a victim of aearthoid. Many in the General Asserrbly were touched and moved by his sincer i ty, energy and determination. Each time I shall press the green button this morning to vob! in favour of all the draft resolutioos before us, I shall say in my heart, "This one is for you, The draft resolutions before us are factual and balanced. There is no name-call ing in regcrd to any country. We are all opposed to name-call ing • lita t the draft resolutions do is, on occasion, mention the names of some OJuntries - but ally for the sake of identifying them. And each time a cOWltry is mentioned, it is not done in a condem·atory context but mainly by way of identification, and often only in order to appeal to that country to oo-operate wi th the international oomrrunity in putting pressure on apartheid South Afr iea. That is not name-calling but the mentiadng of names for the purpose of identification. Surely, if mere IIDrtals can mention the exalted names of and appeal to Allah or Jehovah in their Pl'ayers, it should be proper and right to appeal to nations by mentialing their names. We are all proud of our names, are we not? Those who would nourish their economies with the bloodbtafled profits of apar~eid should remnber that this can leave a bitter aftertaste in their muths) and, if taken OV'er a lalg time or in large enough doses, it can be morally lethal. '1b those who have been pleding that this is no time to exert pressure on Pretor ia, we say this, we hope that the regime's weekend antics at Braz:r:avUle will have persuaood them to our point of view - that Pretoria will mOl/e forward only provided we keep up the pressure. Zinbabwe will vote "yes" on all the draft resolutions, as they are, unamended. The PRliSIDfiN,! (interpretation from Spanish): We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the voting. Before we proceed, however, I shall call (.:In the representative of Ghana, who wiabes to speak wi th reference to the death of Mr. Makatini 0 but I hope that the urgency and gravity of the reason for my intervention will justify my imposing on its patience and tolerance. I wish to speak on behalf of the Chairman of the African Group, who is unable to be with us at this time. It is with a heavy heart that the Afr iean Group has received the sad news of the untimely death of Mr. Johnstone Mfanafuthi Makatini, a menDer of the National El;ecutive Commi ttee of the Afr iean National Congress (ANC). The sad event occurred on Saturday, 3 December 1988, at the Government Hospital in Lusaka, zanbia, after a shor t illness. Mr. Johnny Makatini, as he was affectionately known to his numerous friends, colleagues and admirers, was also at the time of his death the Director of the Department of International Affairs of the African National Congress. Many will of course remember him as the former chief delegate of the Obser:ver Misdion of t11e ANC to the United Nations, an individual who consulted and walked the oorricbrs of the United Nations almost every single day that he was with us. Mr. Makatini was a victim of apartheid in the sense that he was forced "into exile by the South African Government for about a quarter of a century only because he refused to bow to the injustice, racism and humiliation of that unacceptable system. He began his struggle against apartheid from the time he entered school and, because of his commitment, dedication and industry, soon gained the attention, confidence and acceptance of the leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa - men like Nelson Mandela and 01 iver Tambo. In b.is wor k as an ANC functionar y abroad, Johnny Makatini travelled the world educating, informing and pleading wi th leaders, Governments and peoples to help put an end to the system that had enslaved and exploited the overwhelming majority of his countrymen and women. Although he was persistent, he was not unpleasant. Although he spoke his mind, fearlessly and with conviction, he did not fail to persuade. Many of us will miss him and the leadership he represented. But perhaps this is not the time for tears and the beating of breasts although Johnny is irreplaceable in our hearts and minds, bu t ra ther, as the elders say, it is time to oontemplate his love, industry, commitment and struggle against injustice and to oommi t ourselves to the cause to which he devoted his energies and for which he was martyred. It is an irony of fate that Johnny should die in the middle of the Assemly's calsideration of the agenda i tern al the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. 'lb the African National Congress, to his family in South Africa, and to the overwhelming majority of South Africans, who saw eye to eye wi th Johnny Makatini, all memers of the African Group, as indeed I trust all Menbers of the AssenDly, would like today to extend their coodolences and to ask that all of us follow in the footsteps of Johnny Makatini until the hateful system of apartheid is eradicated thus guaranteeing that people like Johnstooe Mfanafuthi Makatini will no looger die because of apartheid. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish) ~ Allow me, Sir, to express my coocurrence wi th the words you have just spoken in memory of ooe who was a friend of all of us in the General Assembly and of peoples struggling for peace. The Assenbly will now take aet100 00 the uarious draft resolutions before it. We have a long list of eountr ies that have added their names as sponsor s of the various draft resolutions that we are considering. They are: A/43/t.30/Rev.l, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, Trinidad and 'lbbago; A/43/t.3l (Mr. Gbeho, Ghana) and Corr.1, the Philippines, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago and Viet Ham, A/43/L.32 and Corr.1, Somalia and the Union of Soviet Socialist RePublics~ A/43/L.33 and Corr.1" the Philippines, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago and Viet Ramp A/43/L.34 and Corr.1, Somalia and Viet Nam~ A/43/L.35 and Carr.1, the Phil ippines, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago and Viet Ham, A/43/L.36 and Cerr.l, the Philippines, Somalia, Trin idad and 'lbbago and Viet Ham~ A/43/L.37 and Corr.l, the Phi! ippines, Trin idad and Tobago and zaire, A/43/L.3a, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Senegal and Soma1ia~ A/43/t.41, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mongolia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Senegal, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Viet NamJ A/43/L.42, Cuba, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Philippines, Senegal, Somalia and Trinidad ardl Tobago. (Hr. Gbeho, Ghana) The report of the Fifth Committee al the programme budget implications of these draft resolutions has been issued in document A/43/90l and Corr .1. I have been informed that, in adopting ckmft resolutions A/43/L.30/Rev.l, L.32 and Corr.l to L.36 and Corr.l and L.41 Cln the basis of the report of the Fifth Committee (A/43/901 and Corr .1), the General Assemly would authorize the Secretary-General to fulfil the mandate contained in those draft resolutions. The Secretary-General hu informed me that he would make every effort to absorb the expenditures of 857,000 and 888,700 in sections 3 and 27 respectively of the 1988-198~ programme budget, on the understanding that the actual financial requirements for implementing those resolutions would be contained in the implementation report. The General Assembly will now begin the YoUng process. We shall first take a decision on draft resolution A/43/L.30/Rev.l, entitled "International solidarity with the liberation struggle in SOuth Africa". A recorded vote hals been requested. (The President) A recorded vote was taken. In favourt Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Ben!n, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussal~m, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian soviet SOcialist Republic, Camerocn, Cape Verde, Central Afr ican Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colorrbia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoelovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Denocratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ik)minican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German DellDcratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bisaau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, .Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, M!xico, Mongolia, Morocco, MoZamique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, Sao ~me and Principe, saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, 'Ibgo, Trinidad and 'Ibbago, Tunisia, 'l'Urkey, Ugaanda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet SOcialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Ham, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, zannia, Zinbabwe I\gainst: Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uni ted States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austr ia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden Draft· resolution A/43/L. 30/Rev.l was adopted by 131 votes to 3, with 21 abstentions (resolution 43/50 A).*

The President [Spanish] #9276
We turn now to clraft resolution A/43/L.3l and Corr.l, entitled "Military collaboration with SOUth Afr iea". A recorded vote has been requested. *Subsequently the dele<}8tion of Vanuatu advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. A recorded vote was taken. In favoun Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei narussa1am, Bulgaria, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Bye10rusaian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central Afr ican Republic, Chad, China, Colonbia, Conoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, DellOcratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,· Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongol ia, Morocco 6 Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Onan, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, saint IAlcin, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao ~me and Principe, saudi Arabia, Senegal, ~,ychel1es, Sierra Leone, Singapore, 5o10llOn Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SWaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet SOcialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Fmirates, Unit.~d Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zanbia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel, United States of America Abstaining~ Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Ire1and u Italy, Japan, Leootho, IA1xenbourg, Malawi, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, samoa, Spain, SWeden, United Kingdom of Great Bri tain and Northern Ireland Draft resolution A/43/t.31 and Corr.1 was adopted by 123 votes to 2, with 29 abstentions (resolution 43/50 B).* The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish) ~ We shall now take up draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.1, entitled "Comprehensive and mandatory sanctiona against the racist regime of South Africa". *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour • A separate, recorded vote has been requested on the words "and, particularly, Japan, which recently emerged as the most important trading partner of South Africa" in operative paragraph 3. If there is no objection to that request I shall put those words to the vote first. A recorded vote was take..!!.. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bulgat'ia, Burkina Faao, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, German Democral~~ Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Burma, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, IIJ~embourg, Maldives, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, lWanda, Saint wcia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Br ita in and Nor ther n Ireland, Un i ted States of ArRer iea Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Gambia, Guyana, Jamaica, Lebar-"1, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, SWaziland, Thailand, ~go, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, zaire The words "and, particularlY, Japan, which recently emerged as the most important trading partner of South Africa" were retained by 50 votes to 41, with 43 abstentions.* The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish) ~ A separate, recorded vote has also b~en requested on operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l. If there is no objection we shall proceed accordingly. *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. A recorded vote was taken. In favour, Afghanistan, Albania, Algoria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byeloruss1~~ Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cosb Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslcwakia, DellDcratic Yemen, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ger.man DellDcrC!1tic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Il4n (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DellDcratic Republic, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jalll!!lhir iya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Maur itania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozanbique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Pe[u, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, saint IAJcia, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukrainian Scwiet Socialist Republic, U1ion of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab &nirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuei~, Viet Ram, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zanbia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, Austr ia., Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equator ial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, IlJxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Daruasalam, Burma, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, COte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Fiji, Honduras, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Niger, Oman, saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, sallDa, Singapore, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, ~go, t~u9uay Operative paragraph 6 was retained by by 82 votes to 27, with 31 abstentions.· *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. The PRESlQ!!!! (interpretation from Spanish) s I now put to the vote draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favourT. Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei D~russalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Bye10russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colonbia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, cyprus, Czechoslovakia, DemocraUc Kampuchea, DelJl)crsUc Yemen, Dj ibouti , Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ganbia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada .. Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DelIDcra tic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozarnbique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, lWanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao 'lbme and Prinolpe, Saudi Arabia, senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, SOmalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tbgo, Trinidad and Tbbago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Ham, Yemen, YUgoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Aga inst: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, Japan, IA.1xerrbourg, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Botswana, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden Draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l, as a whole, was adopted by 123 votes to 12, wi th 19 abstentions (resolution 43/50 C). * *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. decision next on draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.l, entitled "Imposition, co-ordination and strict monitoring of measures against racist South Africa". 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 Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Bye10russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Co1onbia, Camoros, Congo, Costa Rica, cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Deroocratic Kampuchea, DeJlDcratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Grenada, G~atema1a, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Deroocratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, ORan, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint tocia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, sao TOme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SWaz iland, Sweden, Syr ian Arab Republic, Tha iland , To9o, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Ham, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, zarrbia, Zinbabwe !9ainst: Germany, Federal Republic of, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Equatorial Guinea, France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Spain Draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.1 was adopted by 136 votes to 4, with 14 abstentions (resolution 43/50 D). * *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. resolution A/43/L.34 and Corr.l, entitled "Relations between South Africa and Israel". A recorded vote ,has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour; Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Bra~il, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Paso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, China, COlOOros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, DelOOcratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, German Denocratic Repuclic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozanbique, tlepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, sao Tome and Principe, saudi Arabia, senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, SWaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tbbago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialic.i: Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, YUgoslavia, zambia, Zimbabwe ~ainst; Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nor ther n Ireland, Un i ted States of Amer iea Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, ColoMbia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Honduras, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Looia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uruguay, Zaire Draft resolution A/43/L.34 and Corr.1 was adopted by:' 106 votes to 23, with 26 abstentions (resoluti.on 43/50 E). * *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the SeCt~t',~tiat that it had intended to vote in favour. a decision on draft resolution A/43/L.35 and Corr.l, entitled "Programme of work of the Special Committee against Apartheid". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote'was taken. In' favour,. Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, 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, COllOros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Daminican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea~ Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabori, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, fobngolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, pakistan, Panama, Papua Now Guinea, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Locia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, SUr iname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe !!l!!.!!.!.!:: Uni ted Sta tes of Amer ica Abstaining: Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, Wxei1'bourg, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Br itain and Northe~n Ireland Draft'resolutionA/43/L.35 andCor.r·.l was adopted by 144 votes to 1, with 9 abstentions (resolution 43/50 F).* *Subaequent11 ~he delegation of V~uatu advised the secretariat that it had intended to vote in favout. a decision on draft resoution A/43/L.36 and Corr.l, entitled "Special session of the General Assembly on apartheid and its destructive consequences in southern Africa" • May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution A/43/L.36 and Corr.l was adopted (resolution 43/50 G).
Vote: A/RES/43/50A Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (131)
Vote: A/RES/43/50B Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (123)
Vote: A/RES/43/50C Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (123)
Vote: A/RES/43/50D Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (136)
Vote: A/RES/43/50E Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (106)
Vote: A/RES/43/50F Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (144)
Vote: A/RES/43/50H Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (132)
Vote: A/RES/43/50J Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (138)
Vote: A/RES/43/50K Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (2)
✓ Yes (149)
The President [Spanish] #9277
We turn now to draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.l, entitled "Dissemination of information against the policies of apartheid of the regime of racist South Afr ica". 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, China, Colombia, camoras, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, DenDcratic Kampuchea, DelOOcratic 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 (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, "',ali, Malta, Maur itania, Maur itius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, Sao ~me and principa, saudi Arabia, Senegal, seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, ~go, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of SOl1iet Socialist Republics, united Arab &nirates, united Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, zamia, Zinbabwe Un i ted Sta tes of Amer ica A9ainst~ Draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.l was adopted by 132 votes to 1, with 21 abstentions (resolution 43/50 H).* The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish), We turn next to dt'aft resolution A/43/L.38, entitled "United Nations Trust Fund for SOuth Africa". May I take it that the General Assembly decides to adopt this draft resolution? Draft resolution A/43/L.38 was adopted (resolution 43/50 I).

40.  THE SI'lUA'l'ION IN THE MIDDLE EAST (a) RER>R'l'S OF THE SEatETARY-GBNERAL (A/43/272, A/43/683, A/43/69l, A/43/867) (b) DRAFT RI!SOWTIO!6 (A/43/L.44 to A/43/L.46) The PR!SIDEHT, In connection with the item entitled IIlThe situation in the Middle East Ill, three dra Et resolu tions have been issued (A/43/L. 44 to L. 4 6) • I should 1 ike to propose that the l1st of speaker s in the debate on th is item be closed today at 4 p.m. If I hear no objection I shall take it that the Asuell'bly so decides. It was so decided. -- The PR~;n...!!!~ I request those representatives wishing to participate in the debate to inscribe their names as Soa'l as possible. MI'. AL~HAALI (United Arab &Dirates) (interpretation from Arabic): It is a privilege fa: ~ to speak today on behalf of the menbets of the League of Arab States. The Assembly is meeting today to consider once again the problem of the Middle East in an international context which in the past year has lD'ldergale an important, qualitative change on account of the agreement reached between the two super-Power s and the peaceful setUement of a null'ber of regional problems, including the Iraq-Iran problem, the Namibian problem and the problem of Afghanistan. There is no doubt that those sie;,lificant poei tive developments would not have occurred had it not been for the genuine commitment of the two super-Powers to arriving at peaceful solutions to those acute crises. There is little need for me to say that the United Nations provided the r~uired framework for mediation between the parties involved and the recalciliation of their points of view. In that connection I should like to pay tribute to the Secretary-General for his IIDBt sincere, sustained and commendable efforts.. He played the part of a neutral international mediator, bringing together conflicting parties, encouraging them to enter into dialogue and thereby creating an atmosphere of understanding conducive to trust and constructive negotiation. I would say here that the United Nations alone cannot provide a solution to such regional conflicts unl.ess two conditions are met, first, the parties to the confl iet must be earnestly prepared to settle their di fferences through negotiation~ secondly, there must be genuine co-ordination and understanding between the major Powers, especially the two supar-Powers, on the need for a just solution taking into account the legitimate clairna of the parties to the conflict. That is the ph ilooophy under lying the Seour i ty Council. Indeed, the exper ience a~uired by the founding fa thers 0 f the Organ izc ion led them to the conyicUon that peace and security could be achieved only if the two super-Powers sincerely co-operated to that end. That is also the philosophy underlying the theoretical framework of this intern&tio~al organization, which reaffirms the need for collective peace, because of interdependence between States, and which affirms tha t the subdivision of peace - in other words, the absence of peace in any given region - can only lmdermine world peace and stability. That is why Article 1 of the United Nations Charter emphasizes the importance of adopting effective collective measures for the pre'1ention of threats to the peace, including in particular acts of aggression and the denial of the r iCjht of peoples to self-determination. That is also why the Charter reaffirms principles such as justice, international legality and the settlement of canfl iets by peaceful means such as negotiation,' investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement•• *Mr. Van Lierop (Vanuatu), Vice-President, took the Chair. Developments in internatiatal politics since 1945 indicate that the most serious threats to international peace and security have been posed by regional problems. (Mr. Al-Shaali, United Arab Emirates) There are two reasons for this: first, the interests of the two super-PC7.rIers, which extend beyond their immediate zooes of influence, and, secondly, the adverse impact of regional problem on international relations as a whole, particularly on East-tlest relations. A source of concern to us, and to all those committed to international peace and security, is that the problem of the Middle East is the only problem still awaiting a solution despite the understanding between East and west and despite the progress made in respect of all other inter-national problems. The main cause of this dangerous deadlock is Israel's rejection of the principle of peace and its denial of the principles of the Charter and internatiooal legalities ~ enshrined in the resolutions adopted by this international Organization and other regional bodies.· Israel can afford to behave in that manner, because it can count on unlimited mili tary, moral, polltica! and economic support from the Uni ted Sta tes. It is as though the destiny of that great Power were linked to Israeli expansionism and a9gression~ as though the entire world carried no weight: against the exigencies of' Israel's expansion and its aspiration to establish a"l empire without boundar ies. Israel is the enemy of peace, because of its doctrine of Zionism and the practices it carries on to further that doctrine, which embodies the worst elements of the colonialist settlement JIIOYements which afflicted the peoples of Asia and Afr~ca, giving them an esoteric and metaphysical connotation derived from the Bible, and thus creating a policy firmly anchored in theology and not SUbject to discussion, change or negotiation. After invading most of Palestine in 1948 and driving out the Palest'nian people with the help of the colooial Powers, which promised it support and protection, Israel enbarked upon its strategy of expansionism, domination and poll tical destabilization. That strategy extends beyond the borders of Palestine. It is aimed at establishing a broader zone of supremacy with a view to securing Zionist CQ1uol over the Middle East and AfriC5, by strengthening the hold of Zionism in Palestine and broadening its zone of influence by military means and by lObbyi~g in the major capitals. Israel invaded the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, renaming them Judea and Samar ia. It invaded the Syr ian Golan Heights and annexed them. It imraded Lebanon several times and established it as a security belt. Israel attacks Lebanon on a dally basis, from sea, land and air, sawing discord there and destabllizing the CQuntry. In addition, it has carried out acts of aggression against Iraq, including the destruction of the nuclear power plant, and against 'l'lmisia. Some Israeli leaders are threatening to seize the Fast Bank of the Jordan, which they regard as a part of the promised land. Furthermore, Israel has become expert at piracy at sea. Its fleet intercepts commercial vessels and searches them in international waters. The department of air piracy in the Defence Ministry intercepts and hijacks civilian aircraft. Its secret services steal mill tary secrets and spy even against its main ally, such as in the Pollard alse. In order to strengthen its domination, Israel has concluded an alliance with its ideological counterpart, the apartheid Government in south Africa. 'l\)gether they have developed nuclear weapons and launcher s .. they have exchanged means and methods of repressing liberatioo J!lOIJements and destabilizing neighbouring countries. This is not just a question of identity of views or military identity, but also of common strategic interests, because the apartheid r'gime regards Israel as a policeman who protects the northern part of Afr lea" and Israel regards the apartheid r,;gime as a policeman protecting the western side of Africa for the Zionists. Last September Israel embarked upon the militarization of outer space when it launched the satellite OFUQ-I, which Youkan Nieman, the Director of the Israeli Space Agency said would strengthen the Israel i military system and its nuclear capacity, and supplement its long-range missiles, including its Jericho missiles, which are aimed at the Arab capitals and other parts of the world. Israeli policy does not stop at that, Israel is also trying to prevent the development of the region by destroying civilizing influences. We should recall its attempt to paralyse Arab technological capability by killing Arab scientists, destroying Arab schools and institutes and indulging in an arms race which requires considerable resources, which the Arab countries could be using for development. The neighbouring Arab countries are the primary victims of Zionism, but they are not the only ones, for Zionism, like Nazism, only feels secure when it is expanding and if all other States and peoplE.d, near and far, live in insecur ity and instability. It: must be remembered that, as reported by Israel Shahak in the 18 November issue of Middle East International, Rabbin Ariel, one of the Yi tshak Shamir's main advisers, had drawn up an Israeli atlas which included all of the islands of the Mediterranean, and that: Shamir summoned him to his office to congratulate him. That was an example of Zionist mentality and its outlook as to the future. An Arab strategy for peace was set forth in detail at the second Fez summit in 1982 and was reaffirmed by ~e SUbsequent Arab summits, '1otably at Algiers in November 1988. That strategy is based on the principle {.>f a peacefUl settlement through an international conference under t.he auspices of the United Nations, in (Hr. Al-Shaali, united Arab Emirates) which all parties to the conflict would participate, including the PLO, with a view to arr~ving at a just and comprehensive solution based on Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian and Arab territories, which would give the Palestinian people their inalienable rights, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the uni ted Nations. Peace and security in the Middle East and in the world as a whole presuppose collective efforts and good fai the Unreserved support for one party to the detriment of another only strengthens the policy of invasion, violates the Charter and perpetuates the present unjust situation, which promises dangerous confrontation for the future. Regrettably, another year has passed without a solution to the problem of the Middle East, a problem of missed opportunities. Dare we hope that 1989 will be the year of the solution of the Middle East problem? That will depend on many things, and primarily on the credibility of the policy that will be adopted by the new United States Administration. Hr. SAZAR (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): The General Assenbly is today considering again, as has been its wont over the years, the agenda item entitled "The situation in the Middle East". As usual, that situation is fraught wi th tensiM and instability. The conflict in the region still awai ts an appropr iate paacetul solution • Despite the many resolutions adopted by the United Nations on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the many plans and initiatives for peace and the settlement of the conflict, the situation in the Middle East continues to be dangerous. It is a si tuation that not only threatens the future of the region but also endangers the peace and seour ity of the world. QJr having recourse agQin to the United Nations for a peaceful solution to this conflict is renewed proof that we are c:ommi tted to the search for peace. It also bespeaks, on the one hand, our conviction that peace DUst be attained and, on the other, our confidence in the Organization and our belief that it will, as it must, shoulder its responsibilities in regard to the conflict. The peoples and countries of the region have been deprived of peace and tranquillity for a long time. They have endured untold suffering and pain. It is high time that, like other peoples and countries of the world, they enjoyed peace, stability and seour ity. However, in order for them to exercise that right, a permanent and comprehensive peace settlement for the Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its aspects and dimensions, must be found. Above all, the very core of the conflict - the question of Palestine - must be dealt with. The situation in the Middle East and the question of Palestine are so closely interrelated that it is extremely difficul t to distinguish one from the other. Nei ther one nor the other can be solved separately. Th is is a ma jor task and a grave responsibility, which calls for unremitting, sincere efforts. It is no exa9geration to say that such efforts must be made immediately. Fadl and every day that passes without br ing~n9 a peace settlement to the Middle East means a further complication of the situation and more suffering and tension. The United Nations has had the situation in the Middle East before it for the past four decades. Indeed~, the Palestinian cause was created in the Or9anization. As I have said, it is the core of the conflict in our region. In dealing with it, the General Assenbly has established various subsidiary bodies to handle the ques tion and its consequences - such as the Un i ted Na tions Rel ief and \t)r ks Jlqency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, investiga ting commi ttees, 'IDServer 9roups and peace-keepintg forces. It has also ac:bpted many resolutions and exerted all kinds of efforts in the search for a settlement of the region's problems. Unfortunately, however, all this has not achieved the desired resu1t~ a permanent, peaceful and comprehens ive solution. unless we find such a solution, the Middle East will continue to be a threaten,ed region and the United Nations will continue to be seized of the situation in the Middle East. The United Nations and indeed the international coJIIJIUnity as a whole, particularly the major Powers, have a responsibility to work tirelessly and in concert to find a way out for the region from the vicious circle of violence and tens ion and P1t an end to i ts pHght • For a long time the Arab States have been expressing their desire for peace and their readiness to work for it. They formulated and proposed a practical peace plan through the Ara Fez Summit in 1982. That plan was reiterated by subsequent Arab summi ts. Unfortunately, the peace plan was not implemented and the des ired result was not achieved because of the intransigence of the other party to the Arab-Israeli conflict: ISi:ael. There is no longer any need for proof of that. It is a clear enough fact. Israel has continued to challenge the will of the international community a~ reflected in United Nations resolutions. It persists in of Arab territories. In 81;,;', doinglf it violates the rules of international law and flouts the rer.,O;)lutions of th6 U'litGd ll!ations. Israel is the party that adamantly oppose~ the interMtional peace conference, which the international comnunity unanillOwly regards as the approprihte means to ~each it peaceful settlement of the Arab-Iaraell conflict. Cblycme _jor PCMer condonu Israel's rejection of the conference • Israel's fears regarding the peace COtnferenoo are unfounded. The aim of a conference thAt would be held under the auspiCes of the ttli r_::d Ha tions, and wi th the participation of the five permanent mefibers of the Security Council, would be to achieve peace and guaromtee security for all the States in the region. It is neithe: possiblE nor practical for Israel to remain dependent on lliUtary Might in response to Arab and international calls for peace. Weapons are no s~st,itute for pelllce, nor can they ~arMt!!e the peace or tranquillity of Israel or any other State. Israel, by rejecting genuine peace within the framework of thP. interMtlonal peace conference, which has gained the unanimus endorsement of the int\!rnational collllllunity, proves that it has no desire for peace and no intention of Israel's policies ,,,,,d practices OYlI!r the past 21 years are proof enou9h of its intention to perpetuate its Qccupatica and continue the subju<jation of the population of the o~cupied Arab tet'tltories. It wants to ensure that Palestinian refuqeee r••in ~isPf!1'sed as displaced p~rsons in vu tous parts of the WCll'ld. leraet should not be allowed toach ieve t:hat goal. We realize full w~l that Israel haa broader anDi tiot'lS in our region that eJICeed &ny of the ga1ft. it ha achieved 80 far through military might derived from ita privileged rolationship with a _jor POioIer, the 8Y11~thy aroused by the conditions of the region in the worst possible way. Israel believes, wrongly, that its present policy will eventually lead the international ooJlU1llnity to accept the fait accompli it wishes to impose. But that is absolutely contrary to human and international norms and will not be. It is an objective that cannot be achieved. ~r unwavering belief that the occupied territories mst be recovered and the Palestinian people must be allowed to exercise their right to self-determina ticn on their soil mke1il it impei:aUve for us all to wor.k constantly and in earnest towards that end. no matter how protracted, cannot be made acceptable in any shape or form. Wi th their intifadah, the Palestinians have reaffirmed that their belief in their inalienable rights is solid and unshakeable and their determination to exercise those rights firm and justified. Through the media the world has been made aware of the lnt! fadah and the real face of Israel and has thus been able to under stand the tragic situation of the Palestini..ns tmder occupation. The conscience of the world has been reawakened and its awareness has become nore intense. I,. +.hat respect, we should like to commend the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council (S/19443) dated 21 January 1988. We had hoped that the intifadah would provide an impetus to collective persevering and immediate efforts to p,lt an end to the occupatim and enable the Arab Palestinian people to exercise tJleir rights, forenost anong which is their right to self-determination m their natioo81 soil. We had hoped also that Israel would benefit from the lessons of the intifadah and realize that its occupation cannot continue mid that it would be far better if it decided to make peace and learn to coexist with the Palestinians rather than continue to wage war against them and live at their expense. Unfortunately, Israel has so far failed to benefit from the lesson of the intifadah and has not seized the oPlOrtunity for peace that it has prcwided. Through the resolutions of the Palestine National Council in Algiers last month the Palestinian people hsve expressed thei'! genuine desire for peace and their read,iness to work earnestly towuds that end. They hcwe also confirmed their commitment to the peaceful resolution of the problem on the basis of secudt_ Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an international conference. The Algiers resolutions were constructive and positive. In our view and that of the 1Ill!jority of counuies they represent a I'I'iI!ljor step towards the achievement of peace. Isr~el has yet to respond positively to those resolutions and address them with the E!ame degree of rationality and goodwill evinced by the Palestinians. It ls neitheE' reasonable nor useful for Israel or anyone else to ossify Israelis stance regarding the Palestinian people. It is in no onels interest that Israelis position should remain static, showin.g no movement, or that its view of the Palestinian cause should remain narrC1ttl and shortsighted to the extent of denying the Palestinians their legitimate rights and denying the very existence of their cause. As at previous sessions of the <ieneral Assembly, mC!rrbers may hear from the Israeli representative false allegations and flimsy fabrications with the aim of projecting a distorted image of the Palestin fan '2use. This is an ilege that Israel has tried persistently to implant in the minds of the people of the world. It invariably tries to deny the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, allege that: the Arab States are responsible for the plight of the Palestinian refugees, pretend that the Palestine Liberation Organization is a terrorist organization and distort every peacefUl intention Q\ the part of the Palestinians. The Palestinian people, like any other people in the world, have the right to exist and to exercise their inalienable rights on their soil. The inhuman plight of the Palestinian refugees Is the fruit of Israeli aggression and its inhuman practices. l'tlether ex not Israel recognizes it, the Palestine Liberation Organization is a national liberation novement: reooc;nized as such by the majority of countries, . chosen by the Palestinian people and endorsed by the thited Nations as th~ sole, legititilat:e representative of the Palestinian people. Israel must recognize that fact and f'4ce the realit.y as one that it can no lanqer ignore. The decleration on 15 Ncwemer of the establishment of the independent Palestinian State has clarified the situation further and put Israel face to face with the realities of that situation. It has also cmuibuted to defining the road that the process of peace in the Middle Fast must take. Jordan has lived with the Palestinian question in all its aspects and dimensions and has sacrificed a great deal in that connection. It has tried to work earnestly a~d honestly for a peaceful solution to the qUi!Stion in all its aspects, the question that is, despite !sr.ael's denial, the core of the conflict in the Middle East. Jordan's constant aim in all this has been to undo the historic injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people by enabling the refugees to return to 'their soil and those under occupation to achieve their freedom by the ending ol the occupation, so that they may live in dignity and aihieve their destiny like any other people in the worId. That will never be poss ible withou.t genuine peace. Jordan's action in the service of the Palestinian cause stems from the organic link between the Jordanian and the Palest!n ian peoples. This link arises from t.he unity of the two banks of the Jordml and from numerous other close ties. It has always been based on the fact that Jordan is a major party to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jordan has always wanted to serve the just Palestinian cause, and decided to do so by terminaUng all legal and administrative links with the west Bank, in line with the wishes of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Arab unanimity on the need' to enhance the Palestinian identity. We did so out of a real and genuine desLe to contribute qualitatively to the struggle of the Palestinian people. That decision does not in any way mean an abandonment of Jordan's national duties regarding the Palestinian cause or its basic role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The basic dilemma in dealing with the Palestinian cause is Israel's rejection of real peace with the Arabs because peace runs counter to Israel's· objective of expanding its territory and widening its borders in order to attract the largest possible nunber of settlers. This woold enable it, in its estimation, to become a major Power in the region, extend its hegemony OIler its neighbours and, consequently, deal with the world from such a position at the expense of the Palestinians' freedom and at the expense of the neighbouring Arab States. In pursuance of this policy, Israel's Jewish settlements have proliferated in the Arab and Palestinian territories. It has annexed Arab Al-Ouds and the Syrian Arab Golan. It has bunched acts of aggrenion a9ainst thl\! Dovereignty of Lebanon and its territorial integrity. This is proof positive of its inteni:ion to mntinue its oceupatiQ~ and perpetuate its inhuman ~actices against the population of the occupied territories, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant principles of international law. It 10 Israel's view that there can bl! only one state in PalestinE: - that is, Israel. This runs counter to tl1i ted Nations resolutions, foremost among whim is resolution 181 (II). To this end, Israel depends entirely on its military might and imposes a fait accompli. It uses the situation in the area and the competitive relations between the super-Powers to arrogate to itself a strategic role that is not justified by the circul'ftStances of the region or needed by the super-Power which supports Israel in almost all its policies and positions. That super~Power, in our view, does not really need this strategic role that Israel plays. We belie~e in the importance of the role that tha United States can play in restoring peace to the Middla East. '1b play that role Cl more objective attitude and greater attention to the Arab-Israel i mnflict are required. we hope that the incoming Uni ted States Mmin is t:rl!tion will con tr ibute promptly to the solution 0 f the Arab-Israeli conflict and its mnsequPnces, which have extended to Lebanon, and caused it untold suffering as a result of Israel's repeated acts of aggression, interference in its internal l!ffairs and occupation of parts of its territory. This conflict, which has lasted long enough and caused great pain and suffering over the past 40 years, must be settll!!d tt.i<.01Jgh an active approach that reactivates the peace process and gives ita new impetus towards the convening, as soon as possible, of the international peace QOnference, in order to achieve permanent, just and comprehensive peace, thus enabling the peoples of tht! region to enjoy pe~ca and tranquillity and devote their energies to economic development and prosperity, for the well-being of future ~eneraHores. AGENDA ITJ!H 135 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL CCMMITTEE ON THE CHARTER OF THR UNITm NATIONS AND ON THE STRENOl'HENING OF THE ROLE 'OF THE ORGANIZATION: REOORT .OF THE SIX'l'H OJMMI'l'TEE (A/43/886)

Vote: 31/37 Consensus
The President [Spanish] #9278
The Assembly will next take a decision at draft resolution A/43/L.U, entitled "Oil enbargo 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, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Ben!n, 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, Cote d g Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denocratic Kampuchea, Denocratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gamia, German Democratic Republic, Gha."la, 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 Denncratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, M=11ta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozaubique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, poland, Qatar, Ibmania, Rwanda, saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, Sao 'lbme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, SWeden, *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour~ the delegation of New Zealand had intended to abstain. Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Tbgo, Trinidad and Tbbago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab &nirates, United ~Public of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Narn, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Uni ted Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uni ted States of America Abstaining: lE'Jlgium, Botswana, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Israel, Japan, Lesotho, wxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Portugal, Swaziland Draft resolution A/43/L.4l was adopted by 138 votes to 2, with 14 abstentions (resolution 43/50 J) *. *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the Secretar iat that it had intended to vote in favour. a deciscn on draft resolution A/43/L.42, entitled ·Concerted international action for the elimination of apartheid ll • A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour~ Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbacbs, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African ~public, Chad, China, Colombia, Comros, Congo, Costa Rica, COte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Demcratic Kampuchea, oeilOcratic Yemen, Denmark, Dj ibouti, Dominican Republic, F.cuacbr, B;Jypt, El. Salvador, Equa.torial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Ganbia, German Demcratic 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 DellDcratic Republic~ Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, flexioo, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaraqua, Niger, Niger ia, Norway, Qnan, Pak istan , Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, samoa, sao 'lbme and Principe, saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomn Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, SWaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and 'lbbago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, tl1ion of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zanbia, Zimbabwe !'Jainst~ United Kingdom of Great Br ita in and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstainin9~ Germany, Federal Republic of, Portugal Draft resolution A/43/L.42 was acbpted by 149 votes to 2, wi th 2 abstentions (resolution 43/50 K) • * *Subsequently the delegation of Vanuatu advised the secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. The PRmmENT (interpretation from Spanish) ~ I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes on the draft resolutions just adopted. Dame Ann HEROJS (New Zealand) ~ The New Zealand Government agrees with a good deal in the draft resolutions brought before the Assenbly today. We were pleased to be able to co-sponsor two of the texts and to support six in all. I must, however, place on record our continued reserva tions wi th some aspects of the texts just adopted. My delegation was pleased to support draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.l as a result of amendments made to the text this year. In respect of operative paragraphs 1 and 2, I wish hOiiever to note my Governnent's position that it is for individual GoYernments alone to determine the nature of the "appropriate measures· which should be undertaken consistent with this rcesolution. These need not necessar ily be of a legislative na ture. My delegation was not able to support draft resolution A/43/L.30/Rev.l. As we have noted at previous sessions, we are unable to accept an endorsement of the use of force in a manner inconsistent with the United Na tions Chuter. Accordingly, the reference to armed struggle in operative paragraph 2 prevented us from supporting this draft resolution. New Zealand abhors the use of violence and fervently hop<!S that an end to apartheid will come about without resort to armed struggle. We understand and sympathize, however, with the frustration of those who themselves face violent represcion in pursuit of their struggle for a just and democratic South Afr lca. The South African Government itself has encouraged violence in that country by making virtually all peaceful protest illegal. We consider the repressive policies of the South African Governnent beyond justification. on the part of operative parcagraph 3 of draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l that was put to a separate vote. Our abstention was based on a matter of principle. We cannot support the singling out of Japan in this connection when several other countr ies could be ci ted as well. an abstention does not mean that we op{X)se the call for all those countries that have trade relations with SOUth Africa to sever their trade relations, as called for in operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l. In fact, we share the view of the international community that trade relations with South Afr iea, direct or indirect, prolong the inhuman apartheid system. Hr. BORG OLIVIER (Malta); Malta sup{X)rted !'Jeven of the draft resolutions Tl3lating to item 36. My delegation voted in favour of draft .resolutions A/43/L.33 and Corr.l, A/43/L.35 and Corr.l, A/43/L.36 and Corr.l, A/43/L.37 and Corr.l, A/43/L.4l and A/43/L.42, and we are proud to be listed among the sponSOl'S of draft resolution A/43/L.38, which was adopted without a vote. I should na-r like to explain my GoYernment's position 00 draft resolutions A/43/L. 30/Rev.l, A/43/L.31 and Corr.l, A/43/L.32 and Corr.1 and A/43/L. 34 .and Corr .1. Malta abstaine~ in the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.30/Rev.l, entitled "International solidarity wi th the libera tion struggle in South Africa ". In this regard I wish to state that the Government of Malta is unequivocally against the abhorrent policies of apartheid of the GoI1ernment of South Africa, and is fully committed to their total and iJrIJIP-diate eradication. We are determined to support effective measures, including increasing international pressure to bring about the elimination of these {X)licies, which are universally condemned. We also give our We wlderstand that people may have no full support to the front-line Sta tes. choice but to become freedom ftghters ~en they do not have the derrocratic means to achieve their legitimate airr.s. In my Government's view, however, this resolution lIIIly imply more than this. In line with its declared policy of contributing to peaceful solutions of international disputes, renouncing violence and war as instruments of policy, we have wi th great reluctance abstained on draft resolution A/43/L.30/Rev.l even though we agree with mst of the provisions contained in it. My delegation abstained in the vote 00 draft resolution A/43/L.3l and Corr .1, entitled "Military collaboration with South Afr iea ", and on draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l,' entitled "Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa". The reason for our abstention is the singling out of individual States by name in these texts. As we have stated on many occasions, Malta does not supp;:irt this practice. Finally, the delegation of Malta abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.34 and Corr.l, entitled "Relations between South Africa and Israel. I wish to stress again Malta's unequivocal opposition to the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa and our determination to support action aimed at the elimination of these 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 this draft resolution. Mr. FRE{I)ER3CHUSS (Austria): Austria is on record as having consistently condemned and opposed the policies of apartheid as a particularly serious violation of human rights, depriving the mjorityof South Africa's popUlation of their ci~.ril and political rights. We therefore hold the view that the eradication of this system of institutionalized racial discrimination remains one of the most important challenges confronting the United Nations. For these reasons, we find ourselves in agreement wi th the general thrust of the texts subm!tted under this item. 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 Austr ia cannot support prevented us from voting in favour of some of the draft resolutions • ... In particular, Austria has always held the view that the thited Nations should concentrate all its efforts on bringing about p:>litical and social change by peaceful m~anB. Therefore, we cannot support the concept of armed struggle since we firmly believe in the resolution of conflicts exclusively by peaceful means. We should also like to reiterate that, as a natter of principle, Austria is against singling out Member States in General Assembly resolutions. In our view this practice does not prollDte the cause of the oppressed people in Sou th 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 those considerations Austria has sponsored draft resolutions A/43/L.38 and L.42. Furthermore, we have voted in favour of A/43/L.35 and Corr.l, L.36 and Cort.l and L.41. Austr ia has absta ined on A/43/L. 30/Rev.l, L.31 and Corr.l, L.32 and Corr.l, L.33 and Corr.l and L.37 and Corr.l, and has cast a negative vote on A/43/L.34 and Corr.l for the reasons stated. Our positive attitude 1:0 the main thrust of the resolutions just adopted reflects our support for a free, denocratic and non-racial society ina united South Africa, based on the free exercise of universal suffrage. Ms. WIacFS (Australiah The Australian Government's continued and implacable opposi don 1:0 apa! theid was made abundantly clear in our sta tement in the plenary meeting last Wednesday. We have sponsored twc? of the resolutions before us and have endeavoured to be as forthcoming as possible on others. While we supp:>rt the broad thrust of most of the texts, our support should not be construed as an agreement to all the elements contained in them. For example, we retain our well-known reservations with respect to the legitimacy of armed *Mr. Moushoutas (Cyprus), Vice-President. took the Chair. struggle, the Convention against !.partheid in Sport and the selective singling out of particular Member States in resolutions. Australia's support for, and current appl ication of, sanctions was set out in our statement last wednesday. We believe that for such sanctions to be effective they must be broadly applied by the whole international oomnunity, including South Africa's major trading partners. Pending such sanctions, Austral ia has tat~en a range of measures whicl1 include mst of those set out in operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.1, a resolution which we have just supported, but I should point out that the Australian Government is not at this stage consider ing extending its measures to include bans on the import of all minerals or to include sea links or other transport connections with South Afri~. My delegatioo found itself unable to vote in favour of draft resolution A/43/L.37 and Corr.1. While we fully support the aim of disseminating information about apartheid, we are concerned with the thrust of the resolution which criticizes the running of the Department of Public Information and calls, without any consideration of priority-setting, for more resources for programmes to conba t apartheid. These issues run to the heart of efforts to encourage adninistrative re form and pr iority-se tting • QJr continu.ing support for the broad thrust of the resolutions just adopted reflects my GoIIernment's belief that we must cootinue to send a clear and unmistakable message to South Africa that its apartheid policies cannot and will not be tolerated by the international community. Hr. roRO (COte d'Ivoire) (interpretation from French) ~ My delegation abstained in the vote 00 draft resolution A/43/L.34 and Corr.l, relating to relations between South Africa and Israel, because of the selective nature of its cootent, but we voted in support of all the other draft resolutions under agenda item 36, because those resolutions are geared to the objective to which we all aspire, namely, the disrnantlingof apartheid in South Africa. However, we should like to emphasize that the votes that we have just cast should in no circumstances be interpreted as challenging the policy of dialogue defined and practised by President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, President of Cote d I Ivo ire for some 20 years • Mr. INSANALLY (Glyana):. The Q:)vernment of Glyana is fully committed to all endeavours by the United Nations to bring maxinum pressure to bear on South Africa. We are convinced that it is ally through such concerned international action that the racist regime in Pretoria will be forced from its fortress of apartheid and made to relinquish its cruel rule over the South Afr ican people. We have accordingly supported all the resolutions before us, including draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr.l, deal ing with comprehensive mandatory sanctions. However, I should like to explain why we abstained in the recorded vote on paragraph 3 of the last-mentioned resolution. As a menber of the COlIIJIDnwealth Cornmittee of Foreign Ministers on South Africa, Guyana is actively involved, along with the other menbers, in the task of proliDting the widening, tightening and intensification of economic and other sanctions against South Africa. An interim report submitted to the Committee at its last meeting in Toronto concluded that trade sanctions are having a discernible impact on South Africa, that its economy is comJ.re':J under pressure, and that the impact of sanctions ,,1111 be enha.'1ced if the sanctions themselves are more widely adopted and their application i"tensified and tightened. In the light of that conclusion, the Committee agreed that a serious diplomatic campaign should be molmted to persuade those countries which are still engaged in si911ificant trade with South Afr ica that such Wlhelpful relations nust be completely severed. 'lb that end, an actioo plan was agreed upon for individual and concer ted aemarches on States which have so far not adopted COJllm)nwealth measures or whose trade practices in relatioo to South Africa are diminishing the impact of COJII!IDnweal th sanctions. As far as we know, that diplomatic dialogue is currently in progress, offer ing hope of a pasi tive response from the Governments concerned. At this stage, therefore, my delegation would not wish to Cb anything which might prejudice that effort by discouraging the prospects of expanded co-operation. We should therefore prefer to refrain, at least on this occasion, from singling out a particular State for dishonourable mention. ~r absf""ntion is therefore no mre them a gesture of encouragement to thos/e Governments which profess their intention to heed the call for stricter measures against the Pretoria regime to do so as quick~.(.y as possible. The international community will not be satiSfied wi th anything less than a total prohibition of trade with SOuth Africa. A clear message JIllst be given to those who exploit apartheid that they will I:eceive no comfort from civilized nations, which are opposed to their polic;'es. We have conveyed this by voting for all the draft resolutions, and particularly for draft resolution A/43/L.32 and Corr .1. I should like to conclude by saying how sad we are to have learned this morning of the untimely death of John MalCatini, a valiant and untiring soldier in the fight against apartheid. We shall certainly miss his familiar face here at the Uni ted Nations. Mr. MCDONAGH (Ireland), Ireland shares the views expressed by the representative of Greece in his statement on behalf of the 12 Merrber States of the European Community. in the statement which we delivered during the debate. In keeping with the views set out in that statement, Ireland supported five of the resolutions before us today, two of which we sponsored. We abstained on five of the draft resolutions and voted against one. We voted in favour of A/43fL.35, on the prograll1l1e of work of the ~(;)cial· Committee against Apartheid. We strongly support the work of the Spe~!al Committee. I shoulc add, of course, that ou~ attitude to the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Committee must be understood in accordance with the general policy of my Government, outlined in our statements made in this Assellbly. Ireland voted in favour of A/43/L.4l, which deals with the question of an oil enbaL"go against South Afdca. My Ccwernment has for many years favoured the imposition by the security Council of a mandatory oil embargo against SOuth Africao Ireland sponsored draft resolution A/43/L.42, on concerted inteL~ational action against apartheid which, inter alia, urges the Security Council to consider the adoption of effective mandatory sanctions against South Africa. We also sponsored draft resolution A/43/L.38, on the united Nations Ti:'ust Fund for South Africa. Ireland abstained on draft resolution A/43/t.30, which calls fox .international solidarity with the liberation struggle in South Africa•. We should have liked to vote in favour of that draft resolution as it contains many provisions which we support. However, we cannot accept the reference to armed struggle. My delegation has made it clear in the past that we do not wish to see this Asseitbly endorse violence. Ireland abstained on draft resolution A/43/L.31, on military collaboration wi th South Africa. we fully support the Security Council arms emargo but none the less do not believe it appropriate to aingle out in a selective way the fi&meS of certain States as is done in this draft resolution. Ireland decided to abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/43/L.32, which calls for comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against aouth Africa. We support the application by the Security Council of a range of mandatory sanctions against South Afr iea. We believe, however, that the right policy for the international community is one of steady and graduated pressure for change tbrough carefully chosen, selective, graduated sanctions. Such sanctions should be mandatory - that is, imposed by the Security Council and fully implemented by all. I should also add that the encouragement given in this draft resolution to States to ratify the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports poses difficulties for us. The International Convention unfortunately contains a nunber of provisions which are incompatible with Ireland's Constitution. I reland abstained on draft resolution A/43/L.33, on the imposition and co-ordinaticn of measures against South Africa. We agree with the broad thrust of the draft resolution but certain of its formlations and elements cause us di fficul ties. we abstained on draft resolution A/43/L.37, on the dissemination of information against the policies of apartheid. We believe that the prerogatives of the secretary-General r.egarding staff recruibner.t must be respected. We cannot accept an undermining of the consensus agreed earlier this year in the Commi ttee for Programme and C~rdination regarding restructuring and staffing levels. As in previous years, Ireland voted against draft resolution A/43/L. 34, on relations between Israel and South Africa, in view of iu selective singling out of one memer State of this Assenbly for coodemation. Mrs. CASiRO de BARISH (Costa Rica) (interpretation from Spanish) ~ Costa Rica joins in the expressions of sympathy at the death of Mr. Johnny *katini, who, as we have heard from the representative of Ghana, was a signal defender of the South African people and a tireless worker for the eradication of apartheid. The firm position of Costa Rica against the policies of apartheid of the South African Government goes back to the beginning of the consideration of this important item. Our delegation has participated from the outset - for eight years, in the Special Commi ttee against Apartheid, of which Costa Rica was for several years a Vice-Chairman. Our rejection of the pernicious system of apartheid has been reiterated in every forum where that harmful and hateful policy has been considered, and we have supported the imp:>aition of compreh~nsive and mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of thre Charter as an appropriate, effective and peaceful means of putti~g an end to apartheid. ~ delegation lent its support to draft resolution A/43/L.30/Rev.l with b'1e same interest and solidarity wi th which it has supported other draft resolutions on agenda item 36. Nevertheless, Costa Rica reiterates what it has said many times in other forums and in this Assemly: that we cannot support a reference to armed struggle in a General Assenbly resolution. Costa Rica prefers the peaceful means prOlTided by the United Nations Charter for the attainment of goals of such deep interest to all Members of the Organization. Time is increasingly teaching us that those means are rruch more effective than armed struggle. My delegation also supported draft resolution A/43. L. 31, on military collaboratioo with South Africa, and we concur that full implementation of an arms emarga against South Afr iea is an essential element of international action against apartheid. Nevertheless we regret the following selective wording in paragraph 1: "in particular, certain western States and Israel". We expressly reserve our POSitioo on that phrase because, as we have said, we do not subscr ibe to selective references to Menber States, which are discriminatory and do not strengthen but rather weaken the effect of texts, since it is clear that without such selective references draft resolutions would receive Jl'Uch broader and more significant support from the General As~en:bly and thus send a stronger, more effective message to the Pretoria regime. Wi th regard to draft resolution A/43/L.32, we have supported this draft as '" whole again this year because we agree with what it say$ on comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of SOuth Africa. However, we have reservations 00 pnragraph 3, which singles out me country, Japan. we do not agree that resolutions should selectively refer to certain countries. For that ~eason we voted against the phrase "and, particularly, Japan, which recently emerged as the mst important trading partner of South Africa". We believe that without that phrase paragraph 3 might have been more effective in calling upon those States which have increased their trade with South Africa to sever trade relations with that country. We regret the retention of the phrase. We voted in favour of the draft resolution to reaffirm that apartheid is a er ime of lese-humanite and a threat to international peace and security. We share the view that it is the responsibility of the international oomnunity to cantr ibute to the efforts of the united NatiG'ls to eliminate apartheid withoot further delay. Finally, we were obliged to abstain on draft resolution A/43/L.34, entitled "RelatiooG between South Afdca and Israel", which also expresses a selective point of view, because we do not believe Israel to be the only country that maintains relationa wi th South Africa and we feel that the adop'Uoo of a draft resolution singling out tt1at country is unjustified. As always, we voted in favour of the other draft resolutions on this item. We shall continue supporting all efforts by the United Nations to eradicate !.partheid. Hr. CA CDSTA PBRE~A (Portugal): The PerllBnent Representative of Greece has already expressed the common views of the 12 menber Sutes of the European Comnunity on the draft resolutions just adopted regarding the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. Portugal has denounced and cmdenned, not only in the tl'li ted Hations but also in other forums the immorality and injustice which are the main features of the apartheid and bantustanization systems aimed at the perpetuation of political, economic;:, social and r.ultural discr imination, which is at the root of the continuing worsening of the internal situation in that country. The South African Government must embark once and for all on a sincere effort to establish a dialogue with all the different communities in its country, in order to make the Republic of So~th Africa a multiracial and democratic society. Only the elimination of the oppressive- system of apartheid will make possible the climate of confidence which South Africa needs in order to establish genuine political stability, so essential to the normal development of all the comtries of the r t. ton. My delegation was not able to support all the draft resolutions. Although we concur wi th the thrust of many of their essential proposals, we still have reservations of principle regarding certain aspects of them. For instance, tie do not agree that United Nations draft resolutions, such as draft resolution A/43/t.30 and Corr .1, should endorse violence, whatever its form, as being the only choice in redressing situations of injustice. On the contrary, they should rather encourage the preservation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. FurtherllDre, we believe that the isolation of South Afr iea would only hamper the initiatives of all those who are fighting inside the country for fundamental reforms in the prison system. We also cannot support verbal violence and certain discriminatory references for the total iSOlation of SOuth Africa, including provisions to sever all air, sea and other transport links with South Africa, as contained in draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.l. My delegatim abstained on the draft resolution <Xl caloerted internaticmal action for the elimination of apartheid. We would like to stress that we cannot endorse some of the formulations in its prenbular and operative parts, such as, the introduction of the ninth pread;)ular paragraph. we do not believe that the most effecUve way to dismantle apartheid and help the people of south Africa is to impose comprehensive economic sanctions. We sincerely believe that only world-wide consensus can be the basis for effective international pressure to restore to the majority of the Sbuth African population its legitimate rights. Mr. MORIN (uruguay) (interpretaticn from Spanish); My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/43/L.31, and Carr.l, on military collaboration with South Africa, beoause we share the view that a closely co-ordinated effort is needed to apply the arms embargo on South Africa under Security Council resolution 419 (1977). However, my delegation wishes once again to express OU~ opposition to the practice of singling out States for their conduct as being discriminatory and not contributing to our atms in this case, the strict implementation of the arms embargo imposed on South Africa. This singling out of cOlntries does not promote the kind of international consensus necessary for the co-ordinated action needed to bring about the elimination of apartheid. Accordingly, we believe that all Member States have a responsibility to implement the measu~es provided fOr. In conformity with this position, had there bElen a separate vote on operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution A/43/L.31 and Cou.l, my de1t!gction would have abst:a tned • (Hr. Os Costa Pereira, Portugal) Hr. GMBA (Niger ia) ~ Once again the melfber States of the Organization have cast their votes on the draft resolutions just adopted. I believe that the people of So~th Africa nOlI know, if they did not knCM before, who their true friends are. Last year, the Special Committee against Apartheid took great pains to make both its report and its draft resolutions palatable. I now believe that the struggle in southern Africa is a universal struggle. It was heartening that many delegations took note of this and, indeeo, praised the efforts of the special COllU1littee • This appracia tion, however, was no~ ;- ....slated into pos i tive votes, with the exception of a few cases. This year the st:>ansors of the various draft resolutions tried to retain the same format and approach to the draft resolutions. We are therefore surprised and frustrated at some of the voting patterns we have noticed this year. The Special Committee will study the results of the voting and the explanations proffered so far. At this stage, however, I feel that, speaking on behalf of the sponsors, we are rather disapJ.X>inted, because some of the explanations had more to do wi th semantics than substance. I am, however, pleased to see the continued support of the Nordic countries, Canada, New Zealand and Al,1stralia for' draft resolution A/43/L.33 and Corr.!. We appreciate their shift from last year's abstention to a positive vote on a draft resolution to which the Special Committee pays particular attention. We also note with satisfaction that i .'·the General Assembly has eacided by consensus to hold a special session next Septelfber on apartheid. We similarly note the abstentions of France and the Federal RtiJpublic of Germany on the draft resolutions on an oil embargo. We have, noted also the explanation prOYided by the President of the General Assembly concerning the financial implications of draft resolutions A/43/L.30 and Corr.l, L.32 and Corr.l to L.36 and Corr.l, and L.4l, according to which the Secretary-General will make every effort to absorb the expenditure of $57,000 relating to the hearings on an oil embargo and $88,000 relating to information activities of the Department of Public Information. According to the statement of the President, the Secretary-General, in accordance with standard practice, will report the actual financial requirements for the implementation of these draft resolutions in the final performance report. I At this point, let me say a few words on the question of name-calling, which we continue to hear about year after year. If the Special Committee has consistently mentioned various countries, particularly the united States and the United Kingdom, it is because of their stand in the Security Council on the question of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions. We have not in any way coodemned them. On the con trary, we are appeal ing to them to change the ir policies and join the international comrrunity on the imposition of sCl'lctions. Indeed, as .. the Committee did last year, we sent a copy of our report and the draft resolutions before their adoption to the permanent menbers of the Secur ity Council with a view to obtaining their comments, if any, before a vote was taken. Apar:t from the United Kingdom, nonf" of them deigned even to acknowledge receipt of the report, so it is rather surprising to come here and be accused of using extravagant language and so on. let me say a few words about Japan's request for a separate vote on one of the paragraphs. Japan has become the primary trading partner of South Africa. That is why it is mentioned. We have not condermed Japan, and I hope th&t next year its name will not be mentioned, given the recent efforts of the Japanese Go'Iernment. But let me make it clear that a slight reduction in trade figures - figures that are cootestable - or the appreciatioo of a currency does not excuse any country doing business with South Africa. We will continue to point this out to the General Assenbly and to ask it foe support in trying to stop these dealings wi th South Afr ica • Lastly, on behalf of the Special Committee, I should like to express our deepest condolences to the African National Congress and to the family of Hr. Johnny Makatini, who passed away at the weekend. Hr. Makatini, a dear comrade and friend, worked closely wi th the Special Commi ttee aga inst Apar theid in his capacity as Director of the Department of International Affairs of the ANC. We shall rememer him as a colleague and fr iend whose convictions led him to work tirelessly for the freedom of his country and for the realization of the vision of a non-racial and denocratic South Africa. The PRESIDENT\ In accordance with the decision taken by the General Assenbly at its third plenary meeting, held on 23 Septenber 1988, I now call upon the representative of the African National Congress of South Africa. Mr. HAFOLE (Afn an National Congress of South Africa (AMC»: In its intervention during the debate on agenda item 36 - policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa - the delegation of the African National Congress (!\NC) stated that for the ANC and for the people of South Africa the debate should not be seen as a purely routine General Asserrbly matter, that the oppressed people of South Africa were lookillg to these deliberations with high expectations, the question uppermost in their minds being whether the peoples of the world, gathered here, can match their proclaimed abhorrence of apartheid with serious and conce&ted action to eliminate apartheid. We have now gone through the voting process, and I think there are very good lessons to be drawn from the exercise. we may S"ly that to some extent the voting has vindicated the position of the inte.rnational o..'ml'll1nity - namely, wholesale catdemnation of ~partheid. We can say that the voting pattern has underlined general agreement in the international cornl'll1nity on the need to eliminate !partheid. we think that this is very important, particularly at a time when the Preter ia regime has been rnak 1ng ser ious effor ts to project i tsel f as a reformer and is thereb:, seeking to divert the attentioo of the international community from its actio:s inside South Afr iea. We therefore wish to thank very sincerely all those delegations that have voted for these reSOlutions. We want to register our deepest appreciation of this act of solidarity. We should like, however, to note with grave concern that some countries have not seen their way to vote in favour of all the draft resolutions presented to the Assembly. We note that in a nunber of cases the negative vote was prompted by the desire to continue to profit from apartheid. We think that this is highly unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it is likely to give the wrong signals to the apartheid regime. BJt, more important, this reluctance by some Memer States tends to weake~ the efforts of the international community to act decisively in the struggle to destroy ~artheid. During the exp13nations of vote, a nunber of delegations expressed their reservations concerning the references to' armed struggle. Permit me to address thi~ question, even if very briefly. For many years the oppressed people of South Africa· have been told to abandon armed struggle. We are told that the ~ay forward, the way towards change in South Af":'ica, is through dialogue. We should like to reiterate here that the ARC, as a matter of principle, has never been opposed to dialogue. Indeed, for alnost 50 years of its history the ANC has not only advocated peaceful struggle against racial oppression but also, throughout this per iod, suffered tremendously at the hands of the regime's repressive machinery. It was only when the apartheid regime arbitrarily closed all avenues of peaceful agi tation by declaring the ANC and other organizations illegal that the ANC turned to other means of struggle, including armed struggle. We contend that this is not an e*,eptional case. Indeed, history abounds with evidence of countries that were born as a resu! t of having errbarked successfully on armed struggle. The history of the United States is a typical example. But as that is fairly deep in history, and as memories are inclined to fade, we should like to remind the Assembly that we are very proud that participating in this debate as menbers of the international community are a nunber of countries that enbarked successfully on armed struggle for independence. The South African regime has caatinued to slam the door on peaceful formg of struggle. Only in February this year a nunber of organizations - denocratic, peaceful organizations - were outlawed. In this way the regime was stressing that it was prepared to sit down and have discussions with the oppressed majority of South Africa. In these circumstances the people of South Africa never cease to be amazed at the lectures that we continue to receive from soma sectors about the virtues of peaceful struggle. It is beyond us to understand how we can be expected to use democrl'ltic methods when we as the major ity have been excluded from the denocratic process. This we cannot understand, anei this we shall seek to explain each year, every year, at all times, to the menbers of the international co11U1l1nity so that they may understand and empathize with the people of South Africa. Allow me, on behalf of the National Executive Committee of the ANC eu.d on behalf of the ber.eaved family of Hr. Johnny Makatini, to place on record sincere grati tUde for the words of condolence expressed by the Anbassador of Ghana, on behalf of the Afr iean Group, and also the words of encouragement from the Ambassador of Zimbabwe and from many others, inclUding the President of the General Assembly. Allow me also to take this opportunity to thank the international community for all the assistance it has given to the people of South Africa and to pledge that we shall continue the struggle until victory is achieved. This, in our view, will be the best tribute that the African National Congress can pay to the menory of Hr. Johnny f.fakatini and all the fallen heroes in our struggle. ••••••••••••••••0 (Hr. Mafole, ANC) General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of repl'- limi ted to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for intervention and should be made by delegations from ~eir seats. Count YORK vcn WARTEteURG (~deral Republic of Germany): Last 'l\Jee(,ay , in his statement on agenda item 36, the Ambassador of Ghana referred to the alleged sale of blueprin ts for submarines to Sou th Africa and a ttacked my country's foreign policy directly, with allegations that we can only deeply regret and that surprise us all the more as the Federal Republic of Germany sees i tsel f <..1~ in the for tuna te position of maintaining fr iendly and excellent relations with Ghana. In his statement, Anibassador Gbeho said~ ·We regret to have to say that the transaction has called into question the <.;;cedib!lityof the f ...·-r.eign policy of a country which is so close to us". (A/43/PV.63, p. 11) We are under the impression thst Ghana generally does not have any problems wi th the cre-Ubility of our foreign policy and we have proceeded to date on the assumption that that also applies to the Ghanaian delegation in New York. We sincerely hope, therefore, that the Ghanaian delegation in New York will accord due importance to official informati.on provided by the Government of the Fede~al Republic of Germany instead of relying on other sources of information. Once again, I should like to state that all allegations according to which the supply of blueprints fO!: submarines to South Africa was apprOl7ed by my GWfolr."1"I{i:f:t &re completely deoloid of &ny foundation. There can be no question that the author ities called upon to do so under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany are conducting intensive ...~" ; .....T'· • investigations into any alleged illegal transaction falling under the arms enbatgo.. We can but hope that in other countries, too, allegations of illegal actions will be investigated in the same intensive and thorough manner. Miss AL~ULLA (Kuwait) 'to It was with deep sorr"" that my delegation learned of the untimely ds th of our colleague, Johnny Makatini. Kuwai t should like to express its condolences to the people of South Afr iea and to the Afr lean National Cmgrese. We have known him in our: midst to be an energetic personal!ty ever struggling for justice, truth and freedom. we promise him our continued support and solidarity ii'l that endeavour. 'lb bcxrCN a description by the representative of Zinbilbwe, the statement by the Israeli deleg.3tion last wednesday Is like -air pollution". The reference the Israeli delega ticn made to the question of an oil emargo lacks both accuracy and sincerity. That delegation alleges that its information on oil shipments to South Africa is based on data prOlrided by the Shipping Research Bureau. The last time the Is~aeli delegation prepared a report m the subject, the Shipping lesearch Bureau found fault with it. The Israeli delegation might explain to the Asseml)' why the Bm-eau ccncluded that the report -shows a large nunber of misrepresentations and inaccuracies-. True to its distorted view of the struggle against ap~rtheid, the position of the Israeli delegation lacks sincerity. If it is so concerned about the ability of South Africa to obtain oil, it might explain first the nature of mixed-cargo vessels, some of which call between South Africa and Israel. It might explain, secof'dty, why it chose to abstain on draft resolution A/43/L.41. It might explain why it is even trailing behind some Western countries that have adopted more effective measures against apartheid. It might eJ:plain why it chose to vote against three and to abotain on five of the 11 draft resolutions presented this IIIOrning. intergovernrrental group that monitors the supply and shipnent of oil to SoIJth Africa. In its reference, the Israeli delegation said that the 'eport of the group singles out Arab countries' complicity in oil shipments to South Africa. On behalf of the menber s of the group, I should like to state that, far from being true, the reference distorts the content of the report and the very nature of the group's work. The g!'oup comnunic::ates with Governmenta 00 the basis of information on alleged violations of the embargo. The alleged violatioo involves not only the exporter but the transporter and the trader. Investigation is then begun. It is the communication between the group and the delegations coocerned that is reflected in the report. It is the co-operation of States with the group that is helping the enforcement of the oil embargo, rather than allegations of the sort that the Assembly was subjected to. Hr. mER) (Ghana); My delegation has listened with rapt attention to and taken note of the right of reply just exercised by the Ambassador of the Federal Tlepublic of Germany. In his statement, the Ambassador asked me to accord importa:nce to the official inforrnatim provided by his GoITernment on the delica te question of the sup~ly of bluepr ints of a naval submar ine to the Government of south Africa. Of course, my delegation does accord importance to information given by the Government of the Federal RepUblic of Germany. But I hope it is understood that we reserve the right to draw our own conclusions from the important pieces of information gAven. In any case, if the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany finds it necessary to order an erquiry into the affair after the GoITernment of the Federal Republic of Germany's informatioo was provided, perhaps it is not surprising that the Ghana delegation finds itself on the sane side as the Bundestag. While I am generally in sympathy with the statement made by my colleague from the Federeol Republic of Germany, I wish to clarify to him and to his delegatioC1 that there is no difference in the perceptioo and policies of the Government of Ghana and the Ghana delegation in New York, and that what I have said about the involvement of his Gcwernment in the transaction represents not only the conviction of my delegation and my Govern~nt, but also the conviction of the people of Ghana. It is therefore wi th the undisputed authority of the Ghana Government that my delegation speaks in this forum. (Mr. Gbeho, Ghana) We are not unimpressed by the cmtinuation of ini:ensive investigations with regard to the sale of ,blueprints, to the extent that it evinces a desire for absolution on the part of the Federal Government in what can ooly be described as an unfortunate event. Prom a country with such influence we can expect and demand mly the highest standards of credence and forthrightness in matters as important as the arms en'bargo imposed against Sotllt:h Africa by no less a body t', .... the security Council. Of course we are hopeful that the assurances given as to thorough inve9tigations being condtacted are a statement reflecting not the sentiments of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany but R!deral Government policy in a matter of considerable importance to the Government of Ghana. The l<RESmBNT: In connection with this agenda item" I should like to draw the at~ntion of the menbers of the Assemly to resolution 34/93 R of 17 Decemer 1979, whereby the President, in consultation wi th the Cha irmen of the regional groups, is requested to expand the memership of the Special Committee against Apartheid. Pursuant to consultaUons with the Chairmen of regional groups I htwe appointed Zinbabwe a men'ber of the Special Committee. May I take it that the Assembly takes note of the appointment? It was so decided. The PRESmBNT, I call en the representative of zaire on a point ef order. Mr. LUKABU KHABOUJI N'ZAJI (zaire) (interpretation from French): It is not a point of order, Sir, but I wanted to make a st.etement in connection with the decision you have just announced to expand the Special Commi ttee against Apartheid. The PRJ1SmDfT, I am sorry, but the Assembly has already taken a decision on that matter. I advise the representative of zaire to find other1l'ays of expressing his thoughts on this subject. The Asseli'bly has concluded its consideratien of agenda item 36.
Vote: A/43/L.38 Recorded Vote
✓ 132   ✗ 1   21 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (130)
The President #9279
I call on the Rapporteur of the Sixth COIIIt\i ttee, Mr. Carlos Velasco Mendiola of Peru, to introduce the report of the Sixth Committee. Hr. VELASC'f) MENDIOIJ\ (Peru), Rztpporteur of the Sixth COJ\1I\ittee (interpretatiQ'l fr')Jft Spanish): I havl! the honour to introduce to the General Assembly the report of the Sixth Committee (A/43/8a6) under agenda item 135, entitled "Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the Unite~ Nations and on the Strengthening of the Rete of the Organization". As may be observed, the report of the sixth Committee refers to two draft resolutions which it recommends to the General Assembly for adoption. However, as' ia indicated in the Journal, the General Assenbly is today in a position to take a decision on the first draft resolution only, pending receipt of the necessary documents relating to the programme budget implications of the second draft resolution, which will therefore be submitted separately at'a lat~r time. Oraft resolution I, which the Sixth Ccmmittee recommends to the General Assembly for adoption, is to be found in paragraph 14 of the report. The second and third preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution ref~r to the task carried out by ~he Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthenil)g of the Role of the Organization wi th regard to the final preparation of a draft declaration on the prevention and removal of disputes and situations which may threaten international peace and security and on the role of (Hr. Salah, Jordan) the United Nations in this field, and express the conviction that the adoption of the declaration will contribute to strengthening the role of the United Nations and enhance its effectiveness in maintaining international peace and security. By operative paragraph 1, the Assembly would approve the declaration, the text of which is annexed to the draft resolution, and by paragraph 4 it would urge that all efforts be made so that the declaration becomes generally known and fully implemented. I should like to refer now to the declaration on the prevention and rellDval of disputes and situations which may threaten international peace and security and on the role of the united Nations in this field. In the first, eleventh and twelfth prearnbular paragraphs the declaration addresses the question of the important role that the United Nations and its organs can play in the prevention and removal of international disputes and situations whose continuance may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, and accordingly recalls the functions and responsibilities which the Uni.ted Nations Charter entrusts to the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General. In the operative part, the General Assembly would solemnly declare that States should fulfil their obligations under international law in good faith and prevent the emergence or deterioration of disputes or situations. It would, inter alia, also declare that States involved in such international disputes or situations should conduct themselves in such a way as to strengthen the system of collective security envisaged in the Charter, and accordingly such States should consider approaching the relevant organs of the United Nations to obtain advice or recommendations on means of preventing a dispute or situation. In the declaration a broad range of actions are envisaged that could be carriec out by the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, in order better to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to them under the Charter. The Sixth Committee adopted draft resolution I without a vote. The PRESIDENT~ If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it the General Assenbly decides not to discuss the report of the Sixth Committee before the Assembly today. It was so decided. The PRESIDENT, Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Sixth Committee hAve been made clear in the Committee .and are reflected in the relevant official records. I remind menbers that by paragraph 7 of decision 34/401 the General Assellbly agreed that "When the sa,me draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation shOUld, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either inthe:Comrnittee or in plenary meeting unless that Clelegation's vote in plenary meeting from its vote in the Committee." I remind representatives that, as stated by the Rap~rteur of the Sixth CQmmit.tee in his introduction, the Assembly will today consider only t."te first draft resolution contained in paragraph 14 of the r.aport of the Sixth Committee (A/43/886) • The ~'.ssembly will now proceed to tc~ke a decision on draft r:esolution I, entitled "Declaration a'l the prevention and removal of disputes and situations which may threaten international peace and security and on the role of the United Nations in this field." The Sixth Committee adopted draft resolution I without a vote. May I take it tha t the Assenbly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 43/52).
Vote: A/43/L.4l Recorded Vote
✓ 138   ✗ 2   14 abs.
Show country votes