Mideast situation/Jerusalem – SecGen report (res. 48/59 A-B)

General Assembly

Forty-ninth session

Agenda item 38

THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Report of the Secretary-General

I.  INTRODUCTION

1. The present report is submitted in pursuance of General Assembly resolutions 48/59 A and B of 14 December 1993.  The Assembly, in its resolution 48/59 A, which deals with the transfer by some States of their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem in violation of Security Council resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, called once more upon those States to abide by the provisions of the relevant United Nations resolutions.  In resolution 48/59 B, which deals with Israeli policies in the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, the Assembly called upon the international community to urge Israel to withdraw from the occupied Syrian Golan and other occupied Arab territories.

2. The Secretary-General, in order to fulfil his reporting responsibility under the above-mentioned resolutions, on 18 August 1994 addressed notes verbales to the Permanent Representatives of Israel and to the Permanent Representatives of the other Member States and requested them to inform him of any steps their Governments had taken or envisaged taking to implement the relevant provisions of those resolutions.  As of 18 October 1994, five replies had been received, from Austria, France, India, Ukraine and Venezuela.  Those replies are reproduced below.

II.  REPLIES FROM MEMBER STATES

Austria

[Original:  English]

With regard to resolution 48/59 A, Austria continues to maintain its embassy in Tel Aviv as the question of Jerusalem still awaits a commonly agreeable solution.  Austria is encouraged by recent progress in the Middle East peace process and expresses hope that a just and lasting solution with regard to the status of Jerusalem, acceptable to all parties involved, will be found in the near future.

  With regard to resolution 48/59 B, Austria voted against it in view of the unbalanced language used.  However, Austria is encouraged by recent progress in the Middle East peace process and expresses hope that a just and lasting solution with regard to the Golan Heights will be found in the near future by direct negotiations between the parties involved, i.e. the Syrian Arab Republic and Israel.  Austria supports the achievement of such a settlement of this dispute at the earliest convenience and views such a step as a major contribution to comprehensive and lasting peace and stability in the region as well as in the world as a whole.

France

[Original:  French]

With regard to Jerusalem, France, which has a Consulate General in that city directly attached to the central administration, fully supports the principles recalled in resolution 48/59 A; it voted in favour of that resolution.  The French Government takes every opportunity to recall its position on the matter, the most recent instance being the discussion within the European Union of the nature of representation in Jericho.

With regard to the questions raised in resolution 48/59 B, France continues to support the principle of Israeli withdrawal from the Syrian Golan.  It is following with interest developments in the negotiations begun by the two countries on that issue.  It continues to have reservations, however, regarding the other provisions of the resolution in question, in particular the language employed in referring to the Syrian Golan and the other occupied Arab territories.  Because of these reservations, the French delegation abstained in the voting on this resolution.

India

[Original:  English]

India has already complied with the provisions of the aforementioned resolutions, wherever applicable.

Ukraine

[Original:  Russian]

By voting in favour of General Assembly resolutions 48/59 A and B, Ukraine recognized the overall soundness of their provisions and undertook to comply with them.

At the same time, Ukraine considers that the solution of the issues referred to in the two resolutions adopted is an integral part of the process of achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem as a whole.  In the opinion of Ukraine, the aforementioned resolutions do not fully correspond to present-day realities; in particular, they do not adequately reflect the positive changes that have occurred in 1994 in the course of the process of resolving the entire range of issues involved in a Middle East settlement.

In its statements, Ukraine unreservedly welcomed the signing in September 1993 of the Declaration of Principles by Palestine and Israel, the conclusion in May 1994 of the Cairo Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, and the signing by Jordan and Israel in July 1994 of a declaration ending the state of war between the two States.

Ukraine has always attached the highest importance to international efforts to achieve a just and comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and has supported the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people on the basis of the existing rules and principles of international law.

Ukraine condemns all manifestations of political extremism and terrorism and calls upon all sides to be reasonable, to reach a compromise and not to resort to actions that would make further dialogue and the continuation of the Middle East peace process impossible.

Ukraine declares its readiness to cooperate by every means possible to further the Middle East peace process and to find a rapid solution to the entire range of issues involved in the Middle East conflict, including the status of the City of Jerusalem and the situation in the Syrian Golan.

Venezuela

[Original:  Spanish]

In accordance with Security Council resolution 478 (1980), Venezuela has maintained its diplomatic representation in Tel Aviv and supports compliance with the Council's resolutions on that subject.

—–