text: Special Committee, the answer seems to have been provided durinq recent Security Council debates on Namibia and the South African raid on Botswana. In the 11 June statement delivered by the Chairman ot the Special Committee, the west was attacked in immoderate lanquaqe, and the qood faith of the countries of the West was assailed: “Pretoria serves as a faithful lap-doq of the west and, in more ways than one, embodies the oriqinal and historical traits of the West, which today strenuously seeks to shed linqerinq attitudes to slavery, reliqious prejudice, class snobbery, neo-Nazi attitudes and pure racism. Althouqh apartheid South Africa is bad enouqh in servinq its own vile and reprehensible interests, the evidence is also conclusive that it acts as the West’s catts-paw.n This is a complete misstatement ot the relation of Western countries with South Africa, and a biased, oblectionable characterisation of the West’s traditions and history. “Where does the west stand in all this? Durinq these two days the Security Council has listened to approximately 27 speakers1 yet no ma7or Western country has yet spoken, This is a debate that tocurres on the fundamental principles central - at least rhetorically so - to Western CiVili2atiOn . . . majority rule, one man one vote, advancinq the cause ot freedom, liberty, eauality and fraternity . . . I am sure they will speak later on . . . At the most, there will be rhetorical declarations and platitudes, but unmatched by action, lack of polltical will and ultimately a surrender to business interests and short-siqhted strateqic complicity with evil.” 4. The United States cannot understand why the statements of the western members in the Security Council are discounted and mocked, even before they are heard, unless there is a predisposition aqainst those members. The United State8 
analysis: The text appears to be a response to a debate in the United Nations Security Council regarding Namibia and a South African raid on Botswana. The language used is critical of Western countries, accusing them of hypocrisy and complicity with the apartheid regime in South Africa. The text does not mention any specific economic, environmental, or social issues, but rather focuses on the political and ideological aspects of the debate.