Security Council resolution 462 (1980) [deciding to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly on the Afghanistan situation]
Symbol: S/RES/462(1980)
Date: 1980-01-09
Meeting record: S/PV.2190
Subjects: UN. General Assembly (6th emergency special sess. : 1980)|AFGHANISTAN SITUATION
Notes: Decides to call an emergency special session of the General Assembly on the Afghanistan situation.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1980. - S/INF/36. - 1981. - p. 2. - (SCOR, 35th year).

Resolution 462 (1980) 

Having considered the item on the agenda of its
2185th meeting, as contained in document S/Agenda/
2185

Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its
permanent members at the 2190th meeting has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security,

Decides to call an emergency special session of the
General Assembly to examine the question contained
in document S/Agenda/2185.

Adopted at the resumed
2190th meeting by 12 votes to 2
(German Democratic Republic. Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics), with 1 abstention (Zambia).

Texto español (official Spanish version): Resolución 462 (1980) impedido ejercer su responsabilidad primordial en el
mantenimiento de la paz y la seguridad internacionales,

Decide convocar un período extraordinario de sesiones de emergencia de la Asamblea General para que

de 9 de enero de 1980

El Consejo de Seguridad, examine la cuestión que figura en el documento S/
Habiendo examinado el tema del orden del día en su  Agenda/2185.
2185a. sesión, que figura en el documento S/ Agenda/ Aprobada en la continuación
2185, de la 2190a. sesión por 12 vo-

tos contra 2 (República Demo-

, 2: crática Alemana, Unió R
Teniendo en cuenta que la falta de unanimidad de públicas deman E ere

sus miembros permanentes en la 2190a. sesión le ha y 1 abstención (Zambia).

LA SITUACION EN NAMIBIA:

Decisión

En una carta de fecha 9 de enero de 1980*, el Secretario General informó al
Consejo de Seguridad de su intención, si el Consejo estaba de acuerdo con ello, de
realizar el examen detallado de las cuestiones técnicas mencionado en su informe
de 20 de noviembre de 19795, y, con ese fin, de designar al Teniente General Prem
Chand, inicialmente Comandante Provisional y posteriormente Comandante del
componente militar del Grupo de Asistencia de las Naciones Unidas para el
Período de Transición. En una carta de fecha 12 de enero de 19805, el Presidente
del Consejo informó al Secretario General de lo siguiente:

“He señalado su carta del 9 de enero de 1980, relativa a la aplicación de
la resolución 435 (1978) del Consejo de Seguridad, a la atención de los
miembros del Consejo. Los miembros del Consejo consideraron la cuestión en
consultas oficiosas celebradas el 12 de enero y convienen con la propuesta que
figura en dicha carta.”

3 El Consejo también aprobó resoluciones o decisiones sobre esta cuestión en 1968, 1969, 1970,
1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978 y 1979.

* Documentos Oficiales del Consejo de Seguridad, trigésimo quinto año, Suplemento de enero,
febrero y marzo de 1980, documento S/13740.

5 Ibid., trigésimo cuarto año, Suplemento de octubre, noviembre y diciembre de 1979, documento S/13634.
6 S/13741.

DENUNCIA DE ZAMBIA”

Decisión

En una nota de fecha 22 de enero de 1980, el Presidente del Consejo anunció,
con referencia a sus notas de fechas 30 de noviembre y 12 de diciembre de 1979",
que, a raíz de las consultas celebradas entre los miembros del Consejo sobre la
cuestión, se había convenido en que, para los fines de la presentación del informe
completo del Comité ad hoc del Consejo de Seguridad establecido en virtud de la
resolución 455 (1979), relativa a la denuncia de Zambia, que debería presentarse
para el 31 de enero de 1980, el Comité ad hoc continuaría integrado por los
Estados que se mencionaban en el párrafo 3 de la nota del 30 de noviembre.

7 El Consejo también aprobó resoluciones o decisiones sobre esta cuestión en 1969, 1973, 1978
y 1979.

8 Documentos Oficiales del Consejo de Seguridad, trigésimo quinto año, Suplemento de enero,
febrero y marzo de 1980, documento S/13755.

9 Ibid., trigésimo cuarto año, Suplemento de octubre, noviembre y diciembre de 1979, documentos
S/13669 y S/13685.

Texte français (official French version): A sa 2188“ séance. le 6 janvier 1980, le Conseil a
décidé d'inviter les représentants des Pays-Bas, de la
République fédérale d'Allemagne, du Venezuela et du
Viet Nam à participer. sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

A sa 2189" séance, le 7 janvier 1980. le Conseil a
décidé d'inviter les représentants du Chili, du Panama, de la République démocratique populaire lao et
de la Yougoslavie à participer. sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

A sa 2190° séance. le 7 janvier 1980. le Conseil a
décidé d'inviter le représentant du Zaïre à participer,
sans droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

Résolution 462 (1980)

du 9 janvier 1980

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Avant examiné la question inscrite à l'ordre du jour
de sa 2185‘ séance, publié sous la cote S/Agenda/
2185,

Tenant compte du fait que l'absence d'unanimité
parmi ses membres permanents à la 2190* séance l’a
empêché de s'acquitter de la responsabilité principale
qui lui incombe pour le maintien de la paix et de la
sécurité internationales,

Décide qu'une session extraordinaire d'urgence de
l'Assemblée générale sera convoquée pour examiner
la question figurant dans le document S/Agenda/2185.

Adoptée à la reprise de la
2190€ séance par 12 voix
contre 2 (République démocratique allemande. Union des
Républiques socialistes sovié-
tiques), avec une abstention
(Zambie).

LA SITUATION EN NAMIBIE*

Décision

Dans une lettre en date du 9 janvier 1980*, le Secrétaire général a informé le
Conseil de sécurité de son intention. si le Conseil y consentait, d'entreprendre
l'examen détaillé des questions techniques envisagé dans son rapport du 20 novembre 1979° et. à cet effet. de nommer le général de corps d'armée Prem Chand
initialement commandant provisoire et. par la suite. commandant de l'élément
militaire du Groupe d'assistance des Nations Unies pour la période de transition.
Dans une lettre en date du 12 janvier 1980°. le Président du Conseil a informé le

Secrétaire général de ce qui suit :

J'ai porté votre lettre du 9 janvier 1980 concernant l'application de la
résolution 435 (1978) du Conseil de sécurité à l'attention des membres du
Conseil. Ils ont examiné la question lors de consultations officieuses tenues
le 12 janvier et ont donné leur assentiment à la proposition présentée dans

votre lettre.’

* Question ayant fait l’objet de résolutions ou décisions de la part du Conseil en 1968, 1969.

1970. 1971. 1972, 1973. 1974, 1975. 1976. 1978 et 1979.

* Documents officiels du Conseil de sécurité, trente-cinquième année, Supplément de janvier,

février et mars 1980. document S/13740.

S Ibid. trente-quatrième année, Supplément d'octobre. novembre et decembre 1979, document

S/13634.
8 S/13741.

ba

Русский текст (official Russian version): Резолюция 462 (1980)
от 9 января 1980 года

Совет Безопасности,

рассмотрев пункт повестки дня своего 2185-го
заседания, который содержится в документе
$ /Авеп4а/2185,

принимая во внимание, что отсутствие едино-
гласия среди его постоянных членов на 2190-м
заседании воспрепятствовало осуществлению им

своей главной ответсгвенности за поддержание
международного мира и безопасности,

постановляет созвать чрезвычайную специаль-
ную сессию Генеральной Ассамблеи для рассмот-

рения вопроса, содержащегося в документе
$/Авепда/2185.

Принята на возобновленном
2190-м заседании 12 голосами
против 2 (Германская Демо-
кратическая Республика и Со-
юз Советских Социалистичес-
ких Республик) при 1 воз-
державшемся (Замбия).

ПОЛОЖЕНИЕ
Решение

В письме от 9 января 1980 года * Генераль-
ный секретарь информировал Совет Безопаснос-
ти о своем намерении при согласии Совета при-
ступить к тщательному исследованию техничес-
ких вопросов, упомянутых в его докладе от
20 ноября 1979 года ®, и с этой целью назна-

% Резолюции и решения по этому вопросу были также при-
няты Советом в 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974,
1975, 1976, 1978 и 1979 годах.

* Официальные отчеты Совета безопасности, тридцать пя-
тый год, Дополнение за январь, февраль и март 1980 года,
документ 5/13740.

®* Там же, тридцать четвертый год, Дополнение за октябрь,
ноябрь и декабрь 1979 года, документ 5 /13634.

В НАМИБИИ 3

чить генерал-лейтенанта Прем Чанда первона-
чально временным командующим, а впоследст-
вии — командующим военным компонентом Груп-
пы Организации Объединенных Наций по ока-
занию помощи в переходный период. В письме
от 12 января 1980 года $ Председатель Совета
сообщил Генеральному секретарю следующее:

«Я довел Ваше письмо от 9 января 1980 го-
да, касающееся осуществления резолюции 435
(1978) Совета Безопасности, до сведения чле-
нов Совета. Они рассмотрели данный вопрос
во время неофициальных консультаций 12 ян-
варя и пришли к согласию в отношении пред-
ложения, содержащегося в Вашем письме».

$ 5/13741.

ЖАЛОБА

Решение
В записке от 22 января 1980 года & Предсе-
датель Совета, ссылаясь на свой записки от
30 ноября и 12 декабря 1979 года ®, заявил о том,
* Резолюции нли решения по этому вопросу были также
приняты Советом в 1969, 1973, 1978 и 1979 годах.
% Официальные отчеты Совета Безопасности, тридцать

пятый год, Дополнение за январь, февраль и март 1980 года,
документ $/13755.

® Там же, тридцать четвертый год, Дополнение за октябрь,
ноябрь и декабрь 1979 года, документы $/13669 и $/13685.

ЗАМБИИ '

что после проведения консультаций среди членов
Совета по данному вопросу была достигнута
договоренность о том, что для целей представле-
ния полного доклада, который должен быть пред-
ставлен Совету Безопасности к 31 января 1980 го-
да, в состав Специального комитета Совета Без-
опасности, учрежденного в соответствии с резо-
люцией 455 (1979), касающейся жалобы Замбии,
будут по-прежнему входить государства, упомя-
нутые в пункте 3 записки от 30 ноября.

ВОПРОС, КАСАЮЩИЙСЯ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ В ЮЖНОЙ РОДЕЗИИ '°

Решения

На своем 2192-м заседании 30 января 1980 го-
да Совет постановил пригласить представителей

'° Резолюции или решения по этому вопросу былин также
приняты Советом в 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971,
1972, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978 и 1979 годах.

Ботсваны, Вьетнама, Египта, Кубы, Либерии, Ма-
лави, Мозамбика, Объединенной Республики Тан-
зании и Сомали принять участие без права голо-
са в обсуждении пункта, озаглавленного «Воп-
рос, касающийся положения в Южной Родезии:
письмо Временного поверенного в делах Постоян-
ного представительства Малави при Организа-
ции Объединенных Наций от 25 января 1980 го-

中文文本 (official Chinese version): 定 邀 请 德意志 联邦 共和 国 、 荷 兰 、 委 内 瑞 拉 和 越南 的
代表 参加 讨论 这 个 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

在 1980 年 1 月 7 日 第 2189 次 会 议 上 ， 安 理会 决
定 邀 请 智利 、 老 挝 人 民 民 主 共 和 国 、 巴 拿 马 和 南 斯 拉
夫 的 代表 参加 讨论 这 个 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

在 1980 年 1 月 7 日 第 2190 次 会 议 上 ， 安 理会 决
定 邀 请 扎 伊 尔 代表 参加 讨论 这 个 问题 ， 但 无 表决 权 。

1980 年 1 月 9 日
第 462(1980) 号 决议

安全 理事 会 ，

审议 了 S/Agenda/2185 号 文件 内 所 载 安 全 理事
会 第 2185 次 会 议 的 议程 项 目 ，

考虑 到 在 第 2190 次 会 议 上 , 各 常任 理事 国 没有 一
致 的 意见 ， 以 致 安全 理事 会 无 法 行使 其 维持 国际 和 平
与 安全 的 首要 职责 ，

决定 召开 大 会 紧急 特别 会 议 ， 以 审议 S/Agenday/ .
2185 号 文件 内 所 载 问 题 。

第 2190 次 后 期 会 议 以 12 昧 对 2
寻 ( 德 意志 民主 共和 国 、 苏维埃 社
会 主义 共和 国联 盟 )，1 录 并 权 ( 管
化 亚 ) 通 过 。

纳米 比 亚 局 势 ”

决定

在 1980 年 1 月 9 日 的 信 @ 中 ， 秘 书 长 通知 安全
理事 会 ， 如 果 安 理会 同意 ， 他 打算 按照 他 1979 年 11
月 20 日 的 报告 @ 所 述 ， 进 行 技术 性 讨论 ， 并 为 此 目

图 安理会 在 1968、1969、1970、1971、1972、1973、
1974、1975、1976、1978 和 1979 各 年 也 曾 通过 关于 这 个 问 题
的 决议 或 决定 。

@《 安 全 理事 会 正式 记录 ， 第 三 十 五 年 ，1980 年 1 月 、2
月 和 3 月 份 补 编 》 S/13740 号 文件 。

@@ 间 上 , 《第 三 十 四 年 ，1979 年 10 月 、11 月 和 12 月 份 补

的 ， 先 任命 普 雷 姆 ， 钱 德 中 将 担任 联合 国 过 渡 时 期 援
助 团 军事 人 员 的 暂 任 指挥 官 ， 稍 后 再 担任 指挥 官 。 在
1980 年 1 月 12 日 的 信 @ 中 ， 安 理会 主席 通知 秘书 长
如 下 ;

“我 已 将 你 1980 年 1 月 9 日 关于 安全 理事 会
第 435(1978) 号 决议 的 执行 情况 的 来 信 ， 送 请 安
理会 成 员 注 意 。 1 月 12 日 ， 他 们 就 此 事 进 行 了
非 正式 协商 ， 并 同意 你 信 中 的 提议 。

编 》 S/13634 号 文件 。 @@S/13741。
赞比亚 的 控诉 "
决定

安理会 主席 在 1980 年 1 月 22 日 的 说 明 @ 中 ， 提 到 他 1979 年 11 月 30 日
和 12 月 12 日 的 两 项 说 明 ,@ 并 宣布 ， 安 理会 成 员 就 这 个 问题 进行 协商 后 达成

加 安理会 在 1969、1973、1978 和 1979 各 年 也 曾 通过 关于 这 个 问题 的 决议 或 决定 。
@@《 安 全 理事 会 正式 记录 ， 第 三 十 五 年 ，1980 年 1 月 、2 月 和 3 月 份 补 编 yp S/13755

号 文件 。

图 同上 , 《第 三 十 四 年 ，1979 年 10 月 、11 月 和 12 月 份 补 编 》 S/13669 和 S/13685 号 文

件 。


Draft resolution (S/13731):
g

UNITED NATIONS Distr.

SECURITY
COUNCIL

S/13731
9 January 1980

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Mexico and the Philippines: draft resolution

The Security Council,

Having considered the item on the agenda of its 2185th meeting, as contained
in document S/Agenda/2185,

Taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at
. the 2190th meeting of the Security Council has prevented it from exercising its
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Decides to ¢all an emergency special session of the General Assembly to
examine the question contained in document S/Agenda/2185.

— at We —

80-00793

Meeting record:
UNITED NATIONS

S274
SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL RECORDS

THIRTY-FIFTH YEAR

th
2 1 0() MEETING: 7 AND 9 JANUARY 1980

NEW YORK
U,
CONTENTS N UiBpg Ry
Mae
Provisional agenda (S/AZenda/2190) .....vvrvrreereser einer Unie 1 9
Statement by the President .............evreiroeurnerriierineeenneennins Cory,
Clio
Adoption of the agenda .........c.c viii tiie 1

Letter dated 3 January 1980 addressed to the President of the Security Council
by the representatives of Australia, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, the
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Germany, Federal
Republic of, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Japan,
Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Portugal,
Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Spain,
Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Uruguay
and Venezuela (S/13724 and Add.1and 2) ..........coviiiiiniiiinn nn, 1

S/PV.2190 and Corr.1 and Add.1
NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United
Nations document.

Documents of the Security Council (symbol Sf...) are normally published in’
quarterly Supplements of the Official Records of the Security Council. The date
of the document indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given.

sh “The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a
"system adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Resolutions and
Decisions of the Security Council. The new system, which has been applied
retroactively to resolutions adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative
on that date. - ' .

vba

2190th MEETING

Held in New York on Monday, 7 January 1980,
at 3 p.m. and on Wednesday, 9 January 1980, at 7 p.m.

President: Mr. Jacques LEPRETTE (France).

Present: The representatives of the following States;
Bangladesh, China, France, German Democratic
Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zambia.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/2190)
1. Adoption of the agenda

2. Letter dated 3 January 1980 addressed to the
President of the Security Council by the representatives of Australia, the Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji,
Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Haiti,
Honduras, Iceland, ‘Indonesia, Italy, Japan,
Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama,
Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Portugal,
Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden,
Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United
States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela
(S/13724 and Add.1 and 2)

The meeting was called to order at 3.40 p.m.
Statement by the President

1. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
It is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the Council, to
bid the warmest possible welcome to our colleague
Mr. Muiioz Ledo, the representative of Mexico, a
country which the General Assembly has, in accordance with Article 23 of the Charter of the United
Nations, just elected a non-permanent member of the
Council. Mr. Mufioz Ledo requires no introduction
from me. In a very short time he has earned the
esteem and admiration of everyone at the United
Nations. As a statesman, diplomat and author, he will
bring to our work the fruits of a considerable and
varied experience. He represents a country whose
contribution to the ideals of the United Nations is
well known. I hope he will accept my best wishes
for total success in his mission here among us.

2. Mr. MUNOZ LEDO (Mexico) (interpretation
from Spanish): Mr. President, I thank you for your
words of welcome. They are particularly pleasing to
hear because they come from a diplomat of such great
qualities, one who represents France, with which
Mexico shares essential values.

3. I thank all members for the warm welcome they
have given me personally, and I am sure that my
country’s delegation and they will work well together.
We have come here today to occupy one of the two
seats reserved for Latin America in this forum, a
responsibility that has been most ably discharged by
Bolivia during the past two years.

4. Returning to the Council after 34 years, Mexico
wishes to say that it is unswervingly devoted to the
ideals and principles of the Charter and that it will
offer this principal body of the United Nations its
forthright and complete co-operation.

Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.

Letter dated 3 January 1980 addressed to the President
of the Security Council by the representatives of
Australia, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Germany, Federal Republic
of, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden,
Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States
of America, Uruguay and Venezuela (S/13724 and
Add.1 and 2)

5. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
In accordance with decisions taken at the 2185th to
2189th meetings, I invite the representatives of
Afghanistan, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Democratic
Kampuchea, Egypt, the Federal Republic of Germany,
Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Liberia, Malaysia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Saudi
Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Turkey, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Yugoslavia to take the places
reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Dost
(Afghanistan), Mr. Anderson (Australia), Mr. Yankov
(Bulgaria), Mr. Barton (Canada), Mr. Canales (Chile),
Mr. Liévano (Colombia), Mr. Piza Escalante (Costa
Rica), Mr. Hulinsky (Czechoslovakia), Mr. Thiounn
Prasith (Democratic Kampuchea), Mr. Abdel Meguid
(Egypt), Baron von Wechmar (Germany, Federal
Republic of), Mr. Hollai (Hungary), Mr. La Rocca
(Italy), Mr. Nisibori (Japan), Mr. Southichak (Lao
People’s Democratic Republic), Mr. Tubman (Liberia), Mr. Zaiton (Malaysia), Mr. Dashtseren (Mongolia), Mr. Boddens-Hosang (Netherlands), Mr. Francis
(New Zealand), Mr. Naik (Pakistan), Mr. lllueca
(Panama), Mr. Jaroszek (Poland), Mr. Allagany
(Saudi Arabia), Mr. Koh (Singapore), Mr. Sharif
(Somalia), Mr. Piniés (Spain), Mr. Eralp (Turkey),
Mr. Nava Carrillo (Venezuela), Mr. Ha Van Lau (Viet
Nam) and Mr. Komatina (Yugoslavia) took the places
reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

6. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The first speaker is the representative of Panama.
I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to
make his statement.

7. Mr. ILLUECA (Panama) (interpretation from
Spanish): Mr. President, at the outset I should like to
thank you and the other members of the Council
for giving my delegation this opportunity to participate
in the debate. For the past two years, it has been my
singular honour to work with you in the Council, and
1 wish to join in the expressions of admiration and
respect that have been offered to you by the international community. I should add that France and
Panama have deep-rooted historical, spiritual and
cultural ties. In congratulating you upon your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council, I wish
to pledge to you our co-operation and to express our
best wishes for success in your work. We wish to pay
a tribute to Mr. Chen Chu of China, for his outstanding work as President of the Council for the
month of December. We also wish to commend the
Secretary-General, whose co-operation with the Council is well known. Only recently, his very life was
endangered in the performance of his duties.

8. It is with pleasure that I congratulate the representatives of the German Democratic Republic, the
Philippines, the Niger and Tunisia, which have this
year joined the Council as new members, together with
Mexico, which this morning the General Assembly
elected by an overwhelming majority to fill one of the
two Latin American seats in the Council.

9. In addition, we express our appreciation to the
representatives of Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Gabon,
Kuwait and Nigeria for their important work as members of the Council. Their mandate ended on 31 December 1979.

10. Panama was one of the 57 countries, including
all the Latin American countries, which promoted the
adoption by the General Assembly, on 21 December
1965, of the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty
[General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX)]. Understandably enough, my country signed the letter that
on 3 January 1980 was sent to the President of the
Security Council by 52 Member States calling for an
urgent meeting of the Council to consider the situation that had arisen in Afghanistan and its consequences for international peace and security.

11. Not only my country, but the entire Latin
American continent was deeply saddened to learn that
the people of Afghanistan had been invaded by huge
contingents of troops from the Soviet Union, whose
offensive capacity exceeds the limits of the territory
occupied. Grave concern has been aroused. We were
particularly dismayed to learn that with the help of the
very troops which had come to its aid, the Government of Afghanistan had been overthrown, the Head
of State executed, the territorial integrity of the country wholly violated and the army disarmed and that,
at the very time when the Council was meeting,
Soviet forces of occupation were carrying out combat
operations and firing on dissident segments of the
population of Afghanistan, causing a deplorable loss
of human life, actions that the human conscience can
only repudiate and condemn.

12. In the course of the debate, it has been asserted
that the overwhelming Soviet presence in Afghanistan
has a certain legitimacy by virtue of provisions of the
Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness and Cooperation between the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan signed in Moscow on 5 December 1978.! In that
regard, it has been claimed that Soviet military assistance was requested under that Treaty by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan,
headed by Hafizullah Amin, who, as is well known,
was executed during the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan.

13. That flimsy excuse is entirely unacceptable, not
only because it is irrational and illogical, but also
because the international community has not conferred
—nor can it confer—any legal validity on interventionist provisions or provisions authorizing the
arbitrary use of armed forces in the territory of another
State that may be inserted or may have been inserted
in treaties or international agreements by any Members of the United Nations after the entry into force of
the Charter.

14. Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations
leaves no room for doubt in that regard. That Article
states:

‘‘In the event of a conflict between the obligations
of the Members of the United Nations under the
present Charter and their obligations under any
other international agreement, their obligations
under the present Charter shall prevail.”

15. It should be pointed out in this connection that
the International Law Commission, in drafting the text
which later became article 53 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties,? took into consideration that
a number of countries from various regions and with
different legal systems referred to Article 103 of the
Charter as a formal norm of jus cogens. Article 53
of the Vienna Convention certainly puts into perspective the so-called Treaty of Friendship signed by
the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. Article 53 states:

“A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion,
it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general
international law. For the purposes of the present
Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by
the international community of States as a whole as
a norm from which no derogation is permitted and
which can be modified only by a subsequent norm
of general international law having the same
character.”

16. No one is unaware of the fact that, as the most
distinguished contemporary jurists have agreed, most
of the Articles of the Charter of the United Nations
in fact contain typical provisions of constitutional
law and that in those Articles there may be found many
provisions which are noteworthy because they do not
refer solely to matters of procedure, but also create
rights and obligations.

17. That is the case—so frequently mentioned as an
example by contemporary jurists—with Article 2,
paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter, which refer to the
peaceful settlement of disputes and to the obligation
to refrain from the threat or the use of force.

18. The Charter, as we all know, is a treaty which
has been accepted now by 152 States and the legislative
value which this instrument has in the international
arena must be recognized, for its provisions have been
ratified at the highest level among the community of
States of the world.

19. My country upholds the legal conclusion that
States Members of the United Nations are prevented
under the Charter from giving legal validity to the
Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness and Cooperation signed by the Soviet Union and Afghanistan,
because that Treaty is in conflict with the Charter. To
accept the validity of that Treaty would be tantamount
to applauding the unlawful use of force in contravention
of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which provides that:

**All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any

State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.”

20. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has aroused
consternation and concern in today’s world. The
political cost of this wayward action by the Soviet
Union to the Government and the people of that great
country is, in our opinion, incalculable, nor will
mankind derive any benefit from that action.

21. The Soviet action violates not only the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the
Domestic Affairs of States but also the Charter of
the United Nations. That action is also in open contradiction of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)
of 14 December 1960. It is only fair to recall that
both documents originated in Soviet proposals,
although they were subsequently redrafted by countries of the third world. The Soviet action also contravenes the principle of non-intervention proclaimed
in the charter of the Organization of American States,
the charter of the League of Arab States and the
charter of the Organization of African Unity and
accepted in the conferences of Montevideo, Buenos
Aires, Chapultepec and Bogota, in the decisions of
the Asian-African Conference held at Bandung in 1955,
those of the First Conference of Heads of State or
Government of Non-Aligned Countries held at
Belgrade in 1961, in the Programme for Peace and
International Co-operation adopted at the conclusion
of the Second Conference of Heads of State or
Government of Non-Aligned Countries held at Cairo
in 1964 and in the Declaration on the Problem of
Subversion adopted at Accra in 1965 by the second
ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State
and Government of the Organization of African unity.

22. That action by the Soviet Union also contravenes
many decisions by the summit conferences of nonaligned countries, and in particular the decisions of
the Conferences of Colombo and Havana. The Soviet
Union, in acting unilaterally and by-passing the
United Nations, has come into conflict with the
Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, who said at the Colombo Conference in 1976
that an end must be put to any attempt or effort to
avoid or limit participation by the United Nations in
the settlement of international problems which are of
concern to all countries.

23. Moreover, the Soviet action is in open violation
of the statement on the interference or intervention
in the internal affairs of States by the Heads of State
or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at the
Havana Conference in 1979. On that occasion,

“The Conference reaffirmed the adherence of
non-aligned countries to the principle of nonintervention and non-interference in the internal
and external affairs of States, which has been one
of the basic principles of non-alignment. It insisted
that violation of this principle was totally unacceptable, unjustifiable under any circumstances and
incompatible with the obligations assumed by the
United Nations Members under the Charter of the
United Nations.”’?

24. The ill-advised Soviet decision to invade Afghanistan is, in my Government's opinion, more than a
breach of the legal order: it has disrupted international
relations. The Soviet action has traumatized the
process of international détente in which the world
had, in recent times, placed so much hope.

25. We ask: What has happened to the Helsinki Final
Act of 1975 and the Declaration on Principles Guiding
Relations between Participating States, adopted by
the Conference on Security and Co-operation in
Europe—and, in particular, the seventh principle, on
non-intervention in internal affairs?

26. The Soviet action not only has dealt a mortal
blow to détente but has unnecessarily created a warlike mood in the world—a mood at variance with
the ideals of peace of the Soviet Revolution, which we
all respect, The visible consequences of that warlike
action have been the great intensification of the arms
race, with the consequent frustration for all the peaceloving States that wish to promote efforts to bring
about disarmament, efforts which now seem to be lost
somewhere on the distant horizon.

27. The Soviet action has, moreover, seriously
disrupted international economic relations and has cast
a pall over the possibilities of fulfilling the hopes of the
third world for more equitable economic relations
between the developing countries and the industrialized countries. Indeed, it has cast a pall over the
already dark world economic picture.

28. Since Afghanistan is a non-aligned country which
has been unjustly occupied by a super-Power, the
Soviet action has brought about a serious crisis in the
non-aligned movement. This crisis will cause a confrontation within the non-aligned system between
traditionally friendly countries that now must reach
decisions in accordance with the principles and
purposes of non-alignment or cause considerable
disruption within that movement, with most unpleasant
consequences.

29. In general, a crisis of confidence has been created
in the United Nations system and in the entire ambit
of international relations. As for the countries which
are not super-Powers, are they or are they not entitled
to expect respect for the right of peoples to selfdetermination, for the principle of non-interference in
the internal affairs of States, for the principle of the
non-use of force in international relations, for the
principle of the inadmissibility of hegemonism, for the
principle of territorial integrity?

30. This crisis of confidence, which is not merely
spiritual but finds concrete form in the suffering of
the people of Afghanistan and the disruption of world
peace, cannot be resolved by lukewarm, ambiguous
or imprecise resolutions. It demands determined
action by the States members of the Security Council,
as representatives of the community of the United
Nations, and, in particular, by the permanent members of the Council.

31. In our opinion, the States that have the major
responsibility to abide by the Charter must agree among
themselves on a solution to the crisis. That need not
necessarily be contained in a draft resolution; it could
be contained in a consensus decision read out by the
President, in accordance with the usual practice—a
decision that would clearly state the elements of a
solution to the crisis, including the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghan territory and a
commitment by all States, both within and outside
the region, not to interfere directly or indirectly with
the right of the people of Afghanistan freely to decide
their future and the form of their political, economic
and social life and to maintain their independence
and territorial integrity and their status as a non-aligned
country.

32. Furthermore, we would remind the Council that
article 3 (¢) of the Definition of Aggression [General
Assembly resolution 3314 (XXI1X), annex] qualifies as
an act of aggression:

“The use of armed forces of one State which
are within the territory of another State with the
agreement of the receiving State, in contravention
of the conditions provided for in the agreement for
any extension of their presence in such territory
beyond the termination of the agreement.”

33. It is obvious that the measures taken by the
Soviet troops against the people and Government of
Afghanistan during the occupation constitute a viola-

tion of the very Treaty of Friendship on which the

measures are alleged to be based. This is a clear case
of aggression.

34. In conclusion, I should like with all due respect
to make a friendly appeal to the Soviet Union to
restore to the world the climate of peace for which we
all yearn. To that end there must be agreement,
without delay, on the immediate withdrawal of the
Soviet troops now in Afghanistan. The admiration
of the world for the “Red Army’ is much clearer
when viewed against the background of its glorious
actions against nazism and fascism—as in the battle of
Stalingrad—than when viewed against the background
of the infamous invasion of Afghanistan.

35. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I should like to inform members of the Council that
I have just received a letter from the representative of
Zaire in which he requests to be invited to participate
in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda.
In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with
the consent of the Council, to invite the representative of Zaire to participate in the discussion, without
the right to vote, in conformity with the relevant
provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's
provisional rules of procedure.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Kamanda
wa Kamanda (Zaire) took the place reserved for him
at the side of the Council chamber.

36. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I invite the representative of Zaire to take a place at
the Council table and to make his statement.

37. Mr. KAMANDA wa KAMANDA (Zaire) (interpretation from French): 1 should like at the outset,
Mr. President, to extend my warm congratulations
to you on your assumption of the presidency of the
Council for the month of January. The Republic of
Zaire takes particular pleasure in seeing you presiding
over the Security Council at this difficult time, not
only because you are the representative of a friendly
country, France, but also because you are a man of
quality who combines vast experience with distinguished qualifications as a diplomat.

38. I should like also to pay a well-deserved tribute
to Mr. Chen Chu, the outgoing President of the Security
Council, who conducted the Council’s proceedings
with skill, efficiency and assurance in particularly
delicate circumstances. I would also extend my warm
congratulations to all the newly elected members of the
Security Council.

39. We are speaking in this debate, first, for reasons
of principle and also as a member of the non-aligned
movement. There can be no shadow of doubt that
the situation created in Afghanistan by the armed
foreign invasion constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. This is a very serious
matter in view of the violation of the principles of the
Charter and in view of the nature of those concerned.
There can be no responsible leader or any Government
of good faith in the world that could be persuaded to
believe that the régime of President Hafizullah Amin,
relying on the Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation!
linking his country with its powerful neighbour, would
have invited the troops of that country to come and
overthrow him and then to execute him summarily.
Among civilized people there are some things which
are understood, and I do not think it is at all appropriate to treat people as if they were wild animals.

40, The primary mission or the essence of law in
the human community is to set useful limits to the free
course of the instincts, to organize relations among its
members on a rational basis in such a way as to avert
conflicts, to permit all to enjoy rights and freedoms and
to promote not only the progress of the community,
but also that of each of its members.

41. Robinson Crusoe on his isolated island could do
anything he wanted, since he was alone. But from
the moment he ceased to be alone, his conduct had to
change and undergo a series of liberating constraints,
not to prevent him from enjoying total freedom but
precisely to permit him to enjoy it in the knowledge
that others also had to enjoy it at the same time and on
the same island.

42. The same goes for relations among peoples and
States; otherwise there would be a free-for-all in the

jungle. We would all be at the mercy of predators and

wild beasts, at the mercy of the unknown; it would be
a return to medieval times when the strong imposed
their will on the weak.

43. In modern times we have substituted the rule of
law for might in relations among men and societies,
and it is for this reason that there exists a jus gentium,
a Charter of the United Nations, international treaties
and conventions—in a word, international legal
instruments which govern all the aspects of relations
among States.

44, It has been established, first, according to the
elements we have at our disposal and in an irrefutable
manner, that the invasion of Afghanistan by regular
troops of a great Power is a flagrant violation of Article 2, paragraphs 1 to 4, of the Charter, which stipulate
that:

“1. The Organization is based on the principle
of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

“2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of
them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed
by them in accordance with the present Charter.

“3. All Members shall settle their international
disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered.

‘4, All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity. or political independence of
any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.”

45. The invasion of Afghanistan by regular troops
of a great Power, a member of the Security Council,
is also a flagrant violation of the Declaration on the
Strengthening of International Security [General
Assembly resolution 2734 (XXV)]; the Declaration on
the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic
Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty [resolution 2131 (XX)]; the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
[resolution 2625 (XXV), annex]; the resolution con-
|
i
|
H
i
i
i

cerning measures aimed at the implementation and
promotion of peaceful and neighbourly relations among
States [resolution 1301 (XII1I)], which calls upon
Member States to live together within the letter and
spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and recognizes that in the observance of the purposes and principles of the United Nations lies the best basis of
ensuring the conditions essential for the nations and
peoples of the world to live and to assist each other in
mutual tolerance and understanding for the benefit of
all. The invasion is also a flagrant violation of the
resolution on the inadmissibility of the policy of
hegemonism in international relations [resolution
34/103] and the resolution relating to the development and strengthening of norms of good neighbourliness between States [resolution 34/99], which states
in paragraphs 1 and 2:

“1. Calls upon all States, in the interest of the
maintenance of international peace and security, to
promote good neighbourliness in their relations with
other States;

“2. Affirms that good neighbourliness conforms
with the purposes of the United Nations and is
founded upon the strict observance of the principles
of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations, as well as the rejection of any acts seeking
to establish zones of influence and domination;’’.

46. Secondly, the reason invoked or the argumentation chosen to explain, if not to justify, the armed
intervention in Afghanistan is particularly disturbing,
if one recalls that Rome in ancient times, in the folly
of its imperialist adventure, absorbed, swallowed up
and systematically subjected peoples which appealed
to it for help. As everyone knows, that empire was
unable to digest them all and, harassed everywhere
within the confines of its empire, it ran out of breath
and died of natural causes. The only merit of that lesson
of history is that it exists and is available to those who
are interested in history.

47. Even supposing that, in contravention of the
normal rules of reason, we accept the hypothesis that
the Government of Hafizullah Amin indeed appealed
to a great Power within the framework of a Treaty of
Friendship and Co-operation to help it resist an external
enemy, as yet unidentified, the overthrow of the régime
of Amin and his summary execution by the troops
to which he had appealed for help is an act of such
appalling treachery that many States throughout the
world would quite rightly in future be justifiably
reluctant and hesitant to sign treaties and agreements
of friendship and co-operation not only with the Soviet
Union, but in general with more powerful neighbours.

48. It can be imagined that such a situation would
seriously affect the mutual confidence and good faith

which are the very foundations of international relations and of the implementation of international
commitments. The use of treaties of friendship and cooperation for purposes of destabilization would have
the effect of casting a chilling pall of total insecurity
over international relations. We refuse to believe that
this is the message wished to be conveyed to the
international community.

49. Thirdly, it is troubling to note that these flagrant
violations of the principles of international law, the
Charter and the relevant resotutions of the United
Nations have been committed by a great Power, a
great country, to which the Charter has entrusted
special responsibilities, by charging it and four others
—on a permanent basis, furthermore—with the maintenance of international peace and security within the
Security Council.

50. All of us some day, I hope, will come to sit on
this Council and later we will leave. But it seems that
five States will remain permanently in the Council,
because they are the very heart and soul of this organ
which has the task of maintaining international peace
and security.

51. Therefore, if those very members which, above
all others, are entrusted with the task of maintaining
international peace and security and with the role of
arbiter in international disputes—not only, I believe,
because of their immense economic and military
might, but also because of the high moral values of
their peoples and their experience of the horrors of
war—should today become the causes of breach of the
peace, threats to international peace and security: and
fomenters of troubles which appear to afford no protection to present and succeeding generations from
the scourge of war which, twice in our lifetime, has
brought untold sorrow to mankind, I ask you, where
are we headed?

52. Fourthly, every honest man should find it repugnant to see a great country, one which is overdeveloped, overindustrialized, overpopulated and
overarmed with nuclear weapons and other ever more
sophisticated weapons invade a small defenceless
country which is underpopulated, underdeveloped,
underindustrialized and without weapons and which
believed that it had found in international law, nonalignment and the Charter of the United Nations the
only defence for its political institutions and its desire
to live free within recognized frontiers, to pursue
a policy of independence and to work for the progress
of its people, free from pressure and threats.

53. The future of the world, at the dawn of the 1980s,
seems full of dark foreboding. If we cease to dream of
the distant future, peace in the short term and medium
term, that peace towards which those of us alive today
can contribute something, will not be ensured by the
voluntary renunciation by States of the use of force
in international relations or of big-Power rivalry.
Although we sometimes wonder if peace is compatible
with human nature, we think it is preferable, and the
time has come, to think about ways to prevail upon
States to conduct themselves reasonably, that is, to
stop playing with monstrous weapons.

54, The Soviet Union, intelligent and lucid in its
power and generous in its principles, has accustomed
us to brilliant statements that are clear, precise and
straight to the point. That in this particular case, the
difficult search for justification of its unwarranted
presence in Afghanistan should have taken it along
winding and difficult paths, from one explanation to
another, each less convincing than the last, more than
proves the disarray and real embarrassment in which
this sad invasion of Afghanistan places the whole
world.

35. We think that no State and no great Power should
contribute to extending the list of the unjust invasions
and aggressions of this turbulent century or associate
its name with this inglorious page of world history.

56. In our statement in the First Committee, on
17 October 1979, in the debate on the inadmissibility
of the policy of hegemony in international relations,
we stated:

“If in adhering to the spirit and the letter of the
draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union
—itself one of the great Powers of the world—all
the other Powers intend effectively to give us the
formal and solemn assurance that henceforth an
end will be put to that phenomenon in relations
between peoples and nations, to open up an era of
peace and harmonious co-operation based on confidence, justice, equality and freedom, then this
thirty-fourth session of the General Assembly of
the United Nations will write in letters of gold an
illustrious page in the history of mankind, one of
which future generations will be justly proud. Believe
me, we shall give those who deserve it, and especially
the great Powers, the credit for writing that unforgettable page in the history of mankind.”’*

57. We thought therefore that, after the adoption of
General Assembly resolution 34/103 on the inadmissibility of the policy of hegemonism in international relations, we were going to enter a new era of
relations among States. But now this invasion of
Afghanistan has brought us a bitter surprise. Beyond
that invasion and all other invasions, there is the spirit
of domination and the desire for power and dominance,
the very foundations of the policy of hegemonism,
which disturb, bother, embarrass and render insecure
many States in the world, and that is what we should
stigmatize and denounce when it is the work of the
great Powers of the world.

58. As a non-aligned country that has shared with
the Soviet Union the same principles during our
national liberation struggle and that is grateful to it

for the support it gave to our struggle, we are flabbergasted and do not understand and we ask it to be
good enough to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan
without further ado.

59. None of the reasons invoked could justify this
invasion. In any case, whether it is the torture, human

“rights violations and genocide of the Amin régime, or

the treaties of friendship and co-operation or Afghanistan's right to legitimate collective defence, when
everyone knows that it was not threatened from outside, that are invoked, I tell you that the States
represented here are becoming increasingly sceptical,
if not insensitive, to the reasons which are habitually
put forward in order to justify that kind of aggression.

60. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is the representative of Canada.
I invite him to take a place at the Council table and
to make his statement.

61. Mr. BARTON (Canada): Mr. President, I should
like to thank the Council for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. I should also like
to extend congratulations and good wishes to you on
assuming the office of the President of the Security
Council for the month of January. The Council is
fortunate to have you guiding its affairs in these
difficult times.

62. It is a matter of deep regret to Canada that we
enter a new year and a new decade under the sombre
shadows of crises, one of which has necessitated the
convocation of this urgent meeting,

63. Let no one try to minimize the gravity of the
situation. More than 50 nations, by requesting that
the Security Council be called into session, have
manifested their profound concern at the violation we
have been witnessing in Afghanistan of one of the
fundamental principles of the Charter of the United
Nations. The Soviet invasion of an independent nation
is a gross violation of international law and-—equally
serious in this day and age—a clear reversal of the
process of decolonization begun more than a quarter
of a century ago. Respect for the principles and obligations of international law is a cornerstone of the United
Nations and all Members are committed to it. There
cannot be one law for the Soviet Union and one for
the rest of the world. Canada has had no option therefore but to associate itself with all those—and there are
very many of them—who have condemned the Soviet
action in Afghanistan as the blatant use of force against
the territorial integrity and political independence of a
smaller neighbouring State.

64. We are being asked to believe that Afghanistan
was threatened by outside aggression and that the
military might of a great Power—the Soviet Union—
was necessary to rescue Afghanistan from its plight.
Surely no one believes it—and it disappoints my
Government to think either that the Soviet leaders
have talked themselves into believing it or that they
are seriously asking others to believe such a contention. The view of the Canadian Government is that,
before the Soviet invasion, the situation in Afghanistan was—and indeed it is now—one of civil war rooted
in the resistance of a substantial part of the Afghan
population, which has been increasingly alienated by
the policies of a régime which came to power by
undemocratic means. All the evidence suggests that
the Soviet Union is deeply implicated in the coup
d'état of December 1979, and indeed, one of the
reasons for the Soviet military intervention was to
place in power a wholly subservient régime. As we
have seen, it is easy enough to parachute an alien
régime into a country, to call it revolutionary and
then to call all anti-Government activity antirevolutionary. Given what has happened in Afghanistan, intervention would be an inadequate word to
describe what the Soviet Union has done. It has
quite literally moved in. In such circumstances, the
Canadian Government has already announced that it
will not accord recognition to the régime which has
assumed power in Afghanistan with the aid of Soviet
arms.

65. But the consequences of this military action
reach beyond the fate of the Afghan people to threaten
the very fabric of the international community. Half
a century ago, it was a Soviet Foreign Minister who
wisely warned the world that peace was indivisible.
To our sorrow, we have learnt that his warning was
well founded. Has the world changed? Indeed, it has
become much smaller, to the extent that it is even less
possible today than before for any responsible
nation to act according to one set of standards in one
situation and a different set of standards when it seems
expedient.

66. The building of confidence is a continuous
process;. it permits no interruptions. And détente is
indivisible; it cannot be made to flourish in one area
of the globe while it is being flouted in another.

67. It is with profound regret that we must acknowledge that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has contributed to an erosion of a sense of international confidence and to calling into question the whole concept
of détente, which depends on confidence for its
effective pursuit.

68. As long as present circumstances exist, the
Canadian Government cannot but be deeply concerned
about the way in which the international climate is
being affected. Our concerns exist on a number of
levels.

69. In the first place, the Soviet invasion has had a
deeply corrosive effect on the interests of the entire
international community. Prospects for the early implementation of important measures of arms limitation,
which all Members of the United Nations were eagerly
awaiting, have dimmed. The invasion has also put in

doubt the Soviet commitment to manifestations of
détente as a meaningful policy rather than a highsounding word.

70. Secondly, the Soviet invasion has exacerbated
an already complex and difficult regional security
situation and, apart from doing a grave disservice
to the interests of world peace, this surely constitutes
a major threat to the nations and the people of the
region. Tensions have mounted, uncertainties have
multiplied and the potential for further instability has
increased. Above all, the path of economic development will be interrupted, and the human consequences
of this are hard to measure. It is not so difficult,
however, to forecast the tragedy that is being played
out and undoubtedly will continue in terms of the
refugee outflow. Again, as in Viet Nam and Kampuchea, it is a story of lives lost, families separated and
hardship endured. We can only ask: in whose interests?

71. Finally, and all things considered, the whole
system of relations between the Soviet Union and other
nations will inevitably be strained and diminished.

72. The Canadian Government will be keeping the
situation in Afghanistan and its consequences for the
international community under close review. As a first
response to the present situation, we urge that the
Council condemn the Soviet Union’s role in Afghanistan and demand the withdrawal of all Soviet forces
now in Afghanistan, so that the people of that country
can determine their own future without the interference of any foreign Power. The achievement of this
objective, we believe, is in the supreme interest of all
concerned with our world’s peace and security and with
the observance of generally accepted norms of civilized
international conduct.

73. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is the representative of Chile. I invite
him to take a place at the Council table and to make
his statement.

74. Mr. CANALES (Chile) (interpretation from
Spanish): Mr. President, first of all, I should like to
thank you and the other members of the Council for
giving the delegation of Chile an opportunity to participate in this debate. I should also like to extend our
warmest congratulations to you on your assumption
of the functions of President of the Security Council
for the month of January. We are confident that your
recognized experience and skill will be brought to bear
in the work of the Council at a time of such concern
for the international community, We should also
commend the representative of the People's Republic
of China, Mr. Chen Chu, for the wise manner in which
he conducted the proceedings of the Council during
the month of December.

75. Together with many other Member States of the
Organization, the Government of Chile signed the
letter requesting an urgent meeting of the Council
to consider the situation in Afghanistan and the con-

sequences for international peace and security as a

result of the Soviet military aggression in that country.
'

76. Asis stated inthe official statement of the Government of Chile of 3 January 1980, the armed attack on
Afghanistan, an Islamic and non-aligned country, has
made it perfectly clear that the Soviet Union is once
again pursuing its interventionist and expansionist
policy. Unassailable proof of this has been provided in
the Council in statements of various representatives
who have referred in detail and contributed irrefutable
background information concerning the chronology
of events there.

77. Whatever may be the pretexts that are put
forward to justify it, the Soviet military intervention
in Afghan territory constitutes a flagrant violation
of the most elementary principles of international
law, which are embodied in the Charter of the United
Nations and repeated in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV). Among them are the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries and the principle of non-use of force against the
political independence of other States.

78. What has happened in Afghanistan shows that
the Soviet Union, notwithstanding the leadership it
claims in defence of the principle of the non-use of
force and in combating hegemonism and other similar
principles, does not hesitate to violate those principles,
disregarding the most elementary rules of international
life, whenever it suits its totalitarian interests.

79. Who can now give any credence to the Soviet
Union's lofty rhetoric regarding these principles? Who
can now believe the fine words and intentions so often
unfulfilled? Who can now feel safe in a world in which
the precarious balance of peace has been dangerously
threatened by one of the super-Powers?

80. The tragedy in Afghanistan is a clear warning to
the developing nations regarding the fragility of
détente, now that one of the super-Powers has utilized
its immense military might to impose its designs on
smaller countries, of which it claims to be the natural
ally.

81. My country, which has experienced intervention
by that super-Power and by Castroism, has the undeniable moral authority to denounce this hypocritical
attitude. During that sombre period in our history,
the people of Chile, although the majority strongly
supported freedom, was forced to undergo pressure
and all kinds of intervention and interference directed
by Moscow. The fact that we freed ourselves from
that sinister intervention has forced my country to have
to deal with a campaign of lies, slander and distortions akin to what is now associated with the brazen
Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

82. The situation we are witnessing today, which
threatens a non-aligned country, should cause us to

ponder the dangers which exist for small countries
such as ours that wish to maintain an independent
position within the system of the balance of power,
countries whose sole defence is the law, the Charter
of the United Nations and the principles of nonalignment, We are indeed greatly surprised, incidentally, that the Chairman of the movement of nonaligned countries, in the face of this grave situation,
has chosen to observe a significant silence, which
only reveals the partiality of its position.

83. We believe that the action of the Kremlin, as has
been proved in the Council, in keeping with its
political and ideological objectives, is aimed at
extending its power to an embattled area of the world
whose strategic importance has now been heightened
by the state of the world economy. For this reason,
the Government of Moscow has no hesitation in using
totalitarian methods which we had thought belonged
to the distant past.

84. In the light of the foregoing, it is my Government’s conviction that the United Nations—and
primarily the Security Council—must convey the
international community's unanimous condemnation
of the Soviet Union's immoral action in Afghanistan.
For that reason, we join those who have called
vigorously for the immediate and total withdrawal of
the forces of the Soviet Union, for the cessation of
Soviet interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs,
and for respect by the Soviet Union and other States
for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political
independence of Afghanistan.

85. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
The next speaker is Mr. Shah Mohammad Dost, the
Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of
Afghanistan, whom I invite to take a place at the
Council table and to make his statement.

86. Mr. DOST (Afghanistan): At the outset, I should
like to express my delegation’s profound appreciation
and gratitude to those representatives who have
expressed their support for and solidarity with the
Government and people of Afghanistan by denouncing
and rejecting the measures taken by certain countries
for the undue convening of the Security Council.

87. 1have listened carefully to almost all the speeches
given in this connection by other representatives. The
speech of the United States representative, and of
some others which followed the logic of the United
States representative, contained no truth, but
merely baseless slanders against my country, my
Government and my people, and deserves outright
rejection. So I will be brief and will not take much of
the Council's time.

88. The representative of the United States of
America [2187th meeting] dwelt at length on the arrival
of Soviet contingents in Kabul on different occasions
and was trying to sow confusion regarding the purpose
for which they were invited after the new Government
took power in Afghanistan on 27 December 1979.

89. As I have already made amply clear, my Government does not deny the fact of the arrival in Afghanistan of some Soviet Union army contingents. What
we say is that, first, those limited contingents came to
Afghanistan upon numerous requests from Afghanistan
during the last two years; secondly, the new Government, upon taking power on 27 December 1979,
promptly reaffirmed those requests; thirdly, the sole
purpose of the limited presence of the Soviet military
contingents in Afghanistan is to assist Afghanistan in
removing the threats posed from abroad to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Afghanistan and to repel foreign armed attacks and
aggression against our country; fourthly, the Soviet
armed forces contingents were not involved at all in
the internal events of 27 December; fifthly, those
contingents will not stay in Afghanistan for even one
day after the reasons for calling them in cease to exist
(of course, in the realization of such a step, the aims
and acts of hostile foreign Powers play an important
role: the sooner they give up their armed interference
in Afghanistan's affairs, the closer will be the time of
their departure from Afghanistan); sixthly, the request
for the dispatch to Afghanistan of the Soviet Army
is entirely a bilateral issue concerning only Afghanistan and the Soviet Union within the scope of the
Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness and Cooperation, signed on 5 December 1978 between the two
countries,! and in full accord with Article 51 of the
Charter of the United Nations. It is in line with the
interests and aspirations of the Afghan people.
Afghanistan has on various occasions benefited from
such assistance from the brotherly Soviet Union during
its long history of relations with that country, every
time with the support of the Afghan people.

90. Once, such assistance came in the first days of
Afghanistan’s independence, during which the Soviet
Union assisted Afghanistan with, among other things,
aircraft and pilots for the defence of our country. At
that time, we were facing the menace of British
colonialists, and today we are facing imperialists and
reaction.

91. As forthe events of 27 December 1979, they were
planned and carried out by the gallant Afghan army
having full support of the people, under guidance
from the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan.
Long before the start of the national uprising against
the Fascist régime of Hafizullah Amin, Babrak Karmal
was present in Afghanistan and directing the whole
operation.

92. The threat to Afghanistan’s independence,
national sovereignty and territorial integrity was
imminent. Pakistani soil was and continues to be used
as a base for such attacks against Afghanistan. Nobody
can deny that fact; it is evident from reports and
eyewitness accounts of foreign correspondents visiting

10

those bases, the statements of Pakistan's progressive
public figures and the evidence at our own disposal.
I shall not take the time of the Council to mention
all those reports, since a number of representatives
have already cited some. That is a fact; denying it
would mean denying the existence of the sun.

93. As to the point why it was not brought before the
Security Council, it is all too clear that Amin, himself
involved in all those plots and conspiracies and
primarily responsible for all the criminal acts against
the. defenceless people of Afghanistan and the country,
would of course not have brought the case to the
Council. Amin—the Pol Pot of Afghanistan—had
transformed the whole country into a prison; he had
his own mass graves and was saying that he would
not care even if millions of Afghans were murdered
or put in gaol. He wanted only himself and his bands
of criminals to be in power and cared for nothing else.

94. One representative showed concern for Islam in
Afghanistan. In this connection, I should like to say
that the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people
are devout and real Moslems, and they will remain so.
Islam in our country is genuine and, in accordance
with what Alfah Jala Ala Shanohu (God Almighty)
and his holy prophet, Hazrat Mohammed Savallalah
Alahu va Alihi Wassalam (Hazrat Mohammed, on
whom God's prayers are bestowed), order the Moslems
to do. Our Islam is not that preached by imperialists
and colonialists. After all, it was Afghanistan that
disseminated Islamic teachings to the land of these
so-called champions of Islam, and we taught them
Islam. A delegation from another country spoke highly
about Islam. That was the representative of that same
country whose ruler, hobnobbing with Zionism and
imperialism, betrayed Islam and the rights of the
brotherly Palestinian people. Because of the anti-Islamic policy of the ruler of that same country, the
whole land of Jerusalem lies under the rule of Zionism.

95. My Government has welcomed the Islamic
revolution of the brotherly Iranian people against the
despotic Shah’s régime supported by imperialism. The
peoples of Afghanistan and Iran share a common
concern at imperialistic intrigues.

96. Some representatives expressed concern that
the presence of limited military contingents of the
Soviet Union in Afghanistan would pose a threat to
peace and stability in the region. I cannot understand
the logic of such an assertion, The representative
of the United States of America here said much about
relations between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union.
I should like to remind the Council that it is the United
States which has sent its warships, aircraft carriers
and troops thousands of kilometres away from its
territory, in complete disregard of the threat it poses
to the national sovereignty of small States; it is the
United States which has thousands of military bases
on the soil of other countries, in some cases maintained against the will of their peoples; and it is the
United States which has stationed its armed forces in
other countries. And yet the representative of that
country has tried to raise a hue and cry about an
issue which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the
Governments of two friendly countries. What is that
all about? Is it hypocrisy or a covert operation, or
both?

97. It is evident that the United States wants to
expedite arms shipments to Pakistan on the pretext
that Pakistan is being allegedly threatened. There is,
of course, no justification for arms shipments to
Pakistan. If Pakistan continues to arm itself to the
teeth, then there is no course left open to Afghanistan
except to think seriously about its defence and,
naturally, to act accordingly. The peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan have many things in common. The
new Government in Afghanistan has extended the
hand of friendship to Pakistan but, unfortunately,
instead of responding positively to that call of ours,
the Government of Pakistan seems to have opted for
another course.

98. The Government and the new leadership in
Afghanistan enjoy the full support of the Afghan people
and, of course, there are many reasons for that.
Babrak Karmal, General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the People’s Democratic Party of
Afghanistan, President of the Revolutionary Council
and Prime Minister, is not only well known to the
Afghan people, but also known outside Afghanistan.
He has dedicated himself to serving the people. In
the course of his struggle to liberate the Afghan people
from the clutches of despotic and hated rulers, he has
on various occasions languished in gaol. Twice he has
been elected to Parliament by the people of Afghanistan, where he has done much to raise the political
consciousness of the people and to give them the
necessary education. He was Vice-President of the
Revolutionary Council and Vice-Premier during the
late Noor M. Taraki’s leadership. By toppling Amin’s
usurped power, Babrak Karmal has put the Party,
which had for a while been derailed by Amin from its
principled course, back in the right direction.

99. The new Government has released all the political
prisoners and announced the formation of a Front
comprising people of all walks of life. It will adopt a
new progressive and democratic constitution and
arrange elections for the provincial and national
assemblies in the near future. It will work hard to
realize the lofty goals of the Saur revolution and to
build a society free from exploitation of man by man.
Afghanistan will follow its positive non-aligned policy;
it will work, along with other non-aligned countries,
for the fulfilment of the goals and objectives of the
movement. We stand against and condemn imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, ~racism, including Zionism, and apartheid. We support the
national liberation movements. We shall continue to
be active participants in the Organization of the Islamic
Conference.

100. Afghanistan's policy is one of peace and friendship with all countries. We believe in the policy of
peaceful coexistence. We strongly believe that every
people has the inherent right to choose its own socioeconomic system without any interference from
anywhere.

101. The people of Afghanistan have a long and
proud history of love for their freedom and independence. We shall never compromise that, and we
would not allow anyone to encroach on our independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

102. The present series of meetings of the Security
Council cannot serve any purpose but those of propaganda and the revival of the cold war. The draft
resolution [§//3729] which has been circulated on
this issue would, if approved, be direct interference
in the internal affairs of my country, and my Government will resolutely reject it.

103. Mr. ESSAAFI (Tunisia) (interpretation from
French): Mr. President, first of all may I extend to you
my heartfelt congratulations on your assumption of the
presidency of the Security Council for this month. You
represent a country with which Tunisia has long had
the best relations of friendship and co-operation. The
Tunisian delegation is therefore particularly pleased to
see you conducting the proceedings in the Council
for this period.

104. I should also like to extend my best wishes to
all the other members of the Council, those which
have been serving on the Council and those which,
like my country, are newly elected. I wish to thank
all representatives who have been kind enough to
welcome my delegation and my country. Tunisia will
spare no effort in making its contribution to the quest
for peace and security in the world in keeping with
the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

105. The Council has before it a question of special
seriousness, one that threatens peace and security in
central Asia. Deeply concerned over recent developments in Afghanistan, on 3] December 1979 my
Government made the following statement:

“Tunisia, a non-aligned country, has always
worked for the right of peoples and countries to
choose the government and régime that suits them,
for otherwise the independence and sovereignty of
States would be a dead letter and the Charter of the
United Nations would be without value.

“Deeply concerned over the situation in Afghanistan, the Tunisian Government cannot remain
indifferent to the armed intervention contrary to
international law of which Afghanistan has been a
victim.

“Therefore Tunisia, albeit desirous of maintaining
relations of friendship and co-operation with the
Government of the Soviet Union, cannot confer
legitimacy on any form of interference, whatever
the motive may be, in the internal affairs of States.”

106. Tunisia has always worked for the right of
peoples and countries to choose the form of government and régime that suits them and to create for
themselves the social, economic and political system
they desire. Therefore we believe that no social or
political considerations can justify the intervention
of foreign troops in the territory of a sovereign State.

107. Nothing can excuse such intervention. The
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of
States is one of the most important pillars of international relations. In signing the Charter, States assumed
an obligation to respect that principle and to settle
their differences by peaceful means.

108. Tunisia hopes that the Council will speedily
reach an appropriate decision that will remove the
threats that hang over Afghanistan and indeed all of
central Asia, a decision that will allow the people of
Afghanistan to decide on their own future in complete
freedom.

109. . Mr. TROY ANOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist' Republics) (interpretation from Russian): Before
turning to the substance of the matter, the Soviet
delegation would like to welcome the representative
of Mexico, a country that today has taken its seat at
the Security Council table. We wish the representative of Mexico success in his work in the Council.

110. “The present discussion in the Security Council
has shown that none of those who initiated the raising
of the ‘* Afghanistan question’ has been able to refute
the clear facts of armed intervention in the internal
affairs of Afghanistan by international imperialism
and reaction. Nor has anyone been able to refute the
fact that the intervention created a genuine danger of
undermining the gains of the April revolution in
Afghanistan. It was precisely that danger that
compelled the Afghanistan Government to appeal for
help from the Soviet Union on the basis of the Treaty
of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness and Co-operation
of 1978.1 Therefore the attacks against Soviet military
assistance to Afghanistan and the calls for it to be
halted are really aimed at depriving the Afghan people
of the right to determine themselves the ways and
means of ensuring their own security. In practice, that
would mean giving a free hand to those forces that are
striving to overthrow the new order in Afghanistan.
It is obvious that there are some people who, to that
end, would like to use the Security Council to legitimize
the carrying out of subversive activities against the
Afghan Government. Of course, plans such as these
should be most categorically rejected.

111. In the Council we have heard assertions to
the effect that the decision of the Soviet Union to grant
the request of the Government of Afghanistan for the

12

dispatch to that country of a limited military contingent
is not in keeping with the right of States to individual
and collective self-defence as laid down in Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations nor with natural
law. Such assertions are entirely unfounded. Article 51
of the Charter does not create the right of States to
individual or collective self-defence. It merely confirms
that right and particularly stresses that it is an inalienable right of States and that the Charter in no way
whatsoever impairs it. In so far as concerns the provision for reporting to the Council measures taken by
Members of the Organization in exercise of that right,
obviously, the dispatch of a military contingent by
one State to the territory of another State at its request
and in accordance with existing international treaties
does not belong to that category of measures; otherwise, the Council would already have been overwhelmed by that kind of report, bearing in mind the
number of countries on whose territories foreign
troops are stationed, and above all, United States
troops. The actions taken in this matter by the Governments of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union are
exclusively their internal affair and are not subject to
intervention by the Security Council.

112. In the statements of a number of delegations,
attempts have been made to link the introduction into
Afghanistan of a limited Soviet military contingent with
certain internal events which occurred in that country
at the end of December. In the statement of the Foreign
Minister of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan,
Mr. Shah Mohammad Dost [2185th meeting], it was
demonstrated that the removal from power of Hafizullah Amin was carried out by patriotic and genuinely
revolutionary elements within the People’s Democratic
Party of Afghanistan. It was the legitimate consequence
of the further development and consolidation of the
April revolution, that is to say, an exclusively internal
affair of the Afghan people.

113. In so far as concerns the introduction of a
limited contingent of Soviet troops into Afghanistan,
that was in no way linked with changes in the Afghan
leadership and was carried out in response to repeated
appeals from the Government of the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan for help to repel instances of
armed intervention from outside, some of which
occurred also in the period when Amin was in power.

114. We cannot fail to condemn most vigorously
the aim of certain representatives in the Security
Council to sully the new Government of Afghanistan.
At the present time that Government has embarked
upon major democratic reforms which were mentioned
here by the Foreign Minister of Afghanistan. In his
statement, a thorough explanation was given of the
significance of the measures taken by the Government
of Afghanistan in the interests of the broadest masses
of the population. One of the most important of those
was the freeing of political prisoners. Two days ago
local television showed crowds of prisoners leaving
prisons. Obviously, many here saw those broadcasts
and were able to observe that the new Government of
Afghanistan was actually implementing that decision.

115. In the programme which the Government has
proclaimed, provision is also made for the repeal of
all anti-democratic laws; respect for the principles of
Islam; freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and
freedom of worship; the observance of the principles
of lawful ownership of property; and the ensuring of
normal conditions for the exercise of democratic
freedoms. The Government of Afghanistan intends to
carry out further phases of the democratic agrarian
reform to ensure the development of the cultures of
all peoples and tribes in Afghanistan and other progressive measures. The carrying out of this programme
will undoubtedly lead to a stabilization of the situation
in the country and will ensure the vital interests of all
strata of the Afghan people.

116. In circumstances of such radical reforms in the
society of Afghanistan, it would appear to be the task
of the United Nations to promote the creation of
propitious circumstances for the implementation of
this progressive policy which has been adopted by the
new Government of Afghanistan and not to take any
steps which might hinder that process.

117. However, the uproar—initiated primarily by
the United States—in the United Nations over the
‘question of Afghanistan’’, has been used as a pretext
to justify the policy of certain circles in the West
which are attempting to take the world back to the
times of the cold war. It is precisely under cover of
references to the Afghan question that the Government
of the United States is now procrastinating over
ratification of the Treaty between the United States
of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms
(SALT II).5 That dangerous trend was manifested in
a decision recently imposed by the United States on
Western European members of NATO to deploy on
their territories new American nuclear missiles in an
attempt thus to disrupt the approximate balance of
forces which had been established in the world.

118. At the same time the United States is systematically pursuing a course of increasing its military
expenditures and stepping up its military preparations
in various parts of the world, particularly in the Near
and Middle East and in the Indian Ocean. According
to data published in the United States, at the beginning
of 1980, out of a total of 2.1 million American military
personnel, 480,700 men were stationed outside the
territory of the United States itself in more than
30 countries of the world.

119. The Chinese hegemonists, who also do not find
the climate of détente to their taste, are playing an
active role in the exacerbation of the situation around
Afghanistan. They have more than once demonstrated
their attachment to the policy of expansionism.

13

Suffice it to recall the support rendered by Beijing to
the anti-Government ‘‘movements’’ in India, Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines;
the Chinese-Indian conflict in 1962; pressure on the
Mongolian People’s Republic; and the seizure of the
Paracel Islands. We have heard references more than
once to the heavy responsibility borne by the Chinese
leadership before mankind and the world for the
tragedy of the Kampuchean people and the aggression
against Viet Nam. Participation in subversive action
against Afghanistan was just a logical extension of this
expansionist policy.

120. Here in the Security Council a number of
delegations, apparently in view of the statement made
by the President of the United States on 4 January,
have expressed their concern at the fact that the future
development of the international situation might move
in the direction of further exacerbation of tension
and the stepping up of the arms race. These appeals
are entirely appropriate and they should be heeded
by the United States and China, whose policies are
moving in precisely that direction, a direction so
dangerous for the cause of peace.

121. The Soviet Union, like other socialist countries,
firmly supports the view that, in the present circumstances, every effort must be made to prevent a slipping
back to the times of the cold war. International cooperation and the easing of tension between States
should remain the prevailing trend in world affairs.
It is precisely for this reason that we shall strive within
the United Nations and elsewhere for the adoption
of decisions which will consolidate that trend rather
than undermine it. Co

122. The Government of the Democratic Republic of
Afghanistan, on whose behalf the Foreign Minister,
Mr. Dost, spoke here, has clearly stated that the
presence of Soviet troops on Afghan territory is vitally
necessary to ensure the sovereignty and the independence of the country and to protect the gains of the
people's revolution. One can only regret that the
countries which sponsored the draft resolution
[8113729] did not heed the voice of the people of
Afghanistan but followed in the wake of those who do
not find the present course of the Government of
Afghanistan to their liking. The provision of the draft
resolution on the withdrawal of foreign troops from
Afghanistan is, in essence, aimed at undermining the
security of the Afghan State and at opening the way
for the restoration in that country of the old régime
which has been overthrown by the people. Another
provision in the draft resolution which is inadmissible
is that relating to the determination of the form of
government and the choice of political and social
systems in Afghanistan, which in essence is tantamount
to an appeal for a change of the existing order in that
country.

123. On the whole, the draft resolution should be
viewed as a flagrant intervention in the internal affairs
of a sovereign State and as being contrary to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Obviously,
the Soviet Union cannot and will not vote in any
other way but against this draft resolution.

124. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I shall now make a statement as representative of
FRANCE.

125. The events that gave rise to this series of
meetings of the Security Council have aroused strong
feelings throughout the world. The climate of international relations has been altered by those events, and
for the first time in a long time, the peoples and their
Governments are wondering about the future of peace.

126. France shares the keen concern caused by the
events that have been unfolding in Afghanistan,
including Kabul, since 24 December 1979. We
expressed that concern publicly on 28 December, and
we regret to say that nothing that has happened since
has dispelled it. The desired explanations and clarifications are still lacking; the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan has only expanded. In those
circumstances, France shares the feelings of the many
delegations that felt that the Council should be seized
of the question. The only reason why France did not
add its signature to the signatures of those delegations
was that, at the present time, my delegation has special
responsibilities as President of the Security Council.

127. What is really at stake in this matter are the
fundamental principles which are proclaimed by all the
States signatories of the Charter of the United Nations,
and without respect for which there can be neither
security nor development—principles which are also
at the very heart of détente, and therefore of peace.
I am of course speaking of the right of every State to
have its sovereignty and independence respected, the
right of every State to make its political and social
choices free from all foreign intervention, and, finally,
the right of the people of every State to have its
special identity and legitimate aspirations fully recognized. But the information available to us indicates
that those principles have not been respected in
Afghanistan.

128. To justify what has happened in Kabul, an
appeal made by the Afghan authorities has been
invoked. But the chronology of events leaves no
doubt about the fact that the Government that allegedly
made that appeal had been set up on 27 December at
the earliest, and the Soviet military intervention began
on 24 December.

129. Again, to justify the intervention of Soviet
armed forces, Article 51 of the Charter has been
invoked. But that Article, we must not forget, establishes an obligatory link between the exercise of
the right of self-defence and the existence of an armed
attack against the State involved. That link does not
seem to exist in the case of Afghanistan. Even if

14

we assume that there had been contacts with neighbouring peoples belonging to the same ethnic groups,
that would not constitute the ‘‘armed attack’ referred
to in Article 51. On the contrary, it appears that the
facts of the situation were and remain facts relating
to internal affairs. What we are witnessing is a movement that is unquestionably the expression of the
aspiration of a people that cherishes its Moslem faith
and its national traditions. We are aware, of course,
that there has been some political violence associated
with that movement for a few months now. But that
cannot justify the armed intervention and the deployment of troops that we have been witnessing for some
10 days.

130. That intervention, like any other designed to
impose on a country the will of another Power, is
unacceptable—Dboth in itself and also because it prejudices something for which my Government has been
working tirelessly for 20 years—indeed, it was among
the first Governments to do so. I am referring to
détente: a policy which, to have its full effect, cannot
but be global—that is, it must apply to the regions of
the world as a whole; a policy which, above and beyond
the texts that set forth its principal elements, is based
essentially on trust. It is precisely because France is
deeply, but not unconditionally, attached to détente
that we believe it our duty to state today, with all
gravity, that this trust would be seriously shaken if
the blow that has just been dealt to it were not
speedily corrected.

131. That is why my delegation is prepared to vote in
favour of the draft resolution [ibid.] before the Council, calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops. That is why my delegation
solemnly appeals for respect for the independence of
one of the first Members of the Organization, a country
which has for a long time been a member of the
non-aligned movement and which should be allowed
to pursue its development and stability in freedom and
peace, with the co-operation of everyone. That is why
my delegation calls for the restoration of the trust for
which each of us, in our foreign relations, feels the
most urgent need.

132. 1 now resume my capacity as PRESIDENT.
I understand that the Council is now ready to proceed
to the vote on the draft resolution in document
S/13729. I shall now call on those representatives who
wish to speak before the vote.

133. Mr. CHEN Chu (China) (translation from
Chinese): In the view of the Chinese delegation, draft
resolution S/13729 is inadequate in that it has failed
to condemn squarely Soviet armed aggression and
intervention against Afghanistan. However, in view
of the fact that the wording of the text is clearly
directed against Soviet armed intervention in
Afghanistan, the Chinese delegation will vote in favour
of the draft resolution and maintains that the Soviet
authorities must withdraw all their invading forces
from Afghanistan immediately and unconditionally as
called for in that draft resolution.

134. Mr. FLORIN (German Democratic Republic)
(interpretation from Russian): 1 should like first to
congratulate Mexico on its election’ as a nonpermanent member of the Security Council and to
welcome its delegation to the Council.

135. The delegation of the German Democratic
Republic has thoroughly set forth its views on the
question on the Council's agenda. We see no reason
for changing our position, but we believe it necessary,
before the vote on draft resolution S/13729, to draw
attention to the following points.

136. The German Democratic Republic recognizes
and respects the right of all peoples to solve freely
and without outside interference the questions affecting
their future and the form of their Government. This
applies also to the obligation of all States to refrain in
their international relations from the threat or the use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of States. Although the draft resolution
refers to those principles, the delegation of the German
Democratic Republic must reject it. It does not take
into account the fact that the Democratic Republic
of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union acted precisely
in the spirit of those principles in carrying out their
joint measures to defend the Democratic Republic of
Afghanistan.

137. Since the draft resolution deals with internal
developments in Afghanistan—which itself is inadmissible—there is a danger that such a resolution
might be used as an instrument for further direct
intervention by imperialist circles in the affairs of the
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The fact that
operative paragraph 6 provides that the Security
Council should remain seized of the question, in
other words, that it should in the future deal with
Afghanistan’s affairs, only confirms the. apprehension
that I have expressed.

138. The draft resolution fails to take into account
the Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighbourliness and
Co-operation between the Democratic Republic of
Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, dated 5 December
1978.! The indiscriminate Implementation of the
demands in operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution would lead to a situation in which the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan would be disarmed in
the face of the forces of imperialist and hegemonistic
circles. This is, of course, unacceptable to the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, and
we have heard that from the mouth of the Foreign
Minister of that country himself.

139. The delegation of the German Democratic
Republic, in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan,
rejects this draft resolution.

15

140. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by Bangladesh, Jamaica, the Niger, the Philippines, Tunisia and Zambia [S//3729].

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Bangladesh, China, France, Jamaica,
Mexico, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Portugal,
Tunisia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America, Zambia

Against: German Democratic Republic, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics

The result of the vote was 13 in favour, 2 against.

The draft resolution was not adopted, one of the
negative votes being that of a permanent member of
the Council.

141. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
It has been suggested that the meeting should be
suspended. Is there any objection? The meeting is
suspended. It will be reconvened after consultations.

The meeting was suspended at 5.35 p.m. on Monday,
7 January 1980 and resumed at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 January 1980.

142. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I wish to acknowledge the presence at the Council
table of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of
Mexico, Mr. Jorge Castaneda, to whom I extend a
warm welcome.

143. Members have before them document S/13731,
which contains the text of a draft resolution sponsored
by Mexico and the Philippines.

144. Mr. YANGO (Philippines): I should like to take
this opportunity to congratulate Mexico on its election
to the Security Council, which completes the Council
membership by bringing it to 15, and to extend to
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Mexico,
Mr. Jorge Castafieda, and his delegation our full
co-operation.

145. We have heard the statements of the delegations
of many countries on the situation in Afghanistan, in
response to the letter to the President of the Security
Council of 3 January 1980 and its addenda, which my
country signed along with more than 50 other concerned nations.

146. Subsequent to the sending of that letter, and
in furtherance of the concern expressed in the discussions on this matter in the Council, a draft resolution was submitted [S//3729], sponsored by Bangladesh, Jamaica, the Niger, the Philippines, Tunisia
and Zambia, which we believed expressed the will
and desire not only of the non-aligned group of nations
but of all peace-loving peoples as well for an early
peaceful resolution of the situation in Afghanistan.

147. Not only do we have ample proof of an overwhelming sentiment on this matter in numerical terms,
but we are also convinced of the depth and intensity
of feelings aroused by that situation among countries
neighbouring on Afghanistan as well as among the
countries of the third world, in particular the nonaligned nations.

148. In our earlier statement on this question
[2185th meeting), we stated our preference for the
discussion of what is admittedly a complex issue and
for a thorough airing of all the pertinent facts, in view
of the gravity of the issue. That discussion has taken
place. A vote has been taken—I13 votes in favour to
2 against—but the draft resolution was not adopted for
lack of unanimity among the permanent members of
the Council. In view of this lack of unanimity, it is my
delegation’s view that the Council is unable to discharge its primary responsibility under the Charter
for the maintenance of international peace and security.

149. The blame must be shared by the whole Council,
for we are a collective body operating under rules
set forth in the Charter. In the view of my delegation,
the vote in the Council on the draft resolution
reflects the majority sentiment of the international
community, and we therefore feel that that sentiment
has been frustrated by the application of the unanimity
rule.

150. Because of the gravity of the issue, which is
fraught with potential danger for the peoples of the
world, we feel that the rest of the international community should be accorded an opportunity to affirm
its concern in a larger forum, unencumbered by
regulatory constraints.

151. In seeking to refer the matter to the full assemblage of nations, my delegation is acting in the spirit
of the peaceful mission of the Council and is in no
way desirous of widening the means of resolution
of the problem beyond the peaceful means provided
under the Charter of the United Nations.

152. In my delegation’s view there are three crucial
elements essentially at stake in the present instance:
first, the inalienable right of a people to determine
its own form of government and its social, economic
and political system free from any external imposition
by any form of coercion, including armed intervention;
secondly, respect for the sacrosanct principles of
international law as enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations and in the decisions of the General
Assembly and the Security Council, with special
reference to the principles of non-interference in the
internal affairs of any country, respect for the
sovereignty and political independence, sovereign
equality and territorial integrity of nations and the
principle of the non-use of force in the settlement of

16

disputes between Member States; thirdly—and this
must be considered of special relevance—the principles of non-alignment, which are the basis of the
non-aligned movement, of which the country that is
directly affected is a founding member.

153. We should not lose hope for a peaceful settlement. We believe that we should exhaust all peaceful
means available to us within the United Nations
system. In order to avert the possibility that the present
situation might get out of hand and escalate into a
dreaded armed confrontation among the major Powers,
we must immediately activate the only peaceful
recourse still open to us, by referring the matter to the
General Assembly.

154. Its in the light of these considerations that my
delegation has decided to submit to the Security Council the draft resolution contained in document S/13731
dated 9 January 1980, sponsored by Mexico and the
Philippines, which is now before the Council. The
draft resolution is simple, direct and to the point.
The Council would decide to refer the question of the
situation in Afghanistan to the General Assembly for
consideration, owing to the lack of unanimity in the
Council on the question.

155. It is the hope of my delegation and of our cosponsor that this simple and direct draft resolution
will immediately be approved and adopted by the
Security Council, for we have no time to lose.

156. It is with deep regret that my delegation has
decided to take this initiative. Only recently we had
forged close and friendly relations with the Soviet
Union and we have every intention of maintaining
and promoting those relations. As we all know, close
relations amongst nations must be founded on mutual
trust and confidence. It is precisely to strengthen those
foundations and thus further to develop the relations
between us—and with no desire to alienate Afghanistan, with which we have a traditional friendship and
close ties—that we felt it necessary to bring the
consensus of the Council to the larger forum of the
General Assembly. In so doing, we want to make it
perfectly clear that it is not our desire to criticize a
fellow State Member of the United Nations but to dispel
the atmosphere of fear and violence that now agitates
mankind and to restore a climate of peace and goodwill
among all of us.

157. Mr. CASTANEDA (Mexico) (interpretation

from Spanish): First of all, I should like to thank you,

Mr. President, for your most amiable words of welcome to me. It is an honour for Mexico to take part
in the work of the Council, and I feel it an honour
to represent my country in the Security Council on
this occasion.

158. Mexico is returning to membership in the
Security Council after an absence almost as long as the
life of the Organization itself. We are aware that
participation in the work of the Council involves
serious risks for a medium-sized and rather weak
country. It can seriously affect its bilateral relations
with other countries. Wi “nve tuk the decision to
assume this responsibility in full awareness of these
risks. For Mexico, membership in the Council is only
meaningful if the decision has been taken—as it has
been by us—to act in an independent and constructive
manner. We do not take part in the work of the Council as the allies, friends or enemies of anyone. We do
not intend to support countries but to support just
causes and just principles.

159. It is our intention to act, as far as possible,
in a constructive and positive way; in other words, by
advocating, proposing or supporting ideas and solutions compatible with the principles that we hold and
that will tend to reconcile conflicting positions and
lead to the resolution of tension.

160. Mexico has sponsored jointly with the delegation of the Philippines the draft resolution contained
in document S/13731. By that draft resolution, the
Security Council would decide to convene an emergency special session of the General Assembly to
examine the question of Afghanistan. The representative of the Philippines has already explained the
substance and purport of the draft resolution and
therefore I need not dwell on the text. I simply wanted
to say that Mexico voted in favour of the draft resolution that was not adopted due to the lack of unanimity
among the permanent members of the Security Council, but we did not have an opportunity to explain
our vote. We shall do so in the General Assembly,
if this second draft resolution is adopted, and if the
General Assembly deals with the subject in question.
For the time being, I should like to say that to our
mind there is no doubt at all that we are faced with
an invasion—an armed intervention—and that it is the
duty of the Security Council to call for the withdrawal
of foreign troops now in Afghanistan. We therefore
support the present draft resolution, for it seems to us
logical, as a consequence of our vote in favour of the
earlier draft resolution, that, since effective action
was not possible in the Council because of the lack
of unanimity among its permanent members, we
should now ask the Assembly to take up this matter.

161. Having said that, I should like to add in closing
that I would not be entirely frank if I did not say
how deeply we are concerned at the evolution of the
subject we are considering today, as also of the other
matter of the hostages being held in Tehran.

162. We have slipped back or are in danger of
slipping back into the cold war. The conflict between
the great Powers has re-emerged to such an extent that
‘we are faced with a continual escalation of measures
and countermeasures of pressure and reprisals. A
medium-sized developing country cannot view what is
happening without real apprehension. Those who lose
most in the cold war are the third-world countries.

17

We are in danger of slipping back and losing many
valuable advances made gradually in the last 20 years.
We cannot say that there has been a real peace; that
would be too much to say. But there ha been a climate
of relative détente, accompanied by the conviction
that the threat of a world war had been to some extent
removed, and thus permitting some important progress
for the international community and particularly for
the weak countries.

163. Suddenly, decolonization, the negotiation of
certain agreements: on disarmament such as the
SALT II Treaty,” regional and partial denuclearization, the acceptance of certain basic principles of
a new international economic order, the negotiation
of certain globally accepted rules for the law of the
sea, and so forth-——now all seem jeopardized. Furthermore, the possibility that a treaty like SALT II, which
benefits not only the two signatories but the entire
international community, will not be ratified is of
concern to and should alarm the entire world.

164. The great Powers have a new and very serious
responsibility. In spite of the specific problems which
now separate them, they must deal with those problems in such a way as not to exacerbate their conflicts
and by reacting with moderation and prudence. We,
as small countries, call upon them to fulfil their
responsibility to make further progress on the road
towards disarmament. We cannot accept that there
should be any delay in economic co-operation in
favour of the weaker countries simply because of this
new international tyranny.

165. To sum up, we feel that, today more than ever,
the great Powers have the duty to carry out their
primary responsibility vis-d-vis the United Nations.

166. Mr. TROYANOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (interpretation from Russian): The
delegation of the Soviet Union objects categorically
to the proposal for the convening of an emergency
session of the General Assembly to discuss the socalled question of the situation in Afghanistan.’ As
members will recall, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan issued a vigorous
protest against any consideration in the United Nations
of this petty American-Chinese complaint and called
for an end to be put to this inadmissible intervention
in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. This scheme,
which is hostile to the people of Afghanistan, failed in
the Security Council. However, its initiators have not
given up and they now want to drag this non-existent
question before the General Assembly. By so doing,
they are attempting to embroil the Assembly in the
execution of their imperialistic and hegemonistic plans
regarding Afghanistan and to impose on that international body a confrontation in the spirit of the ‘cold
war.

167. What we are witnessing here, in essence, are
attempts by the United States and China to exploit
—7

events in Afghanistan, using them as a pretext to
justify their course of further exacerbating tension in
the Middle East and beyond that area. Such plans
cannot fail to alarm all States which have a genuine
interest in the preservation of international peace and
security,

168. Attempts to embroil the United Nations even
further in the discussion of the so-called question of
the situation in Afghanistan are contrary to the clearly
expressed will of the people and Government of
Afghanistan and constitute a violation of the sovereignty of that country, These attempts are contrary
to the aims and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations, in particular the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7. It is clear that, if a discussion such as the one
proposed is foisted upon the General Assembly, it will
not promote the strengthening of the authority and
prestige of the United Nations.

169. On the basis of what I have said, the delegation
of the Soviet Union will vote against the proposal
contained in document S/13731.

170. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I take it that the Council is now ready to vote on the
draft resolution presented by Mexico and the Philippines [S/13731].

171. I shall now call on those representatives who
wish to explain their votes before the vote.

172. Mr. RAHMAN (Bangladesh): My delegation at
the outset would like to extend its congratulations to
Mexico on its election to membership in the Security
Council. We warmly welcome the presence of the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Mexico and
the members of his delegation. We look forward to
working in the closest concert and co-operation.

173. Bangladesh's position on the substantive aspects

* of the situation in Afghanistan has been explained at

length in the Council on more than one occasion
[2185th and 2189th meetings]. We were a sponsor of
the six-Power draft resolution [§/13729] which was
defeated because of the negative vote of a permanent
member. We believe that, in the face of this situation
and the consequent inability of the Security Council
to exercise its primary responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security, a residuary responsibility does accrue to the General Assembly to take up
this question on an emergency basis. Accordingly,
my delegation intends to vote in favour of the draft
resolution sponsored by Mexico and the Philippines,
which is now before the Council [S/13731].

174. Mr. FLORIN (German Democratic Republic)
(interpretation from Russian): The delegation of the
German Democratic Republic has already had an
opportunity to congratulate Mexico upon its election
as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.
Today, the delegation of the German Democratic

18

Republic would like to associate itself with the words
of welcome extended by you, Mr. President, to the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico.

175. The delegation of the German Democratic
Republic considers any discussion in the United
Nations of the so-called situation in Afghanistan as
intervention in the internal affairs of a Member State.
For the same reasons for which my delegation opposed
the inclusion of this item in the agenda of the Security
Council, we oppose its discussion in the General
Assembly.

176. We recall that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan categorically protested
against the intervention in its internal affairs. Without
the consent of the Government of the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan, no one has the right to discuss
the situation in that country in organs of the United
Nations, since the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan poses no danger to any other State. The demand
for discussion of the situation in the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan is one further attempt in
certain circles to continue the campaign of slander
against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and
against the Soviet Union.

177. The delegation of the German Democratic
Republic would like to express the hope that members
of the Council will duly take into account the danger
of intensifying a confrontation that does nothing to
promote the cause of peace.

178. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by Mexico and the Philippines in document
S/13731.,

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Bangladesh, China, France, Jamaica,
Mexico, Niger, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Tunisia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America

Against: German Democratic Republic, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics

Abstaining: Zambia

The draft resolution was adopted by 12 votes to 2,
with | abstention.

179. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):

I call on the representative of Jamaica.

180. Mr. MILLS (Jamaica): As the representative of
the other Latin American country on the Security
Council, I would not wish to let this opportunity
pass without expressing, on behalf of my delegation,
our very warm welcome to the delegation of Mexico.
My delegation is aware of the circumstances sur-
rounding the effort to fill this Latin American seat on
the Council, and we wish to congratulate the group of
Latin American States for finding a means of overcoming the problems which faced it, and of ensuring
that the Group can make its customary full and
significant contribution to the work of the Council.
Mexico's willingness to accept the proposal to enter
its candidature at this time is a tribute to that great
country’s respect for the United Nations, the Security
Council and the Latin American region.

181. Jamaica enjoys the very closest and most
friendly relations with Mexico. We are aware of the
great contribution that Mexico has made to the international community and to the Caribbean and Latin
American regions—in very many directions. My
delegation feels that Mexico's presence on the Council will strengthen this body and will help to maintain
its prestige and authority, especially in these very
troubled times.

182. We are particularly happy to have with us the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Mexico,
Mr. Castafieda, whose deep interest in international
affairs and whose considerable wisdom and influence

have already been evident, once again, in the past two

days.

183. The fact that Mexico will be represented on the
Council by Mr. Mujioz Ledo is in itself a matter for
considerable gratification. He is a diplomat of great
distinction and a man of wide interests and of many
accomplishments. I extend on behalf of my delegation
and on my own behalf a warm welcome to him and to
the other members of the delegation of Mexico.

184. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French):
I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of FRANCE.

185. France voted in favour of the motion that a
special emergency session of the General Assembly

19

should be convened, in the light of the relevant provisions of the rules of procedure governing the procedure for convening the Assembly in case of an
emergency.

186. France feels, in fact, that the serious nature of
the situation justifies a debate in the General Assembly,
within the framework of the powers conferred on it
in the Charter. Pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 1,
of the Charter, the Security Council can request the
General Assembly to make a recommendation on
any dispute or situation, in observance of its powers as
set forth in the text of the Charter.

187. Consequently, my delegation, while it voted in
favour of the motion just adopted, naturally expresses
the relevant reservations concerning the wording of
the second paragraph of the preamble to this motion.

188. I now resume my capacity as PRESIDENT.
There are no further speakers. The Security Council
has thus concluded this ‘stage of its consideration of
the item on the agenda.

The meeting rose at 8.05 p.m.

Notes

!' To be printed in “United Nations, Treaty Series™, under
No. 17976. ’

2 Official Records af the United Nations Conference on the Law
of Treaties, First and Second Sessions, Vienna (United Nations
publication, Sales No. E.70.V.5), p. 296.

3 A/34/542, annex, para. 245.

4 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fourth Session, First Committee, 7th meeting.

5 See CD/53/ Appendix 11I/Vol.1, document CD/28.

¢ See resolution 462 (1980).
vy,

smd] @¥l 2yyte oJ pand] 3S
ow lar A GE pe Len and + JWI eld od For FYTT RCI [RPg SVCR OLY FOI FLERE PIN PON IRE oy
cin JN Bag path de desl LY NS
tof MIXERS HERR
EXNEMMESE RE BERRA RN, Ad HE NHL USHER OARBRATRNNER,

HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS

United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors
throughout the world. Consult vour bookstore or write to; United Nations, Sales
Section, New York or Geneva,

COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES

Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences
dépositaires du monde entier. Informez-vous auprés de votre libraire ou adressez-vous
a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Genéve,

KAK IIO/IYYHTD H3ITAHHA OPTAHH ANH OG HEIHHEHHBIX HAIIKA

Hagannn Opraumsauny O6benuHeHHbIX HAL MOKHO XYNMHTL B KHHIKHBIX MAIra-JHHAX H AreHTCTBAX BO BeeX paftouax Mmnupa. Hapoanure CHpaBKH ob HIXAHHAX B
BAIUEM KHINKHOM MATA3ZHHE MAK NUIUKTE ro anpecy: Opraguaanus Of beuHesHBIX
Haunt, Cexnis no npoaaxe uaaauuf, Heo-Flopk nau YKerena,

COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estin en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirijase a: Naciones
Unidas, Seccién de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra.

Litho in United Nations, New York 00400 83-61462—December 1985—2,425

Voting Summary
Yes: 012 | No: 002 | Abstentions: 1 | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership: 15
Y BANGLADESH
Y CHINA
Y FRANCE
N GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Y JAMAICA
Y MEXICO
Y NIGER
Y NORWAY
Y PHILIPPINES
Y PORTUGAL
Y TUNISIA
N USSR
Y UNITED KINGDOM
Y UNITED STATES
A ZAMBIA