CEIRPP meeting – Consideration of draft resolution – Summary record

COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS

OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 125th MEETING

Held at Headquarters, New York,

on Wednesday, 4 December 1985, at 10.30 a.m.

Chairman: Mr. SARRE (Senegal)

CONTENTS

Adoption of the agenda

Consideration of a draft resolution on the question of Palestine

                   The meeting was called to order at 11.10 a.m.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.   The agenda was adopted.

CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE

2.   The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of the members of the Committee to draft

resolution D, which dealt with the convening of an International Peace Conference on the Middle East.

3.   Mr. AGIUS (Malta), Rapporteur, said that draft resolution D had been initially submitted by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and subsequently discussed by the Working Group of the Committee at two meetings earlier that week.  The text of the draft resolution included the amendments agreed to by the Working Group during the course of exhaustive deliberations, in which a large number of the members of the Committee had participated.  He then briefly reviewed the contents of the draft resolution, which was similar to that of the previous year.

4.   The fifth preambular paragraph expressed regret once again at the continued negative position of the Governments of Israel and the United States of America and the lack of response and the lack of willingness to reconsider their position towards the Conference.  Paragraph 4 determined that the question of Palestine was the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.  Paragraph 5, which was linked to the fifth preambular paragraph, called upon the Governments of Israel and the United States of America to reconsider their positions towards the attainment of peace in the Middle East through the convening of the Conference. Lastly, he expressed satisfaction at the spirit of co-operation and compromise shown by all delegations which had participated in the debate on the draft resolution.  It was hoped that the Committee would be able to adopt the draft resolution without delay.

5.   The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of Senegal, said that certain delegations had told him that, with respect to the fifth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution, they would prefer to omit the mention of the two Governments in question, as had been the case in 1984 with General Assembly resolution 39/49 D.

6.   Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) suggested combining the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 39/49 D in a single paragraph which would replace the fifth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution.  That paragraph would read:

          "Having considered again the reports of the Secretary-General of 13 March 1984 and 13 September 1984, in which he stated that, inter alia, `it is clear from the replies of the Governments of Israel and the United States of America that they are not prepared to participate in the proposed Conference', and regretting the continued negative response of the two Governments and the lack of willingness to reconsider their position towards the Conference,".

7.   That paragraph reflected the wording of General Assembly resolution 39/49 D and referred to the reports of the Secretary-General submitted in pursuance to that resolution.  Furthermore, the results of the vote taken on General Assembly resolution 39/49 D demonstrated the negative attitude of the two Governments in that regard.

8.   Miss KUNADI (India) said that her delegation had participated in the

deliberations of the Working Group on the draft resolution under consideration and had supported the text as submitted to the Committee.  However, in view of the concerns which had been expressed, she would have no difficulty in supporting the suggestion made by the observer for the PLO.  In that regard, however, she thought that it might be more appropriate to refer to the relevant reports submitted by the Secretary-General in 1985, because they were more recent.

9.   Mr. ABOUL-GHEIT (Observer for Egypt) said that he agreed with the representative of India on the need to refer to the reports of the Secretary-General submitted in 1985.  It would be inappropriate to refer to the reports of 1984 and ignore those of 1985.

10.  Mr. SIMENI (Nigeria) said that he supported the views expressed by the representatives of India and Egypt.  Unless the observer for the PLO had a specific reason to refer to the 1984 reports of the Secretary-General, it would be better to refer to those submitted in 1985.

11.  Mr. AMARI (Tunisia) said that the fourth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution under consideration referred to the relevant reports of the Secretary-General of 1985.  Accordingly, the paragraph suggested for inclusion by the observer for the PLO should be inserted before the fourth preambular paragraph in order to reflect the proper chronological sequence.

12.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that it was clear from the report of the Secretary-General in document A/40/168 that the difficulties which he had experienced in 1984 still existed.  It was therefore necessary to refer to the reports of the Secretary-General of March and September 1984 and the difficulties in question.  Reference could also be made to the report of the Secretary-General in document A/40/168 and the difficulties which he was still encountering.

13.  Miss KUNADI (India) said that a quotation from the most recent reports of the Secretary-General would establish the necessary link in the draft resolution.  She inquired whether the observer for the PLO would suggest a formulation in that regard.

14.  The meeting was suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.45 a.m.

15.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) suggested that the third preambular paragraph of draft resolution D should read:

          "Having considered the reply of the President of the Security Council to the Secretary-General of 26 February 1985 in which he, inter alia, also states that he `noted the difficulties experienced' by the Secretary-General as reported on 13 March 1984 and 13 September 1984,".

16.  The fourth preambular paragraph would read:

          "Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General of 11 March 1985 (A/40/168) and of 22 October 1985 (A/40/779), in which he, inter alia, refers to the difficulties experienced in his efforts made last year with a view to convening the Conference".

17.  The current fifth preambular paragraph would be replaced by the paragraph

which he had suggested earlier.

18.  The CHAIRMAN said that perhaps the test suggested by the PLO, for the fifth preambular paragraph, which mentioned the 1984 report, should for the sake of a logical sequence be placed before the paragraph referring to the report of 11 March 1985.

19.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that the third preambular paragraph could remain unchanged and a new preambular paragraph added or the third preambular paragraph amended, as long as the reference to the difficulties experienced by the Secretary-General in his efforts made last year with a view to convening the Conference appeared in the text.  If the fourth preambular paragraph was amended, the following could be added to the current text:  "in which he inter alia refers to the difficulties experienced in his efforts made last year with a view to convening the Conference".

20.  The fifth preambular paragraph would then read as he had previously proposed.

21.  Mr. EL-FAWWAZ (Observer for Jordan) said that, according to the United Nations Journal for 4 December 1985 the General Assembly was considering the same question.  As a matter of procedure, could the Committee and the General Assembly both consider the same matter at the same time?

22.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that the text of document A/40/168 on the question of Palestine contained a quotation from resolution 39/49 D which included a footnote referring to the reports of 13 March and 13 September and other references to those reports and that of 26 October 1984.  The Committee could not avoid referring to the same documents as the General Assembly.

23.  The CHAIRMAN noted that there was general agreement on the text proposed by the PLO, concerning the fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs as revised, on the understanding that the fifth preambular paragraph would be placed before the fourth preambular paragraph for chronological reasons.

24.  Draft resolution D, as orally amended, was adopted.

25.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said he hoped that reference to the fact that the President of the Security Council had noted the difficulties experienced by the Secretary-General would not be left out.

26.  Miss KUNADI (India) said that the third proposal by the PLO, concerning the reply by the President of the Security Council, did not seem necessary, since it had already been mentioned.  She suggested that the wording of the third preambular paragraph should be left as it stood, except for the minor change of replacing the words "in which it" after the words "26 February 1985" by the words "in which he". An element already present in a subsequent paragraph should not be mentioned in the third preambular paragraph.

27.  Mr. TARASYUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that the Committee members could not be certain what text they were adopting and he requested additional clarification.

28.  Ms. REANDA (Secretary of the Committee) said that the first, second and third preambular paragraphs would remain the same and that there would be a drafting change in the third preambular paragraph where the word "it" would be changed to "he".  The new fifth preambular paragraph would read:

          "Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General of 11 March 1985 (A/40/168) and of 22 October 1985 (A/40/779), in which he, inter alia, refers to the difficulties experienced in his efforts made last year with a view to convening the Conference."

The new fourth preambular paragraph would read:

          "Having considered again the reports of the Secretary-General of 13 March and 13 September 1984, in which he stated, inter alia, that `it is clear from the replies of the Governments of Israel and the United States of America that they are not prepared to participate in the proposed Conference', and regretting the continued negative response of these two Governments and the lack of willingness to reconsider their position towards the Conference".

The next preambular paragraph would be deleted, and the rest of the text would

remain unchanged.

29.  Mr. ABOUCHAER (Obeserver for the Syrian Arab Republic) suggested an editorial change, namely, removal of the comma after the word "terrorism" in the second line of the eighth preambular paragraph.  He further suggested that the words "negative response" in the new proposed text of the fourth preambular paragraph be replaced by "negative positions".

30.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that he had been asked to follow the wording of the 1984 text as closely as possible and that it had used "response".

31.  Mr. IRTEMCELIK (Turkey) wished to know whether the Committee had adopted the draft resolution or was debating it.

32.  The CHAIRMAN said that the draft resolution had been adopted, but that

procedures had to be applied flexibly.  If anyone had a comment, it could be made.

33.  Mr. TARASYUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that it appeared that the Committee had not yet officially adopted the text.  He deeply regretted that some participants who had taken part in lengthy Working Group meetings, in particular with regard to the text of the new fourth preambular paragraph, would have their work questioned in the Committee.  Since, however, the text did not reproduce last year's text word for word, he had no difficulty with replacing the word "response" with the word "positions".

34.  Mr. ABOUL-GHEIT (Observer for Egypt) said that last year's resolution had

contained the names of the Governments of the United States of America and Israel. The new text of the fifth preambular paragraph also mentioned both Governments by name.  Perhaps those countries could be referred to in paragraph 5 by the words "both countries", without repeating their names once again.

35.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that although the idea was valid, the names of those countries had sometimes been omitted unconsciously or maliciously in other United Nations texts.  In document A/40/168, for instance, nobody knew who the Governments referred to were.  To make the truth fully known required the names of the Governments to be given in full.

36.  Mr. IRTEMCELIK (Turkey) said that his delegation had participated in the

Working Group and that the text as proposed by the Rapporteur had been adopted in the Working Group.  He queried, however, whether the purpose of the Committee had been served by amending the text.  He was also not certain whether it had been adopted by the Committee or not.  He suggested a separate vote to meet the concern of those who had approached the Chairman before the meeting.

37.  He further suggested deleting the present fourth preambular paragraph but

adding in the fifth preambular paragraph after the word "position" the words

"considering the reports of the Secretary-General of 11 March 1985 (A/40/168) and of 22 October 1985 (A/40/779)".

38.  Mr. DIACONU (Romania) said that the term "State terrorism" had caused serious difficulties in the Sixth Committee.  Therefore, although he appreciated the position of the PLO, he thought it better to use, in the eighth preambular paragraph, a term more widely acceptable such as "terrorism committed by States" – a form of words used by the PLO in an earlier communication.  To do so would help to secure wider acceptance of the text in the General Assembly.

39.  Mr. ABOUCHAER (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) said that he could

support the amendments proposed by the observer for the PLO with regard to the

fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs.  He saw no difficulty in the eighth

preambular paragraph.  General Assembly resolution 39/159 on the inadmissibility of the policy of State terrorism had been adopted with no opposing votes and only 30 abstentions, and the Security Council had recently adopted a resolution condemning all acts of terrorism, including State terrorism.

40.  Mr. TAHINDRO (Madagascar) said that problems of definition faced by a legal body were no bar to political decisions.  The Sixth Committee had taken a long time to define aggression, but that had not prevented resolutions condemning aggression from being adopted elsewhere.

41.  Mr. LAKHOUIT (Observer for Morocco) supported the previous speaker.  The

position of the PLO with regard to the term had been made perfectly clear in the United Nations and other forums, such as the Arab Summit Conference. State terrorism did exist; the attack on the PLO headquarters in Tunisia was a recent example.

42.  Mr. TARASYUK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) regretted that the text which the Working Group had worked so long and hard to prepare had not been adopted as it stood.  His delegation was prepared to support the proposed amendments to the fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs but could not support the proposed amendment to paragraph 5.

43.  Mr. BUSCH (German Democratic Republic) said that he too would have preferred adoption of the text drafted by the Working Group.  Reopening the discussion had led to confusion.  His delegation could agree to the proposed amendments to the preambular part but not to the proposed amendment to paragraph 5.

44.  Mr. AMARI (Tunisia) said that he too regretted the confusion caused by

reopening discussion on the text.

45.  Mr. WANG Xuexian (Observer for China) said that, while not criticizing the procedure followed, he wondered, in view of the regret expressed by some previous speakers, whether it was normal for the Committee to reopen the debate on a text adopted by consensus in a working group.  His delegation could not pronounce on the eighth preambular paragraph until it had received instructions from its Government.

46.  Mr. TERZI (Observer, Palestine Liberation Organization) said that to put

quotation marks around the words from "condemns" to "Arab Nation" in the eighth preambular paragraph would reflect the position of the PLO with regard to terrorism.  That organization, in its Cairo Declaration, had condemned all acts of terrorism, whether implicating a State or committed by individuals.

47.  Miss KUNADI (India) said that she appreciated the concern expressed by the Romanian delegation.  She felt that the relevant part of the Cairo Declaration, to judge from the English version, might be acceptable since it did not use the term "State terrorism".

48.  She proposed that the second and third lines of the eighth preambular

paragraph should be amended to read "which condemns all acts of terrorism, whether committed by States or individuals, including acts of terrorism committed by Israel against the Palestinian people and the Arab Nation".

49.  The CHAIRMAN said that while it was preferable to avoid, whenever possible, reopening a debate on matters decided by consensus in a working group, the last word on any topic rested with the Committee.  If, however, the latter felt that working group decisions ought to be adopted forthwith, it should so rule.

50.  If he heard no objection, he would take it that the Indian delegation's oral amendment to the present eighth preambular paragraph was approved, and that the preamble as a whole was adopted.

51.  It was so decided.

52.  Draft resolution D as a whole, as orally amended, was approved.

53.  Mr. DIMITRIJEVIC (Yugoslavia), Mr. DEEN (Malaysia) and Mr. SIMENI (Nigeria) welcomed the consensus which the oral amendments had helped to achieve and thanked the Chairman, the Rapporteur and the members of the Working Group for their efforts.

54.  Mr. AGIUS (Malta), Rapporteur, said that the Working Group had not sought to produce a final text.  Nevertheless, if it had been allowed more time for consultations, some of the difficulties faced in the Committee might have been

avoided.

55.  The CHAIRMAN invited delegations to place their names on the list of sponsors of the draft resolution, which would be submitted to the General Assembly for adoption.

                           The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.