text: Committ~e would not be complying tully with its responsibilities if it did not condemn the United States and Israel for their continued support of imperialist domination. 97. Mr. BADRAL (Mongolia) said that his delegation had voted in favour·of both the draft resolution and the draft decision as, both in spirit and in content, they were consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and relevant decisions of the Security Council. He nevertheless had certain reservations. The draft resolution would have gained significant force if it had included an appeal to the Security Council to impose comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. Moreover, it omitted to mention the names of all the States which were co-operating with South Africa. 98. The decision on military activities did not stipulate sufficiently clearly that such activities were a serious impediment to the implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). In particular, it should have made specific reference to the United States, Israel and other Western countries whose military co-operation, particularly in the nuclear field, was of direct assistance to South Africa in the pursuit of its genocidal policy. Non-Self-Governing Territories which were being used as beachheads of imperialism should also have been specififed by name. / ... A/C.4/40/SR.l0 English Page 20 99. Mr. NWANEAMPEH (Ghana) said for the record that, although his delegation had been absent during the voting, he would have voted in favour of both drafts had he been present. 100. The CHAIRMAN said that his statement would be recorded in the Committee's report to the General Assembly. 101. Mr. YUSUFI (Afghanistan) said that although his delegation had voted in favour of the two drafts, Israel and the United States should have been mentioned in 
analysis: The text appears to be a transcript of a meeting discussing a draft resolution and decision related to South Africa, with specific criticisms aimed at the United States and Israel. The language used is political and critical, suggesting a focus on international relations and politics.