text: said that they keenly hoped the Namibian people would swiftly attain their independence by peaceful means. They felt, nevertheless, that the Fifth Committee must consider not the political but the budgetary aspects of the programme of activities of the United Nations Council for Namibia. As in the previous year, they opposed the allocation to the United Nations Fund for Namibia of $1 million from the regular budget of the United Nations for 1984 (see document A/C.5/38/54, para. 47) for two reasons. First, no explanation was given as to the activities on which the money would be spent, so the Committee could not judge whether the spending envisaged was justified or likely to produce concrete results. Second, the operational activities of the Fund should properly be funded from voluntary contributions. There was also a proposal to allocate $300,000 for use by the Council for Namibia in its programme of co-operation with non-governmental organizations (see para. 46). There, too, Member States were being asked to pay the subsidy without any details on how it would be used, that being left to the discretion of SWAPO. Such block disbursements represented a serious departure from the financial rules and regulations of the United Nations. 23. As regards conferences, the delegations were particularly concerned at the increasingly frequent departures from General Assembly resolution 31/140, section I, which required United Nations bodies to meet at their respective headquarters and stipulated that where meetings were held away from headquarters, the host Government must pay the associated additional costs. The exceptions recommended by the Council for Namibia would require the inclusion in the regular budget of $1.4 million in additional costs, $667,600 of that being for plenary meetings of the Council in Bangkok. On the subject of Bangkok, it should be mentioned that another exception to General Assembly resolution 31/140 had recently 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the budgetary aspects of the United Nations Council for Namibia, specifically the allocation of funds for various activities. The concerns raised are related to transparency, accountability, and compliance with financial rules and regulations. The context suggests that the Council is involved in activities related to international relations, governance, and development, but the specific focus is on the budgetary implications.