text: on various pretexts such as the transfer of technology, development, and so on. On account of the weakness of the resolutions adopted, the situation in Namibia had not improved for the past 39 years. 105. Mr. ARNOUSS (Syrian Arab Republic) said that, although the draft decision and draft resolution had been worded as mildly as possible to ensure a consensus, the United States and Israel should have been mentioned by name in the paragraphs condemning collaboration with the South African regime. 106. Mr. YOSSIPHOV (Bulgaria) said that the colonialist countries had again been unwilling to address the basic issues of the colonial territories. The manoeuvre which had just been witnessed -namely, the rejection of the consensus reached in / ... A/C.4/40/SR.l0 English Page 21 (Mr. Yossiehov, Bulgaria) the Special Committee -would have to be taken into account by the Special Committee in future with a view to strengthening by every possible means the resolutions supporting the countries and peoples still struggling against colonialism. As a member of the Special Committee, his delegation would take all necessary measures to that end. 107. Mr. KHAMMAVONG (Lao People's Democratic Republic), although he had voted in favour of the two drafts, regretted that they did not mention the United States and Israel, which were collaborating with the South African regime not only by encouraging aggression against neighbouring African States in violation of the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions but also by opposing the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, particularly with respect to Namibia. lOB. Mr. ABDORAHMAN (Democratic Yemen) said that, although he had voted in favour of the dratt resolution, the countries supporting the south African regime, namely the United States and Israel, should have been named. 109. The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had concluded the consideration of item 110. 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a political issue related to colonialism and the situation in Namibia, with speakers mentioning the involvement of the United States and Israel. The language used is diplomatic and formal, suggesting a setting such as a United Nations meeting. The topics of technology, development, and colonialism are mentioned, but in a broader context rather than specifically focusing on economic development or natural resources.