text: message to the Government of South Africa. We regret that, despite these efforts, unanimity was not achieved, Let me be clear in saying that the United States rejects the establishment of a so-called interim government in Na- mibia as null and void. These institutions created by Preto- ria have no standing. We condemn any act by any party which could be seen as leading to a settlement outside resolution 435 (1978), the only internationally acceptable basis for a peaceful solution to the Namibia problem. We have also condemned South Africa’s attack on Gaborone, Botswana, and its attempted raid in Cabinda, Angola. 43. The United States remains committed to and actively involved in the search for Namibian independence, in accordance with resolution 435 (1978). We have come a long way in this search and will continue to pursue our objective, an objective we share with all members of the international community, for as long as there is a prospect for success. 44. In spite of the recriminations and condemnations we have heard in the Council chamber over the past several days, and in spite of some of the formulations in the reso- lution before us, it is clear to all of us here that one key issue remains to be resolved before resolution 435 (1978) can be implemented: finafizing an agreement on the with- drawal of foreign combat forces from Angola. It is not a matter of doctrine or of juridical pre-condition. It is, how- ever, an objective fact that must be dealt with, This has been recognized by all parties to the negotiations. In this regard, we welcomed the letter of 17 November 1984 from President DOS Santos to the Secretary-General [S/16838), setting out Angola‘s specific proposals for resolving this issue. This was an important step forward. Our contacts 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic statement regarding the conflict in Namibia and Angola, discussing the withdrawal of foreign combat forces, the implementation of Resolution 435 (1978), and the rejection of an interim government. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that the text is related to international relations, politics, and conflict resolution. The text does not mention economic development, natural resources, health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, culture, or science and technology, but rather focuses on political and military issues.