Mideast situation/Palestine question – SecCo meeting – Verbatim record

1875th MEETING Held in New York on Friday,

16 January 1976, at 3 p.m.

Present: The representatives of the following States: Benin, China, France, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Libyan Arab Republic, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania and United States of America.

1.   Adoption of the agenda

2.   The Middle East problem including the Palestinian question

The meeting was called to order at 3.50 p.m.

The agenda was adopted.

1.  The PRESIDENT: In accordance with the decisions taken by the  Council at previous meetings [1870th-l874th meetings], I invite the representatives of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates and Yugoslavia, in conformity with the usual practice and with the relevant provisions of the Charter and the provisional rules of procedure, to Participate in the discussion without the right to vote. In accordance with the decision taken by the Council [1870th meeting], I invite the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the discussion.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Abdel Meguid (Egypt), Sharaf (Jordan), Mr. Allaf (Syrian Arab Republic) and Mr. Khuddoumi (Palestine Liberation Organization) took places at the Security Council table: Mr. Al-Shaikhly (Iraq), Mr. Bishara (Kuwait), Mr. El Hassen (Mauritania), Mr. Jamal (Qatar)Mr. Baroody (Saudi Arabia), Mr. Ghobash (United Arab Emirates) and Mr. Petric (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council Chamber.

2. The PRESIDENT: The first speaker is the representative of Mauritania. In accordance with the established practice, I request the representative of Jordan to withdraw temporarily from the Council table in order that his place may be taken by the representative of Mauritania. I now invite that representative to take that place at the Council table and to make his statement.

3. Mr. EL HASSEN (Mauritania) (interpretation from French): There could no more felicitous time, Sir, to discuss a problem of such capital importance to international peace and security than the period of your presidency of the Security Council. Aware as we are of the qualities you possess, your skill, your sense of restraint and tact and your patience, we cannot but be certain that this debate will be crowned with success and will constitute an important stage in the search for peace in the Middle East. May I therefore congratulate you and tell you how happy I am to speak in the Council at a time when you are its President. For you are not only a personal friend of mine but also a worthy representative of Africa and the eminent representative of a country with which mine maintains the closest possible relations of fraternal solidarity.

4. I should like also, through you, Sir, to thank the members of the Council for having been kind enough to allow my delegation to participate in this discussion. I should like, too, to congratulate the new members of the Council and to wish them all success in carrying out the important responsibility entrusted to them by the General Assembly.

5. I said just now that the present debate is of capital importance to international peace and security. Indeed, since the Second World War the problem of the Middle East has really been the only one that might at any time push the world into a third general conflagration. Since 1948 not a single year has passed when this problem has not been considered, from one or another of its angles, by the various organs of the United Nations. All the attempts made by the Organization from the very outset to find a solution to this thorny problem have been compromised by Israel's intransigence and by the atmosphere of insecurity created by its terrorist groups.

6. We know what happened to Count Bernadotte, the United Nations Mediator, when he simply proposed a correction of the frontiers of the Zionist State. His successor, Ralph Bunche, submitted to the General Assembly in September 1948 a plan which was also rejected under Zionist pressure. Not only was it impossible to carry out that plan, but a General Assembly resolution which was adopted on 9 December 1949 1/ and which called for the internationalization of Jerusalem met with an outright rejection on the part of Israel. On 14 December of the same year—in other words, one week later—the Zionist authorities, paying no attention at all to that United Nations decision, declared that their parliament would be installed at Jerusalem.

7. In 1956, during the night of 29/30 October, Israel decided to invade the Sinai, Egyptian territory. There was a further act of aggression on 5 June 1967. That time it resulted in the occupation of a large part of Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory. Since then the Middle East problem has been in the forefront of the concerns of the international community. From that date to the present time, almost 100 resolutions have been adopted by various bodies of the United Nations rejecting the annexation of territory by force and advocating a solution to the Palestinian tragedy. Not only have all those resolutions been rejected by Israel, but the Israeli policy of annexation and expulsion of peoples has been accompanied by a campaign of denigration of the United Nations.

8. Since 1967 the United Nations in fact has become the favourite target of the Israeli leaders. The principle of the Charter relating to the non-acquisition of territory by force has already been described as immoral by Mrs. Golda Meir on 30 August 1971 when she was Prime Minister of Israel.

9. Despite this policy of arrogance and aggression, the Egyptian Government, showing every desire to live in peace and concerned to save mankind from a generalized conflagration—concerns and desires which they shared with other countries of that region—at the beginning of 1968 proposed to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General a plan for the implementation of the Council resolutions. Israel rejected that proposal. Israel's blocking of Mr. Jarring's mission led the French Government to propose a policy of concerted action among the permanent members of the Security Council in order to find a permanent solution of the problem of the Middle East. The Arab Governments welcomed that initiative and unreservedly accepted it. Israel simply rejected the French initiative out of hand.

10. In the meantime, the Soviet Government presented a peace plan which was, in turn, also rejected by Israel. It likewise rejected an American plan which was presented on 9 December 1969 by the Secretary of State, Mr. William Rogers [see S/9588]. In June 1970, the United States took another initiative for peace, requesting the parties concerned to observe a cease-fire of 90 days, the period of calm to be employed in efforts to implement resolution 242 (1967) through the intermediary of Mr. Jarring. The Egyptian. Government accepted this initiative whereas Israel after having first accepted it, subsequently denounced it.

11. In the discharge of his mandate of mediation the Special Representative of the Secretary-General then visited the Middle East. He started by submitting on 8 February 1971 an aide-memoire to Egypt and Israel [S/10403, annex]. On 15 February, the reply of Egypt [ibid., annex II], which was positive, was communicated to Mr. Jarring. On 26 February, Israel published its comments on the Egyptian reply as well as its own proposals [ibid., annex III] instead of giving some positive reply to Mr. Jarring. These comments and proposals made it quite clear that Israel did not intend to withdraw from the Arab territories which it occupied and which extended to the armistice line of before 5 June 1967.

12. On 5 March 1971, the Secretary-General made an appeal to Israel to consider this question more carefully and to give a more favourable response to the proposal of Mr. Jarring. Israel ignored that appeal. On 4 February 1971, President Sadat proposed a two-stage plan [see S/10141], which was designed to facilitate implementation of the provisions of resolution 242 (1967). Israel rejected that initiative as well. On 4 October 1971, a new American six-point plan for the full implementation of the resolution was presented to the General Assembly by the Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers.2/ This plan was violently rejected by Mrs. Golda Meir, who was at that time Prime Minister of Israel.

13. On 23 June 1971, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity, at its eighth ordinary session, requested the then Chairman, in consultation with the heads of State and Government of Africa, to use their influente to bring about the complete implementation of resolution 242 (1967). It was pursuant to that, commendation that a committee consisting of 10 African heads of State was created. A sub-committee, consisting of the heads of State of the United Republic of Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal and Zaire, was instructed to get in touch with the two. parties in order to facilitate Mr. Jarring's mission. Israel refused once again to subscribe to the principle of the non-annexation of territory by force, using the pretext that its security could be guaranteed only by expansion.

14. This brief outline of past events proves, if there is any need of proof, that all the wars which have raged in the Middle East since 1948, and more particularly the war of 1973, were rooted in the intransigence of Israel and its systematic refusal to work towards peace on the basis of the decisions of the United Nations and of the most sacred and fundamental principles of the Charter. Since the war of October 1973, discussions in the United Nations on the Middle East have differed from earlier ones because of their context and the circumstances in which they have been held. This is particularly due to the Palestinian issue, which in the past was relegated to second place, but has today become important not only because it is an actual fact but because it is the prime cause of the problem and the key to any solution of it.

15. Now the rights of the Palestinians—rights which have received unanimous international recognition— have been defined as the basis for any peace in the Middle East and it has been recognized that they should be the foundation for any solution designed to put an end to the hegemony exercised in that region. This process of recognition, begun as a result of the October war and further strengthened by the dynamism and determination of the Palestinian people as well as of its representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), has in today's debate reached a crucial stage for peace in that region, and hence for security throughout the world. This is in fact, the first time that the Security Council has taken up the question of the Middle East with the full participation of the Palestinian people through their representatives, and I am very pleased to welcome them here.

16. Therefore, there is now a fundamental difference between the way in which we are now taking up the question of Palestine and the way in which it was debated 20 or 30 years ago. The international community and the Security Council are henceforth fully aware that the question of Palestine is not simply a refugee question, it is not a question of knowing how those refugees can be provided with food or clothing through international assistance. They are aware now that this is a really much more the question of a people which has been expelled from its home and that it is the root cause of the global problem we are discussing today. They are aware now that any solution of this unfortunate problem of occupation and annexation by force must necessarily involve the restoration to the Palestinian people of their legitimate national rights. This is what gives particular significance to our meetings today.

17. It is furthermore, historically rather ironical that Israel was the one which contributed to this profound change in international opinion regarding the problem of the Middle East, because the logic of contempt for the rights of others and the use of military force to occupy and consolidate the annexation of the territory could no longer be accepted by the international community. The 1967 occupation of Arab territories the Zionist authorities of Tel Aviv and the outright denial of any rights to the Palestinian people were, in fact, only a repetition of the aggressions of 1948 and 1956. In the course of these various acts of aggression. Israel attained its military objective: namely, to occupy the territories of three Arab States, and-to date-it-has refused to withdraw from those territories, even within the context of a political settlement, while continuing to deny their rights to the Palestinian people. But those aggressions did. in fact lead to a positive result, and that was to highlight the military arrogance of Israel and the vanity of its peaceful intentions and its struggle for survival and for peace. This is certainly what the international community has understood and what has led it to recognize the rights of the Palestinians to dignity and independence.

18. If Israel had really been motivated by a desire for peace, it would have participated in this discussion, whose main goal is to seek a solution of the problem of the Middle East, but once again its absence unmasks its true intentions. To perpetuate the occupation of Egyptian territories and those of Jordan and Syria, and to maintain refugee status of the Palestinian people—these are Israel's genuine motives. This is the situation the Security Council is in duty bound to change if it wishes to preserve peace in the region and security throughout the world, because the same conditions which led to the various wars in that area still prevail in the Middle East since Israeli policies have in no way changed.

19. Therefore the Security Council is today on the eve of a very important and decisive stage in the search for a settlement of the Palestinian question and the establishment of a just peace in the Middle East. The way to be followed is very clear. It has been clearly marked out by the General Assembly in resolutions 3236 (XXIX), 3375 (XXX), 3376 (XXX) and 3414 (XXX). The Council should indicate the way in which these various resolutions are to be implemented. The Council must try to eliminate both the main causes of tension in the region, namely, the occupation of Arab territories and the violation of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.

20. The occupation of Arab territories was the result of the Israeli aggression of 1967 and was carried out in contempt of international law and the fundamental principles of the Charter. The Palestinian tragedy is well known. These are people who have been expelled from their homes and dispossessed of their goods and whose very existence is threatened by Israel.

21. By restoring to the Palestinian people their inalienable national rights and by eliminating the consequences of the Israeli aggression of 1967, which led at that time to the occupation of Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territories, the Security Council can lay the foundations for a just and lasting peace in the region. The Arab countries have once again demonstrated their wish for peace and their sincere desire to see the United Nations play its proper role by ensuring that each of its Members enjoys the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter. Therefore it is clear that it is not the Arab countries that wish to push Israel into the sea as the Israeli propaganda machine has for so long alleged. It is rather Israel that wishes to pursue through aggression and intimidation its dreams of expansion at the expense of the Arab countries of the area and of the Palestinian people. No peace can be brought about, however, in that part of the Middle East without justice, and there can be no justice unless the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people are restored to them and unless Israel withdraws from all the occupied Arab territories. This then is the challenge which has to be taken up by the Security Council today in its efforts to establish stability once again in that region.

22. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Mauritania for the very generous remarks he has made about me and my country. I want to assure him that the feelings of friendship he has expressed are fully reciprocated. I should like to request him now to withdraw in order that the representative of Jordan may resume his seat.

23. Before I call on the next speaker, I should like to inform the Council that I have just received a letter from the representative of Guinea containing a request that she be invited, in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure, to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. I propose, if I hear no objection, to invite the representative of Guinea to participate in the discussion in conformity with the usual practice and the relevant provisions of the Charter and the provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, I invite that representative to take the place reserved for her at the side of the Council chamber, on the usual understanding that she will be invited to take a place at the Council table when she wishes to address the Council.

At the invitation of the President. Mrs. Jeanne Martin Cisse (Guinea) took the place reserved for her at the side of the Council table.

24. Mr. DATCU (Romania) (interpretation front French): Mr. President, the Romanian delegation wishes first of all to associate itself with your statement by conveying to the People's Republic of China our profound condolences on the heavy loss suffered by the Chinese people with the passing of Mr. Chou En-lai. the Premier of China. A distinguished leader of the Party and the State. Chou En-lai devoted his entire life to the fight for national and social liberation. The progress and happiness of the Chinese people, the victory of the revolution and the construction of socialism in China were his goals. He worked for equal rights and mutual respect among all peoples and for the triumph of peace throughout the world. Chou En-lai was a good friend of the Romanian people. On all occasions he fought to strengthen and develop friendship and cooperation between the Chinese and Romanian peoples. I would ask the representative of China to convey to the family of the deceased an expression of our profound sympathy and condolences.

25. Romania is participating in this debate in the Security Council with a keen awareness of the complexity and gravity of the questions being considered and also of the role the United Nations must play in the settlement. We have witnessed the growing concern of States and peoples for a settlement of matters in dispute in a new spirit, by means of negotiations, and we have seen their desire to eliminate the power politics which characterized the past, to eliminate domination and inequity and the sources of tension likely to produce military conflicts that could have unpredictable consequences. It has become even clearer that the desires of the peoples of the world for a better and more just world can be realized only through the establishment of new international relations. with a truly democratic character based on full equality among all peoples, and on respect for the sacred right of every people to self-determination in accordance with its sovereign will.

26. In the present international circumstances, any attempts to solve matters in dispute by force can only lead to further conflicts, endangering the peace and security of the peoples of the world. That is why, to bring about a just settlement of international disputes, a great sense of responsibility must be displayed. There must be discussions and direct talks among the parties concerned, on the basis of respect for the right of every nation to self-determination and for the freedom and independence of every people.

27.  My country believes that the prevention of conflicts, the settlement of problems in dispute by political and peaceful means, and the elimination of the use of force in international relations should represent the primary objective of the entire international community. The United Nations and the Security Council in particular can and must display a greater sense of initiative and contribute more effectively to, the attainment of that objective.  In a constructive spirit. Romania intends to make a contribution to that end.

28.  Romania is particularly concerned over the evolution of the situation in the Middle East. We are greatly disturbed by the continued state of tension; in that part of the world, which might have very harmful consequences for world peace and security. Our country is directly concerned in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, a peace which can lead to the free and independent development of all the countries and peoples of that area, in accordance with their fundamental aspirations. in accordance with their own interests and in accordance with the interests of international peace and cooperation.

29.  It is only natural that the grave situation in the Middle East should be considered at this time in the United Nations—in the Security Council, the body that has been entrusted by the Member States with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.  Consequently, Romany has been acting with determination to put an end to the conflict, and the Romanian Government and President, Nicolae Ceausescu, have worked continuously and with  perseverance to bring about just and viable settlement that would lead to the establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East.

30. The Romanian people, which has always had fraternal feelings of solidarity with the Arab peoples in their struggle to strengthen their independence and national sovereignty, follow with deep sympathy the efforts of those peoples to bring about their economic and social progress, and we are indeed delighted with the success that they have had.

31. When considering all the complex problems relating to the present situation in the Middle East, Romania believes that a political settlement of the conflict by peaceful means is necessary. In order to achieve that end on the basis of resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the following is necessary:

—First, that Israel withdraw its troops from all the territories occupied during the 1967 war;

—Secondly, that the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to set up their own independent State, should be recognized;

—Thirdly, that a just and durable peace be brought about which guarantees the existence and territorial integrity and the right to free and independent development of all States in the area, including the Palestinian State that is to be set up and the State of Israel.

32. Romania is convinced that the situation in the Middle East cannot be settled without the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Arab territories. We believe that no State has the right to send armed forces into foreign territories and maintain them there to impose its will, nor does any State have the right to violate the independence, sovereignty or territorial integrity of another State. The experience of history has shown that it is an illusion that the security of a State can be ensured by the occupation of foreign territory. That is why it is necessary for Israel to abandon its rigid positions, to demonstrate realism and to show that it understands that as long as the Arab territories are occupied and as long as the aspirations and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are Snored a lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved.

33. The occupation of foreign territory is in complete contradiction with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the provisions of other fundamental documents of the Organization. That is why the Security Council should once again reaffirm the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition and occupation of territory by force and should reaffirm the need for Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied in 1967.

34. The guaranteeing of the  independence,  sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the States in the area is an objective which can be attained by establishing new relations based on confidence and good neighbourliness among all the peoples and States concerned. Contemporary international reality has shown that a settlement of the problem of the Palestinian people in accordance with their national interests is a sine qua non for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. That is why we consider that the United Nations, and indeed the entire international community, has a duty to see to it that justice is done with respect to the Palestinian people. That can be accomplished by creating the political and material conditions which will make it possible for them to determine their own future, to establish an independent State and to enjoy all the rights which stem therefrom.

35. The general principles in accordance with which the problem of the Palestinian people should be resolved have already been set forth by the General Assembly in resolution 3236 (XXIX). The General Assembly has also recognized that the Palestinian people are a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Accordingly, it has requested that the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, be invited to participate on an equal footing with all other parties in all the efforts, deliberations and conferences which take place on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations. The decision of the Security Council to invite PLO to participate in the present debate is part of the same effort.

36. We believe that an invitation to the PLO to attend this debate is entirely in accordance with one of the axioms of contemporary international relations, according to which viable solutions for international problems cannot be worked out unless there is equal and effective participation of all interested parties.

37. With respect to the problem under consideration, no one here would deny the fact that the Palestinian question is a central element of the Middle East situation. Acceptance of that fact necessarily entails the obligation to consider related problems with the participation of the PLO, the recognized representative of the Palestinian people.

38. My country has given full support to the adoption of those decisions in accordance with which the Palestinian people and their legitimate representatives have been requested to state their views and to participate in the political and diplomatic processes initiated to settle the Middle East conflict and all the problems relating to their interests and national aspirations.

39. We are indeed pleased that the PLO—the sole representative of the Palestinian people—has been invited to participate in the present debate. On behalf of the Romanian delegation I should like to extend a cordial and friendly welcome to the delegation of the PLO and to say that we are pleased to see it participating on an equal footing in the work of the Security Council.

40. However, we must say that we regret the absence of Israel from this debate in the Security Council. We believe that to ignore the Organization will serve neither the cause of peace in the Middle East nor the interests of the Israeli people. We hope that Israel will reconsider its position on this fundamental question and will adopt a more realistic attitude and make a contribution to the settlement of the Middle East problem.

41. We believe that the confirmation of the Palestinian component as an essential part of the Middle East conflict represents a fundamental change which has occurred in the situation in the area, and due account must be taken of it in any effort to establish a just and lasting peace. To ignore the interests and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people would only serve to perpetuate and aggravate the conflict, and that would have unpredictable consequences for peace and security in the area and indeed in the entire world.

42. The establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East is a major objective which can be attained if we all make a constructive contribution, if we all promote and develop the positive trends that have been initiated so far. It is an objective which can be attained if we all work towards an over-all settlement of outstanding problems.

43. The Romanian delegation is convinced that it is necessary to act resolutely, using all means to pursue and speed up the process leading to a political settlement of the problems of the Middle East. That implies necessarily that the advantages offered by the negotiation method in the search for a viable political solution must be used to the full, in accordance with the interests and rights of each and all the peoples in the area.

44. It is only natural that the primary role in the settlement of the Middle East problems must be played by the peoples in the area, including the Palestinian people, which are directly concerned in the establishment of peace in that part of the world.

45. We must use all our strength and all means of international negotiation. The Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East should be used as a body where far reaching negotiations may take place, with the participation of the representative of the Palestinian people and representatives of the other States concerned. Efforts within the United Nations should also be intensified and the contribution of the Organization should be increased considerably, as should the contribution of the Security Council, so that it can play its proper role in the settlement of the conflict.

46. While we are very grateful to the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts to restore peace and understanding in the Middle East, we do feel that greater and more effective use should be made of the opportunities and advantages inherent in the good offices of the Secretary-General. In our opinion, the Secretary-General, as representative of the United Nations at the Geneva Conference, should report to the Security Council regularly on progress in the work of the Conference.

47. The responsibilities of the United Nations, and in particular those of the Security Council, with regard to peace in the area will not cease to exist if and when the parties manage to begin bilateral or multilateral negotiations. Until a just and lasting peace is established, the Security Council should concern itself actively and uninterruptedly with the problems of the Middle East. In that way we will have the proper organizational framework where ideas may crystallize, where suitable solutions acceptable to all parties can be put forward and where we can follow closely and supervise the entire diplomatic process and attendant efforts.

48. Romania considers that the primary objective of the present debate in the Security Council should be to explore and use the opportunities which the Security Council has to intensify efforts to bring about a settlement of the entire problem of the Middle East.

49.    As other participants in this debate have stressed, conditions must be established for settling the problem of the Palestinian people, a question which is at the very core of the Middle East conflict. It has become increasingly clear that any attempt to ignore or under-; estimate the political dimensions and real proportions of the Palestinian problem might have grave consequences for peace and security in the area and in the world. That is why the Security Council needs to take a stand on the question of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and to promote the exercise of those rights, including the right to establish their own independent State. In that way the Council, on the basis  of earlier resolutions, could offer principles and guidelines to be followed when dealing with all the fundamental aspects of the Middle East conflict.

50. We believe also that the Security Council might call for a resumption of the Geneva Peace Conference. The Geneva Peace Conference would, in all probability, represent an important stage in the settlement of the Middle East conflict if the presence and contribution of all the parties concerned—including the representatives of the Arab Palestinian people—were ensured and if the implementation of all relevant United Nations resolutions were attended to. Accordingly, believe that the Council should also recognize the right of the PLO to participate in the Geneva Peace Conference on an equal footing with all the other parties.

51.    We should like to express the firm belief that the present  situation  need  not  continue  and  that the problems posed by the Middle East conflict can be resolved by joint efforts on the part of all States, first and foremost on the part of those peoples most directly concerned. The Romanian delegation believes that this debate provides a historic opportunity to guide efforts aimed at bringing about a political settlement of the Middle East problem, and to take a step forward in that direction. For that to happen it is necessary, of course, that all parties demonstrate a constructive approach and show realism and a political will to work towards the objectives of peace and justice.

52. The work of the Council should find concrete expression in a resolution opening the way to a settlement of the conflict in the Middle East, which should be brought about as soon as possible by means of negotiations so as to facilitate the development of every people in the area and peaceful cooperation among all the States of the region. We simply cannot afford to allow our peace efforts to fail.

53. Romania is a country located very close to the area of conflict, and we are determined to make a contribution, both in the Security Council and in other international forums, to the adoption of decisions aimed at promoting and bringing nearer the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in accordance with the interests and aspirations of all the States and peoples in the area and in conformity with the imperatives of peace and security.

Notes

2/  See General Assembly resolution 303 (IV).

2/  See Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-sixth Session, Plenary Meetings, 1950th meeting, paras.68-74.