Aid to liberation movements in South Africa urged.

The General Assembly has declared that the United Nations and the international community have a "special responsibility: towards the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movements in their struggle against apartheid and to establish a non-racial democratic society.

In an amnibus resolution on the situation in South Africa, the Assembly called on all States and organizations to provide the necessary "moral, political and material assistance" to those liberation movements recognized by the Ojrganization of African Unity (OAU) "at this crucial stage of their struggle for liberation".

The Assembly on 5 December approved a total of 11 texts under its item on "policies of apartheid of South Africa". A twelfth resolution on the subject, declaring invalid the results of the recent South African all-white referendum on Constitutional proposals, including establishment of a three-house Parliament divided along racial lines, had been approved on 15 November at the beginning of the Assembly's debate on the item.

The drafts approved in December called for an end to collaboration with the South African regime, including assistance provided by certain Western Powers, particularly by th United States and Israel. The Assembly also called for actiion to impose sanctions against South Africa, including an oil embargo, cessation of nuclear co-operation and an end to all foreign investment in that country. Acts of aggression by South Africa against neighbouring African States were condemned.

By the omnibus text, 38/39 A, approved by a vote of 124 in favour to 16 against, with 10 abstentions, the Assembly again urged the Security Council to impose "comprehensive and mandatory" sanctions against South Africa, and urgently called on the International Monetary Fund to terminate credits or other aid to it. It also recognized the right of the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movements "to resort to all means at their disposal, including armed struggle" in their resistance. It demanded release of persons detained for their opposition to apartheid; return of political exiles; lifting of bans on political and other organizations and media opposed to apartheid; and termination of all political trials and repressive measures against apartheid opponents.

Those voting against were: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States.

Those abstaining were: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Spain and Sweden.

In a second resolution, 38/39 C, adopted by 146 votes in favour to 2 against (Paraguay, United States), with 4 abstentions (Federal Republic of Germany, Guatemala, Malawi, United Kingdom), the Assembly condemned South African aggression against Angola, Lesotho and Mozambique and threats against independent African States in southern Africa, adn demanded that all its troops "be immediately and unconditionally withdrawn" from Angola. Acts of "destabilization" and an economic blockade against Lesotho were strongly condemned.

The international community was called on to provide assistance to independent African States in the subregion to enable them to defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity "and to counter the hostile South African acts of aggression and to rebuild their economies". The Security Council was asked to consider, as a matter of urgency, "the means to ensure peace in southern Africa"

Under resolution 38/39D, adopted by a vote of 122 in favour to 10 against, with 18 abstentions, the Assembly asked the Security Council to consider action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter towards comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. states were asked to take action against corporations and interests that violated the mandatory arms embargo against South Afirca.

The Assembly, in resolution 38/39 I, adopted by 140 in favour to one against (United States), with 9 abstentions (Botswana, Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Ivory Oast, Lesotho, Malawi, United Kingdom), again urged the Security Council to consider at an early date the matter of the cessation of all new foreign investments in, and financial loans to South Africa, with a view to taking effective steps to achieve that end.

By a fifth text, 38/39 J, adopted by a vote of 130 in favour to 6 against (Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourgh, United Kingdom, United States), with 14 abstentions, the Assembly reaffirmed its recommendation to the Security Council to consider urgently a mandatory embargo on the supply of petroleum and petroleum products to South Africa, under Charter Chapter VII.

It also renewed its authorization to the Secretary-General to organize an International Conference on an oil Mebargo against South Africa to consider national and international arrangements to ensure the implementation of such embargoes or policies. States concerned were also asked to take effective action against corporations and tanker companies involved in the illicit supply of oil to South Africa.

Two resolutions were adopted referring to relations of specific countries with South Africa.

In resolutions were adopted referring to relations of specific countries with South Africa.

In resolution 38/39 G, adopted by a vote of 122 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, iTaly, Paraguay, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States), with 17 abstentions, the Assembly strongly condemned the actions of certain Western States and Israel, which provided South Africa with an "enormous arsenal of military equipment and technology", as well as with nuclear assistance. It condemned the recent United States decision approving the request from seven corporations to provide technological and maintenance service to South African nuclear installations.

It also urged the Security Council to take mandatory decisions to ensure the total cessation of all military and nuclear co-operation with "the racist regime of South Africa" by Governments, corporations, institutions and individuals. Manoeuvres to create military pacts or arrangements with South Africa's participation were also condemned.

A text on relations between Israel and South Africa (38/39 F) was approved by a vote of 106 in favour to 18 against, with 17 abstentions. The Assembly demanded Israel "desist from and terminate" all forms of its continuing and increasing collaboration with South Africa, particularly in the military and nuclear fields. All Governments and organizations were asked to exert their influence to persuade Israel to desist from such collaboration.

By an eighth resolution, 38/39 H, adopted without a vote, the Assembly commended efforts by the Secretary-General and the Committee of Trustees of the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa to promote humanitarian and legal assistance to persons persecuted under repressive and discriminatory legislation in South Africa and Namibia, as well as aid to their families and to refugees from South Africa.

The Secretary-General reported that since it was established in 1965, the Fund's total income had been $17.9 million; grants made had totalled $17.5 million. Voluntary contributions to it come from States, including Governments which host refugees from South Africa, and organizations and individuals.

Under resolution 38/39 K, approved by a vote of 145 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 6 abstentions (Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom), the Assembly authorized the Ad Hoc Committee on the Drafting of an International Convention against Apartheid in Sports to continue consultations with representatives of Governments and organizations concerned and experts on apartheid in sports and asked that Committee to continue its work with a view to submitting the draft Convention to the 1984 Assembly.

The Assembly adopted in 1977 an 18-article International Declaration against Apartheid in Sports, as an interim measure until a global convention could be agreed upon.

Finally, two texts were approved relating to the work of the Special Committee against Apartheid. By resolution 38/39 E, adopted by a vote of 149 in favour to 1 against (United States), with two abstentions (Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom), the Assebmbly endorsed the 1983 recommendations of the Committee and congratulated it fo rits dedicated efforts since its inception in 1963 to promote the international campaign against apartheid. It also authorized it to organize conferences, seminars and other events and undertake other efforts to assist campaigns against apartheid.

In resolution 38/39 B, adopted by 128 in favour to 2 against (United Kingdom, United States), with 22 abstentions, the Assembly commended to the attention of all Governments, nmental and non-governmental organizations and individuals the Programme of Action against Apartheid adopted by the Special Committee on 25 October 1983. A central issue in the debate on apartheid which took place during meetings held between 15 and 25 November, was the all-white referendum on constitutional proposals for South Africa. (For a full account of the issue, see UN Chronicle 1984, No. 1.)

As in past years, South Africa's racial policies were condemned by virtually all speakers. Most countries said South Adrica must abandon its policies founded on the apartheid system. The negative economic consequences of the apartheid system were detailed by some countries.

Many States also condemned continuing military, economic, political and other forms of collaboration with South Africa by some countries, particularly Western countries including the United States, and Israel. Such aid would only further entrench the abhorrent policies of racial separation, they maintained. The United States policty of "constructive engagement", some said, served only to strengthen the racist regime.

A few States, however, said there was a need to address what they termed the realities of South Africa and to concentrate on promoting positive and peaceful change in that country. A few cited the proposed constitutional reforms as indicative of elements within South Africa that desired such change. Most States deplored South Africa's bantustan or homeland policy as a deception designed to strengthen white domination of the country.

Most speakers said South Africa must end its aggression against neighbouring African countries. Many countries also called for assistance to the front-line States and to national liberation movements in their struggle against South Africa, the release of political prisoners and the return of political exiles.

Many countries cited the need for the United Nations and the international community to continue their efforts to eliminate apartheid and thus help end te suffering of millions in southern Africa.

Yusuff Maitama-Sule (Nigeria), Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid, said that despite numerous resolutions by the United Nations, there had been no sign of the abandonment of apartheid, but only a further entrenchment of racism in South Africa. South Africa had not only survived, it had been able to "proceed with the implementation of its diabolical plans".

Three million persons had been uprooted from their homes and eight million deprived of their rights. "There is no parallel to this crime against humanity except in Nazi Germany", he said. Yet some major Powers which professed democracy and human values continued to frustrate effective international action to eliminate apartheid.

The United Nations had a moral and legal obligation to act against apartheid, "and to act now". It was in the interests of the Western world and even of the white minority of South Africa "to desist from providing aid and comfort to the enemies of Africa".

Botswana said the ultimate objective of the white regime in South Africa was the transformation of two thirds of South Africa into a white man's country, where black South Africans would be welcome "only as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the white man". There would always be "a few doubting Thomases" who would insist against all evidence that the blacks would be taken care of in some future dispensation. However, as far as white Pretoria was concerned, the blacks had already been taken care of, by having been "given" homelands to run as "independent sovereign States".

There would be no hope for the future of South Africa until "the white rulers of that country stop deluding themselves into thinking that apartheid and racism can be reformed and made acceptable to its victims". Southern africa had become home to a growing assortment of dissident movements spawned by Pretoria, whose vocation it was to destabilize its neighbours, to intimidate them into abandoning opposition to apartheid.

Lesotho said South Africa's apartheid policies were a major cause of the suffering of the Lesotho people. Because of Lesotho's geographical situation and colonial legacy of economic dependence on South Africa it was daily in contact with the harshness of apartheid, the inevitable effect of which was the constant flow of refugees. It did not solicit those people and yet their presence was used as the main excuse for destabilizing the country. Lesotho had not and would not allow any refugee in the country to use it as a launching pad for attacks against other countries.

South Africa had used the refugees as an excuse for invading Lesotho, closing the common border and imposing other punitive measures. Because Lesotho was committed to repudiating apartheid, South Africa had also permitted the so-called Lesotho Liberation Army (LLA), "a bucnh of bandits without a cause", to use its territory for attacks against the country.

While events such as the blocking by those bandits of a major road with an explosive device were taking place, essential security equipment, including anti-land mine equipment belonging to Lesotho, was yet to be allowed transit through South Africa. Lesotho was therefore being attacked and at the same time being rendered vulnerable by the refusal to permit essential security equipment to reach it.

South Africa had for the first time acted against the LLA criminals and arrested eight of them, thus officially acknowledging that the LLA operated on its soil. Lesotho had neither the power nor the means to cmmit acts of aggression against anyone, but the world should know that it was an independent and sovereign people which believed that sovereignty was indivisible and non-negotiable.

South Africa and other countries should heed Lesotho's call for a return to the rule of law. Those countries with influence over South Africa should ask it to exercise restraint and not use its superior military and economic might to punish Lesotho for acts it had not committed.

Mozambique said world capitalism and imperialism were closely associated with supporting the crime of apartheid and could not be absolved of blame for that. South Africa had the largest army in Africa, with a military industry that went beyond its defence needs, for it now exported weapons, tanks, airplanes and other sophisticated military equipment.

Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and @mozambique were victims of constant aggressions carried out by South Africa or "through bandits armed, trained, equipped, financed and supplied" by that country. Lesotho had recently suffered brutal pressure and a blockade, and refugees could no longer find a safe home there.

The United Republic of Tanzania said investments exceeding $14 billion had been pumped into the apartheid economy. Ful diplomatic, military and political links were being forged between some Western countries, particularly the United States, and the apartheid regime.

Concern had been recently expressed regarding "cross-border" violenece. What Tanzania found unacceptable was that those who expressed such so-called concerns seemed not to see South African acts of violence. To over-emphasize crossborder violence was, therefore, to ignore the genesis of the violence. The root cause of violence in the region was the system of apartheid, and violence could not be eradicated without the eradication of apartheid.

Tanzania was "not impressed by those who come to this rostrum to shed crocodile tears on the suffering of the black people of South Africa". Those delegations were aware they were partly responsible for the continuing oppressiona dn enslavement of the blacks they purported to hold so dear.

The frenzy of panic of the racist regime resulting from the recent victories scored on the diplomatic and military fronts by the liberation movements testified to the effectiveness of their struggles. The international community should extend all-round support to enable those movements to prosecute the struggle effectively.

Zambia said the minority racist regime in South Africa had intensified its suppression of the rights of the majority, in the vain hope it would subdue the oppressed masses. There would be no turning back. Apartheid would be dismantled and freedom would be secured in South Africa.

South Africa's acts of aggression and destabilization against neighbouring States notwithstanding, the front-line and other independent States in the region remained strongly committed to total eradication of apartheid and minority rule in South Africa. Zambia would continue to render all possible aid to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.

It deplored the "ambivalent posture of some Member States" which were friends and allies of South Africa. Those countries professed abhorrence of apartheid while pursuing policies suportive of a regime whose policies were deeply rooted in that diabolical system. The viability of the South African regime, its growing military power and aggressiveness were derived from the political, diplomatic, economic and military aid it received from those States.

The representative of the African National Congress (ANC) said that by itself, the Pretoria regime, whose policy of apartheid stood universally condemned, could not afford to defy the international community by escalating the crime of apartheid, to commit endless breaches of the peace against independent countries, to continue its illegal occupation of Namibia, to wage an underclared ware of economic and armed aggression to destabilize and topple independent African countries and publicly to pressure, intimidate and blackmail African countries to evict the ANC and enter into so-called anti-terrorist agreements with it. The ANC condemned those Western countries, in particular the United States and Israel, that continued collaboration with Pretoria. Since the Second World War, the most calamitous development threatening the African continent was the Pretoria-Washington axis publicly announced by United States President Ronald Reagan shortly after he took office.

Victory over the minority racist regime was inevitable. "We have no illusions, however. We know that the struggle will be long and bloody." There was growing international support, but it remained "grossly inadequate". Comprehensive mandatory sanctions would shorten the duration of the struggle and reduce loss of human life. He appealed to Member States to include in the agendas of their bilateral relations with the three Western permanent members of the Security Council the need to abandon protection of South Africa through "the abuse of the veto power".

The representative of the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania said that freedom-loving and justice-minded peoples the world over must support politically and materially the legitimate struggle of the oppressed, exploited and dispossessed people of Azania. South Africa's racist policies were "the most trigger-happy in the world", and showed the "naked use of reactionary violence resorted to by the regime's police".

The overall aim of the racist regime of South Africa was to subjugate adn terrorize not only the overwhelming majority of Azanians but also the States and peoples of southern Africa. Its policies were possible only through the active support of such Western countries as the United States, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Britain and "the Zionists in occupied Palestine".

The economy of racist South Africa, he said, was virtually controlled by seven big conglomerates: Anglo-American Corporation, Barlow Rand, Rembrandt, Anglovaal, Old Mutual, Sanlam and liberty Life. United States investment there had been increasing. The apartheid system made possible the maximum exploitation of black labour, and that constituted the source of super-profits which attracted such investment. The people of South Africa were united in their opposition to that oppressive and exploitive system. "It is an illusion to believe that the racists will abandon apartheid of their own free will through some heart transplant". Apartheid must be ruthlesly destroyed, after which a democratic constitution could be drawn up ensuring individual human and political rights to all Azanians, irrespective of colour, creed or religion.

Albania said support by American imperialists, Israeli Zionists and others enabled the apartheid regime to play the role of defender f imperialist rights in Africa. The United States, the Soviet Union, China and other reactionary forces tried to use the southern African situation to expand further their influence. The more the rivalry between the super-Powers in South Africa grew, the greater the danger to the African peoples.

China said it adhered to its stand of having no relations of any kind with the South African authorities, and it supported the struggles of the people of South Africa and Namibia for democratic rights and national liberation. It favoured imposition of comprehensive and compulsory sanctions against South Africa in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter.

Greece, on behalf of the European Economic Community, said the Ten had condemned repeatedly the abhorrent system of apartheid and were deeply concerned that "time is running out for peaceful change in South Africa". Political prisoners should be relased, and South Africa should open "genuine and constructive political dialogue among all South Africans on all social, economic and political matters" as a first step to bridging the gaps dividing that society. The Ten also "vigorously condemns any recourse to violence in the region of southern Africa". The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States in that area must be respected. They would continue to support aid to victims of apartheid and would recommend that companies doing business in South Africa conform to a code of conduct adopted by the European Community in 1977.

Israel said the Jewish people had been on the receiving end of intolerance for centuries and that that phenomenon was still very much present. The Special Committee's 1983 report "mendaciously" asserted the existence of an "alliance" between Israel and South Africa and contained "slanderous allegations" against Israel.

Most States which orchestrated and led the verbal offensive against Israel had ruthlessly tramped under foot their own minorities and had enslaved their own people under cruel dictatorships. Most regrettably, the apparatus of the United Nations had been harnessed to the campaign to defame Israel.

Available data showed that imports and exports between Israel and South Africa accounted for less than one half of one percent of South Africa's total trade. If that was considered "close collaboration", what about the remaining 99.6 per cent? "Onw cannot but wonder to what extent Arabd and East European States surreptitiously conduct such trade with South Africa." Also, "false and unsubstantiated allegations" had been made that Israel supposedly maintained special ties with South Africa in the military and nuclear fields.

Israel's Jewish heritage and the multi-racial background of its citizens strengthened its opposition to any policy or system which sought to humiliate others and deprive them of their basic rights because of race, religion, creed or colour.

The USSR said that from the very first days of its existence, the Soviet system had stood at the side of national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. Extraordinary injustices still obtained in the very south of the African continent. The racist regime of South Africa did not pay attention to any generally recognized international standards, ignored the appeal of the world community and the United nations and implemented a policy of terror and repression against the native population of the country.

That regime also posed a genuine and growing threat to world peace and security, as witnessed by its escalation of acts of aggression, economic sabotage and terror against neighbouring States. With the direct connivance of and in close cooperation with the Western States and Israel, the racist regime constinued to increase its military power. The Soviet Union favoured a strict observance by all States of the arms embargo against South Africa.

The racist regime would not be able to ignore the numerous decisions of the United Nations if it were not for the open support of a number of Western States, including in the first place the United States. The United States was carrying out a policy diametrically opposed to United Nations proposals to end apartheid. It thereby shared with Pretoria responsibility for the sufferings of the South African people.

Twenty per cent of the 2,000 transnational corporations operating in South Africa were American; 6,000 other United States corporations were engaged in various financial and commercial operations in South Africa. Therefore, it was not surprising the United States and other Western Powers were interested in maintaining the racist regime in southern Africa. The United Nations must adopt effective measures to block the dangerous development of events in southern Africa.

The United States said it shared the common desire to see a speedy end to the unjust system of apartheid. It would gladly join in aopting resolutions framed in a constructive spirit, but unfortunately, the drafts generally presented in the Assembly were not so framed.

The Assembly had previously adopted resolutions apparently based on the belief that the most effective strategy for change in South Africa was one based solely on condemnation, aimed at isolating the people of South Africa and paving the way for a violent cataclysm. Such a strategy assumed that no forces existed in South Africa offering effective levers for bringing about constructive peaceful change; that no white people of South Africa showed signs of decent human feeling; and that South African blacks had no recourse save violent struggle. The United States questioned those assumptions and the destructive strategy based on them.

Some States might intend to transform southern Africa through the presence of their arms and influence into yet another system of subjugated client States. Those who had no such imperial ambitions could only lament an approach which would isolate South Africa's black population from effective interational support in their just struggle for justice, leave South Africa's recalcitrant whites alone with their benighted prejudices and encourage a result that would cnsume the material and human resources necessary for South Africa's future prosperity. "We favour an approach which seeks to encourage and reinforce the better nature of South Africa's whites so that they too will see the folly of retaining an unjust, oppressive political domination", the United States said.

South Africa's black population should be enabled to exploit the opportunities for change offered by the more diversified economic system developing in South Africa. But such abilities would be meaningless "were it not for the expanding presence in South Africa of corporations and enterprises offering the jobs, salaries and managerial opportunities that can be built into effective platforms of economic influence", the United States said.

Those who encouraged insinvestment in South Africa unwittingly undermined those platforms and tended to return South Africa to a purely agricultural and mineral-based economy, more compatible with the partheid mentality and more easily controlled. The United States would not abandon the People of South Africa, black or white, to the desperate exertions of a heedless conflagration.